The goal of posting this video was to spur interesting conversations on philosophical topics, but so far everyone (with an exception here and there) seems interested in discussing the same old atheist talking points and ignoring the content of the video entirely.

This is probably because the content in the video was a pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-philosophical sermon that made such astronomical leaps that it didn't need to be said.

The argument that was made, I think, is that if you're an atheist you're leading a double life. On one hand, you are committed to this relativism which makes every value judgment subjective, but on the other hand, you live as though there are absolute values and meaning.

There wasn't an argument made for this. For some reason, you seem to believe that "the things we do in life have no meaning after we die" turns people into sociopaths... And since we're not all sociopaths, that proves that God exists. The first issue is that you assume that 'meaninglessness' leads to sociopathic behavior. Secondly, this is a textbook example of Denying the Antecedant fallacy.

--Skipping the story--

The point being that while it's easy to wax philosophical about these points, no one really lives that way. We all have an idea of what is wrong, and if there is something the way it shouldn't be, then naturally there is also a way it ought to be. Where does that come from?

Is this really your argument? 80% of the people you meet were raised Christian (even most of the Atheists)... This is confirmation bias... You can't say something is put there by God when Religion was preaching to them on a weekly basis. If there really were some sort of imperative planted by God... wouldn't there be far less religious wars?

Breaking news... people really do spend their entire lives 'waxing philosophically'... People do die for things that their religion has told them was wrong, but they felt was right (Anti-Gay Violence?).

This is a very ugly misconception that you seem to have. Except for several very vocal celebrities, Atheists aren't "against" religion... there certainly isn't some central creed or governing body telling us what to organize against.

What Atheists are against, in the western world, is having our government (and hence our lives) tainted by beliefs that we don't hold. In Muslim countries, there are harsh penalties (up to Death) for blasphemy... so you won't find many people speaking up. In the US, Muslims and Hindus aren't making laws to persecute us, hence why you don't hear us complaining about them.

There's no crusade to remove Religion... There's no attempt to persecute Christians, we just want the ability to go about our heathen lives in peace.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Well, those might seem to be good reasons, but in the end, atheists are supposed to be against religion.

While there are a LOT of things I want to comment on, I'd like to point out one thing that I very vehemently agree with. While I can't say that I believe that Jesus was the 'ideal' man, I can say that he's someone that a vast majority of people I know could aspire to emulating.

It's not Jesus that is the problem, as awesome of a guy as he was (allegedly). Christianity teaches that it is not the actions that grant you access to Heaven, it is God's Grace. Whether it's Grace because you've acknowledged Jesus as your Lord, or Grace through TULIP-style pre-destination... All of an individual Christian's actions (except for the 'I Believe' action) are, in fact, meaningless. If the speaker thought more about his own Christian Philosophy, rather than de-contextualizing Atheists' quotes, he'd have realized this already.

If Christian 'Judgement' were based on actions and not belief in God (hence, their actions and lives had meaning), as many of my non-Christian friends would make it into Heaven as my Christian friends... One specific data point is violence. Every one of my non-christian friends is non-violent. They oppose violence, both offensive and defensive. Never once did Jesus EVER advocate any form of violence. And, if you take his life as a blueprint, he proved his mettle by submitting to being crucified, even stopping the people who would have defended him.

There are some Christians who are non-violent (Mostly Mennonites/Amish)... I respect them. Others, not-so-much. Any branch of Christianity that doesn't take a hard stance against violence is twisting the Bible to their own selfish ends... which is, unfortunately, most of them.

Lest you think I'm cherry-picking, read the Beatitudes... You'll read about being meek, righteous, merciful, peacemakers and persecuted... But you won't see anything that could have justified the Crusades, Slavery or Gay-Hate.

So, as an Atheist, let me go on the Record... I don't dis-believe in God... I dis-believe in the God that is worshiped by Christians. I also have very specific issues with other Religions, but that can wait for another time. Given that I've found all of the Religions that I've encountered to be as 'bad' as any others... My position is that God may or may not exist, but if He DOES exist, He won't be found in any current religious textbooks...

(FYI, I'm one of the "life is meaningless" people that the speaker seems to think can't exist. I can stare into the Abyss and take pleasure walking the line, knowing one day I'll fall in and vanish utterly. It does not, in any way, depress me.)


>> ^shinyblurry:

Genji,
I appreciate your words, Ezra, thank you. Let's say that you're right, that my life is meaningless, and that I am the one who determines what is true. Do you know what I would determine to do? What I would determine to do is to do the same things I am doing right now. Even if I knew Jesus Christ was not God, I would still determine to follow His blueprint for the ideal person, because following that blueprint has radically transformed my life for the better.

Ron Burgandy said it best:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FM3Em7FIOc

The video says 10 WPM, but they probably used 23 WPM for their calculation. (though 24 WPM comes out much closer to 50 years)

3.2e+9/5(characters per word)/23 == 53 years.

As someone who has done monotonous data entry, it can be MUCH slower than normal typing speed if you aren't typing in things that 'mean' something. I started the comment expecting to make fun of their calculations, but I think they may be right.

If they turned it into a game, like "DNA Hero", it could be done in a weekend!

There are two definitions of 'majority'... Maddow is using a technical definition, which means that more than 50% of a population. The 'common' definition simply means "the greater part or number" (technically, a plurality: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/majority )

To everyone but statisticians and poli-sci, if someone says "a majority of people are X", and it turns out that the ratio is 40% X to 30% Y, they will say that is true. Everyone else will say (pedantically pushing their glasses up) "I believe you meant to say "plurality".

I like Maddow, I've liked her other sections on this, but it feels like she's going out of her way to attack Politifact.

Who says that small business man can't expand? They banned restaurants that specialized in pre-cooked meals. They very specifically showed them cooking the hamburgers on-premise... I highly doubt his business classifies as one of those which are banned.

Even so, it goes in front of committee... case by case...

While I understand what the city trying to do, I don't like the way they are doing it.

That said, this was a horrible video. Comparing a quarter pounder to a claim jumper meal? Really?

The suggestion that this will somehow hurt the small-business guy? He should be overjoyed that he doesn't have any more competition. They're not taking anything away from him or devaluing his hard work.

And the Douche from reason.com... How does limiting new fast food restaurants *reduce* choice? It doesn't. It keeps the amount of choices THE SAME, unless someone puts in a regular restaurant, in which case it increases. And somehow he turns that into "he's punishing the people who do business in South LA"... How again? How is there ANY punishment going on? Are there extra taxes? Extra costs? Extra paperwork? Some sort of punishment?

When it comes down to it, these are their elected officials. Unless you live in South LA, this isn't our business. They talk about "let people make choices'... well, the people chose to elect these officials who are setting the restrictions. Doesn't that count?