>> ^gwaan:

The famous Oxford philosopher of religion - Richard Swinburne - employed the principal of Occam's razor to argue that God is the simplest explanation for the existence of the universe - far simpler than any explanation offered by science.

Swinburne can only argue Occam's razor by assuming, without basis, that "God did it" falls under "all things being equal" clause, but it is not at all evident that that is the case, if somebody wants to posit HOW "God did it", then we could apply Occam's razor.

>> ^ant:
What's "James Joyce Award"?


From the college website:

"Previous recipients of the James Joyce Award include: former UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix; author, Bill Bryson; philosopher, Professor Richard Swinburne and actor, Ralph Fiennes. Over the years, every Taoiseach and President has addressed the society.

“Mr Ferrell receives the James Joyce Award for his tremendous contribution to the field of comedy entertainment, as a comedian, writer and actor,” said Michael McGrath, Auditor, 153rd Session, Literary and Historical Society, UCD.

Hollywood actor Will Ferrell recieving the James Joyce Award from Michael McGrath, Auditor, 153rd Session, Literary and Historical Society."


Which doesn't clear up what the award is for exactly, but possibly they just give it to someone they like.

I'd like to explain my downvote.

Mark Mcgrath was singing REALLY out of tune. But it was made up for by the hotness of Peter Pauls wife (Yeowzaa ! that was sexist!)

I thought this was interesting and fairly well put together. there was some really neat behind the scenes footage and overall it was edited really well.

I do have issues in general with assertions not being backed up. Like Paul saying that the judge on his case was appointed by the Clintons (that sounds implausible as they don't appoint judges and the video showed no proof of this). And the the opinion / commentary of David Chippers (DOJ prosecutor, Clinton Impeachment Manager) that the judge was biased is not coming from an unbiased source (himself - look at his creds)

I guess I also don't understand why the Clintons would "do in" a major donor. biting the hand that fed them doesn't really make sense. That is not to say it didn't happen. But why would her campaign finance manager take a fall for her if she was the one actually to be held accountable.

a few other questions unanswered by the video

so what was Peter Pauls felon (from 2 decades prior ?). Was he a fugitive at the time of his arrest in a foreign country ?

on a side note...

I like the guy who says "it's the largest election fraud in the United States ( I guess I considered that laughable for what goes on and doesn't get reported or caught...meaning that's not just a Clinton thing, as it's a problem on both sides of the aisle). Through-out the video several of these people overstate what's going on to the point where it diminishes the real issue. While these events might or might not have happened the level of hysteria the whole thing portrays smacks of hypocracy considering the current administration (i personally don't care about eithers fundraising...it's the policy they push once in office that concerns me)

But as far as leaving the country if Hillary becomes prez... i had to laugh. (considering the people who are running the adminstration at the present and what they've done across the board to our government, freedoms, environment, etc....).

This video was about Campaign finances, not policy that she would implement. So in that regard, if something like this upsets you that much to move out of the country I would almost assume that you are blind, deaf, dumb and have been living under a rock for the last 7 years. (sorry for the ad hom :-)

QRUEL

lol bicycle repairman, i think this was tongue in cheek, no?

Well, you never know.. anyway, payle, the poster said the folowing:

I will highlight the ridiculousness of his response by sharing with you my very first sift.

Secondly the intentions of the video is to show that Dawkins arguments about God`s existence are "silly" because they apparantly could be applied to non-fictional characters just as easily, well point in case, my reply. this attempt to get clever doesnt really work, because when you apply these arguments to real things, they are shredded by the existence of real, testable, repeatable, universal evidence, and clearly, thats not the case with god, since no believer seems to be able to come up with a single well-constructed argument against ANYTHING in The God Delusion or anything else Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett or Harris has said about religion. It all boils down to petty personal attacks, strawmen, misconstrusions (John Cornwell)or wishful thinking (Alister McGrath)in the best of times

See a dialog between Dawkins and Christian skeptic Alistar McGrath

This interview, as well as all the other interviews done for "Root of all evil?" has been released in uncut versions on DVD, available at http://richarddawkins.net/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=6

And speaking of Alister McGrath, one thing to his credit is that he seems to be in the outnumbered category of apologists who doesnt lie about, misunderstand and misconstrue every argument Dawkins makes, but at the heart of all of his arguments its just all wishful thinking, he feels "God" gives life meaning and purpose, therefore it must be true in some sense.. A clear betrayal of reason. You can see it in nearly every question from dawkins "I think you raise an extremely interesting point" , "thats definitely something that should be discussed" etc, and then he evades answering the question and simply repeats how he feels better about life because of the christian perspective.

Dawkins tries for a full hour to get him to answer WHY his(Dawkins) descriptions of the God hypothesis is wrong or misunderstood, and McGrath bounces around the questions with his faith-based wishes.

Crap, I misread that description. I thought it was against, not for. Sorry. See, we need undo/change votes.

In reply to your comment:
“But if you are a Christian, why did you vote against an interview with Alister McGrath - one of Dawkin's greatest critics?

In reply to your comment:
“Yes, as a Christian. I am not a good debater. I always seem to lose if I try.

In reply to your comment:
“Ant

Quick question. I've noticed that you seem to always vote against videos that criticise Christianity and Christians. Can I assume correctly that you are a Christian? I understand that faith is a personal thing and you may not want to answer my question. But if I'm right can I ask you two further questions: Firstly, why did you vote against this video? Secondly, as far as I can see you never enter into the raging theism/atheism debate on the Sift - why?

Best

Gwaan
”””

Yes, as a Christian. I am not a good debater. I always seem to lose if I try.

In reply to your comment:
“Ant

Quick question. I've noticed that you seem to always vote against videos that criticise Christianity and Christians. Can I assume correctly that you are a Christian? I understand that faith is a personal thing and you may not want to answer my question. But if I'm right can I ask you two further questions: Firstly, why did you vote against this video? Secondly, as far as I can see you never enter into the raging theism/atheism debate on the Sift - why?

Best

Gwaan
”

Think we should add the comedy tag since this quite obviously is a comedy act. Just look at how Alister McGrath is behaving, how he's trying so hard to make as little sense as possible, repeating himself over and over, contradicting himself and using extremely sweeping comments at the most inappropriate times.
Take for instance the very start of that interview, when McGrath makes the comment that he started thinking for himself when he went to college. This has to be a spoof of the very standard atheist comment that one becomes an atheist when starting to think for one's self, hasn't it?
I must say, I very much enjoyed the humour in this video.

"i think you brought up some interesting points... that's an interesting point...(repeat)..." McGrath never stops saying that, he's mad! check out his crazy eyes!!
dawkins should have notched up his arguments a bit, he could clearly make McGrath look very stupid. most of the leaders of the new atheist movements are overly nice. it's a good thing i guess. i think maybe dawkins respects this dude a bit because he gives names his books after him. check out around the 49th minute - dawkins really stumps him, McGrath gets flattened

McGrath is a fork-tongued hand-waver. What a manipulative piece of shit.

Yes I have read it - cover to cover! As I have said before on the Sift:

Dawkins is a good scientist - I would not deny that - but over the years he has moved from being a scientific sceptic to a preacher of intolerance. This move from scepticism to intolerance may have been motivated by the many vocal religious fundamentalists he met on his way who regulalry condemned him. But one should never respond to intolerance and bigotry with more intolerance and bigotry.

My charge against the God Delusion is precisely that in many of his arguments Dawkins abandons empiricism and reason in favour of simplistic generalisation and rants against the evil of religion. As Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project has argued: "Dawkins has abandoned his much cherished rationality to embrace an embittered manifesto of dogmatic atheist fundamentalism." Or as Owen Gingerich, Professor of Astronomy at Harvard, has argued, Dawkins reasoning is full of "gaps, inconsistencies, and a suprising lack of depth of argument".

As Alister McGrath has argued: "The total dogmatic conviction of correctness which pervades some sections of Western atheism today - wonderfully illustrated in the God Delusion - immediately aligns it with a religious fundamentalism which refuse to allow its ideas to be examined or challenged. Dawkins is resistant to the calibration of his own certainties seeing them as being luminously true, requiring no defence. He is so convinced that his own views are right that he could not bring himself to believe that the evidence might legitimate any other options - above all religious options. What is particularly worrying is that, without seeming to realise it, Dawkins simply treats evidence as something to shoehorn into his pre-conceived theoretical framework. Religion is persistently and consistently portrayed in the worst possible way, mimicking the worst features of religious fundamentalisms portrayal of atheism. When some leading scientists write in support of religion, Dawkin retorts that they simply can't mean what they say. Dawkins clearly feels deeply threatened by the possibility of his readers encountering religious ideas or people that they might actually like - or even worse, respect, and regard as worthy of serious attention."

I disagree with most posts above. When I think transformers I think the crap ass saturday morning animation. This actually looks to be wild thrill ride. A popcorn munching, suspension of belief, thin plot and characters, but insane CG summer blockbuster. It is what it is.
for those of you who HATE MICHAEL FUCKING BAY, you've got to check out this short film called aptly enough. KILLING MICHAEL BAY, it's from a director (John McGrath) I edited a film for.

The movie is fuckin FUNNY !

http://www.ifilm.com/video/2472952

Dawkins is a good scientist - I would not deny that - but over the years he has moved from being a scientific sceptic to a preacher of intolerance. This move from scepticism to intolerance may have been motivated by the many vocal religious fundamentalists he met on his way who regulalry condemned him. But one should never respond to intolerance and bigotry with more intolerance and bigotry.

My charge against the God Delusion is precisely that in many of his arguments Dawkins abandons empiricism and reason in favour of simplistic generalisation and rants against the evil of religion. As Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project has argued: "Dawkins has abandoned his much cherished rationality to embrace an embittered manifesto of dogmatic atheist fundamentalism." Or as Owen Gingerich, Professor of Astronomy at Harvard, has argued, Dawkins reasoning is full of "gaps, inconsistencies, and a suprising lack of depth of argument".

As Alister McGrath has argued: "The total dogmatic conviction of correctness which pervades some sections of Western atheism today - wonderfully illustrated in the God Delusion - immediately aligns it with a religious fundamentalism which refuse to allow its ideas to be examined or challenged. Dawkins is resistant to the calibration of his own certainties seeing them as being luminously true, requiring no defence. He is so convinced that his own views are right that he could not bring himself to believe that the evidence might legitimate any other options - above all religious options. What is particularly worrying is that, without seeming to realise it, Dawkins simply treats evidence as something to shoehorn into his pre-conceived theoretical framework. Religion is persistently and consistently portrayed in the worst possible way, mimicking the worst features of religious fundamentalisms portrayal of atheism. When some leading scientists write in support of religion, Dawkin retorts that they simply can't mean what they say. Dawkins clearly feels deeply threatened by the possibility of his readers encountering religious ideas or people that they might actually like - or even worse, respect, and regard as worthy of serious attention."

Dawkins would like to say that religion is only responsible for ill. He conveniently ignores the fact that people like Muhammad Yunus - founder of the Grameen Bank and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize 2006 - were inspired to lift millions of people out of poverty by their religious beliefs and convictions which taught them to devote their lives to the upliftment and empowerment of some of the world's poorest and most impoverished people.

Dawkins is an intolerant fanatic - for a balanced view read: The Dawkins Delusion by Alister McGrath

yah it was the game i was thinking of the origonal bould of the engin was by 3 people thats what makes this so special.

"Offset Software started as 3 people: Sam McGrath, Travis Stringer and Trevor Stringer. Initally working out of an apartment and completely self-funded, the engine and all art was created with a tiny budget -- just enough to purchase the software and hardware needed for development"