>> ^coolhund:
Sad thing is, theres people that will actually vote republican after seeing it because they are ignorant idiots and dont understand sarcasm.


No, the sad thing is that uneducated historically ignorant people like yourself are so mired in this two-party duopoly with petty antagonism with one another, that they fail to see how socialist policies on both sides are leading this country straight into bankruptcy.

Let's look at how stupid and hypocritical this is:

1. Video implies that Democrats respect the constitution. Oh, really? Is that why Obama voted for the patriot act and gun bans, both violations of the Bill of Rights. Or how about joint support for easily inflatable fiat currency, in violation of Article 1, Section 10 which mandates gold backing. How about going to war without congressional declaration in Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo and others? All illegal under the same Article and section and all started by the Democrats.

2. Video says abortion is about respecting a woman's right to her own body. I'm not even religious and it seems rather obvious to me that abortion is murder of inconvenience. Didn't want the kid? Why did you have unprotected sex? Furthermore, why is a being one minute apart, from womb to exiting, the difference between having no rights and having rights. That makes no sense. Life has to be defined at conception.

3. Video implies that allowing drugs to be chosen immediately is a bad thing because they haven't been tested. Dude, that's against freedom. If you're dying of cancer, and you want to try an experimental drug, who the fuck cares if it's unsafe? YOU'RE GOING TO DIE. Government has no right to restrict you that opportunity to research and get advice from your doctor about it. And what about all the people who die during the delays that the FDA imposes on new drugs. How can those deaths ever show up in statistics?

4. Video implies that we should continue to block domestic drilling to prevent potential harm to some wildlife. This isn't a cartoon, drilling doesn't leave an area in shambles. Have fun trying to fly planes with solar panels and meeting our power needs without emission-free nuclear, recyclable nuclear, which you've blocked for thirty years with fear-mongering campaigns about shitty soviet reactors from the 70s. Have fun watching Bush starting insane wars in the middle east and begging Saudi princes to increase production because we have to import 70% of our oil from abroad because of these insane energy policies. Say hello to peak oil and $300 a barrel oil in the coming years. You can't lower the price by debasing your currency to pay for 60 trillion in unfunded ponzi scheme welfare promises started by FDR, blocking oil, and blocking nuclear.

Damn siftbot... how about *undead

Can I declare this video a shambling corpse hungering for juicy brains?

Longest discussion about nothing important.
Best font used for one of the many implementations of the vague VideoSift corporate identity shambles.

I'm really not a fan of Fox in any way shape or form and I've read a number of Naomi's books, but I don't think this is a good example of Fox being dicks.

To me, she simply avoided the question and he was trying to get her back on track. He went off a bit at about the half way mark, but she was not answering the question. The end was clearly a shambles

This guy and Fox are clearly a nobs for many reasons, but I don't know if this is the best example.

Great followup Drachen_Jager. I'm a product of the US school system, so I see where US citizens frequently get their history wrong. US history courses neglect to show that the US had early warning of Pearl Harbor, yet did not react (one can debate the reasoning). They also neglect to teach that the war was well over and done with BEFORE the nukes dropped. Japan was in shambles and was powerless. The nukes were not necessary, but were dropped simply to 'flex muscles'. Lest we forget, many public school children are still told that Christopher Columbus discovered America(tm). Any person half educated would know that is complete trash. The continent was named after Amerigo Vespucci, and the first recorded settlers (the true discoverers) came tens of thousands of years before. As far as 'Europeans' arriving. The Norse/Vikings had small pre-colonization era settlements in what is now the eastern parts of Canada. All too often, people forget they are taught through a propagandist lens, and refuse to acknowledge that what they have been taught, while maybe not an outright lie, is only portrayed through a limited, patrio-favorable perspective. Often hiding past atrocities.

"Not one of the religious types have been able to offer a compelling rebuttal using evidence and logic to support their reasoning." To your points:

1. Atheists are more annoying than Christians.

I tend to agree with you that this argument matters little and is tangential to the whole topic. However, you've supplied a fair amount of evidence for this point including inflammatory phrases such as "magical teapot believers", "nutjobs", "full of shit", "I think you know where you can store your advice", etc.

2. Atheists are more evangelical than Christians.

Again, I don't see it being too central to the original discussion. It is interesting, though, that you stated "Militant, in your face, logical, rational atheism is the only chance we have of salvaging the shambles you religious wingnuts have made of this planet." Sounds like you're out to "evangelize" change in the world then? Perhaps even applauding where militant atheism is applied? More on that in point #4.

3. All humans, both atheistic and religious, are irrational beings ruled by emotions with their beliefs as thinly veiled icing on a primordial cake.

A strawman argument that is so over simplified and incorrect that it isn't worth addressing.


4. Christians have not been responsible for mass genocide.

Nobody denies the crusade, inquisition, etc. took place, but the issue is whether these people are "Christian" or not. Did they call themselves Christian? Yes. Were their actions aligned with the words and example Jesus laid out for his followers and, therefore, what Christians are supposed to be like? No. You are assuming that all those who claim to be Christian are truthful representatives of Jesus and not self-centered, power-hungry, opportunists who saw it was fashionable to call themselves "Christian" given the power structure of the day. You are attempting to equate two vastly different entities and, therefore, the logic fails.

Is it fair to level the same charges against atheism by equating the actions of atheistic states to represent all atheists? 26.3 million killed in China under Mao Tse Tung, 66 million in the Soviet Union under Lenin/Stalin/Khrushchev, 2.5 million under Pol Pot in Cambodia, etc. If you are going to make the claim that Christians are genocidal monsters, it would seem that atheists are in the same boat. If you want to talk about current events, communist regimes with atheistic tenants (e.g. China, North Korea, etc.) continue to be highlighted for human rights abuses as they target those purely because of religious beliefs (do a search on hrw.org for examples). The problem here is that it is hard to argue that these leaders are not following the "beliefs" laid down by what you portray of atheism -- religious people are "nutjobs" and there is work to do in "salvaging the shambles you religious wingnuts have made of this planet".


5. God wants us to have free will.

Free will is a core point used against the logical "problem of evil" or "problem of hell" arguments. You've had your own ad hominem arguments to try and avoid it -- "That's some good old fashioned bullshit religious guilt if I've ever heard it."or "More rhetoric and no substance." You also attempt to claim that free will can't exist in the Christian view -- "And the Christian set of rules by which you must live is most certainly NOT free." You are trying to change the definition of free will with freedom from consequence -- again, another logical fallacy. Along your line of argument, free will should include the ability to choose to go to heaven. However, if heaven is a "perfect place", would it be perfect if anyone and everyone could be there? Free will cannot make logical impossibilities true -- can I choose to make myself invisible? score 5000 on the SAT test? etc.


6. Atheists use "old arguments" that have do not hold water.

Old argument? Yes. The core argument of the cartoon is "The Problem of Hell", a variant of "The Problem of Evil"/Epicurus' Riddle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_Hell) which is a logical argument that has been around for a long while.

Hold water. Not bad. You could say the same of the theistic ontological argument too. Atheists and Christians have used these for some time and, as such, it is apparent that neither side considers the other's logical "proof" so compelling as to concede defeat. I expect that you'd claim this to be more "bullshit", as you are fond of saying, so I'll be more direct. "Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent." is not true. Free will and yet being unable to choose evil are logically inconsistent. On one hand, you have free will with the potential for evil while on the other, no evil but no free will.


7. Well over 90% of the world is religious.

Arguing over a relatively small percentage seems to be silly -- the point that the vast majority of the population is religious isn't impacted by the difference. It seems equally ridiculous to claim that a majority is proof of something -- I'm sure that Christian and Atheist alike can site a majority opinion either now or in the past that we consider incorrect.


And to sum up what we've heard outside of these points:

1. Then I suppose Jesus and the old testament God are full of crap as well. Which I happen to agree with.
2. But it doesn't change the fact that the Bible is rife with examples of God threatening eternal damnation and hellfire to anyone who doesn't follow his rules.

For all of the times you've bashed people for lacking logic or evidence, where is it when you make these assertions? You've read what Jesus did/said and can comment specifically how he is full of crap then?


Although it has been interesting to watch the comments go back and forth on this and to jump in from time to time, I find the following quotation by Elbert Hubbard appropriate, "Logic: an instrument used for bolstering a prejudice." As this string of comments (along with hundreds like it scattered about the internet) shows, God is not going to be proved or disproved by logical arguments alone.

/cracks knuckles

I did check my facts and, yes well over 90% of the world subscribes to a religious view of life.

You need to cite a source for that.

What holier then thou source are you using anyway?

Source 1. http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
Source 2. http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
Source 3. http://www.geocities.com/richleebruce/mystat.html

The numbers vary from 70% to 81%. The statistics quoted in my previous post come from Source 1. Where are your sources for your claim of "well over 90% of the world is religious"? Back it up, kiddo.

I wasn't saying "no one goes to hell"

To quote you, "God loves everyone, anyone who says your going to hell is full of crap."


I was saying no one mortal should be so arrogant to say he can determine such a thing.

Thank you for clarifying your position on the going to hell issue. Unfortunately, that argument doesn't hold water. The Bible is supposed to the the word of God. The pope and various clergy are supposed to be holy men with a mystic understanding of that word. And it's pretty clear throughout the Bible that if you break any of the Lord's divine rules, hell is precisely where you are going.

I can sit here and say your full of shit but that doesn't prove anything.

You're right, it doesn't. You would have to, say, offer evidence and supporting rational arguments in addition to calling me full of shit for it to prove anything. Which is exactly what I am doing. I am saying you are both full of shit, and offering citations and rational arguments as to why you are full of shit.

Which is why your arguments are invalid because your format and strong bias on issues.

Unfortunately for you, that is not how logic works. Arguments are not invalidated based on format, kiddo. Arguments can only be invalidated by proving they are either illogical, irrational, or by countering them with contrary evidence in a logical fashion. Just because you don't like what you read doesn't mean it ain't true, but by all means go stick your head in the sand and act like it does. It would fit with the religious mindset I've come to expect from you nutjobs.


think your unwilling to compromise your emotional position on the subject

My emotional position? What the fuck does emotion have to do with anything? Did you even read this thread before you decided to come in here and prance around like a high schooler who just read Ayn Rand for the first time? Pray tell (no pun intended) what my emotional position is?

and resort to adding a "bullshit" and "idiots" to everything. that's why you have no valid points because you resort to name calling and childish tantrums.

Again, you seem to have no concept of logic. The validity of an argument exists independent of the intended audience's reaction to it's format. And as far as name calling and childish tantrums goes, you need only look to the beginning of this thread to see who threw that gauntlet down first. At least I have facts and logical arguments to back my "tantrums" up, whereas you have only....what? You haven't made a coherent point yet, you've only seen fit to rebuke my tone but not my argument.

You have strong feeling about stuff, kudos, but emotion without reason is nothing more then a immature rationalizing of behavior.


Oh snap, you are breaking out the polysyllables! Kudos to you. However, I can't help but think again that you didn't read this thread. I've set forth a number of coherent rational arguments contradicting the claims made by the religious in this thread, which I will sumarize AGAIN since you are incapable of reading.


The "arguments" set forth by the religious nuts so far amount to the following:

1. Atheists are more annoying than Christians.
2. Atheists are more evangelical than Christians.
3. All humans, both atheistic and religious, are irrational beings ruled by emotions with their beliefs as thinly veiled icing on a primordial cake.
4. Christians have not been responsible for mass genocide.
5. God wants us to have free will.
6. Atheists use "old arguments" that have do not hold water.
7. Well over 90% of the world is religious.

All of these arguments I have refuted with supporting evidence.

And yet, not one of the religious types have been able to offer a compelling rebuttal using evidence and logic to support their reasoning.

You'd be more persuasive if you didn't exhibit so much hate and anger in your speech.

Religion would be more persuasive if they didn't murder and rape anyone that didn't agree with them, but hey, you don't see me complaining. Or wait, I suppose I am. Oh well. I guess you'll just have to fucking deal with it, and if you don't like it, offer some evidence or logical arguments to prove me wrong.

Until then, as before, go back to feeling guilty that you can't make your imaginary friend in the sky happy. If you can't cite a source for your bullshit, if you can't actually read the arguments set forth by the religious and my response and then formulate a logical rebuttal based on evidence, then you are just spouting off bullshit.


The time for politeness and eggshell-stepping on the subject of religion is way, way over. Militant, in your face, logical, rational atheism is the only chance we have of salvaging the shambles you religious wingnuts have made of this planet.

Get an argument that makes sense, or get the fuck out.

*discard this video and the rest of my shamble of an life! OK just kidding just discard this video for starts.

that poor camel's self-esteem must be in shambles right now.