Your video, QI - How Many Sheep on Noah's Ark, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

any creator who only reveals himself to certain people and not others is a dick and not worth following or caring about. Any person who "thinks" god has been revealed to them and uses that as an assertion of authority over those who haven't had similar "revelations" are not just dicks, they deserve to be locked up.

I'm still ignoring shiny but I'm assuming he's making all the same tired arguments about god revealing himself as he always does. I'm sure he's also still quoting the bible as an authoritative source.

As Matt has continued to point out, secular morality has proven itself better than biblical morality.

God and religion are two separate things. always have, always will be. The question of the existence of a creator is largely irrelevant. If a creator exists and I'm doing things contrary to what this creator wishes me to do, tough. If this creator has a problem with it, it can come down here and tell me directly instead of using a ancient book as it's main source of communication. God is either a dick or incompetent for using such an inefficient means of communicating its wishes. Even if a creator did manifest itself physically and declared its undisputed existence, this creator would have a lot of angry people (and that includes people who DO believe in a creator) on its hands demanding some answers and rightfully so. The threat of eternal damnation just really isn't that effective of a means of ensuring compliance. Again. secular morality beats biblical morality.

Even if a creator does not exist it still doesn't change anything. Even if it was possible to scientifically prove a creator doesn't exist. It doesn't change shit. Countless people will still continue believing it. A creator may not exist, but Religion ain't going anywhere for a long time. There isn't a magic set of words that magically convince someone to not believe in an imaginary god. This ain't the TV show Stargate and there is no "Ark of Truth" and in my opinion, it would be immoral to use such a device if it existed. (great googely boogely that was such a horrible tv movie).

If we want a free society, people have to make their own conclusions. By and large, all atheists and agnostics support Freedom of Religion. They just want religion out of government. You can be religious, but government has to be secular.

science is agnostic to the existence of a creator. It doesn't care if a creator exists. If the evidence is there. then the evidence will point to it. If there is no evidence then it doesn't exist. Even if there is evidence and we just haven't found it yet, we still have to err on the side treating it as if it doesn't exist. Theists make the claim the a creator exists. You have to back that shit up. The burden is on you to prove it exists. Not only that, but you have a double burden. Not only do you have to prove a creator exists, you have prove that this creator wants you to do X, Y, and Z. None of which has been done.

And guess what, not all atheists/agnostics believe/disbelieve the same thing. just because you trot out some non-believer that says things that other non-believers don't agree with doesn't mean a thing. Yeah, atheists and agnostics like to squabble over the definitions of atheist and agnostic and the myriad of combinations of both words. So what? it doesn't remove the theist's double burden of proof, Yes, there are some atheists out there who don't just want separation of church and state, they would eliminate all forms of religion if they could. Shock, someone in a group is taking things a little far. ZOMG! THAT NEVER HAPPENS ANYWHERE!! It STILL doesn't remove the theist's double burden of proof.

Matt has argued this countless times. you make a claim? you gotta back it up. You may wish to quibble over the semantics of what an atheist is or isn't. I too don't strictly agree with his definition of atheism. But he has declared his views on the subject countless times: He used to be a Christian, but he decided that he needed to know that what he was preaching was actually rational and Christianity could not meet the burden of proof in his eyes. So he is not making the claim that god doesn't exist, because he cannot prove that. The problem is, Christians, or any other religion for that matter cannot prove any of their claims either, thus, there is no reason to believe them or consider them trustworthy.

You want to quibble over whether or not that's an atheist or an agnostic, be my fucking guest but it's just a distraction that doesn't change the end result. Matt (and myself) do not accept the claim that a creator exists, nor do we accept the claim that even if a creator exists, that this creator follows the Christian belief system (or any other belief system for that matter). And the reason that we can't accept any of these claims is because of the lack of evidence and not meeting the burden of proof

This is old, that kid went on to play the giant Nazi in the Flying Wing scenes of Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Violence, death and danger raises the stakes of a narrative and triggers the production of adrenaline in the minds of the viewer. Our ancient ancestors got the same rush by outrunning a grizzly bear. Luckily, we can tap into this brain narcotic with much less risk.

There are films that do seem to pointlessly revel in gore and suffering, most notably Saw 1-26, but Quentin certainly isn't guilty of this kind of torture porn. Steven Spielberg killed at least as many Nazis in Raiders of the Lost Ark as Quentin killed racist confederates in Django, but Spielberg never gets criticized for it. The violence in both films serve the dual purposes of making the bad guys really bad, and making the catharsis of revenge in the end really good.

Violence in media is a reflection of violence in culture, not the other way around. Quentin didn't dream up slavery, lynchings, torture, mutilation and the other types of racial violence in his film. That stuff really happened.

And to Spike Lee: Django blowing racists to hell with TNT is how Tarrentino deals with race in cinema. Mookie tossing a garbage can through the front window of Sal's pizzaria is how you deal with race in cinema. Both are great films with the same perspective on race done in completely different styles. Get over yourself. If you want to criticize a film about race directed by a white guy, do 'Crash', that movie was a patronizing pile of shit.

an amazing franchise, except for Universe. loved it.
space battle wise, ds9 won. but not by too much. ds9 had 3 to 4 times the average budget per episode any episode in this franchise did.

the sg-1 movie "Ark of Truth" had a 7 million dollar budget. That was about on par for one single episode of ds9. the sfx people at sg-1 in Vancouver did an amazing job for this show, Atlantis and I guess Universe. Still, I hated Universe.


*quality

HAHAHAHA! Space ARK! =oD

At no time did I say "Lana Lang" here was justified or right in doing what she did. As some of the less-testy lefties here admit, she certainly did not act like someone who was caught deliberately trying to do wrong.

What I am saying is, compared to the vote-rigging schemes by taxocrat elected officials and the illegal "granting" of amnesty by His Majesty, liberals have no solid ground to attack voter suppression, which consists of asking for the SAME FUCKING ID used to buy alcohol.

Oh that's right, we're not allowed to criticize The One's SHIT performance in office, because he's (half) Black.

Liberals will always have a ready-made excuse why obamanomics failed, or why no one is investing in this poisoned business climate, or why millions have been added to food stamps and disability, or why tyrants around the world scoff at His Earness' spinelessness. But it's your right to worship at the feet of this fool.

Regarding partisanship, am I inclined to be a little less harsh towards conservative foolishness than liberal foolishness? Of course. Only now, liberal foolishness means the wholesale ruination of the system.

Seriously, American libs, why are you still here? Canada and Europe ALREADY HAVE free health care and all the PC bullshit already set in stone! If I believed as you do, I'd have moved a long time ago.



>> ^cosmovitelli:

>> ^quantumushroom:
I'll see your one confused girl attacked by a liberal harpie with these clowns and His Earness' amnesty for one million illegals in June.

Behold the hypocrisy of the partisan.. funny how reality flips upside down depending on the color of the offenders T shirt..
Harpies and cuties aside any reasonably impartial fan of democracy would say this shit CANNOT PASS

>> ^quantumushroom:

I'll see your one confused girl attacked by a liberal harpie with these clowns and His Earness' amnesty for one million illegals in June.


Behold the hypocrisy of the partisan.. funny how reality flips upside down depending on the color of the offenders T shirt..
Harpies and cuties aside any reasonably impartial fan of democracy would say this shit CANNOT PASS

I'll see your one confused girl attacked by a liberal harpie with these clowns and His Earness' amnesty for one million illegals in June.

You're correct. I meant to write "Full Scale Replica," but there weren't enough character-spaces in the title available. I've fixed the title (sans space) to reflect the change.>> ^spoco2:

The title is misleading. Bu saying 'scale replica' it makes it sound like it's not full size, but rather partial scale.
Saying 'full size' would make more sense.

The title is misleading. Bu saying 'scale replica' it makes it sound like it's not full size, but rather partial scale.

Saying 'full size' would make more sense.

And for god's sake video maker TURN DOWN THE BACKGROUND MUSIC!

I'm glad some religious nutters actually built a full scale ark, because it can show precisely why this would NEVER work. Just TRY to put two of every animal on earth into that thing and have them live... go on, try.

It's really not very big now is it? And they really think that all of the types of animals on earth are going to live in there for over a month.

Good luck with that.

It STUNS me that even when faced with this sort of reality, seeing the thing from their story built and thinking about it with any sort of critical thinking, that they could then go 'Yeah, that'd work'.

Stunning.

"...What ever you call this thing."
How about: Noah's Ark 2.0