I'll answer some of messengers questions:

"1. Which part of, "Palestinians in Gaza are the prisoners of Israel, and Hamas is fighting against Israel because Israel has taken away the freedom of Palestinians in Gaza," do you disagree with?"

Gaza is now basically a prison camp, and yes, Israel is behind that, but thats not why Islamic totalitarian terrorists are fighting. They are not seeking freedom, they are seeking islamic totalism and the extermination of jews.

"2. Do you think that Hamas would continue fighting Israel if Palestine returned to its 1946 borders?"
Yes, probably.

"3. Do you think Hamas would stop fighting if all Israelis in the world were killed, but some other country kept Palestinians confined in Gaza and continued the embargo?"

If the occupiers were muslims, imprisoning and ruling Gaza with an islamic iron fist, then yes, probably. It is a strange and sad fact that Islamic societies are rabidly anti-semitic and anti-everything-not-islam, and at war with any neighbour that doesnt conform to islam, while being strangely content and silent if oppressed by fellow muslims, as is the case in so many islamic countries, where were the islamic suicide bombers fighting the oppression of Saddam?, The taliban, kohmeini? Muslims, especially women, are suffering every day all over the place, and most of the suffering is NOT caused by Israel or the west, but by islamic or muslim thugs at the helm of an oppressed people. I'd love for the palestinians to have freedom, but not just from Israel, but also from the violent ideology of the terrorists claiming to fight for them.

"4. Are there any rules against celebrating after killing your enemy?

5. Is killing someone worse than celebrating the killing?"

Firstly, The enemy is not israeli civilians, secondly this question sets up a false dichotomy: obviously killing is worse than celebration, but celebrating the death of innocent people doesnt exactly show that you are ready for peace or reconcilliation.It shows that Hamas' tactics are not simply last-resort, desparate actions from an imprisoned people, but something they at some level rejoice in doing. If Hamas were the peace-loving hippie freedom fighters you seem to think they are, they surely would not celebrate like this?

Perhaps you've never studied the history of the region, but the reason I haven't addressed your questions is because I reject the central premise, which is the notion of a distinct "Palestinian" people. There is no such thing as a Palestinian people. There never has been any people in history going by that name, or demanding a country of their own. There is no Palestinian culture, artifacts..nothing The fact is, there is no actual difference between Palestinians, Jordanians, and Syrians. Before I go into it, you can hear it straight from the horses mouth:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

Zuheir Mohsen leader of the Syria-controlled as-Sa'iqa faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) between 1971 and 1979.

James Dorsey, "Wij zijn alleen Palestijn om politieke reden", Trouw, 31 March 1977.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Zuheir_Mohsen

They aren't struggling for "independence", they are waging all out war against the Jews. The "Palestinians" have been offered their own state many, many times, with the initial deal being something like 80 percent of the entire country. They rejected it and vowed to exterminate the Jews. They are not interested in negotiating because they want to wipe any Jewish presence in the region off of the map. They're also being funded and supplied by Arab nations all over the Middle East for this purpose. Why? Because Muslims are raised to hate Jews and this stems from the Qur'an. It probably goes back to when the Jews rejected Muhammad as a prophet.

Please research the history:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZY8m0cm1oY&feature=related

>> ^notarobot:

Sigh. Bill-O isn't actually stupid. He is articulate, and well spoken, and has a toilet paper roll up to his eye of his mind when he looks at the tiny tiny piece of the world that he represents.
He is right that the world is changing, but I wish he, and people like him would take off their blinders so he (and others) could grow to change with it, instead of complaining that the changes (many of which are set in motion when his generation was young) are taking place.


You're absolutely right, America has since the 60s been becoming more civilized. This is why people talk about the 60s as the time of troubles, this horrible time where there was too much democracy and crazy people were civilizing the nation. All these new movements started happening, carrying on into the 70s. We could admit the horrible crimes we committed to take this country from it's Native population which we exterminated. Heck look at colleges...before the 60s it was white deferential males. Now it's half women, a third minorities. Heck at my college as a white guy I'm in the minority! That's unheard of 50 years ago.

So BillO does have a point, but he's talking about it like it's a bad thing. He's on the wrong side of history.

Now I can Exterminate all my Excel sheets and clients with calm!

They are Africanized, right? So why aren't they just being exterminated? The guys were being so careful so as not to disturb the hive too much and allow for the barn to be repaired afterward. Why not just fucking nuke them all with sulfuric acid or something? Those aren't normal bees and they don't belong anywhere outside of Africa. Not sure what good they do in Africa either, but they're certainly assholes.

>> ^critical_d:

Exterminate!!
Exterminate!!
tries to look badass armed with a toilet plunger
Exterminate!!
Exterminate!!


Exterminate!!

Exterminate!!
Exterminate!!
**tries to look badass armed with a toilet plunger**
Exterminate!!
Exterminate!!

"Exterminators have it easier..."

Damn right they do! I'm surprised it only took 5 hours to do this.

Any idea on how much cost was involved?

Either way, good on Larry Chen for being such a thoughtful guy toward life. Very cool that he turned it into something educational as well.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'dr who, dalek, rain, exterminate all humans' to 'doctor who, dalek, rain, exterminate all humans' - edited by brycewi19

What is so fucking hard about saying "I don't know."

The dilemma for you is, if you don't know, then how can you say that I don't know either? You assume that I don't, because you don't (and perhaps you assume that I can't). Obviously, it would be a trivial thing for God to reveal Himself to me in such a way as that I could know it, and Him, for certain. You seem rather closed minded to the idea for someone who doesn't know.

You want to believe in a creator? more power to you. I got zero problem with that. The problem comes when we have people of different faiths or non-faiths. We all have to live together on this mudball. So when a faith tries to claim moral authority, it tends to end in tears and bloodshed.

Bloodshed comes when evil men seize power over others and use something like religion as a pretense. Men have never been short of excuses for killing. Millions of Christians were exterminated under the atheistic state in communist Russia. The problem is when men claim moral authority and are a law unto themselves, instead of submitting to the God from whence all law and authority is derived.

Being a moral person is simple survival 101. I have a better chance of survival if I work together with people instead of against them. We can all do more, be more productive, and live happier lives if we're all healthy. We live happier, more productive lives if we don't steal from or kill each other.

There's your basic morality right there and it did not require god. It's that simple people.

Some people feel it is happier and more productive to steal from or kill each other. Who is right?

Scripture says that God has written His laws on our hearts. Everyone has a conscience that tells them right from wrong. Even psychopaths know right from wrong, they just ignore it.

I won't say god is dead however, BECAUSE I DON'T FUCKING KNOW! I don't have any grand insights into the inner workings of creation and what created life, the universe, and everything so I simply can't say and neither can you because in that regard, you're just like me.

I can't tell you how God did it, exactly, but I know that He is. I can tell you that because He has revealed Himself to me, personally. God gives revelation of His existence to anyone who wants to know Him. To those whose minds and hearts are closed to all the ways He tries to reach them, He keeps knocking, but it is their choice ultimately to open the door.

Revelation 3:20

Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.

You could know God, but the question is, why don't you want to? Ask yourself why you are keeping that door shut.

>> ^VoodooV:

See, this is where Obama's announcement is paying off in my opinion. It's forcing the sociopaths like this into the light. Even if you're the least bit moderate, even if you're the least bit sympathetic towards homosexuals. You may not like homosexuality, you may not agree with it. But when you see shitheads like this advocating violence or concentration camps, that's an entirely different matter. Disliking something or thinking homosexuality is gross is a far cry from violence and/or extermination. I'm sure there are sifters here who don't think homosexuals deserve equal rights, but something tells me they don't have the stomach to do what this guy is advocating.

That's a line many people are not willing to cross.

Obama's announcement may not win him re-election or anything, but it did advance human rights so that we'll all win in the long run.

>> ^messenger:
So, how is you believing that you have a superior intellect to someone who believes in God not pride?

Read it again. Nobody claimed to have a superior intellect to anyone else. The contrast is between using our intellect and not using it. As Galileo famously put it, "I do not feel obliged to believe that that same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." Now, he was talking from the perspective of a person of faith who simply didn't believe the bible or church teachings anymore but certainly did still believe in God. We are speaking as people with sense, reason and intellect who don't see sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that God might reasonably exist.

It's the entire contention that someone who believes in God is not using their sense, reason and intellect that is prideful. Did you know that 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians believe in a personal God? Some extremely intelligent people believe in a Creator, and they can back up their beliefs with logical evidence. You see theists through a grossly distorted lens created by your own prejudice, and it blinds you. Galileo, by the way, did believe the bible; what he didn't buy is the catholic interpretation of it, and rightly so.

>> ^messenger:
Since there is no empirical evidence for or against Gods existence, how do you calculate how likely or unlikely His existence is?

The lack of evidence for existence is a non-concrete kind of evidence for the lack of existence. So the overwhelming lack of evidence for God is a bloody strong case. Everywhere we look in nature, we continue not to find God.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Although I think there is evidence, such as fine tuning and information in DNA. In any case, do you honestly believe you can point an instrument at God and say "there he is!". Is this idea not fundamentally ridiculous? I think what youre confusing is mechanism with agency. You think because you describe a mechanism, how something works in a mechanical sense, somehow it rules out an Agent. God says He upholds the entire Universe; that He is the one that keeps the atoms from flying apart. How does mechanism rule out Gods agency?

Not only that, but if God created the Universe, do you realize that the entire Universe is evidence of Gods existence? The question I would put to you is, how would you tell the difference? How would you know you're looking at a Universe God didn't create? What would you expect that to look like?

What about the laws of logic? Where do they come from? If they're only in our brains, subject to constant flux, then what is rationality? It isn't anything you can trust if what you believe is true. Therefore all of your arguments fall apart. You have nothing in your worldview that can explain it, yet I can explain it. I know there is an omnipotent God who made us in His image, and we are rational beings because He is a rational being.

>> ^messenger:
Please, stop talking about science. You really do not understand it. You sound like a religious sceptic spouting crap about the bible. Really, what you say about science is just non-verified faither talking points. All science is based only on observation and drawing generalized inferences from that. "Theories" are just that. The strength of a scientific theory is roughly [how well it predicts other things] ÷ [how many things you have to just accept]. The belief in a particular atomic structure for oxygen has many predictions, which are testable and have largely been shown reliably true. So the atomic structure of an oxygen atom is a generally accepted theory, even though we will never be able to sense it directly. It's scientific. On those same grounds, the theory of evolution is also a strong theory in science. It has very few conjectures (three simple ones, I believe I heard Dawkins once say), it generates predictions, the predictions are testable, and they affirm the theory. Saying that evolution is untestable is as ridiculous as saying we haven't investigated every oxygen atom, so the model of the atom is untestable, and therefore unscientific.

If you understood it better than I do then you would know what macro evolution is. The scientific method uses empirical evidence, which comes from empirical experimentation or observation. There is no experiment to prove macro evolution, nor can it be empirically observed. It is simply an unjustified extrapolation from micro evolution (which is proven beyond a reasonable doubt), and based on nothing but inferences from *circumstantial* evidence and not evidence based on empirical observation.

Many people have this conception that the theory of common descent is as certain and proven as 2 + 2 = 4, or as Sepacore put it:

"once claimed to be a book of literal truth, becomes more and more metaphorical as science stomps its way all over the human races ignorance of the universe reaching greater level's of understandings that are testable through mathematical predictions"

That is certainly how it is taught in schools, as absolute fact, and that's why I believed it too. It's when you stop looking at their conclusions and see the actual data they base them on that you will get the shock of your life. Yes, you're right, the theory makes a few predictions, all of which have turned out to be wrong..such as this:

The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

Darwin

Darwin predicted that for his theory to be true, there must be innumerable transitional forms in the fossil record. What have we found?:


"Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, .., prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's prediction. Nor is the problem a miserly fossil record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.
N. Eldredge and I. Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, pg 45-46.

What we find is that creatures appear in stasis, and enter and leave the fossil record abruptly with no changes.

Another prediction is a start from simple to complex, with an increase of diversity of the phyla over a long period of time.

"Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably longer than the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and during these vast, yet quite unknown periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer."
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 1st edition, pg 307.

What we find is that all of the phyla we have today all abruptly appeared in the "cambrian explosion"

"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs ... "
S. Gould, The Panda's Thumb, pg 238, 239.

This is just the tip of the iceberg for how poor a theory macroevolution actually is, but you won't have a shortage of true believers in it, even though they don't even understand what evidence it is based on. I do know something about science, and although I am a layman, I am perfectly capable of understanding of what makes a sound theory, and what doesn't. I would believe in macroevolution if the evidence supported it. Not only does it not support it, but it actually argues against it. It is shocking to someone who has been indoctrinated (like I was), but if you want to talk about fairy stories, macroevolution is a whale of a tale.

If religion is the disease, then why did we have over 100 million deaths from atheistic regimes in the 20th century? They made it their express goal to exterminate religion and in the process committed some of the worst atrocities in history. No, the problem is clearly human nature. When man tries to get rid of God he just replaces God with himself. I agree with you, that religion itself has contributed to the suffering and degeneration of the planet. Jesus hated religion. That's why He drove the moneychangers out of the temple. That is why He railed against the pharisees. He said, these people worship God with their lips but their hearts are far from Him. Scripture says this about religion:

James 1:27

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

The problem has always been that people follow the traditions of men rather than demonstrate the love of God. Even just a few decades after the cross, Paul wrote about men who preached a different gospel, one that glorified men rather than God. The contamination is universally human nature. Nothing is pure in the hands of an impure heart.

Examine history and see the parallels. Humanity is just repeating the same story, over and over again. There is nothing going on today that hasn't already happened before. The set and props have changed, but our nature hasn't changed. Man corrupts everything he touches because his scheming is against the will of God. There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end are the ways of death. The problem is outlined in this video. Yes we have more knowledge, but knowledge doesn't help us. What we need is wisdom. However, wisdom doesn't come from man, it comes from God. Wisdom isn't something you can engineer..explore some philosophy and you will see that ultimately it has no real answers.

The divine wisdom, however, ordained that Jesus Christ would come in the flesh to give us our answer. It says that message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. The world in its wisdom knows nothing of the ways of God, so God chose what the world would consider foolish to shame the wise. God chose to save us in a way people would consider foolish, because the foolishness of God is wiser than mans wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than mans strength. You think it's ridiculous, but God is simply showing up the wisdom of the world for what it is: foolishness.


>> ^Fletch:
Religion is the disease, Blurry. You're feverish rants, nonsense ramblings, and tone-deafness are primary symptoms. Reason is the only thing that can save you or this planet, but I fear it is too late for you and your fellow carriers. The infection has mutated into hundreds of different, self-preserving variations, and reason, although a powerful medicine (and requisite for wisdom), cannot cure those who refuse treatment in the first place, or have simply become immune to it's healing due to past, repeated undertreatment. Religion has evolved into a superbug.
Can the next version of VS please hide ignored comments that have been quoted in a subsequent comment?