Saying that Hitler's or Stalin's actions are extreme but logical conclusions of an Atheistic worldview is as dumb as me saying that the Spanish Inquisition or the crusades are a similar indictments against Christianity. Personally, I won't stoop so low.

In pointing out that Christians have had wildly varying interperetations of morality, I am just arguing that your method does not yield particularly impressive results in a broad sense. Which is only relevant because the whole talk seems to spend a lot of time concentrating on horrific results that are supposedly a logical conclusion of atheism, and then it argues that it has a better idea.

However since you can just endlessly cherry pick which individuals and even which specific actions do or do not reflect this "ultimate truth," then I'll just limit myself to your God and ask the following question:

Do you believe that there has ever been a case where slavery has been justified, and do you believe that there has ever been a good reason for anyone to butcher a toddler with a sword?

God is clearly not a static foundation on which humanity bases their morals. Any cursory examination of Christian history shows that interpretations of what a Godly foundation for a life advicates have varied wildly at least from era to era, if not person to person.

Is there a foundation for static morality without a God to give it to you? Of course there isn't. And again I'll ask where or when we were guaranteed any such thing.

But lets say that we do deserve such certainty, it still begs the question of why this foundation for morality of yours seems to have a curiously diverse array of outcomes in terms of moral norms over the millennia.

Oh wait, I forgot. Your take on this whole thing is actually the only correct one, because of a personal relevation from God - of course. I guess we can now ignore all those other people who felt they had the same thing, because they just weren't lucky enough to benefit from the secure foundation of morality you have found.

And yes, spending 20 minutes detailing how Hitler and Stalin may have used certain limited aspects of atheistic thought processes to reach conclusions that are clearly not necessary outcomes of such premises, not by a long shot, and then using that to discredit an entire world view - is indeed Reducto ad Hitlerum in every possible sense of the term.

As TheGenk said, that's weak man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

*beg

*beg

*beg

Well I'm flabbergasted. I was trying to get people to stop down-voting your video, because I wanted your voice to be heard regardless of whether or not people disagree with you. And then I politely asked for clarification on what you were saying because I felt there might be a misunderstanding.

Now I just think more people should see you make an ass if yourself. Please get this video sifted, people.

*promote

Sorry, that's just what I understood from it. You showed a video of young and old people being skilled, controlled, responsible, etc... owners and titled it as an example of gun control being effective.

Perhaps it is just the charged atmosphere around this topic these days, but I have encountered a lot of people saying something to the effect of ”there is plenty of gun control already, I am responsible and in control of my guns" so I just put two and two together...

What were you saying then?

He's trying to say that proper and responsible use of guns (as depicted by this video) is the only form of gun "control" that works.

FWIW, I think this video and title represents a perspective on the gun debate that makes sense to a lot of people, and therefore we really shouldn't downvote it.

Yes, there are many, many examples of responsible gun ownership. Nobody is questioning that, and I count many good friends as examples.

The problem is that our society does not just accept guns, it is obsessed with guns, it looks at guns with hungry eyes and it latches tenaciously to the false sense of security given by unbridled ownership. It wants guns in more variety, with more capabilities and in larger quantities than any sane citizen could ever use.

And this has effects.

These excesses find use in Mexico. These excesses find use in gang warfare, school shootings, domestic disputes, armed robberies and at least on a more personally felt level, these excesses reflect a value system of fear, mistrust and isolation that I detest.

Give me one example of a high capacity magazine being both necessary and properly used in self defense. I want you to give me an example of one person unloading more than ten rounds against aggressors, and doing so in a situation that legally warrants it and was necessitated by circumstance (freaking out and shooting rounds indiscriminately does not count).

Give me one example of government over-reach being suppressed primarily by personal firearms. I'll even let you look around the world and as far back as the early 20th century for examples - I think you'll find that armed internal conflicts tend to sway with the military's whims or with external support.

For each instance of high capacity magazine use, I will give you ten instances of mass shootings made possible in part by their existence.

For each instance of successful armed civic insubordination, I will give you a hundred examples of change being accomplished with nothing more than a pen, a voice or a peaceful protest.

The problem here is that though gun owners are frequently responsible on an individual basis, their overall view on the utility of these tools in our society is completely out of line with the reality of a modern world. This is what gun control should be about: diluting these fantasies.

You are an a-godzilla-ist and that is entirely a practical concession to the fact that you can't really afford giant monster insurance considering recent statistics for giant lizard attacks and indeed going through life avoiding Tokyo at all costs is just kinda a bummer - imagine all the fresh sushi you could miss out on.

You can't actually prove that there never was a Godzilla or that there never will be a Godzilla and you can only assume (not demonstrate) that there is not a Godzilla planet orbiting one of the stars a few galaxies down the way.

All you can really say is that Tokyo is still standing and that all the various accounts of Godzilla's antics across the myriad of B-movies and hollywood blockbusters that feature him as a character seem to have no basis in reality for various reasons. You move on with your day, smile a bit and never really bother to duck for cover.

And that's all we're saying about God. To my knowledge, that is the bleeding edge of audacious claims being made by anyone who is even vaguely respected - simply that we can't take religious claims seriously any more, so we are going to move on with our lives, only dealing with religion directly when it decides to be a bit too influential for our tastes.

But fine, based on the secondary predicate principle and a lengthy philosophy 101 essay with no shortage of verbal meandering through Descartes, et al., atheists kinda sorta make a claim of some sort. What's your point.

And if you think that the atheist experience simply trawls the bottom of Christian intellectualism then who would you have them debate, Ray comfort? Matt Slick? Perhaps you?

More than anything, the most disgusting trait of Christianity is that it equates child rapists and children as equally sinful in the eyes of God. There are certainly various arguments saying that different consequences will be felt here on earth, or perhaps that there is an arbitrary age of innocence, etc... But almost universally, Christians agree that the following scenario is at least possible:

Rapist rapes child, we'll start with that.

The child struggles through the resultant torturous anguish across a lifetime, starts a support group, mans a hotline, works in the community to support fellow victims, increases awareness and so on while loving his/her family and friends, making mistakes periodically and occasionally letting loose at a concert or something. The child (now an adult) is unfortunately just a minimally observant Jew and never really gave Jesus any consideration, so when he/she gets hit by a drunk driver at the unfortunate age of 34, he/she is tormented in hell for the rest of eternity.

The rapist, meanwhile, goes on with his (statistically probable) life, perhaps he rapes some more children (also statistically probable) and maybe he then stops at some point, realizing it is wrong and maybe even feels guilty about it. Ridden by guilt, the preaching of a wayward street preacher catch his ears one day. He ventures into church for the first time. He is moved. He proclaims his belief in Jesus and the resurrection. He feels his sins are forgiven and he can feel years of guilt being washed away. Maybe he even admits his history as a rapist to a sympathetic inner circle of confidants, spiritual advisors and friends. He dies of a heart attack, and spends eternity in heaven.

That is disgusting and a god that sets such a system up is disgusting.

Many compassionate people are blinded into thinking this is just and good in an effort to tenaciously preserve their own sense of eternal safety and cosmic worth at all costs. That is less disgusting just because it is an understandable impulse, but it is disgusting nonetheless.

Haha,

So destroying prospects for an Iran-Iraq-Syria-Pakistan-China pipeline via massive social engineering, extensive multi decade wars and risky political espionage is somehow cheaper than just good old price competition?

The Suez Canal is a much more direct threat to the trans-Israel pipeline (just look at a map to see what I mean) and clearly there is no massive, violent international conspiracy to suppress trade through that canal - Israel just undercuts their prices.

And for that matter, it's not like the trans Israel pipeline is some massive cash cow that is secretly protected at all costs. It's max capacity is only 400000 barrels per day - that's nothing as far as Israel is concerned profit-wise and definitely pathetic by Chinese daily demand-wise.

There is a grain of truth in every conspiracy: of course AIPEC is probably too influential, and of course the various wars going on right now have some economic incentives, but let's not be dumb about our accusations if we want to be taken seriously.

Even the smartest people can become "deer in the headlights" type stupid when they are overstimulated in an environment like a skydive. This guy couldn't pull his own chute only because he was new, scared, tense and overwhelmed once he lost control.

This guy wasn't on his first time as a solo skydiver, he probably had ten jumps or so and is clearly still over-amped from the whole experience. The worst thing you can do on a skydive is tense up and overcompensate all of your movements. All you need to do is relax and be symmetrical and you will stabilize thanks to the airflow. This is the exact opposite of what you have been taught your whole life where you need to fling your body's momentum around rather emphatically if you want to get anywhere at lower airspeeds (think doing a backflip off of a diving board, you need to emphatically kick your legs up and your head back - in skydiving it's all about smooth controlled movements that control airflow, not momentum).

The dude just freaked out and flailed about like an idiot. Human error, that's all.

The instructor is a certified badass for catching and saving the student as low as he did.

@grinter - Funny you should ask:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am-a5x9DGjg

My god this is a good documentary. How the hell does a documentarian come across these sorts of people?