Let's cut to the chase here Shinyblurry:

You say that there's a John Smith (let's use that as a synonym for your god) , who lives close by, and he has absolute knowledge of the universe, and nothing can be known with certainty without his direct contact with me.

Let's for argument's sake say that, through whatever means, I become convinced by you that there is indeed this guy John Smith who does indeed have all this knowledge...

So how can I get to meet this wonderful John Smith gent? Does he actually even exist? Is he entirely made up? Is his existence some form of delusion, like a folk legend about fairies at the end of the garden? Have you dreamed of him while high on drugs? How can I work this out?

You say proof has to come through personal revelation by sincerely inviting him into your life, but this is *entirely* false. I was brought up a catholic, went to religious schooling, was baptised, made my communion, and confirmed, I preyed to him regularly. I did more than just invite him into my life, I spoke to him, and sometimes even pleaded with him, but I have never, ever, received any indication of any kind, no matter how minuscule, that he actually existed.

Even Matt Dillahunty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty) was raised a Baptist, and sought to become a minister, but now he is one of the world's most highly regarded proponents of secularism and atheism.

And what about all the existing ministers that leave religious orders and become atheists? There are currently organisations set up in the USA (such as The Clergy Project - http://clergyproject.org/) to help these people integrate back into society. I also personally know an ordained priest who left the priesthood on becoming an atheist.

Without you first proving that your god exists I can't entertain any notions that he may have any knowledge about anything. You've told me that this can be done by inviting him into your life, but this is entirely and demonstrably false.

In the absence of any proof / revelation that this omnipotent all knowing god of which you speak even exists, I'm afraid the knowledge you claim that he has must remain unproven too.

Jump the first hurdle of a god's existence, until then we're wasting our time debating what you claim he knows.

The only Baptist minister with balloons of Heroin up his ass!!

Sounds pretty disgusting what happened to him. At the same time, he seems pretty disgusting himself.

He's either a next level troll, or he thinks gays should be executed.

http://www.signorile.com/2009/09/steven-l-anderson-killing-gays-is-not.html
>> ^artician:

So, I went and looked up his other videos. Turns out he wasn't actually joking; the guy is a baptist pastor. Kinda ruins the fun for me, but that's not the important part.
The important part was that I guess the border patrol got sick of the guy, or something. They forced him to stop once and tazed and beat the hell out of him. What's more, the comments on facebook were largely along the lines of "you deserved it because you're a religious asshole", which just makes the problem so much worse when you have that whole "I don't agree with your philosophy, therefore you don't deserve equal rights" ignorance into it.
Here are some of the videos from his negative experience:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL411D86B36B802F1D&feature=pl
cp
Which I guess happened in 2009. Surprised I haven't heard of it before. So sick of this country...

So, I went and looked up his other videos. Turns out he wasn't actually joking; the guy is a baptist pastor. Kinda ruins the fun for me, but that's not the important part.

The important part was that I guess the border patrol got sick of the guy, or something. They forced him to stop once and tazed and beat the hell out of him. What's more, the comments on facebook were largely along the lines of "you deserved it because you're a religious asshole", which just makes the problem so much worse when you have that whole "I don't agree with your philosophy, therefore you don't deserve equal rights" ignorance into it.

Here are some of the videos from his negative experience:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL411D86B36B802F1D&feature=plcp

Which I guess happened in 2009. Surprised I haven't heard of it before. So sick of this country...

I know an older Christian that I greatly respect who blames the recent collapse of conservatism on the fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention. He was in seminary school when it happened. The fundamentalists moved in and started a wave of ideological contraction that has become the basis for the social side of modern neo-conservatism.

In that regard I blame fundamental Christianity for the general stupidification of the US.>> ^RFlagg:

Problem is, they say the reason we were doing better was because we had God in schools, then we took him out of the schools and everything else... everything comes to how god was involved back then and less so now therefore we are paying the punishment of not having god in our lives... never mind how well many of the more atheist countries are doing (they think atheist countries are more like the old USSR)...
>> ^Fairbs:
Something most Republicans can't grasp is our country is better off when the rich are taxed more. 40 years ago, taxes on capital gains were 80%, but now Romney feels he's taxed too much at 15.

Baptists don't believe in communion. Are they less Christian? No.

Give me a fucking break with this bullshit video.

All religion is complete fictional bullshit anyway, so arguing which one is better is like arguing about which Star Trek, Star Wars or Harry Potter book is the best or that Unicorns poop rainbows.

>> ^scannex:

Certainly didn't take you long to resort to personal attacks. Sorry I annoy you.
Congratulations, you annoy me.
1. Your connection is ridiculous. I must somehow be privileged or sexist to have this view?
2. I guess I cannot figure out your point, since I only directly dealt with #3 in your post it sure sounded like "because she cannot turn off being fat, its nothing like smoking". Your other points are you soapboxing about how you want the world to be and are not something I am likely to convince you about.
3. She needs to binge eat in front of the camera to draw the conclusion that she overeats? I completely disagree with you that SHE is in a situation where being overweight is a necessity.
A point I will concede to: It is WILDLY more expensive to healthily than to eat garbage. Being on a local TV program however makes me think she is likely able to afford healthier choices.
3b. Please feel free to provide some hard numbers on the incidence of genetic obesity
4. I redefined behavior following you redefining behavior as essentially a state one can inhibit in the presence of others. Obesity is a behavioral problem. Feel free to use meriam webster if that link is insufficient for you.
5. I didn't ignore 1, and 2 of your post I just didn't reply to it. I don't agree with you. Period. It is tangential to our argument and while valid arguments will further take it off topic.I will say that you ascribe such heightened value to everything it makes me think you are on the brink of a nervous breakdown.
6. What do I care if what she said was not reprehensible? To be blunt, she cites this as a bullying event. It isn't. That is inaccurate. Its becoming the first warcry of those with hurt feelings. My main problem with it is that doing this has the effect of DEVALUING the term, and often when that happens people become desensitized to it. Not every statement is bullying. Not everyone who hears a negative utterance was bullied.
7. One said wasn't saying Shh. One side was privately making a statment. Voicing an opinion, however dickish. Was it his place? Nope. Was it nice? Nope. Was it his right? Yes if you live in any of the 50 states it is his right. A lot of assholes do things with words, like the westboro baptist church and gay soldiers funerals. When it reaches a point of bullying things need to be done (and in the westboro case something WAS done to stop them). That's a good thing. That differentiation between systemic hatred and one guy writing an email NEEDS to be made clear.
Last to your example of Chris Christie, people are BRUTAL to that guy. He gets his share of mail I assure you. People give him shit for the exact same reason of being int he public eye as well. The sexist/privelaged thing is just wild speculation on your part that only makes an angry situation seem angrier. That says a lot about you and your mindset, too.
>> ^hpqp:

Words



It's a fair point to call me out on making presumptions about you and linking your comments to those I've been reading elsewhere; my apologies for that.

You cannot dissociate my first 2 points above from the third: you do not go telling strangers, even in a passive-aggressive way, that they are unfit to be in the public eye. For someone so quick to see personal attacks in comments about you, you seem rather impervious to those in the letter you defend (then again, 'tis true that I'm not very subtle when pissed). The real tangent, one I should probably not have given so much weight to, is whether or not obesity is something one can show/not show and induce simply by showing it (my argument remains valid, btw, it's just not so important as to repeat it all over, and your strawmen are so obvious as to no longer require pointing out).

Your point as I understand it is twofold: the letter-writer has a right to send the anchor his personal criticism and is right to do so. I only agree with the first part; he has a right to do so ((so long) as it is not harassment/threats), but she is also right to call him out for it, and point out that such behaviour is wrong, and that it participates in a culture that tolerates bullying, by letting people think it's fine to say whatever they think to whomever without questioning whether it might be hurtful or not. And nobody's saying that something like this is as bad as WBC-style bullying or systemic racist bs, just like nobody would argue that a female politician being meowed in a session by a colleague is as bad a case of sexism/misogyny as a continually harassed or beaten wife, for example. They are, however, on a spectrum with a unifying underlying belief, namely "I can and should voice my opinions/(dis)tastes about others without taking how it affects them into consideration (and society has nothing to say about it)".

The reason I projected the whole sexism/privilege thing on your comments is because they contain the same "it's harmless/no big deal" and "just poor me self-victimisation" and "what's with making a private event/exchange public?" and "you're trampling his rights!" dismissals. It was wrong of me to do so, but at least now you can understand why I did.

Speaking of projection, presumption and personal attacks, you sure are quick to jump to (and stick to) the conclusion that the anchor is overweight because she has poor lifestyle choices (the same assumptions behind the letter), which is why I (and @bmacs27) went on the tangent of "there's-more-to-obesity-than-being-a-lazy-junkfood-gobler". The assumption that an overweight person is that way because s/he choses so is insulting and ignorant in and of itself, the same way the GOP's "poor people are that way cuz they're lazy moochers who don't pull themselves up by the bootstraps" is.

As for Chris Christie, I refer to point 1) of my comment above: public denunciation all 'round!

I hope that has clarified my argument. Otherwise, I refer you to @Thumper's comments, less contentious than mine and with which I wholly agree.

Certainly didn't take you long to resort to personal attacks. Sorry I annoy you.
Congratulations, you annoy me.
1. Your connection is ridiculous. I must somehow be privileged or sexist to have this view?

2. I guess I cannot figure out your point, since I only directly dealt with #3 in your post it sure sounded like "because she cannot turn off being fat, its nothing like smoking". Your other points are you soapboxing about how you want the world to be and are not something I am likely to convince you about.

3. She needs to binge eat in front of the camera to draw the conclusion that she overeats? I completely disagree with you that SHE is in a situation where being overweight is a necessity.
A point I will concede to: It is WILDLY more expensive to healthily than to eat garbage. Being on a local TV program however makes me think she is likely able to afford healthier choices.
3b. Please feel free to provide some hard numbers on the incidence of genetic obesity

4. I redefined behavior following you redefining behavior as essentially a state one can inhibit in the presence of others. Obesity is a behavioral problem. Feel free to use meriam webster if that link is insufficient for you.

5. I didn't ignore 1, and 2 of your post I just didn't reply to it. I don't agree with you. Period. It is tangential to our argument and while valid arguments will further take it off topic.I will say that you ascribe such heightened value to everything it makes me think you are on the brink of a nervous breakdown.

6. What do I care if what she said was not reprehensible? To be blunt, she cites this as a bullying event. It isn't. That is inaccurate. Its becoming the first warcry of those with hurt feelings. My main problem with it is that doing this has the effect of DEVALUING the term, and often when that happens people become desensitized to it. Not every statement is bullying. Not everyone who hears a negative utterance was bullied.

7. One said wasn't saying Shh. One side was privately making a statment. Voicing an opinion, however dickish. Was it his place? Nope. Was it nice? Nope. Was it his right? Yes if you live in any of the 50 states it is his right. A lot of assholes do things with words, like the westboro baptist church and gay soldiers funerals. When it reaches a point of bullying things need to be done (and in the westboro case something WAS done to stop them). That's a good thing. That differentiation between systemic hatred and one guy writing an email NEEDS to be made clear.

Last to your example of Chris Christie, people are BRUTAL to that guy. He gets his share of mail I assure you. People give him shit for the exact same reason of being int he public eye as well. The sexist/privelaged thing is just wild speculation on your part that only makes an angry situation seem angrier. That says a lot about you and your mindset, too.

>> ^hpqp:

Words

Thanks, deano!

In reply to this comment by Deano:
*promote

>> ^bobknight33:

The voice vote said they are anti GOD.>> ^charliem:
Dont be fucking rediculous, they aren't anti god, they are anti-lets-call-this-a-christian-nation-and-a-christian-nation-only.
Its absurd. A baptist minister standing up and asking that the DNC adopt that as a policy, when there are more than just chrisitans within your nation, let alone the FACT THAT IT WAS NOT FUCKING FOUNDED AS ONE, NOR BY CHRISTIANS!!
The founders DESPISED RELIGION!!!



Read into it what you want.

The voice vote said they are anti GOD.>> ^charliem:

Dont be fucking rediculous, they aren't anti god, they are anti-lets-call-this-a-christian-nation-and-a-christian-nation-only.
Its absurd. A baptist minister standing up and asking that the DNC adopt that as a policy, when there are more than just chrisitans within your nation, let alone the FACT THAT IT WAS NOT FUCKING FOUNDED AS ONE, NOR BY CHRISTIANS!!
The founders DESPISED RELIGION!!!

Dont be fucking rediculous, they aren't anti god, they are anti-lets-call-this-a-christian-nation-and-a-christian-nation-only.

Its absurd. A baptist minister standing up and asking that the DNC adopt that as a policy, when there are more than just chrisitans within your nation, let alone the FACT THAT IT WAS NOT FUCKING FOUNDED AS ONE, NOR BY CHRISTIANS!!

The founders DESPISED RELIGION!!!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'jack schaaf, shaft, sermon, first baptist, hammond' to 'jack schaap, shaft, sermon, first baptist, hammond' - edited by silvercord

In reply to this comment by shuac:
It's actually the exact opposite. The cult channel is for cult-related stuff (scientology, branch-davidians, westboro baptist church, reverend Sun Myung Moon, etc.) not for cult classics (Buckaroo Banzai, Rocky Horror Picture Show, etc.)
>> ^SpaceOddity:

LOL i would've added it to Cult but I assumed it was cult as in "cult classic"



Good to know, thanks for educating me

It's actually the exact opposite. The cult channel is for cult-related stuff (scientology, branch-davidians, westboro baptist church, reverend Sun Myung Moon, etc.) not for cult classics (Buckaroo Banzai, Rocky Horror Picture Show, etc.)
>> ^SpaceOddity:

LOL i would've added it to Cult but I assumed it was cult as in "cult classic"