The real BS is that the original video is from 1997 and the world still faces the same apathy to the energy, pollution and climate crises, corporate stonewalling of energy innovation and efforts at every level of government and industry to maintain the status quo at out own peril.

"... and that's why I don't like gyms!"

"Don't worry, we're not a gym, we're Ice Planet Fitness!"

A truly epic retelling!

Harper's out after the next election. I agree with the sentiment that his broken promises should be exposed, but I feel that this narrow personal focus loses sight of the big picture. I figure there going to have to forward their old domain to one of:

shitmulcaredid.ca
shittrudeaudid.ca
shitmaydid.ca

Same shit, different colour. (Notice the Canadian spelling of colour, eh.)

Even with limits of corporate campaign donations in Canada, there are loopholes in the system. This is not to say we've reduced it to a free speech argument like Citizens United, but it's still damned shady. I don't see real change coming from any party, sorry.

The wealth gap is growing around the world and corporate cronyism is ruining the world economy. This isn't solely Harper's fault. Sure he's a stooge, but even Obama is little more than a puppet in the stalled house.

I must be getting cynical in my old age!

I hear you shinyblurry, but I feel that your argument meanders back to the original appeal to authority that most believers resort to when justifying their positions. I also find that the related video links provided by TheGenk provide a valid refutation of the idea that God is The One who put values of good and evil inside each of us.

In my mind, Zacharias' incoherence with the atheist's ability to love and live morally is influenced by his own understanding of the source of moral truth. Because he defines the origin of pure love as Jesus' sacrifice on behalf of mankind, it is unfathomable to him that love could be found as a result of human survival/selection based of traits of cooperation, peace and mutual benefits of our social structure. His logic is therefore coloured and his mind is closed to certain ideas and possibilities.

Indeed, moral foundations can and must change with the times. As our understanding of empathy, personal freedoms and the greater good of mankind develops with our societal and cultural evolution, so too must our standards of morality. This is most evident when concepts such as slavery and revenge (an eye for an eye) are seen as commonplace and acceptable throughout old scripture where modern society has evolved a greater understanding of the need for equality and basic human rights and policing and corrections as a measure of deterrence and rehabilitation for those individuals that stray from the path of greatest utility.

This is why slavery is no more, why racism is in decline and why eventually gay rights and green thought will be universal and our struggle to stifle the rights of gays and exploit the planet's resources to the point of our own self-extinction simply will be seen by future historians as sheer ignorance. Leviticus still pops up when people try to brand gays as deviant, even though most it is itself incoherent by today's standards. Remember that "defecating within the camp was unacceptable lest God step in it while walking in the evening." Well, today we just call that sewage management.

Paedophilia will never emerge as acceptable because it violates our basic understanding of human rights and the acceptable age of sexual consent. I know this is a common warning about the "slippery slope of a Godless definition of morality," but it's really a red herring. Do you honestly think society would someday deem that it carries a benefit to society? I just can't see it happening.

I found Ravi's previous lecture much more compelling. The foundation of morality could certainly be defined simply by the UTILITY of peace and cooperation versus the anarchy that would result if atheists simply decided that all decisions should be based on purely on selfish motivations.

Atheists are perfectly able to find value and beauty in life, created, evolved or otherwise. I find his argument incoherent, circular and indefensible. Poetic, sure. But ultimately invalid.

I see an "Epic Rap Battle of History" on the horizon...

Fake. I don't think this was produced by Anonymous. Available only in 240px res? Dead givaway.

Nice! These are so much easier to watch than the fail variants.

It's hard to tell from the zoom distortion and the flat angle, but I think that medical car was going at quite a clip. Both the driver and one of the track officials were surprised to see it drive up on them so fast. That second guy was just a second behind and he ended up walking into the side of the safety car. They also wouldn't have heard it coming since the f1's are so loud.

Those are the fittest nerds I've ever seen. I wonder how they met. At a nerd gym, perhaps?

Makes me want to play Unreal Tournament!

Actually, they do touch on this at ~7:30:

"... but Nasa is special. Maybe they have a BIG disc recorder. [that can record longer than 10 minutes of slow-mo]"

I wonder if he's researched 9-11. It wasn't a video production conspiracy in this case, but I'd love to hear him present an argument in the same spirit.

2:02 - "It was a global dick-wagging contest on a scale never before seen in human history."

lol

I might invoke *wtf if I had any power points. What year is it? Is Bizarro Bill actually FOR bigger government and broadened monitoring and intervention for large ammunition purchases by law-abiding citizens? Sure, it makes sense.

The guy is passionate about these issues, we shouldn't fault him for raising his voice. It is info-tainment after all. Hearing his position on this makes me question whether he's a corporate tool or not. It's just such a rational suggestion! I'm still in shock!