Thats just about the funniest interview I've ever seen, I mean, fuck me, that was funny. So akward. So so funny.

Jesus fucking Christ with magic underwear, What... the... fuck was that?? Someone finally asks a politician a hard, burningly relevant question, and gets chanted down with mindlessly irrelevant U-S-A! screams that doesnt mean anything. Akward silence, and then Romney fires off the same fucking generic soundbite non-statement about a new course, I mean, WHAT THE FUCK?

It's worse than i thought.

*hugs akwardly*
>> ^hpqp:

Oh boy, where to start...
Religion: Belief in or acknowledgement of some superhuman power or powers (esp. a god or gods) which is typically manifested in obedience, reverence, and worship; such a belief as part of a system defining a code of living, esp. as a means of achieving spiritual or material improvement. (OED)
Yes, there is something (actually several things) inherently wrong with religion, and it is naive (or disingenuous) to trot out the argument that religion has been "used" as "a social lever to inflict harm" without recognising that the reason it works so well for that is because of its particular negative aspects (most notably: blind submission to authority and the notion of "higher auth." trumping basic human values).
For one: supernatural belief, instilled/indoctrinated before critical thought can balance it out. Other than what I (and many others, including Hitchens) would call "state religions" such as communism, what set of beliefs is instilled uncritically into young minds, without any evidence to back it up? And I'm not talking about "don't put your fingers in the socket" either, which a) is for the child's good (contrary to religious beliefs) and b) can be tested/understood empirically as the child learns about electricity. No, supernatural beliefs, the staple (and one of the definitive aspects) of religion cannot be empirically tested, and thus rely on blind obedience to authority, which is a negative in and of itself. Moreover, it often brings into play a dictatorial reward/punishment system that the child (and adult) cannot discount/disprove with evidence; it is kept out of reach of experience, and thus is much harder to leave behind, while playing with humankind's deep-set fears (of death, eternity, pain, etc) in order to keep them under control. Can you tell me of another social organisation of beliefs/morals that does this? And while the "moderates" are less guilty of indoctrination and fear-mongering, they still give credence and the weight of majority (not to mention their influence as parental figures) to a set of supernatural beliefs which are detrimental to humankind. That they use these to justify positive moral codes only makes it worse, because it makes the latter seem dependent (or at least a result of) the former. As @PostalBlowfish rightly suggests, human morality is only impoverished by the supernatural beliefs religion attaches to it.
I could go on, but I have work to do. I will conclude by saying that as long as well-intentioned people like yourself continue to divorce the inherently negative aspects of religion/religious belief and the sociocultural evils it has often enshrined (backing them with an indefeasible authority) such as homophobia, tribalism, antisemitism, etc, society remains a long ways from being "fixed".
>> ^jonny:
[...]You make the point that the philosophical beliefs, particularly moral codes, are not intrinsically dependent upon religion. Even if that is true, it doesn't negate all other aspects of religion. Religion is more than a source of moral and ethical codes and rituals. I gave a tentative definition of it being a collectively held set of beliefs. The collective nature of that belief is very important. As social animals, humans need to feel connected to those around them, and religion provides what has been historically the most successful locus of connection in human societies. The social aspect of religion is probably its greatest function. It connects members of a community throughout every aspect of life, cradle to grave.
Now, you might say that a properly constructed set of philosophical beliefs based purely on rationality and science can accomplish the same thing. And I would say that if you did accomplish such a feat, you'd basically have a religion on your hands, regardless of its lack of theistic doctrine.
The point I was trying to make with my first comment was that any sufficiently powerful set of beliefs can be used as a social lever to inflict great harm on humanity. Various religions have been used such, as have the works of some great non-theistic philosophers. I was trying to point out that the "evils of religion" are not a problem with religion per se, but with things like demagoguery and xenophobic tribalism. I believe this distinction is of paramount importance, because it more accurately points us towards what needs fixing in our societies.

This isn't really a surprise; he endorsed it back in 1996 but has pretended otherwise until such time as it was politically convenient. This was actually politically inconvenient; it was introduced at an akward time, in an akward way, probably a lot earlier than he had planned, and he won't get much political mileage out of it. It will also serve to divide his base and galvanize conservatives. It's pretty much a lose-lose for Obama, except for the increased donations from the gay elite in hollywood and elsewhere.

I think everyone can figure out where I stand, but I've come to realize that these social issues are really just symptomatic to the larger issue of an apostate church failing to show the love of God. There is also the coming tribulation and the increase of sin in the world. The state is not going to be able to control sin or legislate it away. It is a spiritual battle, one the church must fight by being obedient to Christ, and one a compromised church cannot win.

>> ^messenger:

Why did that happen? Was he just not fast enough? The trampoline didn't bottom out, so it's not about how big he is.


This happened because he wasted all his momentum by jumping akwardly onto the trampoline.

Notice the angle of his feet. It's actually much easier to see on this version.

Funny that most girls are the akward ones..

>> ^jwray:

>> ^quantumushroom:
That's the problem with the Blame America First mindset, believing the rest of the world is made up of innocent countries populated by angels who NEVER fight, but then mean old USA comes along and look: WARS!
What will you do when red china and iran ignore the Golden Rule?

FYI the Iran Hostage crisis was Iran's revenge for the CIA-supported 1954 coup which overthrew their decent elected government and replaced it with a brutal dictator who violently cracked down on all political opposition to himself. The hostage-takers' only demands were that the US apologize for the 1954 coup, return the dictator to Iran for trial, and promise not to meddle in the internal affairs of Iran again. Those are perfectly reasonable demands that the USA should have done in the first place before the hostage crisis. But the hostage crisis put them in the akward position that the "right thing to do" was also "giving in to terrorists" and Ronald Reagan's massive testicles could not abide doing something that would please a terrorist even if it was the right thing to do regardless.


Well put. Except Reagan was an actor hired by the remnants of the Nixon gang who only ever did what he was told.

>> ^quantumushroom:

That's the problem with the Blame America First mindset, believing the rest of the world is made up of innocent countries populated by angels who NEVER fight, but then mean old USA comes along and look: WARS!
What will you do when red china and iran ignore the Golden Rule?


FYI the Iran Hostage crisis was Iran's revenge for the CIA-supported 1954 coup which overthrew their decent elected government and replaced it with a brutal dictator who violently cracked down on all political opposition to himself. The hostage-takers' only demands were that the US apologize for the 1954 coup, return the dictator to Iran for trial, and promise not to meddle in the internal affairs of Iran again. Those are perfectly reasonable demands that the USA should have done in the first place before the hostage crisis. But the hostage crisis put them in the akward position that the "right thing to do" was also "giving in to terrorists" and Ronald Reagan's massive testicles could not abide doing something that would please a terrorist even if it was the right thing to do regardless.

>> ^oritteropo:

It was a dupe anyway, of a vid with a typo in the title
http://videosift.com/video/Horny-Donkey-akward
>> ^BoneRemake:
Well if lann cannot even get a rise out of it.
kill



HURRUH ! it sifted ! !

It was a dupe anyway, of a vid with a typo in the title

http://videosift.com/video/Horny-Donkey-akward

>> ^BoneRemake:

Well if lann cannot even get a rise out of it.
kill

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^shinyblurry:
How is it that atheists seem to believe they can just go around and treat someone like garbage and talk down to them like children because they think they're right about something..why is this socially acceptable?

How is it that when I have conversations with Christians on youtube or any other open forum, once they find out I'm not religious, they talk down to me and tell me I'm going to "burn/rot in hell"? Call me a "sinner"? A "blasphemer"? They hope I "get cancer and die"? How is this socially acceptable?
I also have another question for you. How exactly did God "show himself" to you? You never really explained that one.


Christians are commanded to love thy neighbor as thyself. We are told the measure we use to judge will be measured back to us. When we observe that a law is being broken, we are justified in pointing this out to our brother, to correct the error of his way, in hopes he will turn from his sin. Now when you preach the gospel, you have to be aware that you will be judged by unbelievers by the same standards that you are proclaiming as truth, and hypocripsy will only denigrate Christs reputation. As a Christian, I admit that I am not perfect, which isn't really that difficult considering some of the more interesting choices I've made in life. Yet, if I strive to follow the standard set for me, which is perfection, my words will be justified and I will be an effective witness. This is the meaning of the measure we use being measured back to us.

So someone following Christs word should never tell you that you're going to burn and rot. That is utterly despicable. If you preach the gospel you are called to treat it with respect and care, because it is the Word of God. If you follow the word it comes naturally. No one who is following Christ in reality would say that to you. Christ promises that He is there to serve as our advocate before the Father, and obtaining forgiveness for our many sins through faith in Him.

Well, the way I knew it was God was..when I was a child God was with me. I just didn't notice it. The way that I was learning, seeing, experiencing..God was always there with me. He was an integral part of who I was, a secret friend who shared in my joys and sorrows. Later on in life I started to lose this connection. Life started to lose its electricity, it's spark, because our relationship was not as it should be. This is because I had begun to sin. I started shoplifting when I was 7 or 8 years old and I didn't stop for a long time. Now this may be looked upon as harmless in some way..I didn't ever really steal more than candy bars. But the law is the law. God was still there with me, supporting me, but because I was sinning it caused spiritual seperation from God.

This happened for a long time, gradually, until it was like living life alone. I had always been a loner..just akward socially, but this was different. The light went out of my life. There was no flow, at all. It had all stopped. I was only dimly aware of this transition at the time. It took me many years to piece together what happened. I had no idea God really existed. I was vaguely aware that He did; ie I was afraid of Him, but I also prayed a couple times and He answered my prayers. Then one day, suddenly, He showed me He was there. He showed me how His presence, His essence underlay all things. He showed me how He was working in reality. This isn't to say I comprehended it. It's just that I know what it feels like to be around Him a little bit and see what He does.

Note at this time I was not a Christian, I did not become a Christian until later on. He had showed me the nature of the Holy Trinity before I knew much about it, so it fit with what I already knew about God. The words of the bible spoke to what I knew about God, about His unconditional love for all of His children. So yeah, that's how I got to know God. It probably sounds strange but you know what they say. The Lord works in mysterious ways. I'm proof of that much.

lets rename it "The Golden Globe Akward" show or something

What makes this video perfect is the abrupt and akward ending to the footage mid strike.

I never ever wanted to see this...and I still refuse to. It just sounds awful and I hate akwardness.

hahaha, brilliant.

Not just akward, but seething with bile