I hate the term "Welfare State" as if its the poor people's fault for being poor. The vast majority (at least 90%) of "welfare" is going to CORPORATE WELFARE that should be gotten rid of.

>> ^moodonia:
Last time I bought Windows(95) it came on 15 floppies, I will actually buy 7 though, everything I've heard is positive.


Dude, you have been running windows 95 all this time? I'm surprised you can even visit this site with Netscape Navigator

>> ^gwiz665:
It may very well just be me, but I'm sick and tired of autotune.


Heck, I was sick of it when Cher used it in "Do You Believe" 12 years ago.

And how did this come from "rathergood.com", should have come from "somethingawful.com" instead.

>> ^gwiz665:
I would have worn a helmet...


Ditto, that thing looks very dangerous.

>> ^EndAll:
I'd like to hear from an Atheist the qualms they might have with the Buddhist religion/philosophy.


Not that I would become a practicing Buddhist, but I have no qualms with the Buddhist Philosophy as a whole. I find a lot of Buddhist teachings to be worth reading. I also understand the benefits of meditation. From a pragmatical viewpoint Buddhist philosophy has much in common with many Atheist/Humanist philosophies.

I do have qualms with the Buddhist religion. I am not an expert on the religion by any means of course, but from an outsiders perspective I see many Buddhist temples, statuary and relics covered in gold, and it makes me wonder. Then I see how many Buddhist dominated cultures are also male dominated cultures, treating women as second class citizens and it makes me wonder some more.

>> ^HadouKen24:
I get that this guy is doing satire, but there's a line between satire and a pure straw man--and NonStampCollector took a flying leap over that line in this video.
In the first place, any halfway competent theist using those arguments will of course make it clear that these argument do not necessarily support any one religion over the others.

Actually, it does not necessarily support religion over non-religion either.

Lets suppose the "fine-tuning" argument actually has merit, rather than big bang start of our universe being a lone successful outcome after a trillion unsuccessful big bang attempts that happened before. If we dispense that likely possibility, then the best argument we can make for a creator is that there is an intelligence at work in the universe.

To get from an intelligence in the universe all the way to a God requires an incredibly selfish delusion that we humans are unique in the universe, and that the sole purpose of the intelligent creation of the universe was to create us. Without this big non-sequitir of an argument in the chain, an intelligence capable of adjusting the laws of physics to its design is so foreign to human experience, it is far more likely that this intelligence has no human qualities at all. Therefore, it is impossible to claim that this "intelligence" cares one iota about humanity, nor does it look out for our well being, nor hear our answer prayers, and certainly does not dictate scripture. It may as well not even exist!

I always thought someone should make an illustrated bible that includes graphic pictures of all the bad parts of the bible, just to help people realize what is in there.

>> ^quantumushroom:
I's a mistake for the moonbats to keep bringing this up, even to mock it. The facts, as usual, are with the opposite team.
"Certification of Birth" versus an actual Birth Certificate; in the amount of information revealed is the difference between a nametag and a resumé. Anyone know the name of the doctor that delivered The One? Which hospital was it? No one knows. Grandmother Obama proudly claims she witnessed The Messiah's birth in Kenya; she's obviously a right-wing extremist...


What could it possibly take to convince you that Obama is a citizen? The arguments from the "birthers" are misleading or out and out lies. The questions they are asking have already been answered, the legal documents have been posted online, as have newspaper birth announcements from Hawaii. You are denying a legally established truth!

And what do you hope to gain with this drivel? Do you want the Supreme Court to declare McCain the winner (who was born in Panama BTW)? Do you want Bush back whose policies are almost entirely responsible for the current recession?

Or could it be you are racist?

That's it isn't it? You are upset that a black man became President therefore he can't be President.

Even if it is not true, that is the perception of us non-"birthers": All "birthers" are racist scum who think they are hiding behind some valid issue. It is not a valid issue and they are fooling nobody.

One thing not mentioned, the group is bi-partisan. Hillary Clinton is a member of "The Family" as well.

I consider myself an Atheist simply because of the fact that I am not a theist.

A theist cannot simply be someone who believes in God, because there are so many levels to the God question. I decided to take a pragmatical approach and ask "Does it matter if God exists?"

When you restate the question that way, most all speculative philosophies all end up on the NO side. If you believe there is an intelligence at work in the universe (pantheism), you probably will conclude that this intelligence is so foreign to human existence that this "intelligence" plays no role whatsoever in human lives. If you take the Buddhist approach and say "Everything is God", then there is no separate entity controlling existence.

Ultimately, the only philosophy where God really matters, is Anthropomorphic Theism = God is a separate entity with human characteristics that watches over us and cares what we say and do.

Conclusion: If you believe in an Anthropomorphic God, you are a theist. If your idea of God is anything else, it is for all intents and purposes the same as not believing in God at all.

I have a love of science. Understanding the true nature of the world around me fills me with awe and wonder. There are many mysteries to existence, some so difficult we humans may not be capable of answering them, yet we thinking humans are still driven to find those answers, while the unthinking ones are content with slapping the label "God" on it and calling it a day.

Unfortunately, it is probably Green Day's weakest album ever. This song is pretty representative of most of the album: bland and repetitive.

Even though I agree with their pro environmentalist, anti fundamentalist message, most of the lyrics get rather preachy and long winded. Practically missing are the clever hooks the band is famous for.

"21 Guns" is the best song on the album, "The Static Age" is the best rocker. "Horsehoes and Handgrenades" sounds most like the early Green Day of old. Buy these three if you are a fan.

>> Assuming all the negative stereotypes of atheists can be discounted ("criminal behavior, rampant materialism, cultural elitism")

Those are mostly false stereotypes, unless the Bush administration was a bunch of Atheists.

(yeah I know I am answering a logical fallacy with a logical fallacy)

Morality is independent belief in God or any religious belief. This has been known since Plato and Aristotle, and virtually every philosopher since then has concurred. Saints and criminals can be found among both believers and non-believers.

The simpleton who thinks that the only motivation humans have to do good in the world is so that we can get rewarded after we die, is in desperate need of education.

The Swine Flu fiasco in 1976 was one of the big negatives of the Ford administration, which cost him re-election.

Yep, the You Tube age is over.

>> ^Mashiki:
>> ^dingens:
Google loses 470 million $ on youtube per year and if they want to try and make it profitable, fine! ...

Regardless of whether Google makes or looses money on youtube, is slightly moot. If you turn around, alienate your viewers and customers, then you've already killed yourself. Then it's going to be back to an attempt to rebuild a customer base which is already highly suspect of any of your future motives.
For a company as large as Google, it can be crippling especially with the number of interlinked micro-companies. It's simply naive to believe that it won't hurt consumer perception overall. Despite what many believe, word of mouth is still the largest selling point, and with the Internet moving things faster then I can write this comment. The damage can be done.


I don't think Google cares. You don't lose $470 million a year on a business model without dumping said business model. The only thing of value is the You Tube name. The whole video discussion format is a money loser. People upload all sorts of crap for free, and stream crap out for free, and because such a large portion of it is pirated copyright material, You Tube cant sell it to advertisers. $470 million in losses is no longer worth the name recognition.

Next step, and you know it is coming, is no more free channels. "You want to post, you pay a subscription, or we yank your videos off."

Will it tick off users? You Bet!

Will it save money on server space? save money on bandwidth? Save a ton of money not having to police for copyright violations? Will hard core users, advocacy groups, non-profits, advertisers, music promoters, book promoters, talent agents etc. find the money to pay to post?
You Bet!