So where are Steven Colbert, Bill Maher and John Stewart going to get all of their material from now?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Steven, Colbert, Show, Remix, challenge' to 'Steven, Colbert, Show, Remix, challenge, Lawrence, Lessig, Creative, Commons, Copyright' - edited by Trancecoach

>> ^PoweredBySoy:
Ugh.... I expected better from Colbert.


What does that even mean?

You expected more out of comedy/parody show? What could that be? You can't just throw that out there and not back it up.

>> ^charliem:
If the news reflects the people, then there must be a liberal bias in the population.


Was it Steven Colbert that said "Reality has a Liberal Bias"?

not everyone has a natural desire to believe in the Easter Bunny. God is different. Universal. Across cultures, even if they never met. You're just poking fun at genuine religious belief and feeling, by using a ridiculous comparison that doesn't actually compare.

I'm not poking fun at you. I believe that both the Easter Bunny and God are imaginary. You shouldn't accuse someone of being insulting for simply stating their beliefs.

Also, theology is not universal; it varies radically from culture to culture as anyone who has studied comparative religion will tell you.

and also we FEEL the supernatural.. but some people aren't listening and don't count it as evidence.

Just because you feel it, doesn't mean that it's real. Are you open to the possibility that God is just a feeling - a figment of your imagination?

Why do people NOT want to believe the supernatural?

Belief is an either/or proposition. People who have given this some thought either DO or DO NOT believe in God. Want is irrelevant.

"Because they were taught in school in a certain restrictive way that cut off their imagination."

I make my living on my imagination. I'm not sure how public schools are in Eastern Europe, but in America, teachers are not allowed to push Atheism or Theism on kids. We give our students the freedom to make their own decisions on such matters.

"They turn their back on god and then say "i can't see god! so he doesn't exist!"

Again, this would not be allowed in American Public schools. If teachers say that in your country, then they are wrong to do so.

what animosity? I just don't think science will ever "prove" atheism, that's studpid, and i don't think the scientific method is compatible with investigation of the spirit, i think science will progress until it discovers God.

Science won't ever 'prove' anything, because science deals in hypothesis' and theories, which are always up for debate. Science can't prove or disprove God, it can only give you probability.

and you call it "intangible assumptions" whereas i call it "things i feel in my heart and in my gut, which is generally much more reliable than my head or wikipedia"

I'm going to let Steven Colbert cover this one.

"The gut. That's where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. I know some of you are going to say "I did look it up, and that's not true." That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut. I did. My gut tells me that's how our nervous system works."


no. you just hear "anti science" in my writing somehow, you are pushing the polarisation on me, not me on you.

You are getting to the heart of one of the biggest double standards in the theological dialog. When a Theist says 'I believe in God', It is accepted as their point of view without without argument. When an Atheist says "I don't believe in God", Atheists take it as an attack and an insult. Do you see the problem with what you are doing here?

Science isn't currently capable of contradicting my beliefs, and i believe it never will be.

Science says that God is extremely improbable. Scientific theory says that simple beings evolve into more complex beings and never the other way around. Are you OK with this?

euphemism scheuphemism. makes very little difference to me. you just use the word euphemism in an attempt to degrade the idea. God is Love. God is a euphemism for Love. What's the difference? It's all abstract.

Again, you are offended by my beliefs. I'm not attempting to do anything other than tell you my opinion, so please don't accuse me of insulting you.


FWIW i quit going to (anglican) church when i was about 8, because church is a waste of time. I remember we had to draw round our hands and write "Thankyou God for giving me hands". I thought this was absurd, because that implies that god is some kind of asshole who denies some people hands for no reason and i am supposed to be grateful he didn't deny me MY hands? Horrible.

I'm with ya here.

In summary, i think you are allergic to the concept of god, because you have been exposed to so much god related bullshit.

I've studied (and continue to study) religion very thoroughly and not come to any of these conclusions in haste or out of prejudice. I see the value of religion, but my 'gut' tells me God doesn't exist. I don't judge all religious people by the ignorant actions of Bush or bin Laden, or the ignorant words of Dobson or Fahrakahn, in fact I have some dear friends who are religious.


In summary, I think you were taught..

I think you were taught as well.

But you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Science and God together in your brain (and heart) helps you understand the world a lot better than science alone.

Atheists don't believe in God, that means there is neither baby nor bathwater to throw out. You can't throw something out that you don't possess.


Maybe science will catch up, but if science can explain love, then you will say it "disproved" god and i will say it "discovered" god.

I'm sure you could easily find a detailed explanation of the physical and psychological aspects of love if you are interested in it. I'm not sure what your point is, as there is no debate (that I know of) on the explanation of love.

Also, once again, I'm not interested in disproving God or proving you wrong. I'm OK with whatever you believe or want to believe. I'm not trying to convert you.

hope that makes some kind of sense.

I get where you are coming from, but it looks like our discussion is just going in circles. Thanks for the good discussion.

Peace.

belittling a serious subject? i would say that's a pretty good definition of comedy.

fat boy falling off a waterslide is also belittling a serious subject.
jon stewart and steven colbert do a LOT of belittling of serious subjects.

laughter is the best medicine, no?

"You know, BillOreilly, you're just like Stephen Colbert...only without the humor and the wit."

I know you've been itching for a response from me, so I'll give you one.

Son, Steven Colbert is a yellow-dog, no-good, not-funny, witless, egotistical liberal with weird ears and a big mouth. There, ya happy now?

Truthiness becomes machinima! When Martin Luther King had a dream, it was of a world living in brotherhood and racial harmony. Steven Colbert also has a dream, but it's vaguely kinky and somewhat less reputable. And after 48 hours of work, the SL machinima team of Silver and Goldie Goodman had made that deranged dream come true. At least in Second Life.
http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2006/10/your_tube_your_.html

"Reality has a well known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert

Second half -- Part 2

That time when Stewart went on Crossfire was one of the best moments on american television. Stewart really told it to them like it is, and it would be cool if someone could find that clip and link to it here.

In many ways, the today show, with Steven Colbert doing his Bill O'Reilly imitations, is a mirror which shows just how distorted television has become with the distinction between "reporting", "entertaining", and "cheerleading" becoming increasingly blurred, especially on Fox, but more and more also on mainstream channels.