>> ^Issykitty:

He doesn't believe in the separation of church and state. In this sense he is a complete bible belt redneck to me. THe end.


Hmmmm? Let me see... a president who continues to torture, bomb foreign countries, expand the wars, create new military aggressions, refuses to repeal the Patriot Act, condemns Brad Manning of wikileaks, continues the Bush Doctrine, and is a pro-corporatist? Or one who doesn't believe the "rigid separation" between state and church has a basis in the Constitution?

He's right as far as the Constitution is concerned. Still, let's not forget that RP also said, "When fascism comes it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." Does that sound like a "bible belt redneck"?

And for the record, I'm a bible belt redneck, thankyouverymuch. At least as my hometown is counted.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

Yeah, everyone knows his position is that less regulation is better for everyone, somehow that would avert things like the BP oil spill. His positions on these things are demonstrably false, but his supporters are too stupid to recognise them for what they are and I generally try to avoid arguing with stupid people. There's simply no point.
Over and out.


Riiiight. Good stance. I take it you are against all of his positions us dumb people believe in? Things like being anti-war, anti-torture, anti-imprisonment without trial (a'la Brad Manning), and so on.

You're right. There's simply no point.

TLDNR : Science is not agnostic about specific claims in varoise religouse txts and thats why atheists use science and facts derived from scientific method to dispute religion.



Sceince cannot anser if there is a "god" or not in the brad sense of the word but it has certainly disproven Literal interpretations Christainty ,and many other main stream religions , science and the facts derived from science have also helped us understand that morality certainly does not come from a book claming to be the word of god.

The reasons atheists keep going over the same thing is because Manny people are rleigouse in a way that has a negative impact on other peoples lives , such as helping governments pass legislation to ban gay maradge , or banning stem cell research.

Christains and religoise people in general are very active at spreding what they belive ( chirches in big cities iconography and centries old culture left over from old times) active athiests and sceptics are doing a service to socity helping exsplain scienctific methadoligy and proven things about the world.

You may not convert a christain in a conversation but talking to people who are religouse will help you develop critical thinking skills identify falicies and evan help people listneing understand things better.



>> ^VoodooV:

I'm about half way through this video and I'm so fed up already because they're just trying to quibble over minutia as if that would convince anyone.
Again this is another tiresome example of people trying to use facts and logic against someone who rejects facts and logic.
This whole thing (so far) can be summed up by the same statement Dillihunty has used over and over again: "I can't think of any other better explanation, therefore, God did it"
What I hate about atheists is that they've fallen into a trap laid by theists. Science and the Scientific method is AGNOSTIC to god and religion. It doesn't care. Let's be real here, there COULD be a creator, this supposed god could just be so beyond us and beyond our comprehension that set life, the universe and everything up and we are just too ignorant to detect it yet.
But, again, that's not what science is. Science is just making observations and recording them. I did X and Y happened. I did R and S happened and so on and so on. Over time, you make enough observations and you eventually learn something about the world around you. You make more observations and eventually you learn enough to make things like cars and computers and rockets and telescopes. A long time ago, theists said they knew something like lightning was a creation of god and indicated whether or not god was angry with you. If you make enough observations, you know that lightning is independent of whether or not you've been a good person or not. Ever since that day. Theists have been afraid of science and have viewed science as the opposition.
Science is not the opposition of the idea of a god. Theists have set science up as the enemy and Atheists fall for it and unwittingly play that role. The public perception is Atheists and Theists are fighting for dominance, but that's not true...or at least it shouldn't be. Right or wrong, the public perception is that Atheism is anti-god and "debates" like this just cement that mentality. Theists make the argument all the time that all morality flows from god and if you're an atheist then that means you're anti-morality. No one is attacking that argument and they should be.
Science is just saying, "I don't know, but I've made the observation that if I do X, then Y happens, and so far, when I have my friend over there also do X, Y happens for him too. Science is AGNOSTIC to god.
It's like Dillihunty said, He supports freedom of religion. It's only an issue when people of religion use religion as the reason they want to dictate what happens to other people...people who probably don't share that faith. The obvious question then gets raised: "Why should that religious view take precedence over another religious view, or a view that comes from no religion."
I'm sorry, but quibbling over bacteria and evolution accomplishes nothing as a means to prove god exists or doesn't exist. Besides, god isn't the problem. It's the people that use god as an excuse that are the problem.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'whose line, naroshi, song styles, rock ballad, improv' to 'whose line, naroshi, song styles, rock ballad, improv, brad sherwood' - edited by brycewi19

@blankfist I'm not sure why you're sticking up for Ayn Rand. I suspect it's because Ron Paul uses this same reasoning all the time.

Simplified Brad DeLong:

If your argument is that the government has the legitimate power to set its rules, but the rules it has set are less than optimal, you're not being hypocritical in following the suboptimal rules that are in place.

However, if your argument is that some higher moral absolute applies, and should be considered the guiding principles of all human behavior, regardless of whether your government's laws are congruent or not, then it stands to reason that you yourself will at least adhere to those principles, even when it wouldn't be in your own self-interest.

For example, if you think collecting taxes is actually a crime that is comparable to rape, then you shouldn't be collecting more money in Medicare payments than you paid into the system. To do so means you're requiring the government to rape people for your own personal gain. Collecting those benefits means that every penny of surplus you get leads to someone, somewhere, sometime being violently forced to pay that much more in taxes.

This also applies to getting earmarks for your district. To spend is to tax (so sayeth Milton Friedman), so if you bring home pork for your district, you're forcing other people somewhere to pay higher taxes to pay for your pork.

@kronosposeidon oh yeah! Only because @blankfist decided to flake out and stop responding.

Incidentally, @dystopianfuturetoday, I ran across a post today from Brad DeLong about this whole Ayn Rand accepting help from Medicare business that I find, well, perfect: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/02/deriving-their-just-powers-from-the-consent-of-the-governed.html

>> ^Retroboy:
Oh if only that were Michael Bay in that chair...


The HELL you say! Don't be stupid.



Those were fake guns.

Brad bird has made the best Pixar films other than A Bug's Life. Great stuff.

i knew Brad Bird from Pixar, had no idea he did so many other things I've loved

>> ^rottenseed:

WOW Tom Cruise...somebody has some connections.


Brad Bird is directing Tom Cruise and Simon Pegg in the next Mission Impossible movie. This was probably done on set with props from said movie. It is amazing either way.

Your video, Brad Bird has the best acceptance speech (2011 ASIFA), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^Bruti79:

Aww man, the Iron Giant was awesome!


<verklempt>"Suppppermannn..."</verklempt>

>> ^rottenseed:

WOW Tom Cruise...somebody has some connections.

Well, he's directing Mission Impossible 4 at the moment, which would explain the presence of Tom Cruise and Simon Pegg.

Thanks, schnukems.
In reply to this comment by NicoleBee:
*promote

>> ^Chaucer:

This was only the first round score. It went on:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/01/13/ibm-watson-takes-jeopardy
-champs/
"Though Watson ended the exhibition in the lead with $4,400 compared to Jenning’s $3,400 and Rutter’s $1,200, a continuation of that battle shown on internal televisions during lunch revealed that Jenning had pulled ahead after scoring a Daily Double. Watson still isn’t perfect, it seems."
>> ^entr0py:
>> ^Chaucer:
Actually, this story has been going around that the computer won. Which is WRONG! If you get the rest of the story, you'll know that the computer ends up getting stomped by Jennings by the end of the segment.

You're probably thinking of a different test. Watson did win the game shown in the video. Though they only played single Jeopardy. http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/13/ibms-wat
son-supercomputer-destroys-all-humans-in-jeopardy-pract/
Final Score
Watson : $4,400
Ken : $3,400
Brad : $1,200.



I hope they do more of these with v2, v3, v4, Skynet, etc.