I presume you are a Patrick Stewart fan
http://www.videosift.com/video/Patrick-Stewart-Alphabet

ROFL you fucking handed it to MGR big time..

In reply to this comment by BenjaminFranklin2u:
M>> ^MarineGunrock:
Except that instead of complaining about having to wait for trains, people will complain about waiting for the loading car to show up. Then when it does, they'll complain about waiting for the train....still.
Someone please tell me how this solves any problems. - And for that matter, how it won't create new ones.


Thats easy, the energy it takes to stop and accelerate a train at each stop takes tremendous amounts of energy... therefore by using a simple deceleration rail on the top of each train the boarding cart merely uses the inertia of the already moving train to launch and dock boarding cart. Saves the train having to stop...therefore increasing the number of stops/stations you can have in a rail line without increasing the number of trains you would have to run. This would save HUGE amounts of energy, and therefore HUGE amounts of money, and is INCREDIBLY efficient.
Smart people do not usually complain about waiting for trains, they are usually on time. It's the people on the train already that have to constantly stop to pick other people up, making the journey ever longer depending on the amount of stops.
Your welcome for doing the thinking for you.

I have a friend that is a cat thrower. Made me think of him. :-D I'll never forget the meowurgles of a cat he threw 15 feet in the air, then landed in his pond. I love sadistic humor !

dear lord what is going on in your avatar? Whats the story there? :-D

I need your help urgently with this one. We're (Canada) taking over. Need a quick upvote to quickly overcome the superior numbers of our opposition. It'll just be like that time we burnt down the Whitehouse in the war of 1812!

http://www.videosift.com/video/We-hereby-claim-this-website-in-the-name-of-Canada

It is certainly a reasonable analogy for use amongst like-minded non-theists, but I'm saying its not an appropriate analogy given the context. What is that context? This caller, his family, his friends, and a great majority of the culture he is familiar with go through rituals that reinforce the idea that Jesus was the son of God, etc., etc., almost on a daily basis. Telling this man that its *not difficult* to be hold disbelief in God (easy as not believing in bigfoot), which goes against the grain of his entire cultural experience since birth, is not seeing things from his perspective.

So! His question was, 'isn't it harder to not believe?' answered by, 'do you think its hard not to believe in bigfoot?'

Again, this ignores completely the context of the callers questions. In other words, I would have answered: "Yes, it can be difficult for some to begin to come to grips with disbelief, but over time you realize that believing in God and angels is exactly like believing in the Easter Bunny and leprechauns. And we both probably have little trouble believing in those things."

(@ my analogy attempt; You live your entire life believing the world is flat. No evidence is ever presented to contradict this, only evidence that further supports this idea. All your family and friends believe this. I come along and say, "nope, world's round, here's a picture of it". Would it be difficult to believe me, especially if family and friends never saw the picture or met me?)


In reply to this comment by BenjaminFranklin2u:
The bigfoot example is sound, because it addresses the fact that it's highly unlikely that bigfoot exists, only because there is little/no evidence to support it. In the same frame that the caller thinks that just because YOU believe something that you were told, doesn't make it true. BigFoot stories are just that, stories that are contorted and shared. Whereas your example of whether or not the world is round is an absolute, something that only requires evidence, not ANY belief. That is why your example does not apply. By absolute I mean to the utmost knowing that can possibly be known.

Please tell me why.

I liked the bigfoot analogy on the surface, but, unless this caller is from a family with deeply held belief in bigfoot, the analogy does not recognize the difficulty sometimes encountered in following logic that challenges strongly ingrained beliefs.

In reply to this comment by BenjaminFranklin2u:
bamdrew
Your ignorance of logic eludes me, your example has nothing to do with what he is referring too. Watch it again.