*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Taxi-Driver-Shows-How-a-Real-Man-Parks-a-Car

Dupe? http://videosift.com/video/Taxi-Driver-Shows-How-a-Real-Man-Parks-a-Car

>> ^kymbos:

"Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads"
...
"Ok, I take that back".


If you open this link in a separate window and press play at 24 seconds into the song it's absolutely PERFECT.

Congratulations! Your video, Taxi Driver Shows How a Real Man Parks a Car, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 16 Badge!

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 4 Badge!

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 1 Badge!

>> ^Shepppard:

There's gotta be a story behind this, anyone? anyone? Bueller? anyone?

I swear officer, the phone booth and lamp post came barreling down the street towards me. I tried to maneuver away but it was too late!

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

>> ^grinter:
Hey, at least the cabbie helped his passengers out before running like a coward from the 'inevitable' explosion.

If by "helping" you mean standing at a safe distance and watching as they crawl through the shattered window...

yes, that is what I mean.

Betting the brakes stopped working.>> ^Shepppard:

There's gotta be a story behind this, anyone? anyone? Bueller? anyone?

>> ^grinter:

Hey, at least the cabbie helped his passengers out before running like a coward from the 'inevitable' explosion.


If by "helping" you mean standing at a safe distance and watching as they crawl through the shattered window...

>> ^Nexxus:
The folks in the blue car surely have some neck pain.


I had to watch again as I had missed there were people in that car.

Your video, Taxi Driver Shows How a Real Man Parks a Car, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 15 Badge!

He almost tipped them (over).>> ^Gallowflak:

I hope they tipped him.

@SDGundamX

I hope I've done the tag properly. I prefer notifications to be set to 'off' because I get enough junkmail from the other bazillion websites I'm registered to as it is, so yeah I don't pay much attention to that stuff.

Anyway, on to your reply!

Speaking of assumptions...

Oh boy! Here we go!

...I’m noticing that you tend to make a lot of them. You assumed, for instance, that I was a Christian. You assumed that I was trying to defend a particular religion or religious practice.

Yes, I did, as I've already admitted. It was a fine display of all the common symptoms of a religious apologist/troll, touting all the usual old and tired canards I've heard repeated ad nauseum; unjustified and arrogantly pronounced assertions with no evidence to ground them to reality, a blatant false equivocation, and flat out wrong characterizations of Hitchens et al's position. I'm genuinely sorry I had you falsely pegged but when it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck...well, y'know. In other words, you probably could have done a better job of elucidating and then justifying your opinion.

You assumed (and continue to assume) that I am calling Hitchens and the rest fundamentalists. I am not. I could not. Atheism by its very definition cannot be “fundamentalist” as this article explains. What I said was:

I find it ironic that those such as Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris, in their zeal to exterminate religion, have become such zealots unwilling to admit evidence contrary to their position that they now rival the fundamentalists they profess to be fighting against.

Your words are right there above mine. They are zealots that rival the fundamentalists they are opposed to, in their zeal to exterminate (I call bullshit on this, they seek to marginalize it not destroy it) religion. On what planet is this not a false equivocation? On what planet am I to not take you at your word? You still haven't provided evidence for this or the other claim that they even wish to exterminate religion, as well. Because they don't. If you don't stand by your wording then retract it. You really haven't read anything from them other than what you have learned from secondary, tertiary sources, have you?



...that they refuse to revise their absolutist statements about religion being the cause of evil or the spreading hatred even when faced with evidence of religion instead bringing good into the world (on the blog—the story of Hitchens and the taxi driver who went to great lengths to return Hitchens’ lost wallet because the driver’s religion demanded he do so).

This evidence exists in heaps and bounds—I would guess (though I don’t know for sure, granted) in equal amounts to the evidence that religion spreads hatred. Regardless of the amount, in the face of the fact that such evidence exists at all, Hitchens’ previous statement (the one made in this clip about religion being the primary cause of hatred) becomes wholly untenable.


Are you seriously attributing the fact that moral people can exist within the institution of a religion and still be moral, to the religion itself? Could you name a single decent thing a religious person can do that a non-religious person couldn't? What kind of morality do you think preceded the origins of the Muslim cab driver's religion? The exact same morality that has always existed between humans and other humans on some level, that of mutual altruistic behavior, the "golden rule" and that the Abrahamic religion has co-opted into the rest of their vile ideology. You have your causes and effects here reversed, human morality is what it is in spite of religion, and to invoke religion where its not even a necessary requirement is to trivialize the very thing that enabled homo sapiens, as inherently social animals, to get to where we are today in this technological age without destroying ourselves in the process.


In regards to the so-called ad hom: I feel this applies to your post because you appear to be dismissing my argument before even considering it since you start off suspecting I don’t think clearly.

Well, you are wrong. I obviously read your whole reply before I responded. What you feel is irrelevant. Did you just read that one line and then ignore everything else I said? I mentioned the "not thinking clearly thing" purely as an aside, I then went on to address your points. Ad hom doesn't apply, sorry. It would've if that was all I supplied as the basis of my argument; I didn't say "You do not think clearly, therefore you are wrong". Ad hominem isn't what you wish it to be so stop abusing the term.

This brings us back to the Gnu Atheist’s confrontational tactics—in that link you gave me, the writer explicitly endorses being rude. I’m not here to tell you it isn’t a valid tactic—it most certainly is.


Being unflinchingly truthful and not kowtowing to the religious lies/claptrap and ridiculing those whose faith is threatened (who would have no qualms about being as rude and demeaning as possible in telling me so) by my sole existence is rude now. You should tell those uppity gays to be more polite and not stand up for equal treatment, in whatever way they choose as long as its non-violent/within the boundaries of the law, maybe their oppressors would stand down. No, confrontation is the answer if you want to change speak out and "business as usual". I consider lies to be harmful and rude and demeaning to an individual deserving of being treated like an adult in the marketplace of ideas, even the most comfortably benign, fluffy touchie-feelie ones.


I’m here to question it’s efficacy.

It was already pretty clear to me but thanks. It looked to me like you had already decided. You may NOW be appearing to question that, but again, what you may have meant certainly isn't what you wrote and to expect others to be able to know is dickish. I agree it's a good question still but haven't provided evidence to show its efficacy. So let's refrain from the assumptions. All I know is it wasn't some accommodationist, overly polite wank, unwilling to get his hands dirty to enlighten me, that stirred the feelings I've secretly held for so many years about my existence and God, it was someone who was NOT afraid of confrontation in surgically disillusioning my cherished notions of reality, of showing just how ridiculously absurd the whole thing is. It is a matter of ethics to value truth more than(key words) some default arbitrarily designated level of respect.

So, what I was trying to say in my original post is that it annoys me that Hitchens and the rest continue onward with their blanket absolutist statements despite the fact that there exists evidence to the contrary.

Saying religion, of all kinds, is the primary (meaning secondary and tertiary factors also contribute but don't even approach the monopoly religion has on spreading misery, violence, and hatred) isn't really a controversial statement at all to me. History tells us much. Can you think of any other more divisive human social construct that has caused more strife throughout history? Shall we play the game of "add up the bodies"? It boggles the mind to think of where humanity might be right now if not for the Dark Ages.

For instance, just because some people use communism to establish totalitarian regimes, doesn’t make communism evil.

Communism is as much an ideology based on fantasy as religion. In so far as it is not based on evidence and reason and being willfully enforced/propagated, it is harmful.

So, my question for you is, is being rude and disrespectful to people an effective arguing technique? Let’s be clear, I am not saying we need to respect other people’s ideas.


It certainly can be effective. I have no real evidence besides anecdotes and the correlative fact that religious membership levels in the US/Britain have been slowly declining since around the time the Gnu Atheists began to speak out and be more prominently featured in the media/Internets in general. The level of ridicule should be in proportion to the level of bat-shit insanity of the beliefs held. No one is championing a one-size-fits-all approach.

To tie all this together, let’s talk about one last assumption you made. You assumed I didn’t want to reply to your questions because I was trying to dodge the issue. I’d like us to be clear on my true reasons for not replying (so you won’t have to assume anymore).

I (like you, I imagine) happen to be a very busy person. I work full-time and put in a lot of unpaid overtime. I also have a beautiful family and good friends that I want to spend my free time with. This limits the amount of time I can spend on the Internet. So I have to choose when and how to respond to posts wisely.

Fair enough, I wouldn't accuse someone of dodging for being busy. I do not expect replies either, I hold you to nothing except your own words. I accused you of dodging because, when asked, you didn't provide much in the way of evidence to justify your assertions or a flat-out retraction. I could say this in any number of polite ways, you simply didn't.

You, from the very start of your post, set out to pick a fight.

Guilty as charged!

You made completely unfounded assumptions and then attacked an imaginary opponent that you mistook for me.

I made the assumption you were religious and was wrong, the rest still stands. You don't want others to take your word for it? Then add some more words! What you may have "meant" is not what I got pissed off at and responded to, understand this already.

Why should I spend it defending or searching the Internet for proof for an argument I never actually made (the “reality/validity” of Christianity; the fundamentalism of atheists like Hitchens)? Why should I try to reason with someone who from the very outset displays such misguided behavior?

That's my whole point! You shouldn't have said anything at all if you didn't have anything truthful to say in the first place. You really have no fucking clue what you're talking about when you talk about them and you rightly got called on it. I already addressed where I made any assumptions about you, the rest is through your own doing. You have NOT shown that they rival those fundamentalists they oppose, you have NOT shown that they wish to eradicate religion, you haven't even shown how they are zealots. You are being incredibly dishonest to the point of absurdity!


Thanks for reading this to the end. As a footnote, here is a link to a discussion on that web site you gave me that I found very interesting. Most of all, I found JoiletJake’s comments interesting—see posts #139 and #146 in particular, as I believe they are similar to my views on religion.


I've already read them and just re-read. Joilet comes off as incredibly honest, humble considering his position, and its pretty plain to see that the response he got, while initially bumpy, gradually warmed up to him as he elaborated and made it well known he is relying solely on his personal feeling in the matter and not trying to assert an attribution of those feelings onto actual reality. I think its great your attitude aligns with his, it may not be logically consistent but at least it's pretty harmless on the whole. Notice he wasn't tossing out baseless assertions, straw manning, or falsely equivocating.

I'd really enjoy it if you were to paste/copy what you said on Pharyngula and see how different the reaction would be. Such tasty schadenfreude! My guess is you would be entertainingly dismantled, rudely perhaps, but dismantled nonetheless. Welcome to the Internets.

I really have no interest in continuing this conversation, as lovely and downright tedious as it has been. I am done responding the minutiae of your several attempts at special pleading. Think whatever you want about the Gnu Atheists, whatever keeps the cognitive dissonance at bay.

@AnimalsForCrackers

First off, I’d like to thank you for your lengthy replies to my posts. I’m sure you, like me, are a busy person and have plenty of other things you could be doing.

Second, thanks again for the link. Read it and also clicked through some of the forums. It does indeed help me understand where you’re coming from. I can say that I disagree completely with the “Gnu Atheists” strategy (more on that later), but at least now I know what their strategy is and why they believe it is necessary.

Third, I’d like to give you a VideoSift user tip (just in case you’re unaware of it). On VideoSift, if you don’t use the quote function when replying to someone, the person you’re responding to won’t receive any notification that you’ve responded. If you’d rather directly quote by copying and pasting text for yourself (as you’ve been doing), you need to use @username (as I’ve done for your name in this post) in order for the person to get a notification you’ve responded. I bring this up because since you’ve neither been using the quote function nor using the @username tag, I haven’t been receiving any notification of your messages. I only found out about your response accidentally after I came back to check something after viewing this other Hitchens video. Just wanted to give you a heads-up about this because if someone doesn’t reply to a discussion you’ve been having, I wouldn’t want to you to assume, say, that the person was ignoring you.

Speaking of assumptions, I’m noticing that you tend to make a lot of them. You assumed, for instance, that I was a Christian. You assumed that I was trying to defend a particular religion or religious practice. You assumed (and continue to assume) that I am calling Hitchens and the rest fundamentalists. I am not. I could not. Atheism by its very definition cannot be “fundamentalist” as this article explains. What I said was:

I find it ironic that those such as Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris, in their zeal to exterminate religion, have become such zealots unwilling to admit evidence contrary to their position that they now rival the fundamentalists they profess to be fighting against.

And I see now where the breakdown in communication between us occurred. I certainly could have been clearer here. You assumed I meant they were fundamentalists. What I meant was exactly what I said—exactly what the author of the blog that talked about Malcom X said: that they refuse to revise their absolutist statements about religion being the cause of evil or the spreading hatred even when faced with evidence of religion instead bringing good into the world (on the blog—the story of Hitchens and the taxi driver who went to great lengths to return Hitchens’ lost wallet because the driver’s religion demanded he do so).

This evidence exists in heaps and bounds—I would guess (though I don’t know for sure, granted) in equal amounts to the evidence that religion spreads hatred. Regardless of the amount, in the face of the fact that such evidence exists at all, Hitchens’ previous statement (the one made in this clip about religion being the primary cause of hatred) becomes wholly untenable. The best he can say is that religion might cause hatred in some people. And even then, the burden of proof is on him and the rest of the Gnu Atheists to show that it is religion itself and not, say, humans subverting religion for their own purposes as they do every other human constructed system. For instance, just because some people use communism to establish totalitarian regimes, doesn’t make communism evil. Likewise, people abusing capitalism and producing massive rich-poor gaps doesn’t make capitalism the source of evil. Religion is no different—it can be used for great good or great evil. These are systems—by themselves neither good, nor evil, but capable of both depending on how they are used and/or abused.

So, what I was trying to say in my original post is that it annoys me that Hitchens and the rest continue onward with their blanket absolutist statements despite the fact that there exists evidence to the contrary. That is similar to fundamentalists who say, for instance, that the world is only 6000 years old and ignore any scientific evidence to the contrary. I find it ironic to be able to see any similarity between two such diametrically opposed opponents. And, to me, it weakens the Gnu Atheists argument since they are so interested in “the truth”.

That pretty much summarizes my original opinion. I hope that is clear enough for you.

Now that that is out of the way, let me continue to address some of your other assumptions.
(I hope you pardon the length of this reply. I’ve read every word of yours and I hope you will do me the same courtesy.) You assumed that I didn’t know what ad hominem meant. Thanks for the link, but I’m actually not sure you know what it means so I’m actually going to post the definition here for both of us (from Wikipedia):

Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

I feel this applies to your post because you appear to be dismissing my argument before even considering it since you start off suspecting I don’t think clearly. That, of course, would be a logical fallacy according to this definition. However, having browsed the website you sent me I understand why you use this tactic, as it is rampant on their forums--ironically proving the truth of your statement (when applied as a generality) that being an atheist does not necessarily mean being able to think clearly about all things.

This brings us back to the Gnu Atheist’s confrontational tactics—in that link you gave me, the writer explicitly endorses being rude. I’m not here to tell you it isn’t a valid tactic—it most certainly is. I’m here to question it’s efficacy.

Think of it this way: when you want to learn something there are many ways you can go about getting the knowledge you seek. You can ask someone who’s an expert on the topic. You can search the Internet. Or, you can put a book on your head and hope the information seeps into your head through some kind of information osmosis. Some of these techniques will clearly be more effective than others.

I think we can safely say that, when you are trying to convince someone of your opinion, some tactics work better than others. So, my question for you is, is being rude and disrespectful to people an effective arguing technique? Let’s be clear, I am not saying we need to respect other people’s ideas. As this article explains, we can make a distinction between respecting ideas and respecting people.

The fact of the matter is, in Western society we have standards of conduct. Civility is one of those standards. The failure to obey those standards results in the offender being ostracized. What that means is, when you disrespect people they are unlikely to listen to what you have to say. You can gnash your teeth and complain about this all you like, but it is “the truth.” And for someone who, as a Gnu Atheist, claims to be interested in the truth it seems irrational to ignore it and go about being rude to others if you really have any hope of convincing people of your position and aren't just talking for the sake of talking.

To tie all this together, let’s talk about one last assumption you made. You assumed I didn’t want to reply to your questions because I was trying to dodge the issue. I’d like us to be clear on my true reasons for not replying (so you won’t have to assume anymore).

I (like you, I imagine) happen to be a very busy person. I work full-time and put in a lot of unpaid overtime. I also have a beautiful family and good friends that I want to spend my free time with. This limits the amount of time I can spend on the Internet. So I have to choose when and how to respond to posts wisely.

You, from the very start of your post, set out to pick a fight. You made completely unfounded assumptions and then attacked an imaginary opponent that you mistook for me. In your attack, instead of remaining logical and rational, you resorted to personal attacks to try to make your points.

As I said, I have a limited amount of time. Why should I use that time to even bother with someone who doesn’t seem to understand the social convention of civility? Why should I spend it defending or searching the Internet for proof for an argument I never actually made (the “reality/validity” of Christianity; the fundamentalism of atheists like Hitchens)? Why should I try to reason with someone who from the very outset displays such misguided behavior?

The answer is, of course, I shouldn’t. But I did anyway. I’ve spent several hours on a Friday night composing this message with the sole hope that maybe you’d be willing to try to see things from my point of view rather than just attack line by line everything I say (because that’s not a discussion—it’s a monologue). I firmly believe it is dialogues—and not diatribes—that are going to solve the problems we currently face between secular and religious thinking. I respect your right to disagree, though, too. Like I said, I come to VideoSift to watch videos and occasionally comment on them—not convince the world I am right.

Thanks for reading this to the end. As a footnote, here is a link to a discussion on that web site you gave me that I found very interesting. Most of all, I found JoiletJake’s comments interesting—see posts #139 and #146 in particular, as I believe they are similar to my views on religion.