*truefalsemeaningless

Sooo want to downvote this.
Ignorance begets ignorance.

Some of that was funny, but that weird stare he made at 1:24 and on just creeped me out, a lot.

What I think would be more interesting would be to find out: Of those who call themselves atheists,hot many consider themselves spiritual, rather than religious. I think atheism has become one of those abused terms that is slapped onto anyone who does not believe what the bible says or does not go to church by the God-fearing "true believers".

Hes getting himself clasically confused with diehard religious.

You wont find a single Atheist alive that will say their disbeleif in god is above evidence to the contrary. This is the "faith" he is talking about, that is so common with many religious people.

His patent ignorance of evolution makes his whole argument moot, and he should just stop talking. Evolution is real folks, without it, AIDS would be easy to kill. "Mutation" wouldnt even be in our vernacular, and modern biology and chemistry as we know it would cease to exist.

>> ^SSIops:
Of those who call themselves atheists,hot many consider themselves spiritual, rather than religious.

I think you are suffering from unrealistic exposure bias that the media frenzy around "new-atheism" has created. Almost nobody calls themselves an atheist, and those of us who do are very clear that it means that we believe in no supernatural forces whatsoever.

>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^SSIops:
Of those who call themselves atheists,hot many consider themselves spiritual, rather than religious.
I think you are suffering from unrealistic exposure bias that the media frenzy around "new-atheism" has created. Almost nobody calls themselves an atheist, and those of us who do are very clear that it means that we believe in no supernatural forces whatsoever.


...while allowing for the possibility of demonstrable evidence to be tested with a scientific process, yes. And I wouldn't say "almost nobody" calls themselves an atheist. Atheists themselves do not see the word "atheist" as a pejorative.

In almost every religious affiliation survey out there, you will get roughly a 1:3 or 1:4 ratio of athiests:nonreligious, usually 5%:15% or 3%:12%, etc.

EDIT: Aha! Found something very interesting on his Wikipedia page:

"Lowry is single and has no children. He has two siblings - an older brother Mike of Lynchburg, Virginia and a younger sister, Melissa also of Lynchburg. He refers to his siblings as 'perfect' at different times (my older brother Mike, who is perfect... Melissa came along and she was perfect, too...) He also has several nieces and nephews. Mark has consistently denied rumors that he is a homosexual as that would be incompatible with his strong Christian faith."

Repress much?

How can he diss evolution when there's clearly a caveman sitting on stage with him!

Moving this video to blankfist's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

He's a comedian, if your offended then your taking something too seriously. Is this really more offensive than most other comics out there? It's certainly less funny, but not more offensive.

>> ^shuac:Atheists themselves do not see the word "atheist" as a pejorative.

People who call themselves atheists don't see it as pejorative. Many people who are atheists, but call themselves agnostics, or brights, do see it as pejorative. My assertion is that while there certainly are many atheists/non-religious people, very few people ( for instance, nobody I know personally excepting myself ) will claim the label of atheist.

Even among atheists there are a number of re-branding movements, such as the brights. I think the suggestion that people claim the title often, or even not extremely rarely, ignores the evidence available.

More relevant to the post I was responding to, people who hold supernatural beliefs, are not atheists, and I know of no one who claim to be an atheist despite being "spiritual".

*lies
The video deserves to be there. I liked the start and the "ooh, I've never had one in my house before" but then turns into "this is true, because I think its true" which is truthiness == lies channel.

Adding video to channels (Lies) - requested by gwiz665.

Wow.. he's like a humourist for the humourless. I don't think i've ever seen a simple pun used in a comedy act.. and it got laughs!

The "funny" smile at 1:24 reminds me of clowns. So fucking creepy and just about the furthest thing from funny.

He is quite right, if you shake a sack full of watch parts for 6 billion years, the chances of it assembling into a watch is at a rough guess, almost one in infinity.

But what he fails to mention is that in his analogy - where the sack represents the universe - he is shaking an almost infinitely large sack, with an almost infinitely large amount of every watch part ever invented.

Therefore, how is it stupid to assume that there would be a watch at the end of it?

Basically, why do people argue that evolution is impossible because the chances of it happening are almost infinitely small?
Seeing as the universe is almost infinitely large, being surprised that we all came together by random chance is like saying you're surprised that - when you gather 100 people - one of them has a disease found in every 1 out of 100 people.

You know, one of the biggest problems with this sort of creationist argument is that they're assuming that evolution is working towards a previously set goal.

he is a loud blip on my gaydar