Funny, you don't look like a douchebag either... BUT YOU ARE!
Oh no...the host pretty much *looks* like a douchebag too. But I get your meaning.
I love this. Reading the title and seeing that it was in Texas, I thought for sure it was some christian group asking people to trade in their porn to receive a bible. Glad to see that there's *some* semblance of proper education happening in Texas.
Tags for this video have been changed from 'porn, bibles, atheist, atheism, college, campus, douche, host' to 'porn, bibles, atheist, atheism, college, campus, Tucker Carlson, Thomas Jackson, MSNBC' - edited by SlipperyPete
Socrates put it best, god cannot validate a rule - either the rule is intrinsicly valid or it isnt. Take for example - Murder "It's wrong to murder" ---"Well, why is it wrong to murder?" "God says it's wrong." ^sounds a little fishy but if you flip it around it's easier to understand.
"You SHOULD murder your first born son" ---"Wait a minute, murder is wrong - Why should I murder anyone?" "Because God says you should murder" ^this isnt going to automatically convince you that it's right to murder your son and the reason for that is people have an inherent sense for what is right and wrong, it's that same sense people use to differentiate the 'good' or valid rules from the 'bad' ones in the bible.
"Have you picked up any girls doing this, honestly?"
It was at this point where his words overcame his bowtie on my doucheometer. It would've been earlier but that bowtie is so douchey that it was actually cleaning the vagina that is Tucker Carlson.
>> ^chilaxe: This is a couple years old. Tucker started wearing a normal tie when his balls dropped.
Ha serious? lolz. I was going to say i cant take him seriously because of such. Then try to be objective and realize the nonsense associated with his mouth aswell.
I always thought someone should make an illustrated bible that includes graphic pictures of all the bad parts of the bible, just to help people realize what is in there.
>> ^Ariane: I always thought someone should make an illustrated bible that includes graphic pictures of all the bad parts of the bible, just to help people realize what is in there.
So let it be written, so let it be done: The Brick Testament - The Old and New Testament illustrated with Legos.
This is something I dont understand (Im not a religious nor atheist, I can explain if some one wants) but Im starting to think that atheist are trying to be the "new religion", he say that -"they are not going door to door"- but they are on the street giving flyers, they say that they dont have a building in every street, but they wish that, because now they have meetings here and there (schools,private homes,coffe shops,etc.) and they are saying the same thing "Spreed the word because this is the truth", and one of the phrases that I hate the most "If you dont belive as I" and they just change the end from "youre going to hell" to "youre stupid" I think we need to find the right balance because for either fanatics "you're goint to hell" or "you're stupid"
"Im starting to think that atheist are trying to be the "new religion", he say that -"they are not going door to door"- but they are on the street giving flyers".
I got a flyer from a woman about Cancer Research. That's not a religion either. Similarly, if someone were to say that they didn't believe in cancer, I'm sure I'd be justified in calling them stupid too.
>> ^oscarillo: they are saying the same thing "Spreed the word because this is the truth", and one of the phrases that I hate the most "If you dont belive as I" and they just change the end from "youre going to hell" to "youre stupid" I think we need to find the right balance because for either fanatics "you're goint to hell" or "you're stupid"
Saying the same thing doesn't mean they have similar merit. The underlying arguments are completely different.
Behind the atheist argument is empiricism - your beliefs are derived from evidence, gathered through your senses (science is a refinement of this; a methodology to minimise error, uncertainty, cognitive biases, etc).
Behind the typical religous argument is innate belief. Belief that comes from what you internally decided, rather than what the world shows to your senses. Otherwise known as faith: The bible is true and god does exist. It doesn't matter how much reality shows to be the contrary, faith means you still go on believing that there is such a god in this reality anyway. The quickest to explain of one of the severe problems with this is the way in which faith contradicts itself. By faith's defintition, there is no way of telling which of two faiths is right. And there are an infinite number of possible faiths.
It's the merit of reason/empiricism vs faith you should be paying attention to, not the superficial similarities between two sentences. Of course, if that one sentence is all they say, then yes, there is no argument there at all.
In all seriousness though. I feel that the exchange was ill-planned. While I have no problem with porn, I feel that it is a bad PR move to exchange Bibles for porn because it just fuels negative stereotypes about atheism. Rather than exchange it for porn, they would have been much better off exchanging it for something like a Carl Sagan book.
Stumble This
Funny, you don't look like a douchebag either... BUT YOU ARE!
heh.
Funny, you don't look like a douchebag either... BUT YOU ARE!
Oh no...the host pretty much *looks* like a douchebag too. But I get your meaning.
I love this. Reading the title and seeing that it was in Texas, I thought for sure it was some christian group asking people to trade in their porn to receive a bible. Glad to see that there's *some* semblance of proper education happening in Texas.
Take for example - Murder
"It's wrong to murder"
---"Well, why is it wrong to murder?"
"God says it's wrong."
^sounds a little fishy but if you flip it around it's easier to understand.
"You SHOULD murder your first born son"
---"Wait a minute, murder is wrong - Why should I murder anyone?"
"Because God says you should murder"
^this isnt going to automatically convince you that it's right to murder your son and the reason for that is people have an inherent sense for what is right and wrong, it's that same sense people use to differentiate the 'good' or valid rules from the 'bad' ones in the bible.
*doublepromote
It was at this point where his words overcame his bowtie on my doucheometer. It would've been earlier but that bowtie is so douchey that it was actually cleaning the vagina that is Tucker Carlson.
This is a couple years old. Tucker started wearing a normal tie when his balls dropped.
Ha serious? lolz. I was going to say i cant take him seriously because of such. Then try to be objective and realize the nonsense associated with his mouth aswell.
I always thought someone should make an illustrated bible that includes graphic pictures of all the bad parts of the bible, just to help people realize what is in there.
So let it be written, so let it be done:
The Brick Testament - The Old and New Testament illustrated with Legos.
I think we need to find the right balance because for either fanatics "you're goint to hell" or "you're stupid"
I got a flyer from a woman about Cancer Research. That's not a religion either. Similarly, if someone were to say that they didn't believe in cancer, I'm sure I'd be justified in calling them stupid too.
they are saying the same thing "Spreed the word because this is the truth", and one of the phrases that I hate the most "If you dont belive as I" and they just change the end from "youre going to hell" to "youre stupid"
I think we need to find the right balance because for either fanatics "you're goint to hell" or "you're stupid"
Saying the same thing doesn't mean they have similar merit. The underlying arguments are completely different.
Behind the atheist argument is empiricism - your beliefs are derived from evidence, gathered through your senses (science is a refinement of this; a methodology to minimise error, uncertainty, cognitive biases, etc).
Behind the typical religous argument is innate belief. Belief that comes from what you internally decided, rather than what the world shows to your senses. Otherwise known as faith: The bible is true and god does exist. It doesn't matter how much reality shows to be the contrary, faith means you still go on believing that there is such a god in this reality anyway. The quickest to explain of one of the severe problems with this is the way in which faith contradicts itself. By faith's defintition, there is no way of telling which of two faiths is right. And there are an infinite number of possible faiths.
It's the merit of reason/empiricism vs faith you should be paying attention to, not the superficial similarities between two sentences. Of course, if that one sentence is all they say, then yes, there is no argument there at all.