>> ^lantern53:

Well...Chomsky is a free-thinker, that's for sure. But he endorsed Jill Stein, the green party candidate. Jill Stein is one of the goofier candidates around, but check her out on youtube yourself.


I just read through the position that Jill Stein takes on the issues. Not only is it the most sane and democratic approach I've seen, it's also the most comprehensive list explaining what to do. If Obama or Romney were honest and tried to put out a list this good, they'd never get elected because we'd know what they were actually going to do.

Jill will never get elected either, but if you gave her half a billion dollars I'll bet she'd get elected because she addresses a lot of issues the way most americans would support, if they were educated on the subjects.

Title is misleading. At no point does he explicitly say "vote for Obama". Like lantern53 says above, Chomsky is a free thinker, if anything, in this sound bite he encourages you be the same.

Well...Chomsky is a free-thinker, that's for sure. But he endorsed Jill Stein, the green party candidate. Jill Stein is one of the goofier candidates around, but check her out on youtube yourself.

Republicans like to put charismatic blank slates at the top of the ticket: Reagan, Bush 2 and Romney.

They seem to run into more problems when they put thinkers at the top of the ticket: Nixon, Bush 1, Dole and John McCain.

>> ^VoodooV:

I think Bill Maher is exactly right. He wants to be the first Mormon president...that's the long and the short of it.
Governing? whatever
bipartisanship? whatever
It explains perfectly why he is able to shift positions so drastically. HE DOESNT CARE! He's not a republican, he's not a centrist, he's not a democrat. He just wants to be able to say he was the first mormon president.

>> ^spoco2:

Ooh, I like this.
I'd also like one that called out the numerous quotes attributed to people like Will Smith and Dane Cook and other 'deep thinkers' as being misquotes... or the ones attributed to actual great people, but also not being their quotes.


"Quote the raven, never more" - Wayne Brady

Ooh, I like this.

I'd also like one that called out the numerous quotes attributed to people like Will Smith and Dane Cook and other 'deep thinkers' as being misquotes... or the ones attributed to actual great people, but also not being their quotes.

The creationist says; "obviously there is not an absolute. It is a choice of what you believe." Wrong, there is no "choice" between something that is demonstrably true or false. Something is either substantiated with facts or it is not. Something is either based upon evidence or it is not. Creationists, and the religious, are lazy thinkers who accept none of the above and, therefore, do a huge disservice to the brains that nature gave them.

^Fairbs

I do not get my information from Youtube, it's great for entertainment - not so much for accurate Information.

Here are some relevant points I found from a Washington Post article dated April 6, 2012 entitled "Why Ron Paul rallies never translate into votes".

Ron Paul recently held a rally at UCLA, and between 6,000 and 10,000 people attended. The rally itself was a complete success. Yet while Ron Paul has consistently attracted larger, more enthusiastic crowds than his GOP competitors, those events always fail to translate into victories at the ballot box. Ron Paul has never won a presidential primary or caucus.

The media bias argument is nonsense. The media could never hate Ron Paul with the pure passion and ferocity that they despise Rick Santorum. The liberal media loathes social conservatives. They love Republicans who bash other conservatives. This is how John McCain in 2008 and Jon Huntsman in 2012 became the darlings of the liberal media. The media will end up despising whomever the GOP nominee is, and Ron Paul has suffered much less abuse than Newt Gingrich. Every day there are calls for Gingrich, and now even Santorum, to drop out. Dr. Paul does not face those calls.

As for election fraud, the GOP should just agree to give the Virgin Islands and Maine to Ron Paul in exchange for a vow of silence from the movement. The Paul movement uses complaints as their oxygen. All the voter fraud in the world cannot explain Florida, Illinois, and many other big states where Dr. Paul was rejected by more than 90% of the voters.

For those Paul supporters who are still unable to understand these repeated, huge rejections at the polls, the answer can be found right in front of their faces. The Ron Paul movement consists of too many supporters who are completely certifiable. They run up and down the hallways of GOP conventions screaming about revolutions. Decorum is replaced with degradation and debasement.

They shout down speakers they disagree with. They have zero interest in freedom and liberty for anybody except those who agree with them. Decent human beings would just accept this under the rule of "live and let live." The verbal carpet-bombers in the Ron Paul movement consist of some intolerant zealots who will harass, bully, and intimidate anybody just for thinking differently. The same hypocrites who are against undeclared wars engage in undeclared wars against their fellow Americans just for not worshipping Ron Paul. It makes the David Koresh movement look moderate.

Tell a Ron Paul supporter you disagree with his candidate. The responses will be:
1) You just do not understand. You're an idiot.
2) You are an uninformed tool of the political machine.
3) You don't care about the Constitution, freedom or liberty.
4) You are corrupt, bought and paid for, a shill for the status quo or some other powerful, mythical, nefarious entity.

These lines of thought are pure bile. The idea that a person can be decent, well educated, intelligent, have a sophisticated gift of analysis, be a clear thinker, and reject Ron Paul is totally incomprehensible to his supporters.

Ayn Rand's Influence on Alan Greenspan
In The Age of Turbulence, Alan Greenspan describes the influence that Ayn Rand had on his intellectual development.

Ayn Rand became a stabilizing force in my life. It hadn't taken long for us to have a meeting of the minds -- mostly my mind meeting hers -- and in the fifties and early sixties I became a regular at the weekly gatherings at her apartment. She was a wholly original thinker, sharply analytical, strong-willed, highly principled, and very insistent on rationality as the highest value. In that regard, our values were congruent -- we agreed on the importance of mathematics and intellectual rigor.

But she had gone far beyond that, thinking more broadly than I had ever dared. She was a devoted Aristotelian -- the central idea being that there exists an objective reality that is separate from consciousness and capable of being known. Thus she called her philosophy objectivism. And she applied key tenets of Aristotelian ethics -- namely, that individuals have innate nobility and that the highest duty of every individual is to flourish by realizing that potential. Exploring ideas with her was a remarkable course in logic and epistemology. I was able to keep up with her most of the time.

Rand's Collective became my first social circle outside the university and the economics profession. I engaged in the all-night debates and wrote spirited commentary for her newsletter with the fervor of a young acolyte drawn to a whole new set of ideas. Like any new convert, I tended to frame the concepts in their starkest, simplest terms. Most everyone sees the simple outline of an idea before complexity and qualification set in. If we didn't, there would be nothing to qualify, nothing to learn. It was only as contradictions inherent in my new notions began to emerge that the fervor receded.

One contradiction I found particularly enlightening. According to objectivist precepts, taxation was immoral because it allowed for government appropriation of private property by force. Yet if taxation was wrong, how could you reliably finance the essential functions of government, including the protection of individuals' rights through police power? The Randian answer, that those who rationally saw the need for government would contribute voluntarily, was inadequate. People have free will; suppose they refused?

I still found the broader philosophy of unfettered market competition compelling, as I do to this day, but I reluctantly began to realize that if there were qualifications to my intellectual edifice, I couldn't argue that others should readily accept it. [...]

Ayn Rand and I remained close until she died in 1982, and I'm grateful for the influence she had on my life. I was intellectually limited until I met her. All of my work had been empirical and numbers-based, never values-oriented. I was a talented technician, but that was all. My logical positivism had discounted history and literature -- if you'd asked me whether Chaucer was worth reading, I'd have said, "Don't bother." Rand persuaded me to look at human beings, their values, how they work, what they do and why they do it, and how they think and why they think. This broadened my horizons far beyond the models of economics I'd learned. I began to study how societies form and how cultures behave, and to realize that economics and forecasting depend on such knowledge -- different cultures grow and create material wealth in profoundly different ways. All of this started for me with Ayn Rand. She introduced me to a vast realm from which I'd shut myself off.

From The Age of Turbulence, pp. 51-53. Omissions from the text are shown with bracketed ellipses. All other punctuation and spelling is from the original.

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/turbulence.html

This thread is a prime example of why I try to not argue with believers.

@shinyblurry: You do not argue a point, you state "facts" that you "know". All your "points" come back to "Because it says so in the bible" -> "The Bible must be true because it's God's word" --> "God's word must be true becuase he says so in the Bible"

It has been argued for centuries by atheists and theist alike. Some of the greatest thinkers that our world knew have tried to argue it and even with the greatest minds of christian theology, the likes of Thomas Aquinas, Agustine of Hippo, Anselm of Canterbury etc. etc. etc. it all comes down to the central circular logic fallacy of "There is a god because there is a god"

There is no way to prove the existence of any god. It has been tried for thousands of years and no one has ever acomplished it.

Since every argument in theology derives it's weight from God's existence....

I'm guessing that's probably because you generally deal with English-speaking atheists. Technically we are arguing against Allah when we argue against God but why would we use an Arab word? Allah is not the name of the God of Islam and, even if it were, it would be the same God anyway. "Allah" means "the one God". It's what Arab Christians call God as well.

Krishna... well, I would argue against Krishna in much the same way as I argue against Yahweh if it ever came up, but it doesn't. There is no significant number of Hindus trying to force their beliefs on us, fighting societal advancement, or passing laws based on their holy book. Where I live these are the actions of Christians and so, merely out of priority, these are the people I argue against most frequently.

I'm not talking about technicalities, though. If atheists are really so incensed about the evils of religion, they would be concentrating on religions, countries and cultures that had the most egregious examples of perceived evils. Instead, 99 percent of it concentrates on the God of the bible. The fact is, Christianity has played a very positive role in shaping our civilization. If you want to read about it:

http://www.amazon.com/Book-that-Made-Your-World/dp/1595553223/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343535302&sr=1-1&keywords=the+book+that+made+your+world

Yes, an entertaining speaker and an entertaining, and funny, presentation, which is why I'm so disappointed that he gradually took it off the rails over the course of it.

The meaning of life
He's arguing that the meaning he finds in his own life, living for Jesus, is the only valid meaning and therefore non-Christians must have no meaning in their lives.

What? That is not what he was arguing, by any stretch of the imagination. He argued that to be free = meaningless, and that no one can live that way, on top of all of the logical, emotional, psychological and philosophical convolutions that this truth entails. He proposed Christianity as a solution to this problem, but he did not make it the thrust of his argument. He asked at the end, what is your alternative? What is your reason for life?

Few, if any, people have the luxury of never struggling with this question and yet most of us, religious positions aside, find meaning in our lives eventually. Many of us recognize that, in the grand scheme, our lives, even our entire species, will have no impact; Nothing any of us does will ultimately affect the outcome of the universe or existence, but that does not make life meaningless. We find meaning in many things in life. We find meaning in our relationships with others. We find meaning in our work. We find meaning in religion, both Christianity and others. It's different for each of us and there's nothing wrong with that.

The argument is, though, that if you're free to make up your own meaning, then there is no actual meaning.

Unfortunately for him, he builds his entire argument on this false premise. Even more unfortunate (for him), he makes an excellent point about what to do with conclusions that are based on a false premise.

I could stop here since I've destroyed his premise, but I'll continue below.

You do not appear to have understood the basic premise of his argument..

Freedom
There's no such thing as absolute freedom, God or not, except maybe in non-existence.

You're splitting hairs here..he is talking about what it means to be truly be free, in the sense of not having any meaning imposed upon you from the outside.

Nobody can live without meaning
I think people who live without any meaning in life are few and far between but I do not see why they could not live that way. They may be miserable, depressed, suicidal even, but they will not cease to exist in any way that is different from how the rest of us will cease to exist.

No, he is saying that there is no way to live that way and be logically consistent with your own knowledge and experience.

The Straw Frankenstein Monster
Over the course of the video he constructs a straw man out of pieces of ideas from various philosophers and thinkers, assembling them like Frankenstein's Monster and then, fittingly, being destroyed by his own creation.

Give a specific example.

Scientific Theories
This whole section is fucked and was pointless to bring up in the first place. His argument has nothing to do with scientific theory.

CS Lewis
In the case of this quote, at least, Lewis is a damn fool. Love is no less real because it is a chemical process. Music is no less enjoyable, art no less beautiful because they are biological reacitons.

Flowers and Love
"The only way to enjoy flowers and love is to not think." This is a typical (and baffling, for me) anti-knowledge argument that I see so often from fundamentalist Christians. I don't get it. Flowers smell as good and look as beautiful after you learn how your senses function as they did when you were ignorant. There is no reason to avoid learning. The world is just as amazing when you understand it.

I think you might need to rewatch the video because I don't think you understood the point to these sections, or how they were supported by his overall argument.

>> ^xxovercastxx

Freedom
There's no such thing as absolute freedom, God or not, except maybe in non-existence.

Nobody can live without meaning
I think people who live without any meaning in life are few and far between but I do not see why they could not live that way. They may be miserable, depressed, suicidal even, but they will not cease to exist in any way that is different from how the rest of us will cease to exist.

Scientific Theories
This whole section is fucked and was pointless to bring up in the first place. His argument has nothing to do with scientific theory.

The Straw Frankenstein Monster
Over the course of the video he constructs a straw man out of pieces of ideas from various philosophers and thinkers, assembling them like Frankenstein's Monster and then, fittingly, being destroyed by his own creation.

CS Lewis
In the case of this quote, at least, Lewis is a damn fool. Love is no less real because it is a chemical process. Music is no less enjoyable, art no less beautiful because they are biological reactions.

Flowers and Love
"The only way to enjoy flowers and love is to not think." This is a typical (and baffling, for me) anti-knowledge argument that I see so often from fundamentalist Christians. I don't get it. Flowers smell as good and look as beautiful after you learn how your senses function as they did when you were ignorant. There is no reason to avoid learning. The world is just as amazing when you understand it.

Don't lump Agnostics in with the Atheist I find it a bit insulting. I'm Agnostic, I believe their is a god just that no human can possibly comprehend his existence and therefore no religion could possibly be even close to right because every single holy book was written by man and therefore fatally flawed. I don't think god is either malevolent or benevolent I think he just is. If I had to hazard a guess as to the identity of god I think the universe as a whole itself IS god. That explains just about everything from evolution to the existence of good and evil. Light, dark, intelligence, and the possibility of life outside of our own planet.

That said Pat Robinson is the biggest scam artist of all time, and the fact that he's even involved in this scheme makes me pause. Rule of thumb anyone trying to make money off their religion is probably not a trustworthy person.

>> ^VoodooV:

Funny that's what the agnostics and atheists argue when it comes to belief in a god. Just because you can't think of a better reason, doesn't mean god did it.
The so called morality of the Christian god has been demonstrated time and time again to be in conflict to what we know of as a free and just democratic society where all people are equal...not just the "chosen" ones who believe.
The instant we decided that slavery was wrong, we became better than the Christian god
The instant we decided that stonings were not an appropriate method of punishment, we became better than the Christian god.

>> ^Morganth:
Just because you can't think of a good reason why God would allow evil and suffering to continue, therefore there can't be one? Why would that be? That's some very poor logic. >> ^A10anis:
Epicurus had it correct in 300BCE;
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Don't let these brainwashed self deluders, with their childish concepts, take us back to an age when every aspect of life was controlled by their cult. They are free to be slaves to their gods in private, but free, logical, 21st century, intelligent thinkers, should fight tooth and nail to keep it out of Politics and, especially, away from our kids and schools.

>> ^Morganth:

Just because you can't think of a good reason why God would allow evil and suffering to continue, therefore there can't be one? Why would that be? That's some very poor logic. >> ^A10anis:
Epicurus had it correct in 300BCE;
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Don't let these brainwashed self deluders, with their childish concepts, take us back to an age when every aspect of life was controlled by their cult. They are free to be slaves to their gods in private, but free, logical, 21st century, intelligent thinkers, should fight tooth and nail to keep it out of Politics and, especially, away from our kids and schools.


Wow, that just went way over your head, didn't it. "God-is-mysterious-but-he-is-god-so-he-must-have-a-good-reason" is your idea of good logic? Anyway, Epicurus isn't saying god doesn't have a reason. Only that it must be malevolent IF he is "able, but not willing".

Funny that's what the agnostics and atheists argue when it comes to belief in a god. Just because you can't think of a better reason, doesn't mean god did it.

The so called morality of the Christian god has been demonstrated time and time again to be in conflict to what we know of as a free and just democratic society where all people are equal...not just the "chosen" ones who believe.

The instant we decided that slavery was wrong, we became better than the Christian god
The instant we decided that stonings were not an appropriate method of punishment, we became better than the Christian god.


>> ^Morganth:

Just because you can't think of a good reason why God would allow evil and suffering to continue, therefore there can't be one? Why would that be? That's some very poor logic. >> ^A10anis:
Epicurus had it correct in 300BCE;
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Don't let these brainwashed self deluders, with their childish concepts, take us back to an age when every aspect of life was controlled by their cult. They are free to be slaves to their gods in private, but free, logical, 21st century, intelligent thinkers, should fight tooth and nail to keep it out of Politics and, especially, away from our kids and schools.