@Sagemind I hope you told him where he could stick it. I know in the moment some people (like me) have trouble doing that, but I really hope you did

Another problem with "wages" or lack there of in North America, including here in Canada, is the goddamn culture of "tipping". It's gotten out of hand. It's no longer a method to show appreciation to a good product or service, instead it's now seen as mandatory where some places have the gall to advertise the oxymoron "mandatory gratuity".

In Australia, you see the prices listed, you pay that price, you get some change (none of which are 1 cent coins), maybe put some change in a tip jar if you're feeling gratuitous and that's it. Everyone's happy. Here it becomes a federal case if you do not tip when you get shitty service or meal.

That hurts.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I love the Gallardo. It's one of the most beautiful cars I've ever seen. And it's a crappy Lambo that's been redesigned by German engineers, so like they put it on Top Gear: "It's like a Lamborghini, but the air-conditioning works."

However, I love the fact that it's properly pronounced: "gay-ardo." I just picture all these macho dicks, driving around in their yellow sports car, showing off, yet trying desperately to ignore the fact that when they were at the dealership, everyone kept saying how great they would look, "In your new 'Gay-ardo!' That 'Gay-ardo' looks great on you! It's like the 'Gay-ardo' was made for you!"

In fact, I'd bet that at dealerships here in America, they're probably forbidden from using the proper pronunciation. Can't you just picture it? "I know guys, but if we pronounce it that way, we're never going to attract the macho-dickhead customers that keep us in business..."

Some guys will argue to the death about the proper pronunciation of "Jaguar", but there seems to be an unspoken agreement among most Lambo fans that a Gallardo is a "Gall-ardo".

I would've given anything if they drove by the accident in the video and said: "Man, that's a shame, it's such a beautiful 'Gay-ardo'." Of course, for all I know, the guy is comfortable in his sexuality, but I doubt it.

This idiot totally deserves getting his blinds effed up. Who shuts in a scared stray animal in their home, and then has the gall to scold them? Moron.

Not only do I live in the US, but I live Oklahoma, one of the most religiously conservative states. I don't have a great deal of respect for that brand of religion, for sure. Which is precisely why it's so galling to see a video that suggests that's just what Christians have to be like--that Christians who reject the Bibliolatry and hermeneutic cutting and pasting of those idiots somehow aren't real Christians, that rejecting the sheep-like credulity of these so-called faithful means that the thoughtful ones haven't actually thought it through. And somehow it is averred that those who cling to the ancient traditions of Biblical understanding are inauthentically Christian, since they don't accept the quasi-heretical doctrines of 19th century upstarts.

Your characterization of bible literalists as "idiots" and people with "sheep-like" credulity and the "so-called" faithful, not-withstanding, I will agree that a disagreement on origins doesn't necessarily make someone less Christian. It doesn't say anywhere in the bible that you must agree on a literal interpretation of Genesis to follow Jesus Christ.

Calling the literal interpretation of Genesis a "quasi-heretical" doctrine of "19th century upstarts" is completely ridiculous, though. Almost as ridiculous as quoting Origen and Augustrine and claiming they represented the majority viewpoint of the early church. If you think the early church didn't believe in a literal Genesis, how do you explain Ephraim the syrian, or Basil of Caesarea? What about Ambrose of Milan, who was the mentor of Augustine? They all believed in a young earth, as did many others throughout the centuries.

Let us not also forget that Christ Himself was a bible literalist, who spoke about the narrative in the Old Testament, including Genesis, as literal history, and literally fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah.

As far as dogmatic authority goes, I think that you're partly right about some religions. Specifically, the big Abrahamic religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It's important to remember that this is not the entire world of religion (even if they are important), so there are a number of statements about them that will be incorrect about other religions--in fact, most other religions.

It's true that the Big Three do indeed seem to require acceding to the truth of certain propositions in order to remain in their historical form: e.g., that the Torah was revealed by God, that Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead, and that Mohammad received the Qur'an from Michael. (for each religion respectively) There is certainly an important sense in which certain very liberal theologians are still Christian, but this is something very different than historical Christianity.

In regards to Christianity, there is a mimimum requirement of belief, such as that Jesus was raised from the dead, to be a Christian.

Moreover, I myself don't think that moral authority is actually essential to religion. It's certainly related to religion, but as I'm sure you've observed--there's not much of a correlation between religious belief and moral behavior. Simple observation shows most Christians to be liars. Morality is not why they are Christian.

Simple observation shows most people, probably near the 99.9 percent mark, to be liars. There is no claim in Christianity that Christians are perfect. Far from it. Jesus was the only perfect man to ever live. Christians still sin, but hopefully they sin much less than usual. Christians living sanctified lives are comparitively rare, unfortunately. When you consider that half of the American church does not believe in a literal Holy Spirit or Satan, it isn't surprising.

Instead, I think it's something else--transcendence, and the promise of new states of being. Morality has almost nothing to do with this. The same man can be capable of the most holy ecstasies and raptures before the beauty of the God or gods that he prays to, a writer of the most delicately beautiful hymns and homilies--and the worst bastard on earth outside of church. Cardinal Richilieu was just such a person.

In Christianity, it is to know God personally. Christianity is about Jesus Christ and nothing else. If you subtract Jesus, you don't have anything. You automatically get a new state of being; when you accept Christ you are a new creature, and you receive the Holy Spirit. You also have your sins forgiven and obtain eternal life.

This is why we'll never get rid of religion, of course. But it's also why the monotheistic religions can be so dangerous. They incorrectly tie the ecstasies of the spirit to crude and intolerant dogmas, then demand that all others agree or face the sword or the pyre.

Which spirit? Satan can make you feel ecstacy and love; it wouldn't be a very good deception if it wasn't deceiving. The question you should ask is, where is this coming from, and who gave me a spirit in the first place?

As far as intolerance goes, Jesus made it clear:

John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Those are His words, not mine. A Christian is only telling you what He said, which is that you will face judgment for your sins. If you reject Jesus, you are telling God you want to stand trial for your sins on your own merit. If you are rejecting Jesus, it's for a reason that has nothing to do with anything you have written here.

>> ^HadouKen24:

Not only do I live in the US, but I live Oklahoma, one of the most religiously conservative states. I don't have a great deal of respect for that brand of religion, for sure. Which is precisely why it's so galling to see a video that suggests that's just what Christians have to be like--that Christians who reject the Bibliolatry and hermeneutic cutting and pasting of those idiots somehow aren't real Christians, that rejecting the sheep-like credulity of these so-called faithful means that the thoughtful ones haven't actually thought it through. And somehow it is averred that those who cling to the ancient traditions of Biblical understanding are inauthentically Christian, since they don't accept the quasi-heretical doctrines of 19th century upstarts.

Clearly false. Yet that's the whole thrust of the video!



With regard to your last two paragraphs, I think we're starting to move away from straightforward commentary on the video. But that's alright with me, if it's okay with you.

As far as dogmatic authority goes, I think that you're partly right about some religions. Specifically, the big Abrahamic religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It's important to remember that this is not the entire world of religion (even if they are important), so there are a number of statements about them that will be incorrect about other religions--in fact, most other religions.

It's true that the Big Three do indeed seem to require acceding to the truth of certain propositions in order to remain in their historical form: e.g., that the Torah was revealed by God, that Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead, and that Mohammad received the Qur'an from Michael. (for each religion respectively) There is certainly an important sense in which certain very liberal theologians are still Christian, but this is something very different than historical Christianity.

Nonetheless, this is something separate from moral authority. One may deny that there is anything correct about the metaphysical pronouncements of the Bible, and still accept that its moral teachings are profoundly important. This is precisely what philosophy Slavoj Zizek has done.

For most other religions, the number of specific propositions that must be accepted is few to none. Pronouncements about gods or salvation are amenable to multiple interpretations. The ancient Greek philosophers, for instance, were quite religious on the whole. Yet read a book on Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Platonism, and tell me what proposition about the gods that they agree on. You'll find it quite difficult.

The same can be said of Shinto, Hinduism, Buddhism, Western Pagan revivals, etc.

Moreover, I myself don't think that moral authority is actually essential to religion. It's certainly related to religion, but as I'm sure you've observed--there's not much of a correlation between religious belief and moral behavior. Simple observation shows most Christians to be liars. Morality is not why they are Christian.

Instead, I think it's something else--transcendence, and the promise of new states of being. Morality has almost nothing to do with this. The same man can be capable of the most holy ecstasies and raptures before the beauty of the God or gods that he prays to, a writer of the most delicately beautiful hymns and homilies--and the worst bastard on earth outside of church. Cardinal Richilieu was just such a person.

This is why we'll never get rid of religion, of course. But it's also why the monotheistic religions can be so dangerous. They incorrectly tie the ecstasies of the spirit to crude and intolerant dogmas, then demand that all others agree or face the sword or the pyre.

>> ^shveddy:

@HadouKen24 - All that you say is very dandy and very well may be true, but you'd be shocked at how widespread it is to cling to 19th century literalist beliefs. I'm not sure what country you're from, but here in the US it's remarkably common and even presidential candidates manage to think it despite pursuing the most powerful office in the world. I grew up in a particular Christian denomination, one of hundreds, and we had an official statement of faith that stated the absolute, literal, inerrant nature of the bible. This particular flavor of Christianity has about 3 million adherants, and again, this is only one of hundreds - many of which are even more conservative in their biblical interpretation.
When you say that it has been common for some time to regard sacred texts in a metaphorical sense I think that's definitely true, especially in the case of liberal theologians. However, when you take away the literal interpretations and leave interpretative metaphor all that remains is an interesting and influential piece of literature that has no specific authority. And I think this is a good thing. But the fact of the matter is that it lowers it to the same level as Moby Dick, Oedipus, Infinite Jest and Harry Potter - all of which are books that have interesting, moralistic metaphors just like the bible.
Let's face it, religion needs the teeth of absolute truth and the threat of moral superiority to have any privileged relevance over other interesting, moral works. I see neither in any of its texts.

It's funny you should pick out Gandhi and Lennon. Steve Jobs took an influential trip to India in 1974 (one which affected his life outlook in lots of ways, and one for which Gandhi, I would imagine, serves as an emblematic figure), and he was a big fan of The Beatles, both musically and organizationally: "My model for business is The Beatles: They were four guys that kept each other's negative tendencies in check; they balanced each other. And the total was greater than the sum of the parts."

I totally dig your point, generally applied; lots of ads strike me as disingenuous and (emotionally) opportunistic. I like this particular ad, though. To me it comes off, at least in part, as more of a personal (and genuine) homage to some of the people who inspired Steve Jobs at various points in his life.>> ^kymbos:

This captures beautifully what fills me with fear and loathing for people who invest their lives in marketing. Fucking Ghandi, brought to you by Apple? It makes me sick to my stomach, the gall of it. John Lennon, for fuck's sakes. Have you no shame?
And yet I know how many clever, intelligent, morally bewildering people spend their lives trying to make me feel something for companies, and probably succeed against my best intentions.

This captures beautifully what fills me with fear and loathing for people who invest their lives in marketing. Fucking Ghandi, brought to you by Apple? It makes me sick to my stomach, the gall of it. John Lennon, for fuck's sakes. Have you no shame?

And yet I know how many clever, intelligent, morally bewildering people spend their lives trying to make me feel something for companies, and probably succeed against my best intentions.

It's amazing to me the gall of some people in power that they'll want to know everything and if you don't give it to them they'll punish you. I guess we're all just slaves to them and they think we owe them everything.

If I put it in skillful, deano would just remove it again - that's like giving a toddler a lollipop and taking it away again, doubly cruel. I'm only partly cruel.

You should sing more often.
In reply to this comment by hpqp:
I'm hurt, gwiz. Really. I tend you my throbbing, innocent tweenage heart in glorious WindowsMovieMaker Colour and you have the gall to leave it out of the *love and, more importantly, *skillful channels. You break my heart. ,
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I'm so glad you got into music. \^\^
http://videosift.com/video/hpqp-makes-a-music-video-so-hot-Boys-boys-

boys

I'm hurt, gwiz. Really. I tend you my throbbing, innocent tweenage heart in glorious WindowsMovieMaker Colour and you have the gall to leave it out of the *love and, more importantly, *skillful channels. You break my heart.
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I'm so glad you got into music. \^\^
http://videosift.com/video/hpqp-makes-a-music-video-so-hot-Boys-boys-
boys

>> ^bareboards2:

I keep making the same comment on videos about religion and no fundamentalist atheist has intelligently responded to my point.
Humans have evolved with the need for religion, some portion of humanity. It has survived the evolutionary process. THEREFORE there must be some purpose or use for it, for some portion of humanity.
I find it galling in the extreme to read over and over again the chastisements of atheists dismissing a belief in God as being stupid and irrational.
The human need and ability to create the divine MUST HAVE AN EVOLUTIONARY PURPOSE. Scorning and scolding people about an ingrained, evolutionarily chosen trait is ignorant and rude and no different from evangelicals, those who have that trait in spades, forcing their beliefs onto others.
I do not believe in an intelligent force in the universe, guiding everything. The doctrines and specific myths told by religions ... I personally do not understand how folks can believe these things to be factually true.
But millions do. Millions have. There must be some need for it and it is NOT MY PLACE to tell someone else to abandon something that gives structure and solace.
Just stay out of the laws of the land.
That is why I like this vid so much. It shows the human need for ... something... without it being doctrinaire.
And Richard Dawkins isn't the only atheist in the world. He is just a loud one, @ChaosEngine.


I used Dawkins as an example simply because he has the reputation of being the "most strident fundamentalist atheist" (whatever that is). In fact, he actually attempts to answer your question in the God Delusion. You'll have to read it for the full explanation but (paraphrasing here) it boils down to the idea that religion evolved as a combination of a few evolutionary traits, such as believing your parents and ascribing intent to occurrences. There's a whole chapter on the roots of religion there (from an evolutionary point of view), and it is explained far better than I could here.

I think most atheists would agree with you, that religion has served an evolutionary purpose. I don't have "The God Delusion" with me at the moment, but I'm pretty sure Dawkins acknowledges that as well.

But whether or not it serves an evolutionary purpose or not is irrelevant. The appendix served an evolutionary purpose - then we evolved to do without it. The same goes for the wisdom teeth; most people have them removed because they can cause huge problems, but in a world without dental care they are incredibly important.

Most of us atheists believe it is time, at least in the west, to "evolve" beyond the need for an invisible sky-daddy. We have the opportunity to do with religion what evolution did for the appendix.

Belief in a god is irrational. That's not to say it didn't serve a purpose, as evolution is not bound by the rational, only by phenotypic fitness. But, religion has served its purpose and, like the appendix or the wisdom teeth, it's time it was removed from our lives.
>> ^bareboards2:

I keep making the same comment on videos about religion and no fundamentalist atheist has intelligently responded to my point.
Humans have evolved with the need for religion, some portion of humanity. It has survived the evolutionary process. THEREFORE there must be some purpose or use for it, for some portion of humanity.
I find it galling in the extreme to read over and over again the chastisements of atheists dismissing a belief in God as being stupid and irrational.
The human need and ability to create the divine MUST HAVE AN EVOLUTIONARY PURPOSE. Scorning and scolding people about an ingrained, evolutionarily chosen trait is ignorant and rude and no different from evangelicals, those who have that trait in spades, forcing their beliefs onto others.
I do not believe in an intelligent force in the universe, guiding everything. The doctrines and specific myths told by religions ... I personally do not understand how folks can believe these things to be factually true.
But millions do. Millions have. There must be some need for it and it is NOT MY PLACE to tell someone else to abandon something that gives structure and solace.
Just stay out of the laws of the land.
That is why I like this vid so much. It shows the human need for ... something... without it being doctrinaire.
And Richard Dawkins isn't the only atheist in the world. He is just a loud one, @ChaosEngine.

I keep making the same comment on videos about religion and no fundamentalist atheist has intelligently responded to my point.

Humans have evolved with the need for religion, some portion of humanity. It has survived the evolutionary process. THEREFORE there must be some purpose or use for it, for some portion of humanity.

I find it galling in the extreme to read over and over again the chastisements of atheists dismissing a belief in God as being stupid and irrational.

The human need and ability to create the divine MUST HAVE AN EVOLUTIONARY PURPOSE. Scorning and scolding people about an ingrained, evolutionarily chosen trait is ignorant and rude and no different from evangelicals, those who have that trait in spades, forcing their beliefs onto others.

I do not believe in an intelligent force in the universe, guiding everything. The doctrines and specific myths told by religions ... I personally do not understand how folks can believe these things to be factually true.

But millions do. Millions have. There must be some need for it and it is NOT MY PLACE to tell someone else to abandon something that gives structure and solace.

Just stay out of the laws of the land.

That is why I like this vid so much. It shows the human need for ... something... without it being doctrinaire.

And Richard Dawkins isn't the only atheist in the world. He is just a loud one, @ChaosEngine.

A nice ripping apart of a retarded video

I just watched it, and it's asinine. He puts words together more because they rhyme and sound 'cool' than actually make any sense.

It's drivel. And as the AA says, he doesn't separate 'Jesus' and 'Religion' at all. If he loves church and the bible and god and jesus then he's loving religion for fuck's sake.

And how can anyone agree with 'Salvation is freely mine and forgiveness is my own, not based on my merits but Jesus's obedience alone'

Huh? So, your merits mean nothing. What you do, what you bring to the table mean nothing? What a fucked up attitude.

The guy in his 'poem' says that he used to be a 'Christian' while getting wasted and having sex and watching porn... but apparently now he's 'seen the light' and doesn't do that stuff.

Instead he's another self righteous dick who thinks that he's found 'the answer' and must tell everyone how he has.

And.. ahem, he has the gall to say in the text under his video (the poem one, not the AA):

Wanna start helping and serving Jesus in a practical way? checkout the company of the watch I am wearing in the video! They give 10-25% of all proceeds to non profits and the bands and faces are interchangeable! http://www.cruxwatches.com

>> ^spaceman:

Up vote for David Attenborough and not Operah Winfrey.


Oprah Winfrey? You referring to the round gall?