In fact, to further comment:
I wonder how much sooner we would have come up with our technological advancements if religion was not there to limit and persecute science as witchcraft for hundreds of years.
>> ^Sagemind:

"If the bible wasn't true, I don't think we'd even be creating Jet engines"
- WTF. Where does that correlation come from?

>> ^Sagemind:

"If the bible wasn't true, I don't think we'd even be creating Jet engines"
- WTF. Where does that correlation come from?


If you count the letters of the word "bible", what do you get?
5, correct.
Now multiply this by 2 and you get 10.
What has 10 letters too?
"Jet engines", exactly!
You see? How could this be the case if the bible wasn't true?

once again because of shitty media, I can't take any sides. The interview was just noise. Neither side makes their case well. The only argument I can make is that once again, there is this ridiculous notion that this supposed bombshell was just missed during the 2008 election and just magically is discovered coincidentally before another election. It just reeks of desperation. In addition it's nothing that dramatically bad. There is no smoking gun. When push comes to shove, the argument is "Obama will give preferential treatment to blacks" not exactly a bombshell.

I also find it funny. Conservatives get so angry when the left "plays the race card" but its ok when Conservatives play it?

I don't see the point anyway. As if conservatives need any sort of evidence or logic. They're going to hate Obama regardless of what he does.

The movie Armageddon could be real and Obama could be Harry Stamper and save the entire world and they'd still find a way to hate him.

I've wondered this for ages now. Is there some significance in the 2012 theory of armageddon inasmuch as we seem to be heading towards an enormous shift in how things are going to be. Things do need to change, that much no one can argue.

I like both Chris and Sam, but after reading the passage I think Sam was irresponsible in his writing - though I see it as more glib than malicious. I'm happy to discuss it with anyone who disagrees, but the way I interpret the passage is...

"If Muslim Jihadists - who fear not death and want nothing more than to nuke us for religious reasons - ever came to power in a state that possessed nuclear weapons, our only option would be to nuke them first. It would be horrible, absurd, unthinkable and would result in millions of deaths and would likely lead to retaliation.... BUT IT WOULD BE THE FAULT OF RELIGION."

I think the problem is three-fold, a) that he mounts an argument that justifies preemptive global nuclear war, b) that, sadly, he paints our conflict as one of religion and not one of foreign policy and c) that he sees Muslims as crazy people who would sacrifice the lives of their children in exchange for dead Americans and heavenly virgins. This is indefensible.

Let me respectfully remind my good sift libs that Middle Eastern rage against the US has to do with foreign policy, not religion. It's blowback. It was Bush that said they hate us for our freedom, and Chomsky (on the left) and Ron Paul (on the right) that said they want us to stop bombing them, building bases in their countries and installing puppet dictators. Are we really going to side with the Bush doctrine instead of having to concede something to a person of faith?

Again, I like both these guys and would rather they didn't fight, but Hedges makes a fair point. We atheists aren't used to being criticized from the left and it puts us in a weird position. I don't think Sam is a hater, I think he just wrote an irresponsible couple of paragraphs in haste.

Anyway, the full passage is below. Judge for yourself. Tell me where I'm wrong.

SAM HARRIS: "It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen. Indeed, given the immunity to all reasonable intrusions that faith enjoys in our discourse, a catastrophe of this sort seems increasingly likely. We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry. The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it. Given the steady proliferation of technology, it is safe to say that time is not on our side."

Obligatory Armageddon comment in 5-4-3-2...

>> ^hpqp:

Am I the only ZP fan truly tired at having to frantically scroll my volume bar from one extreme to another every time because of that godawful intro/outro music?


I'm with you on that one.

I liked Red Faction Armageddon. Sure the plot was silly and all that, but it had good old fashioned blow-the-hell-out-of-everything arcade shooter gameplay that worked pretty well.

It came out at a good time for that, right in the middle of a big lull, so I don't see anyone buying it now with all sorts of whiz bang stuff like Deus Ex coming out, but when it goes on sale on Steam for $20 or less, I recommend fans of mindless action checking it out.

Your video, Zero Punctuation: Red Faction Armageddon, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^Ti_Moth:

I can't remember the last THQ game I actually enjoyed.


What about de Blob? I quite enjoyed that

>> ^lampishthing:

He's a little bit obsessed with gold. He sounds like an intelligent crackpot though, has points but they sound silly because he's predicting Armageddon.


When I was a young lad, gold was trading at 300. It is now well over 1600, dabbling into 1700s. Pretty crazy. I have been re-investigating bit-coins again. Seems mostly immune to the kinds of political hijinx that go on with paper money. And unlike Gold, isn't as susceptible to deflationary spiral due to economic growth. It has a built in 4% inflation based on Milton Friedman's own formula for monetary growth. That was his main gripe with gold, is it is prone to tampering, and (rapid) deflation in times of (rapid) growth. I might start bit coin mining here in the future, a small investment of time and energy is a good opportunity cost for a money that doesn't rely on petty people making all the calls.

He's a little bit obsessed with gold. He sounds like an intelligent crackpot though, has points but they sound silly because he's predicting Armageddon.

@longde
The resulting depression? Oh, so we missed that bullet?

Currency armageddon? No, just get rid of the central planning and allow alternative currencies.

We have to disagree on the politics; this last fiasco has shown me politics and ideology trump our economy for some of these rascals.

There is a huge difference between letting the 1st Bank of Palookaville fail, and letting the likes of CitiBank and BOA fail. You much be rich enough to think you can ride out the resulting depression, or an ascetic.

I think I get it. So, screw everything, let's just declare currency armageddon, and start from scratch? >> ^marbles:
>> ^longde:
To answer your first question a) republican filibuster, b) democrats are a coalition, not a lock-step party, so there are "blue dogs" who would not every support tax increases.
To your second point, what would you have done 3 years ago? I'm curious. Let the banks, car companies fail, and let our country sink into depression? Obama's problem is that he didn't spend enough, not that he spent too much.
I think your last paragraph shows a very limited perspective indeed. Hope you're not anyone's CPA.>> ^marbles:
If Obama or the democrats wanted to raise taxes, why didn't they do it when they had super-majorities in the house and senate. Congress ingores it's responsibility to pass a budget the last few years and instead decides to "stimulate" the economy with huge deficit spending. 1.5 Trillion x 2 years. They overspend by 3 Trillion!!! Do you know how much a trillion dollars is? Meanwhile the Fed is handing out free loans to mega-banks totaling 15 trillion so they can speculate on any and everything with fake bids using fake money. All the while colluding with S&P and other rating agencies until the housing bubble pops, but no problem: They made huge bets on that too. But now they need bailouts, otherwise the stock market will crash: Financial terrorism!
You can't fix this with taxes and cuts. A system based on debt can only be fixed by either 1. defaulting or 2. repudiating the debt.


No, it was never an issue. Don't buy that political bullshit. Government is a lock-step party. Back then they were still claiming they wouldn't need to raise taxes, meanwhile deficit spending by 1.5 trillion.
Second point, absolutely lets the banks fail. We have bankruptcy laws for a reason. By the way, plenty did fail, just not the ones involved in the behind the scenes fraud and collusion--most of those were saved.
Third paragraph: Suppose I am the sole creator of money and I create $5 dollars. This is the only money I have ever created. I invented this money from nothing and loan/give it to you under the agreement that you would repay me $10 dollars the following week. Where do you get the other $5 dollars to repay me from?

Please help me.Is this the 21st century or the 7th? As the poster said, were this not so serious it would be laughable. If one of these crazy, uneducated, brainwashed loons is elected as president, then I have little doubt Armageddon will be sooner, rather than later. And people wonder why Atheists are becoming more vocal. God help us all (Pun intended).