I think it's a good thing to play up the comedic aspect of something that was also terribly tragic at the time. Laughter can be very cathartic.


::looks forward to a comedy about the end of religious superstition::

>> ^JiggaJonson:

I sort of wish this wasn't a comedy. Women complaining of PMS like symptoms around this time period were either given one of two things (depending on the doctor); either a vibrator, or they were forced against their will into an asylum.
I'm sure it will be a good movie but the truth still retains the title of being much more interesting than fiction.

@Lawdeedaw said: "And I like how you named this post, "Spare the rod...or spoil the child." The "or" is what notes the tolerance you are developing towards religion--as though religion is not particularly responsible for this child's death..."

I didn't think I'd have to spell this out, but...
You clearly misread the title, which is: ""Spare the rod"... or murder your daughter in God's name"

It is a play on the Bible verses that Samuel Butler condenses in his epigram, which suggests that if you don't discipline (with beatings) your kid it will grow up spoiled. My title argues that it is preferable to "spare the rod", i.e. go against the Bible's teachings.

Speaking of the Bible, doesn't it also say parents should kill their kids if they diss them (Lev.20:9/Deut.21:18-21)? And doesn't even el Jeebs himself recall this commandment when accusing the Pharisees of not following the law (Mt.15:4/Mk.7:9-13)?

edit: and yes, I do think religion is responsible for this child's death. It is religion that gave birth to Psycho Joy Ministries, and which let their child-abuse manual become popular instead of shut down.

edit 2: for more examples of widescale, institutionalised, Christian-run abuse of children, with the help of the gvt: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/08/17/tough-love-thuggery-under-jesus-loving-hands/


I have no tolerance for the indoctrination and perpetuation of lies, fear and superstition. I have no tolerance for religion( =/= religious people).

>> ^chilaxe:

Doctors see death all the time. Why hide death away and put superstitions around it?


Because the majority of people are cat video loving, do not like to understand the meat they eat comes from cows, pussy mother fuckers.

*cough*

*cough*

Doctors see death all the time. Why hide death away and put superstitions around it?

@Lawdeedaw: if you're trying to convince me that JW are not like other religions, and don't take people's money in exchange for superstition and lies, you're going to have to do better than that. For the little I know of that strain of christianity, it's all about eschatology, in-group vs. out-group, obeying the Watchtower's authority, etc... basically your run-of-the-mill diverging christian sect.

I'm glad you had a good experience with them, doesn't make their ideology any less poison than 99% of religion out there.

@SDGundamX

I stand corrected. It seems to me to be neither sarcasm nor hypocrisy, but ironic parody of all the (death) threats and "You'll burn in hell"s that people like Condell get for criticising religion. To suggest that he truly wishes harm on others is to miss the style of his comedy altogether. I've watched almost all of his videos, so to me it went without saying, but I understand that someone not familiar with his style could infer what you do.

Also, your comment to @MaxWilder suggests that you didn't get the point about "insulting". What Pat does in his videos is turn the rhetoric of religious fundies and apologists back on them, in this case those who call any criticism of Islam "insult" or "blasphemy" (those two are often used as synonyms by the Islamist defenders).

You ask, "what is the point?" The point is, imo, to encourage non-believers and (eventually) moderate believers not to sit quietly and "take it" when religion tramples all over basic human rights, and then tries to shut up those who call it out for it. Lack of dissent is silent assent. To paraphrase Sagan:

"If we offer too much silent assent about mysticism and superstition [the abuse of human rights]—even when it seems to be doing a little good—we abet a general climate in which skepticism [criticism] is considered impolite [insulting], science tiresome, and rigorous thinking [ethical concerns] somehow stuffy and inappropriate.

This is just as bunk as people who continually cite the word 'consciousness' to evoke god without saying 'god', and in all cases I've heard its always trying to use the available scientific evidence and pervert its meaning to suit mysticism & superstition of non-scientific minded people.

>> ^Don_Juan:

Muslim is a religion, not a person. This idiot is a person, not the muslim religious superstition.


Er, no, Islam is a religion. Believers in Islam are called Muslims.

Muslim is a religion, not a person. This idiot is a person, not the muslim religious superstition.

I realize I'm feeding a troll here but...

@shinyblurry You need to do some research that isn't listening to a preacher who's sole purpose is indoctrination.

1) Provide an example of one human fossil found in strata determined to be millions of years before humans. There is no documentation of this that hasn't been debunked. The fact you bring this up proves that you don't even know your own side, as this argument has been terribly embarrassing for creationists.

2) The polystrate fossil claim is a straw man. Yes, there are fossils that cross multiple strata, but these examples always show evidence of rapid sedimentation/deposition. Not every layer takes thousands/millions of years

3) What does the speed of stalactite production have to do with the age of the earth? Another straw man.

There is no controversy. Really. Do some real research, stop repeating already debunked garbage that came from your preacher.
>> ^shinyblurry:

You can stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes all you want..there is a controversy and the only ones who dispute that are the ones who just buy into it without doing any real investigation. Also you've missed the entire point..this isnt an anti-science video. Science supports a young earth creation and I am all for it. This video debunks evolution, which is a hoax perpetrated on the public, taught in schools as if it were fact, and we believe it. I believed it. Every geologist knows there are problems with these dating methods.
If you watch some of the other videos you'll find out things the scientific community doesn't tell you like:
They find human remains in all levels of the strata..layaers that are supposed to be hundreds of millions of years before human beings.
They find polystrate fossils all the time, which are trees that poke through hundreds of millions of years worth of layers.
Fossils and stalactites don't take millions of years to form..just decades.
That's just the tip of the iceberg. So if you want to pretend there is no controversy, feel free. I know your entire world view hinges on it. The evidence however speaks for itself, and its out there for anyone with an actual curiosity to find.

>> ^Stormsinger:
You can scrape the bottom of the intellectual barrel to come up with these moronic videos for as long as you like. But until you can design, build and power a computer with prayer, I'll continue to put -my- trust (not faith) in the scientific method. And this ain't it.
THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY over whether or not evolution takes place. The only controversy comes from religious fanatics trying to teach their superstitions in our science classes.

You can stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes all you want..there is a controversy and the only ones who dispute that are the ones who just buy into it without doing any real investigation. Also you've missed the entire point..this isnt an anti-science video. Science supports a young earth creation and I am all for it. This video debunks evolution, which is a hoax perpetrated on the public, taught in schools as if it were fact, and we believe it. I believed it. Every geologist knows there are problems with these dating methods.

If you watch some of the other videos you'll find out things the scientific community doesn't tell you like:

They find human remains in all levels of the strata..layaers that are supposed to be hundreds of millions of years before human beings.

They find polystrate fossils all the time, which are trees that poke through hundreds of millions of years worth of layers.

Fossils and stalactites don't take millions of years to form..just decades.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. So if you want to pretend there is no controversy, feel free. I know your entire world view hinges on it. The evidence however speaks for itself, and its out there for anyone with an actual curiosity to find.



>> ^Stormsinger:
You can scrape the bottom of the intellectual barrel to come up with these moronic videos for as long as you like. But until you can design, build and power a computer with prayer, I'll continue to put -my- trust (not faith) in the scientific method. And this ain't it.
THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY over whether or not evolution takes place. The only controversy comes from religious fanatics trying to teach their superstitions in our science classes.

You can scrape the bottom of the intellectual barrel to come up with these moronic videos for as long as you like. But until you can design, build and power a computer with prayer, I'll continue to put -my- trust (not faith) in the scientific method. And this ain't it.

THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY over whether or not evolution takes place. The only controversy comes from religious fanatics trying to teach their superstitions in our science classes.

I don't know a damn thing about you. I don't claim that you are anything like any other religious person in existence or in history, except for one thing - a belief in a supernatural higher power that there is no real basis for believing in. And in that very specific aspect of your personality, yes, I generalize you. No matter what kind of monster you yourself try to paint me as being, I just don't feel bad about that. Sorry that I can't catalog the personal details of billions of individual believers for anonymous online discussion purposes. I'm sure you are otherwise a wonderful human being and I certainly bear you no ill will.>> ^smooman:

>> ^Sketch:
You are right, I am not going to get into an argument about semantics with you, because that would make me a complete idiot. If it helps for me to compartmentalize it for you, then yes, where your beliefs in religion, superstition and the supernatural are concerned, I actively think that you are an idiot. Does that clear it up and make you feel better? Now you can go do rocket science, or brain surgery or any number of things that probably make you a great deal smarter than me in a possibly infinite minus 1 number of subjects in peace.>> ^smooman:
>> ^Sketch:
It's not, but if that's how you want to put words in my mouth, then so be it. Smart people can, and do, believe stupid shit sometimes. It happens.>> ^smooman:
>> ^Sketch:
For the record, in my estimation, if you are religious it does not necessarily mean that you are an idiot. But it does mean you believe in idiotic superstition.

"if you are religious it does not necessarily mean that you are an idiot. But it does mean you believe in things only idiots do, thus making you an idiot"
thats basically what you said


well it does actually. the modifier of superstitions, in this case, idiotic, explicitly implies that the believers of such are by association, idiots. This is further enforced by your choice of diction indicating that all persons of religious persuasions believe in what you would describe as "idiotic superstitions". this is merely a debate in semantics but.....whatever. i think i know what you were trying to say. you just said it in the most absolute, presumptuous, generalized way


its amusing to me that you like to think you know my beliefs and my deepest convictions, or superstitions as you call them, based on the mere fact that i am religious. cuz we're all the same right? perhaps to you. by that fact, it is you who are foolish, not me.....or are all atheists the same? (hint: theyre not, and neither are we religious types)
if its more comfortable for you to paint with such broad strokes, then by all means, keep using that sweeping brush, but dont expect me to admire your haste to color all religious peoples as bumbling neanderthals clinging to ancient fairy tales and superstitions that you vehemently insist we are.

but what do i know, im just a superstitious, religious, idiot

>> ^Sketch:

You are right, I am not going to get into an argument about semantics with you, because that would make me a complete idiot. If it helps for me to compartmentalize it for you, then yes, where your beliefs in religion, superstition and the supernatural are concerned, I actively think that you are an idiot. Does that clear it up and make you feel better? Now you can go do rocket science, or brain surgery or any number of things that probably make you a great deal smarter than me in a possibly infinite minus 1 number of subjects in peace.>> ^smooman:
>> ^Sketch:
It's not, but if that's how you want to put words in my mouth, then so be it. Smart people can, and do, believe stupid shit sometimes. It happens.>> ^smooman:
>> ^Sketch:
For the record, in my estimation, if you are religious it does not necessarily mean that you are an idiot. But it does mean you believe in idiotic superstition.

"if you are religious it does not necessarily mean that you are an idiot. But it does mean you believe in things only idiots do, thus making you an idiot"
thats basically what you said


well it does actually. the modifier of superstitions, in this case, idiotic, explicitly implies that the believers of such are by association, idiots. This is further enforced by your choice of diction indicating that all persons of religious persuasions believe in what you would describe as "idiotic superstitions". this is merely a debate in semantics but.....whatever. i think i know what you were trying to say. you just said it in the most absolute, presumptuous, generalized way



its amusing to me that you like to think you know my beliefs and my deepest convictions, or superstitions as you call them, based on the mere fact that i am religious. cuz we're all the same right? perhaps to you. by that fact, it is you who are foolish, not me.....or are all atheists the same? (hint: theyre not, and neither are we religious types)

if its more comfortable for you to paint with such broad strokes, then by all means, keep using that sweeping brush, but dont expect me to admire your haste to color all religious peoples as bumbling neanderthals clinging to ancient fairy tales and superstitions that you vehemently insist we are.


but what do i know, im just a superstitious, religious, idiot

You are right, I am not going to get into an argument about semantics with you, because that would make me a complete idiot. If it helps for me to compartmentalize it for you, then yes, where your beliefs in religion, superstition and the supernatural are concerned, I actively think that you are an idiot. Does that clear it up and make you feel better? Now you can go do rocket science, or brain surgery or any number of things that probably make you a great deal smarter than me in a possibly infinite minus 1 number of subjects in peace.>> ^smooman:

>> ^Sketch:
It's not, but if that's how you want to put words in my mouth, then so be it. Smart people can, and do, believe stupid shit sometimes. It happens.>> ^smooman:
>> ^Sketch:
For the record, in my estimation, if you are religious it does not necessarily mean that you are an idiot. But it does mean you believe in idiotic superstition.

"if you are religious it does not necessarily mean that you are an idiot. But it does mean you believe in things only idiots do, thus making you an idiot"
thats basically what you said


well it does actually. the modifier of superstitions, in this case, idiotic, explicitly implies that the believers of such are by association, idiots. This is further enforced by your choice of diction indicating that all persons of religious persuasions believe in what you would describe as "idiotic superstitions". this is merely a debate in semantics but.....whatever. i think i know what you were trying to say. you just said it in the most absolute, presumptuous, generalized way