I'm no mathematician, I'm only studying to be one...but 24 isn't even half of 56. Oh and also, thanks for your blinded view of the world...of course you only see this shit-hole country. As far as the rest of this planet, that sits at the tip of an arm in our spiraling galaxy in a vast sea of nothingness, your shit religion only preoccupies a third of its inhabitants. Your view of the world is so fucking skewed. How do you live through life spinning the truth into your twisted deluded bullshit factory you call a brain. For fuck's sake. You really think this entire fucking universe was created for YOUR dumbass? So that you can come and argue with people about some guy you've never fucking met that apparently did something you never fucking saw who was both the son and the same as some magical sky man? Are you a fucking adult? Are you a grown human being with actual ability to reason. What the fuck does it matter what some dummies thought 200 years ago? The majority of them were just as stupid as 80% of the US is now.

BTW, the tenacity of belief and the volume of those that believe in those beliefs NEVER qualifies as substantial evidence for its validity. >> ^shinyblurry:

This country was founded by Christians, and judeo-christian principles. 24 out of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence had seminary degrees, and some of them were ministers. The first meeting of the constitutional congress opened with a 3 hour prayer and a bible study. The reason we have "checks and balances" is because the founders knew all men are sinners and can't be trusted with power. James Madison got the idea for our three branches of government from Isaiah 33:22. This idea that this country has ever been secular in any sense is ridiculous. While some presidents may have been pandering, we are a Christian nation, and that is why we elect Christian leaders. Around 80 percent of us self-identify as Christian, and around 90 percent profess a belief in a higher power. Only around 13 percent of the country believes in darwinian evolution without any divine intervention, which is the reason why we won't have any atheists in the office anytime soon.
Newsweek
Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document
12/27/82
>> ^Diogenes:
well, as the link infers... probably right from the start
i just find it difficult to agree with penn in that the umbrella term 'christian' began to flourish in the 1970s, and because of some sort of 'planning'
i mean, we know simply from the etymology of the word that it was used long, long ago... at first disparagingly by non-christians, and then embraced a few hundred years later as different assemblies used it to self identify
i think those who run for office are canny by nature, and it's probably second nature for them to understand that to garner more votes, they must present an inclusive image, rather than divisive

You, sir, don't know much about our history. btw, the word Christian appears in the bible

>> ^Diogenes:

you, sir, are full of dumb>> ^shinyblurry:
This country was founded by Christians, and judeo-christian principles. 24 out of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence had seminary degrees, and some of them were ministers. The first meeting of the constitutional congress opened with a 3 hour prayer and a bible study. The reason we have "checks and balances" is because the founders knew all men are sinners and can't be trusted with power. James Madison got the idea for our three branches of government from Isaiah 33:22. This idea that this country has ever been secular in any sense is ridiculous. While some presidents may have been pandering, we are a Christian nation, and that is why we elect Christian leaders. Around 80 percent of us self-identify as Christian, and around 90 percent profess a belief in a higher power. Only around 13 percent of the country believes in darwinian evolution without any divine intervention, which is the reason why we won't have any atheists in the office anytime soon.
Newsweek
Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document
12/27/82
>> ^Diogenes:
well, as the link infers... probably right from the start
i just find it difficult to agree with penn in that the umbrella term 'christian' began to flourish in the 1970s, and because of some sort of 'planning'
i mean, we know simply from the etymology of the word that it was used long, long ago... at first disparagingly by non-christians, and then embraced a few hundred years later as different assemblies used it to self identify
i think those who run for office are canny by nature, and it's probably second nature for them to understand that to garner more votes, they must present an inclusive image, rather than divisive

you, sir, are full of dumb>> ^shinyblurry:
This country was founded by Christians, and judeo-christian principles. 24 out of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence had seminary degrees, and some of them were ministers. The first meeting of the constitutional congress opened with a 3 hour prayer and a bible study. The reason we have "checks and balances" is because the founders knew all men are sinners and can't be trusted with power. James Madison got the idea for our three branches of government from Isaiah 33:22. This idea that this country has ever been secular in any sense is ridiculous. While some presidents may have been pandering, we are a Christian nation, and that is why we elect Christian leaders. Around 80 percent of us self-identify as Christian, and around 90 percent profess a belief in a higher power. Only around 13 percent of the country believes in darwinian evolution without any divine intervention, which is the reason why we won't have any atheists in the office anytime soon.
Newsweek
Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document
12/27/82
>> ^Diogenes:
well, as the link infers... probably right from the start
i just find it difficult to agree with penn in that the umbrella term 'christian' began to flourish in the 1970s, and because of some sort of 'planning'
i mean, we know simply from the etymology of the word that it was used long, long ago... at first disparagingly by non-christians, and then embraced a few hundred years later as different assemblies used it to self identify
i think those who run for office are canny by nature, and it's probably second nature for them to understand that to garner more votes, they must present an inclusive image, rather than divisive

This country was founded by Christians, and judeo-christian principles. 24 out of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence had seminary degrees, and some of them were ministers. The first meeting of the constitutional congress opened with a 3 hour prayer and a bible study. The reason we have "checks and balances" is because the founders knew all men are sinners and can't be trusted with power. James Madison got the idea for our three branches of government from Isaiah 33:22. This idea that this country has ever been secular in any sense is ridiculous. While some presidents may have been pandering, we are a Christian nation, and that is why we elect Christian leaders. Around 80 percent of us self-identify as Christian, and around 90 percent profess a belief in a higher power. Only around 13 percent of the country believes in darwinian evolution without any divine intervention, which is the reason why we won't have any atheists in the office anytime soon.

Newsweek

Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document

12/27/82

>> ^Diogenes:

well, as the link infers... probably right from the start
i just find it difficult to agree with penn in that the umbrella term 'christian' began to flourish in the 1970s, and because of some sort of 'planning'
i mean, we know simply from the etymology of the word that it was used long, long ago... at first disparagingly by non-christians, and then embraced a few hundred years later as different assemblies used it to self identify
i think those who run for office are canny by nature, and it's probably second nature for them to understand that to garner more votes, they must present an inclusive image, rather than divisive

well, as the link infers... probably right from the start

i just find it difficult to agree with penn in that the umbrella term 'christian' began to flourish in the 1970s, and because of some sort of 'planning'

i mean, we know simply from the etymology of the word that it was used long, long ago... at first disparagingly by non-christians, and then embraced a few hundred years later as different assemblies used it to self identify

i think those who run for office are canny by nature, and it's probably second nature for them to understand that to garner more votes, they must present an inclusive image, rather than divisive

Tags for this video have been changed from 'the, English, Language, is, funny' to 'the, English, Language, is, funny, etymology, linguistics' - edited by therealblankman

This is a really funny and powerful scene but the etymology he gives for the word faggot has no supporting evidence. There's no history of homosexuals being burned at the stake (or on the ground).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_%28slang%29

You're right. It must have. Check etymology.com:

1922, originally used in English 1920 in its Italian form (see fascist). Applied to similar groups in Germany from 1923; applied to everyone since the rise of the Internet.

A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. [Robert O. Paxton, "The Anatomy of Fascism," 2004]

AND

1921, from It. partito nazionale fascista, the anti-communist political movement organized 1919 under Benito Mussolini (1883-1945)


Oh wait, no. No, you're not right actually. That's still the definition we have today.

Man, the red on FDR's face when he, himself a fascist, declared war on his fellow fascist, Benito Mussolini! Oh, how embarrassing!

Unless, of course, your definition is simply a pejorative to put down another person through the use of redefining words as if the English language is your idle playthings like so many of your other comments times before.

Get your facts straight before you press your fingers on that thing you call a keyboard.

>> ^quantumushroom:

"Fascist" had a different meaning pre-1945.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticis
m_of_Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Criticism_of_Roosevelt_as_a_.22Fascist.22
I'm glad you on the left revere Saint Roosevelt, as your children's children's children's children will still be paying off his and the Kenyawaiian's massive, failed welfare state.
>> ^brycewi19:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Ah FDR, that delightful 'benevolent' fascist whose policies prolonged the Depression and whose ass was saved by WW2.

I would downvote this comment 5 times if I could.
Fascist? My ass. Have some respect for the position.

>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^MaxWilder:
The word Raccoon is sometimes shortened to Coon, which is a fairly nasty racial slur.
I think you're really stretching for this one. The slur "coon" is thought to come from the Portuguese "barracão" ("shed") which is what they called slave quarters. It's got nothing to do with raccoons.

Yes, there is some debate about the etymology of the racial slur. But that does not change the FACT that the word Raccoon is sometimes shortened to Coon, which is a fairly nasty racial slur.

"Coon" is a racial slur when it refers to black people, not when it refers to raccoons. Just like "cracker" is a racial slur when it refers to white people but not when it refers to saltines.
You seem desperate to call this guy a racist.

If I was to show a video of a bunch of white southern law enforcement officers, then make a dumb joke about them eating crackers, one might legitimately infer that I was referencing the insult "cracker".
This man made a reference to a raccoon (who eats raccoons??) while talking about a black person. And you think it's a stretch? I'm really giving him the benefit of the doubt when I say he just might be oblivious.


Yeah, a huge stretch. Also, "who eats raccoons??" Funny enough, crackers do.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^MaxWilder:
The word Raccoon is sometimes shortened to Coon, which is a fairly nasty racial slur.
I think you're really stretching for this one. The slur "coon" is thought to come from the Portuguese "barracão" ("shed") which is what they called slave quarters. It's got nothing to do with raccoons.

Yes, there is some debate about the etymology of the racial slur. But that does not change the FACT that the word Raccoon is sometimes shortened to Coon, which is a fairly nasty racial slur.

"Coon" is a racial slur when it refers to black people, not when it refers to raccoons. Just like "cracker" is a racial slur when it refers to white people but not when it refers to saltines.
You seem desperate to call this guy a racist.


If I was to show a video of a bunch of white southern law enforcement officers, then make a dumb joke about them eating crackers, one might legitimately infer that I was referencing the insult "cracker".

This man made a reference to a raccoon (who eats raccoons??) while talking about a black person. And you think it's a stretch? I'm really giving him the benefit of the doubt when I say he just might be oblivious.

>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^MaxWilder:
The word Raccoon is sometimes shortened to Coon, which is a fairly nasty racial slur.
I think you're really stretching for this one. The slur "coon" is thought to come from the Portuguese "barracão" ("shed") which is what they called slave quarters. It's got nothing to do with raccoons.

Yes, there is some debate about the etymology of the racial slur. But that does not change the FACT that the word Raccoon is sometimes shortened to Coon, which is a fairly nasty racial slur.


"Coon" is a racial slur when it refers to black people, not when it refers to raccoons. Just like "cracker" is a racial slur when it refers to white people but not when it refers to saltines.

You seem desperate to call this guy a racist.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^MaxWilder:
The word Raccoon is sometimes shortened to Coon, which is a fairly nasty racial slur.
I think you're really stretching for this one. The slur "coon" is thought to come from the Portuguese "barracão" ("shed") which is what they called slave quarters. It's got nothing to do with raccoons.


Yes, there is some debate about the etymology of the racial slur. But that does not change the FACT that the word Raccoon is sometimes shortened to Coon, which is a fairly nasty racial slur.

I'm sure you are correct, but do you think this guy knows the etymology of a racial slur?

It's just dang weird and that surely is not up for debate, is it?

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^MaxWilder:
The word Raccoon is sometimes shortened to Coon, which is a fairly nasty racial slur.
I think you're really stretching for this one. The slur "coon" is thought to come from the Portuguese "barracão" ("shed") which is what they called slave quarters. It's got nothing to do with raccoons.

>> ^gwiz665:

Given a limited scope you can absolutely prove a negative. "There are no muslims in congress" is provable. "There is no God in the United States" is also provable.
The problem is that if you have an unlimited scope, then it becomes impossible.
"There are no fairies in my basement."
vs.
"There are no fairies."


As already pointed out, by *definition* you can't prove a negative.
As per your other threads shinyblurry, we can argue semantics all day so it's kind of pointless, but I'm going to anyway, because it's actually at the nub of the statement "you can't prove a negative".
I've also used an online dictionary you've sited in your other posts.

prove/pro͞ov/Verb
1. Demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
2. Demonstrate by evidence or argument (someone or something) to be.

Note the use of the affirmative "the existence" / "to be". There is no scope for a negative here.

Also it's worth pointing out the etymology of the word "proof". It comes from the Latin "probare" meaning "to test". So it you've got proof of god's existence, it's got to be testable. Similarly if I want to "prove" there is no god I need to formulate a test that will give a definitive result.

Now, moving away from semantics....

So yeah, he's using a linguistic trick to try and recontextualize the statement "you can't prove a negative". That statement is generally used as a shorthand in an argument not only as a reference to the above definition, but also as a more general indication of the vast impracticality of proving a blanket negative statement such as "there is no god". In that context it is never meant as an absolute.

By adding a very restricted location, as William Lane Craig has in the video above, a negative statement of course becomes provable. I don't think any atheist would disagree that the statement "there are no coins in my pocket" could be proven simply by looking in my pocket.

For example - If as an atheist I was to say "there is no such object as the holy grail in existence" in order to prove it I would then have to trawl through every every steet, house, closet, drawer, toilet cistern, dessert, mountaintop, quarry pit, top secret inaccessible military bunker in the world, then undertake extensive excavation all the way to the earths molten core.

At his stage a believer could say "Well I have just had a personal revelation from God who spoke directly to me and told me that the grail is being kept safe underneath the icy surface of Jupiter's 6th moon Europa"

So after I've convinced NASA to undertake "The Program for the Recovery of Christs Holy Grail from Under the Surface of Jupiter's 6th Moon Europa" I'm told by the believer that they've had another personal message received directly from god that he was angry at being tested, and so has moved the grail to a divine and indestructible vault at the heart of the distant sun Omicron Beta....

However, if I make the statement - "there is no such object as the holy grail in existence in my desk drawer" - I just have to open the drawer to look and the statement can be proven.

And the above examples are with definite physical objects. Think how impossible it is to prove the statement "there is no god" when the idea of how god is defined is so widely and radically disputed depending on what religion you subscribe to, and when almost every individual within each of these religions will have their own definition of what god is.