Ignoring the bad and making excuses for failure? Sounds like godless communism took its cue from the Bible then.

Genocide, rape, slavery, cannibalism: all facets of 'modern' communist dictatorships.

If Christians follow an "evil" God, how much more evil are the men and women who declare themselves to be gods?

Actually, Tim and Eric's show is a solid entry into post-WWII France's "theater of the absurd", which is rooted in existential philosophy. It's principles lay in the belief that in a godless universe, human existence has no purpose and therefore all communication breaks down. French theater of this day & age featured vignettes filled with conflict-free scenes of sharp contrasts and juxtaposed weirdness, like this board game. LOL.

Tim & Eric's show is fairly uneven in the humor content: some shows are better than others but don't mistake it for unintelligent.

Family Guy, on the other hand...

Moving this video to Godless's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

You can vote for your own vids, Godless.

"If you shut up about it, I will."

Some things haven't changed, in all these decades.

Congrats on your first vid!

Now I can't stop singing it....

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
Ooouuellette,
gentille Ouellette,
Ooouuellette,
je te plumerai.

>> ^Godless:

It's spelled "Ouellette" with 2 L's, 2 T's, 3 E's and OOOOOOOUUUU-LA-LA!!!
I'm allowed, being of Duck-Barking French Canadian stock myself...

Ooouuellette,
gentille Ouellette,
Ooouuellette,
je te plumerai.

>> ^Godless:

It's spelled "Ouellette" with 2 L's, 2 T's, 3 E's and OOOOOOOUUUU-LA-LA!!!
I'm allowed, being of Duck-Barking French Canadian stock myself...

Now you're just being disingenuous. I'm not keep it a secret, I've offered to share it with you. Your attitude now and attempt to goad me with an emotional, and even biblical appeal (love when atheists do that) is exactly the reason I am not posting it in a public forum. Since you're getting all hot and heavy about it now, here are two good reasons why not:

Matthew 7:6

"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.

Luke 16:19-31

19There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

20And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

21And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

23And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

25But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

26And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

27Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

28For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead





>> ^TheSluiceGate:
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's because it is sacred to me and I don't wish to expose those experiences to scorn and ridicule, which will inevitably follow.

What do you mean by "it is sacred to me"? And why does this put your personal proof of god's existence above public discussion?
Surely it's immoral to hold your proof of god's existence a secret if our conversion to theism is so important? You'd let us all die godless to avoid a little "scorn and ridcule" on an internet massageboard that hosts funny videos of cats?
The bible speaks of another man who held is tongue in relation to his personal knowledge of christ...
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
"But Peter said, "Man, I do not know what you are talking about." And immediately, while he was still speaking, a cock crowed. And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had told him, "Before a cock crows today, you will deny Me three times." And he went out and wept bitterly." (Luke 22:60-62 NASB)
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's because it is sacred to me and I don't wish to expose those experiences to scorn and ridicule, which will inevitably follow.


What do you mean by "it is sacred to me"? And why does this put your personal proof of god's existence above public discussion?

Surely it's immoral to hold your proof of god's existence a secret if our conversion to theism is so important? You'd let us all die godless to avoid a little "scorn and ridcule" on an internet massageboard that hosts funny videos of cats?

The bible speaks of another man who held is tongue in relation to his personal knowledge of christ...

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
"But Peter said, "Man, I do not know what you are talking about." And immediately, while he was still speaking, a cock crowed. And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had told him, "Before a cock crows today, you will deny Me three times." And he went out and wept bitterly." (Luke 22:60-62 NASB)
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------

I disagree. I think you are confusing faith with deduction and inference, which is always incredibly annoying when people talk about how atheists require faith. No, all we require is evidence!

We can infer from available evidence, for instance, that the Big Bang happened, or that dark matter is likely to exist because of other observations and EVIDENCE that it does. The math involved in the physical universe doesn't quite work out without it, despite the fact that we cannot see it. This is, of course, a theory (an actual, scientific type theory), but a theory that makes sense based on the best, current, available EVIDENCE. Similarly, we once inferred that God existed because we did not have the knowledge, nor the tools with which to examine our world with anywhere close to the fidelity that we are able to today, and now we are able to throw out the God hypothesis in almost every discipline of study.

Faith, conversely, requires that you not have evidence and just believe in something without proof, or upon someone's word. Perhaps I did not take enough salt with your statement, but faith is certainly not the evidence of anything, let alone "the unseen". Evidence of the unseen, would still be evidence from which we can deduce a conclusion. If you have evidence, you are no longer faithful, you are simply informed. And as of now, there is no actual evidence outside of anecdotes like this video, the Bible itself, and emotional appeals - which are easily dismissed as not credible - for a deity.

The problem with God is that He's just plugged into areas where we don't know things, and people take it upon faith that He's real, even in areas where there is more than enough real, tangible evidence to contradict a need for a deity. That is why secularists get so irritated at young Earth creationists and the like, where a preponderance of repeatable, testable, falsifiable, and verifiable evidence shows how enormously wrong they are, yet they refuse to believe the evidence itself, because it goes against their faith in what they believe to be true. A person might have all of the intellect and powers of critical thinking in the world, but when someone takes something on faith, they abandon those powers to plug in a simple answer for whatever their personal reasons.

I don't know your story, or how you feel you've rationalized yourself into belief, whether it be through some sort of Pascal's Wager thing, or what, and I certainly don't think you are an "ignorant, bumbling Neanderthal" but to accept any of an infinite number of god possibilities, let alone the specific Abrahamic God requires faith, and an absence of logic in the absence of real evidence.

Sorry, I went on a rant there...>> ^smooman:


while that may be true, they are not mutually exclusive.
faith is the evidence of things unseen (i know thats gonna mean zilch to you so take that with a grain of salt) and i very seriously doubt you could convincingly question the critical thinking skills of persons such as CS Lewis
i dont think atheists (or non christians for that matter) are godless sinners, devoid of any morality, any more than i would hope that you not think me an ignorant, bumbling, neanderthal because im religious
we have different religious views, however this does not make either of us smarter, more critical, or better than the other because of that fact

>> ^Bruti79:

She shouldn't laugh. Bears are godless killing machines!


In Soviet Russia bears laught at you!

>> ^smooman:

>> ^Ti_Moth:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I mean without faith what do you have?
>> ^smooman:
ps: shinyblurry, science has, quite conclusively, proven that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old....but thats neither here nor there. You at least recognize that it doesnt matter (as do i), as it pertains ones personal relationship with god.
The bible wasnt written to tell me how old the earth is =)



Err... Evidence and critical thinking?

while that may be true, they are not mutually exclusive.
faith is the evidence of things unseen (i know thats gonna mean zilch to you so take that with a grain of salt) and i very seriously doubt you could convincingly question the critical thinking skills of persons such as CS Lewis
i dont think atheists (or non christians for that matter) are godless sinners, devoid of any morality, any more than i would hope that you not think me an ignorant, bumbling, neanderthal because im religious
we have different religious views, however this does not make either of us smarter, more critical, or better than the other because of that fact


My apologies if you thought I was refering to you, my flippant comment was directed at shinyblury and his young earth antics. And I understand faith in principle it just seems that people have faith in whatever is the nearest religion at the time of their spiritual awakening, I mean if you were living a few thousand years ago you may well have had faith in Thor or Zeus and thats all well and good but what if Mighty Ra and his family of gods are the correct thing to have faith in? You would be missing out on Vallhalla...

In reply to this comment by smooman:
>> ^Ti_Moth:

>> ^shinyblurry:
I mean without faith what do you have?
>> ^smooman:
ps: shinyblurry, science has, quite conclusively, proven that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old....but thats neither here nor there. You at least recognize that it doesnt matter (as do i), as it pertains ones personal relationship with god.
The bible wasnt written to tell me how old the earth is =)



Err... Evidence and critical thinking?


while that may be true, they are not mutually exclusive.
faith is the evidence of things unseen (i know thats gonna mean zilch to you so take that with a grain of salt) and i very seriously doubt you could convincingly question the critical thinking skills of persons such as CS Lewis

i dont think atheists (or non christians for that matter) are godless sinners, devoid of any morality, any more than i would hope that you not think me an ignorant, bumbling, neanderthal because im religious

we have different religious views, however this does not make either of us smarter, more critical, or better than the other because of that fact


ok..now i want to have YOUR babies.
pegg is gonna have to go it alone.
right on man.

>> ^Ti_Moth:

>> ^shinyblurry:
I mean without faith what do you have?
>> ^smooman:
ps: shinyblurry, science has, quite conclusively, proven that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old....but thats neither here nor there. You at least recognize that it doesnt matter (as do i), as it pertains ones personal relationship with god.
The bible wasnt written to tell me how old the earth is =)



Err... Evidence and critical thinking?


while that may be true, they are not mutually exclusive.
faith is the evidence of things unseen (i know thats gonna mean zilch to you so take that with a grain of salt) and i very seriously doubt you could convincingly question the critical thinking skills of persons such as CS Lewis

i dont think atheists (or non christians for that matter) are godless sinners, devoid of any morality, any more than i would hope that you not think me an ignorant, bumbling, neanderthal because im religious

we have different religious views, however this does not make either of us smarter, more critical, or better than the other because of that fact

She shouldn't laugh. Bears are godless killing machines!

You're welcome I enjoy discussing it, and I'm sorry if some of my comments sounded too harsh or negative, I was basically commenting while watching and pausing the video. I do see how he was trying to tip the scales from god being totally improbable to somewhat probable and to very probable and so on, and I suppose he deserves some credit for trying, and I think its easy to fall into his line of reasoning, because he presents it well. But as I tried pointing out, I found nearly all of his premises deeply flawed.

The main one is i think where we are coming from, namely that he lives in a universe where he basically assumes god exists, and that we atheists havent done a good enough job of disproving that. And worse, he seems unable to see the world from an atheists perspective. Thats the only way to explain why he thinks he's found a good solution to the problem of evil. Its a crappy solution. And its a solution that most atheists are familiar with. (ie: that god has a "larger plan" with all the evil stuff so its not really evil) As I said previously, assuming that there is no god at all, is a solution that's orders of magnitude more satisfying, because it erases the whole problem. Evil happens because the universe and the physical laws that govern it are completely indifferent to human or animal suffering, and humans, altho sometimes brilliant, are basically powerhungry tribal apes with guns and religion at their disposal, and some of them even have pretty much defective brains, lacking our usual specter of emotions, for example.

All that makes sense in a godless universe, where our hardearned human rights also makes sense, not just that we have them, but that it took thousands of years and thousands of wars before we figured we might need them. It also explains why some still dont believe in them.

>> ^enoch:

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
that being said,dont you find the absence of dogmatic speak refreshing?
Yes.
i would think an atheist at least could appreciate this type of conversation.
he is not preachy in this talk,nor is he attempting to convert or convince.
No but it does have a smell of dishonesty about it. He's constantly calling out the atheists for unreasonably demanding that he prove the existence of god, which he then freely admits he cant do, as a sign op a kind of opendmindeness, while subtly making that very same silly demand in return "You cant prove there is no god!"
which god are you speaking of.
a pantheon of deities?
judau-christian?
or any other of the 4500 religions?
Again, this isnt really my problem here: I'm not the one making shit up about elusive, invisible metaphysical overlords. I'm saying there is no evidence.

agreed.
thats why i do not attempt to "prove" the existence of a creator.
to do so would be futile.
but he is making the point..the crux in the argument in my opinion,of the dynamic of proof.
i have had many atheists demand this of me also.
as if it were my job to somehow convince them.
which is is not, but i also do not put myself in a position where i have to i.e: making claims of the certitude of a creator etc etc.
everybody has their own path and come to their own conclusions based on their own subjective realty.
faith is personal while religion is not (though they claim it is..and often).
anyways i thought this was pretty good concerning that very argument and truly felt it was worthy for even an theist to be able to at least understand a person of faiths viewpoint in a non-dogmatic way.
seems i was wrong.
meh.../shrugs.
thanks for replying BRM.
very awesome of you.