Sterance 2009-11-21 21:03:04

Thanks for reviewing the collab i was in (SWF Hell 1/2). I'm glad you liked my part :D

BadBoyMcCoy 2009-12-01 19:25:06

thanks for reviewing my flash, also i agree wiv a lot of the stuff ur sayin in that video. i cud go into detail but it would take a few paragraphs.

keep it real

Bacchanalian 2009-12-05 15:55:33

The Video Transcribed...

Hello everybody my name is Eric Stephenson. [1]
I just wanted to say that [2]
I'm going to be doing something different. [3]
I'm going to try to defend religion. [4]
I know that this is really something strange [5]
that most people on this website don't do, [6]
but I'm going to do it. [7]
I've noticed a lot of people [8]
like Pat Condell and thunderfoot [9]
seem to take a lot of pride by [10]
in being atheists, [11]
but I don't think this [12]
but that's not what I believe. [13]
First of all I'd like to start off [14]
with a quote by Trey Parker. [15]
You may know him as the writer of South Park. [16]
He said... [17]
He said that the show had become popular [18]
among atheists, [19]
and people against religion, but [20]
he said that, "Of all the ridiculous things, [21]
religion teaches, [22]
atheism is in fact worse, [23]
as it teaches that things happen [24]
just because," [25]
and I think he's right about that. [26]
I want you to look at yourself, [27]
and I want you to honestly think. [28]
Do you really think that, [29]
as an atheist, [30]
you are rationalist, [31]
by believing things happen just because? [32]
I don't think you are. [33]
I'm not trying to discriminate against anybody. [34]
I would never discriminate against religion, [35]
or lack of, [36]
but I just want to defend my own position. [37]
I want us all to take a look [38]
at religion, [39]
and let's think about it. [40]
In terms of religion, [41]
this is what I believe. [42]
What a person must do, [43]
is that... [44]
we can't say that a religion is wrong, [45]
per se. [46]
What I'd like to think is that [47]
it's not for me. [48]
I know that's kind of hard to understand, [49]
but what I'm saying is, [50]
let's say there's a person [51]
who speaks English, [52]
and a person who speaks Spanish. [53]
You may ask yourself, [54]
now, a person who speaks Spanish [55]
would look at a cat [56]
and call that agato. [57]
A person who speaks English [58]
would look at a cat [59]
and simply call it a cat. [60]
But the question remains, [61]
which one of them is right? [62]
The thing is neither of them are right, [63]
or wrong, for that matter, [64]
because they're both simply used [65]
to describe the same thing [66]
in a different way. [67]
Therefore, what I believe [68]
is that we must use [69]
that religion is a way [70]
of God coming to us [71]
in different ways. [72]
I don't really think that [73]
thre's a wrong religion, [74]
per se, [75]
just a religion not for me. [76]
I actually did some research, [77]
and I found out that, [78]
that there were some groups of Romans, [79]
and the like, [80]
who believed in Jupiter as their main god, [81]
and Egyptians believed in Ra, [82]
but they did not believe that Ra was wrong, [83]
per se, [84]
they just thought it wasn't for them. [85]
What I'm trying to say is that, [86]
I believe that religion, [87]
serves an evolutionary purpose, [88]
and all I, and I think that [89]
we should fulfill that purpose [90]
in however way it comes to us. [91]
That is why, [92]
now I want you to, [93]
what I'm trying to say is that [94]
in terms of religion, [95]
you must learn that, [96]
people must learn to understand each other [97]
in order for us to get along [98]
in this world. [99]
I don't think that [100]
if we all simply become atheists [101]
it would solve anything, because [102]
it would take away the power [103]
of the individual [104]
I think we should be allowed to think [105]
what we believe. [106]
I'd also like to say that, [107]
in terms of religion, [108]
to a certain extent, [109]
and at least in the US, [110]
I think it would be unconstitutional, [111]
for there to be no religion, [112]
because in the US, [113]
we have freedom of religion. [114]
The idea of a United States of America, [115]
is that, [116]
we can do whatever we want, [117]
as long as it doesn't hurt other people. [118]
So all I'm saying is that, [119]
we should all believe whatever we want, [120]
but don't let it hurt other people. [121]
In terms of, [122]
now I am personally a Christian, [123]
well I guess it would take a while [124]
to explain, but [125]
I believe in that stuff, [126]
but I will say that [127]
I do not know what happens [128]
after you die, [129]
and again I cannot describe it [130]
in detail, at all. [131]
I do not know that [132]
Jesus was a divine person. [133]
I do believe that there is purpose [134]
in this life, [135]
and without God I simply [136]
do not see it. [137]
If you ask me, [138]
a lot of people in the media [139]
who pride themselves [140]
on being rationalists, [141]
(and I don't consider them so) [142]
what's most annoying is how [143]
I would like to say something about [144]
a few people in the media. [145]
First of all, [146]
I don't exactly support this idea [147]
of celebrating Christmas [148]
for atheists. [149]
I mean yeah, I think it's [150]
I think Pat Condell [151]
made some good ideas, [152]
a bunch of good points, [153]
but... [154]
Why don't you celebrate Hanukah? [155]
Why don't you celebrate Quanza? [156]
Are you saying some holidays, [157]
religious, [158]
aren't good enough for you? [159]
And if you're going to equate [160]
Christmas with Halloween, [161]
why is it that on Halloween, [162]
you don't get the day off, [163]
where as on Christmas, [164]
you get the entire day off? [165]
I mean, what, [166]
are you honestly so lazy [167]
you can't simply come up with [168]
your own holiday? [169]
Atheist day? Science day? [170]
Are you too lazy [171]
even for that? [172]
Another thing [173]
I'd like to say is that [174]
Christopher Hitchens [175]
is probably the most annoying atheist [176]
out there. [177]
Many of his logical - his arguments [178]
simply make no sense. [179]
For example, there's one point [180]
were he was asked that [181]
MLKJ was a Christian [182]
and he helped the civil rights movement [183]
he then points out that [184]
A Philip Randolph was an atheist. [185]
He also helped. [186]
But that doesn't mean anything. [187]
Why? [188]
Because APR would have done those things [189]
even if he wasn't an atheist. [190]
In fact, I don't think the relationship [191]
between APR and MLKJ [192]
should give us all a demonstration [193]
that we should allow [194]
secularists and non-secularists [195]
to work together [196]
not everybody conform to the same thing. [197]
Using the same logic, [198]
we can apply it to something else. [199]
For example, [200]
You can say that Hitler was a Christian, [201]
which I'm really not sure he was, [202]
let's just say we was. [203]
Well Martin Bormann, [204]
who helped Hitler a lot, [205]
was an atheist, [206]
and don't even think about saying, [207]
that Martin Bormann [208]
would have done those things [209]
even if he wasn't an atheist. [210]
That doesn't matter, [211]
because APR would have done those things [212]
if he wasn't atheist, [213]
so therefore neither of us is right [214]
or can gain advantage. [215]
We both have two people, [216]
at high authority [217]
doing good and bad things, [218]
who believed in God. [219]
All I wanted to do was say that, [220]
I don't know the answers of the world, [221]
but I believe that [222]
we should try to find out [223]
what God means to us and what It is. [224]
I Believe that is what makes us think. [225]
I don't want religion [226]
to stop people from thinking. [227]
I want it to [228]
make them think more. [229]
I was just trying to express [230]
my opinion. [231]
Thank you. [232]

Bacchanalian 2009-12-06 16:12:40

First question...

If Martin Luther King Junior teaming up with A Philip Randolph [182-190] is "a demonstration that we should allow secularists and non-secularists to work together," [193-196] then wouldn't it follow that Hitler teaming up with Bormann [201-206] is a demonstration that we shouldn't allow secularists and non-secularists to work together? If not, why not?

Bacchanalian 2009-12-06 17:14:46

"Well, I guess so, but I meant working together to do something good."

However, you were arguing explicitly for cooperation between secularists and non-secularists - not explicitly for cooperation between people who do good.

Such an emphasis, by the way, goes against your larger argument that religious affiliation (or lack thereof) doesn't matter. [187-190,209-211]

Which brings us to Question 2...

Who exactly is arguing that secularists and non-secularists can't/shouldn't work together? Where is this argument coming from?

Bacchanalian 2009-12-06 23:26:17

"People like Christopher Hitchens clearly think that secuarlists are better. Bill Maher even stated they are intellectually superior to religious people."

So where'd they say the two sides couldn't work together?

I mean... I can understand how YOU got to that conclusion, but even doing that you're forgetting comparative advantage and the fact that not all jobs require knowledge workers. So even if we take Maher for his word, superior intellect by no means necessitates that the two sides be kept from collaborating.

And on to question 3...

Regarding 49-67, how is calling a cat a cat a "different way" of calling a cat an agato?