Added: 2 years ago
From: AtheistMediaBlog
Views: 165,183
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (792)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • The thing that impressed me the most was how the obviously catholic interviewer paused the interview to silence a fundie screaming in the audience, and sternly requested that she stay quiet and respectful. A small glimpse into the dignity the vocally religious used to carry themselves with. How far they have slid. To the religious out there who measure their responses and check their emotions, I tip my hat to you few. You happy few.

  • I love Ayn Rand for so many things but I truly believe in God and the Christian religion. Sorry Rand

  • @kawakesincfilms Then you obviously love her for her stunning good looks, because you disregard everything she has ever said, and have completely gotten rid of logic and reasoning...

  • mkay Ayn Rand too SS that means everything says is wrong mkay lets not debate the ideas mkay I hate her because she doesn't agree with my political views

  • People get angry when you argue against their religion, not against the existence of a God. If AR said she worshipped Allah, would the audience be less confrontational?

  • Ayn Rand just became my hero. She's wonderful. And I think she was a bit too intellectual for some members of the audience.

  • The difference here being that I know which ones are fantasy. The argument was whether "god" is worthy of worship or not. Consider the following statement:

    "You know who Harry Potter is, yes? I don't really think it's worth our time worshipping him."

    This is quite silly, right? You know he is not real. This is exactly the case with a "god" figure, except for a large portion of the population actually believes he exists anyway. Without any proof to the whatsoever. It is quite silly.

  • Comment removed

  • My college physics professor said that he became a physicist because he wanted to know better how God created the universe.

  • This video proves one thing: Smart insane people (Rand) beat dumb same ones (christians).

  • She utterly failed to answer the tough questions put to her and in the end she accepted government healthcare and support for her failed life. Now she knows that she was wrong and her followers like Alan Greenspan have also admitted so.

  • @exenrontexas She didn't fail to answer anything. YOu keep beleiving in fairytales. Soon enough your kind wont be here any longer :)

  • @Haseeebo It is no fairy tale that America following her ideas has led us into the toilet. It is a nightmare and her main acolytes have admitted it. For YOU, DENIAL is far more than a river in Egypt.

  • @exenrontexas that's real cute. The only reason America is in the tiolet is because of their over-zealous, and extremely nationalistic tendencies. Canada would seem communist to the American political view!

  • @Haseeebo WRONG! Beginning with another Randite, Ronald Reagan, America began to turn it's back on the management of the nations business and betraying the trust of the American people to watch the criminal element in American business. DEREGULATION was a gift to the organized criminals in corporate America and they have pressed their advantage with the help of Ayn Rand ever since. The evil she did lives long after her body has rotted in the grave.

  • @exenrontexas I was totally against the Reagan and Eisenhower presidency. If you're talking about the current economic state of America, then it has nothing to do with Rand. It's moronic American "capitalism" that allowed a completely ridiculous credit system, coupled with increasing foreign debt, and internal costs like the trillion dollar war costs!

    America needs to humble itself and return to it's former ways. Or else we may see a new super power in China very soon.

  • @exenrontexas If you're talking about Ayn Rands capitalistic views, then I agree. She went a little extreme on some of her views on economy.

  • @Haseeebo No, America is failing because its adopting socialistic policies and government over spending that simply does not work.

  • @LordMalice6d9 no it's not. and first of all socialism is by far more good for the population than capitalism.

    your country is failing because you vote for these corporate politicians and whine about it when they do what corporate politicians do. look at canada, the reason why our country didn't fall like yours did at the recession is becauseof socialistic policies. you let your stupid banks send as much money they want and thats what happens.

  • @joshuagoboom You fail to grasp the actual causes of the recession and you are wrong by saying socialism is better for people than capitalism. You sir need to read more ayn rand! Pick up an economics book not written by a socialist and stop listening to the main stream Media’s explanation for the events that occurred! Our country, the US, is supposed to protect our liberties and individual freedoms and capitalism is the best system to do that! Spreading inequality equally is not equality at all

  • @jwmarco21 the causes of recession the is failure of your stupid capitalistic rules to regulate your banks. perhaps you should make your own opinion instead of worshiping someone elses views to the point that you're gonna bring up her book everytime you get in an argument. capitalism teaches nothing but to be selfish and materialistic.

  • @joshuagoboom Just because someone else has a similar opinion/view as I do does not mean I worship them. That’s an extravagant and illogical jump you made by miss characterizing my view. I cited her book because this is an ayn rand video lol and I also said to do your hw in regards to current economic data, not prorogated socialist data to promote your views.” Everytime”? Hardly lol Capitalism promotes liberty and allows for more success, growth, entropernuership and rewards success

  • @joshuagoboom Furthermore the recession was cause by bad subprime mortgage loans which were encouraged by the gov. through legislation such as community reinvestment act. 62% and 58% of fannie & freddies loans were toxic with 10% or less down payment required. This created a market for bad debt and if u wanted to business with fannie and freddie you would make loans like this too. Combination of bad government policy and cashing in! The US is a mix of capitalism and gov. regulation = fail

  • damn she owned that guy.

  • wait she says faith is superior to reason

  • @MrSunintheShade No she says a divine being would be superior to human reasoning. I.e. if there is a divine being, it would be beyond our human cognition to even percieve such a being.

  • Having no faith is an empty body with a dim soul. God gives us choice. How bright is your light?

  • @reedanthony2011 My body is full of things, from organs to bacteria. Energy exists. Souls do not. They're on the same bench as goblins and zombies. God does not give me choice. There being more than 1 thing to chose from, and me being a conscious being, is what gives me choice.

    "How bright is your light?"

    Church slogan?

  • And what can you prove on the highest score? Can you prove the reason itself?

  • I don't believe in god but these are some of the worst arguments against god I've ever heard. 'philosopher' Rand thought her system of personal revulsion as some sort of axiomatic canon.

    You can't disprove God by simply stating 'I don't want to wait for proof for it'

    Nor can you disprove the existence of God saying it would be an affront to for a man to himself to consider anything above him. For that to make sense, you'd to assume both that there is no God and man is the greatest thing of all

  • @Aidan702 I don't see how these arguments are invalid. It's just logic. "How can you say god doesn't exist?" - "There is no proof." A similar concept would be: "How can you say the universe isn't contained within a huge teapot?" - "There is no proof."

    Stating a nonsensical concept does not force your opponent to disprove it. They can just call it out for what it is. As she says: "You are never called upon to prove a negative", because it doesn't make sense to try and disprove it.

  • @cyyyr

    I actually think the way she worded it was a little invalid.

    You can't say for sure or prove God doesn't exist, but you can state that there is no God that is worthy of worship that exists.

    Just like you can't prove the teapot doesn't exist, but you wouldn't act upon that belief regardless of whether or not it exists.

  • @ponderer331

    No, you can't say FOR SURE that god does not exist - which is true for every nonsensical statement that I can throw at you. It doesn't matter if you can't disprove something that there is no proof of. Using your logic, you cannot actually state that there is no god that is worthy of worship either. There MIGHT be.

    This is the embodiment of not acting upon things where there is no proof. Acting as if they do not exist, because acting in any other way would be irrational.

  • @cyyyr

    No - worship is an act. If you worship something, you are ACTING upon your belief. Thus, you CAN say for sure that there is no god worthy of worship, because there is no evidence of one for you to perform that act.

    Sure there might be a god that punishes you for not worshiping him, but since he has given no evidence for us to believe in him, he is not worthy of worship.

    I am looking at this from our perspective as beings with reason who draw rational conclusions.

  • @ponderer331

    My comment was more directed to the fact that you're stating that we cannot know for sure whether or not gods do exist, but you can know for sure that none are worthy of worship. Being worthy of worship is a property of an entity. If we do not know if the entity exist, it would be quite silly to grant it any attributes.

    This is also exactly what religion is based on - mystic entities, unproven entities that nonetheless have attributes and stories surrounding them.

  • @cyyyr

    Interesting. What exactly is a "property"?

    I.e. if I say "pink elephant" doesn't that automatically give it properties? You know what "pink" is and you know what "elephant" is, but you've never seen a pink elephant.

    Like that, just by saying "God" aren't you giving it properties?

    If you are talking just about a creator (not necessarily "God") , you cannot be certain there isn't one. I simply drew the conclusion that it isn't worth our time (not worthy) worshiping that creator.

  • @ponderer331 Yes, it gives it properties, but it is still not real just because you give it properties. Confusing things by making references to real things doesn't make it real.

    As an example: Let's say there's a being called cafuffle. It lives in the poofadoo and it eats mufflos. It is worthy of worship. Does this make sense?

    Let's say there's a being called god. It lives in the heavens and it rules the world. It is not worthy of worship. Make sense?

  • @cyyyr

    The difference is 'God' has a commonly understood definition, just as 'pink,' 'elephant' and 'unicorn do. Look it up in the dictionary. However, cafuffle, poofadoo and mufflos do not.

    So you can discuss things relating to a "unicorn running" because you have a perception of the idea.

    Once you give attributes to something, you can discuss its merits. This is what fantasy is. If all nonsense were to be simply dismissed, we would ignore all fantasy, harry potter etc.

  • @LookAtMyComputer The best part of you saying this is that you can tell that an argument doesn't matter who makes it if it is logical to you and you agree with it. We see the comments from many others where they automatically dismiss a logical argument because of who said it. This is so common in debate these days where people have no argument, but if you were to quote Rand in this one, saying these things, they would try to discrediting her rather than your argument.

  • @Reip187 Its funny that you say that because Rand was the queen of making ad hominem attacks to discredit people rather than their arguments. she almost never refuted another philosopher with a valid argument. Also the above isnt rands argument. It was originally made by Bertrand Russel. Actually Rand never said an original thing in her entire life. Every single word of her philosophy was stolen from someone who came before her. funny thing is, shw turned around and called her victims "evil"

  • @Porojukaha I must admit that I don't know much about Rand, and don't really know how I came to this vid, but I'll take your word for it on her arguments. Point still remains though, and you illustrate it more on how horrible of a tactic it is. If she does it too I would disagree with her all the same in those cases. It is a very pathetic way to debate that's for sure, and way too frequent in the religious "debates". I always thought she was crazy so I never listened much...lol

  • She didn't believe in cancer or Medicare either until she got cancer and sucked the Medicare.

  • @shilltheshillXXX ...and there are no counties where one needs proof of "un-guilt"? Interesting....

  • "You are never called upon to prove a negative" - Therefore, since people before Newton could not prove that gravity exists there was no gravity before Newton. And since we couldn't see and therefore prove the existence of many planets and stars 1000 years ago, they never existed at that time. Similarly, electric field did not exist before it being discovered. Therefore, nature is somehow magically created as we discover it. That is totally objective and reasonable!

  • @iceman1asdf I see the clowns are out in force.... Please observe the difference between "beliefs about reality" and "reality". Beliefs must be based on evidence unless you think it is acceptable to fill your head with all kinds of contradictory and impossible nonsense. This means that we regard things for which there is no evidence as non-existent until such time as evidence is presented. Some examples are fairies and gods. Reality however, is what it is independently of what we believe.

  • @iceman1asdf Your nonsense about nature creating itself as we discover it is of course something you could only arrive at if you didn't understand that she was discussing epistemology.

    What would be the case though, is that if humans were in fact ignorant of the phenomenon of gravity(which they were not), and that Newton was the first to demonstrate evidence of its existence, then nobody would have been justified in believing in it before that demonstration.

  • @Gnomefro So in your opinion, God may or may not exist but one must not "believe" in God because one can't prove the existence of God. So we must only believe in what we can prove irrespective of reality... Faith is a gift my friend that resides in the heart of some people. Those who possess it do not need proof. And remember assumptions and unjustified claims exist in all sciences. In every logical argument you must start from somewhere. Your premises are what you believe in without reason.

  • @iceman1asdf have no problem with people who believe on any religion. Just don't get pissed off at people who don't believe in the same thing as you (not directed at you, but the many, many obnoxious religious people I've encountered)

  • @iceman1asdf If someone did claim to "believe in gravity" before the phenomenon was demonstrated they would be doing several absurd things:

    * Attempting to use a word "gravity" that did in fact not connect to any observed phenomenon

    * Claim to believe in something they had no idea what was

    * To the extent one could say such people were "right" about anything, they'd be right by accident

  • @iceman1asdf Another way to look at it is that there is an infinity of logically possible disasters that could strike you at any moment. An infinity of logically possible transcendental causal connections between you blinking and mass murder in Zimbabwe. An infinity of logically possible gods requiring you to do things to avoid their hells.

    You happily live your life ignoring these possibilities because you agree with Ayn Rand that negative beliefs are justified by the absence of evidence.

  • somebody piss in this dead pigs mouth

  • @HolyBigButts

    are you saying that your God is a unicorn?

  • @Durden510 I understand faith. It is the vehicle by which Man absolves himself of the responsibility of reason. The lazy mans path to self-righteousness if you will.

  • @bazmail It's likely true that faith has been used as an escape from the implications of reason. However, saying that that's the be-all-end-all is misleading, as often there are many causes of faith. Group psychology, misinformation, ignorance, and misunderstanding go hand in hand with seeking the comfort of an absolute (i.e. abandoning reason) in causes of faith. Faith isn't a single affliction, it's several afflictions with the same symptoms. Well, that's the way I look at it.

  • @ jealey83 It does invalidate her arguement. She's the mother of neo-conservative thought. If you have read her books, her heroes tend to champion the views currently held by the Republican party, especially the Tea Party and the "Taxed to death" types. They have no ability to empathize, just like she had no such ability. It's their lack of empathy that allows conservatives to throw people who are not rich under the bus for the sake of those who are. Self-interest is her and their watchword.

  • I believe in God but I don't understand squat of what she is saying.

  • @jonnyRYhollywood Ha someone who believes in god and doesn't get reason?? Highly unusual!!!

  • @turoniner I don't understand meaning I don't hear what words are coming our of her mouth.

  • BUENO

  • me gusta

  • Why did god create diabetez?

  • el universo es MUY bueno!!

    people like her are proof that she is right!

  • @migthegreek

    Reddit, Isn't that place full of Viruses?

  • @tampatron Yeah, I went on it once and it completely fucked up my computer.

    Got so bad I had to get a new comp.

  • Ahh, and when historians look at her works, they'll consider satire.

  • SUCKLE ON MY TEET

  • You do know she idolized a man who killed a 12 year old girl in 1927, saw him as the perfect human, because of his inability to empathize or relate to other. Both the man and Rand were sociopaths.

  • @SaintMaint This doesn't invalidate her point.

  • @SaintMaint If she was a true sociopath she wouldn't be so expressive and conversational. It's more that the perhaps self-centered traits she finds most interesting/preferable are along the lines of sociopathy.

  • "How can you be against God?"

    "Because I paid attention in Science class!"

  • @RandomMiggy I think its terrible how much libertarians love this woman when many of her arguments, especially those on religion came from some of the founders of the fabian socialists.

  • Don't know why theres a sudden boom in viewers, but she wrote the fountainhead, which is one of the most controversial books of all time. check it out

  • @TheXeeman reddit

  • @TheXeeman Because it was posted on Reddit.

  • Simple as: Live your life. Enjoy your life. Have fun, and make a positive impact on society. That is all.

  • I am against god, that nigger still owes me 20 bucks.

  • I hate Ayn Rand. I hate her egotism, I hate her 1500 page love letter defending exploitive-capitalist systems that strangle middle and lower classes in America, I hate her for Iron Man 2, but I like what she says here. :)

  • ayn rand is a BEAST

  • Ok so she says that christians hope to die to find out. Wrong. We dont Hope to die. Life is a gift from god. We dont hope to die some do and they are crazy. The fact is You read out of a history book. And so do we. The Bible is recorded History. And yes there are other books out there. You just choose which one to believe. And in my eyes it all boils down to this. Life Is a wonderful thing. All can aggree with that. Just pick your beliefs. And enjoy life. And hope that your right. God Bless

  • @hgHEZEKIAH The reason she says that is because by dying you go to heaven (if you are deemed worthy) and become "closer" to your God.

    There are many things in the bible that are obvious fabrication, and calling it a history book is laughable. You say to "just choose which one to believe," but how do you determine which to pick? Have you looked at other religions in-depth? You know, many of those other texts have historical things in them, but that doesn't make the rest of it true.

  • @Ruxias O.K. Now this is not an argument I love just talking about this and really testing my knowledge.

    1. It seems the way she says it is that we just want to go and die but in reality we do love life however the point is that when we die which is inevitable. We do go to heaven because we believe and lets be honast we dont all know that. Hell maybe if you dont belive you still go to heven We dont know. But to not believe anything just seems to make an emptyness in our life. just like. Oh when

  • @Ruxias we die nothing happens. Kinda sucks doesnt it. But to belive that there is something else is a great feeling and if it is true great. If its not that sucks. And the point is just enjoy life.

    2 when you say obvious fabrication. that is your belief. I think it its true. Alot of people think things in the history book are fake. Moon landing for some skeptics. Its all about what you believe and that you just enjoy life. I do know about many other religions and i seek to know more however

  • @Ruxias with school its a little dificult. Im not saying my religion is true and your wrong and every other religion is wrong. I dont know. I havent been to heven or seen any afterlife. But I simply choose to believe in something. And it is in my personal oppinon that religion and more specificly the Luthren belief is the one i think (key word) is true. I say choose one to believe. But the way i see it is "hey if im wrong I can die thinking that I will go to some afterlife. And if im wrong

  • @Ruxias and its some other god up there. Well hopefully he is merciful for my ignorance. Lol. But religion is just about belief. Something for you to have reason to get up in the morning besides all the material things. Its life. Enjoy it and hope there is something good waiting for you after it.

  • tl;dr: subjectivism vs objectivism

  • how can the Devil be evil if he punishes bad people?

  • @shot2shit He doesn't punish them, Hell IS the punishment.

  • @shot2shit That is the way God punished him.

  • @shot2shit REDDIT LOLOLOL

  • @shot2shit That's fuckin' profound!

  • @shot2shit Please tell me you're joking...how did you get top rated comments? Honestly, that's just stupid. I'm sorry but, if you're going to disbelieve something, take the time to learn SOMETHING about it. Anything....

    You clearly have no idea what the Abrahamic concept of the Devil proclaims.

    I'm an Atheist by the way.

  • Dawkins' wife

  • Right about God, wrong about everything else. She was as selfish as they come.

  • @TheAwakenedHeretic I agree with that her philosophy is flawed, but selfishness is not necessarily a bad thing. Who are you to decide whether selfishness is evil or good? Judging from the millions of years of evolution, selfishness is programmed into our brain. Without selfishness, evolution as a concept would never even work.

  • Ron Paul named his Son 'Randy' actually. I asked rand whether he was named after Ayn and he said no... Just fyi

  • She died on Medicare. LOL

  • what a fox

  • lol all you dumb Republicans are in love with a Russian who hates God

  • @flipperwhipper , Republicans dislike her, you're thinking of Libs/Dems :)

  • @RazsterTW Woah, I just started reading these comments so you might be saying this sarcastically, but in case you're not, Democrats do not like this woman. It is Libertarians and TEA party Republicans who like her. See Rand Paul, he is a Republican Senator from Kentucky whose Libertarian father actually named him after Ayn. Democratic ideas are about as opposite from Ayns as they can get.

  • Comment removed

  • @RazsterTW i hope youre being ironic

  • FUCK YOU LADY, THOR IS REAL!!

  • Lady at 2:51 is hot

  • @dnem41 looks like jennifer aniston

  • Word

    

  • So, she's not all bad, eh.

  • Wow, that lady is insanely smart.

    She expressed **verbally** what I probably couldn't even express in print even if I were given 1 week to think about it.

    Mad respect for her!

  • @xuimod Well, she *is* Ayn Rand, so with the intelligence you're also getting a bit of insanity. You may want to read up a bit on why objectivism became such a flawed, cult like group of people.

  • @xuimod Then you're apparently not very smart. That's ok, we need someone to drive the trucks and make the sandwiches.

    Pointless trolling aside, this isn't a rebuttle to the fine tuning argument. Rand is explaining why we perceive order in the universe. The fine tuning argument isn't a question of order in the universe, but of purposeful design. Even given an orderly universe, the statistical probability of conditions being right for life are so incredibly minute, a designer is suggested.

  • @Chefodeath Life begins only where conditions make it possible. Then the presence of life is seen by some to be proof of a divine creator. What?

  • I agree with her on atheist principles, but I still think objectivism is for assholes.

  • What a GB

  • @chonnes @elitesoldier55 Okay, okay, okay. Here's the deal. Elite, I disagree with how you view history. Socialism and communism are different things and the evidence shows that our country is more prosperous during times of greater regulation and higher taxation. Chonnes, it is not her atheism that I object to. It is her overarching philosophy of selfishness that I don't think actually works.

    Lastly, it is going to be impossible for me explain my views in 28 more characters.

  • She may be an atheist, but she's still a monster. She should be disregarded in almost every way. If you want to read sensible atheists, look at Richard Dawkins. Don't listen to this psychopath.

  • @DrKuha How is she a monster? I don't really know much about her, so please tell me.

  • @Rewinder22 Her whole philosophy revolves around unfiltered selfishness. The highest virtue, in her mind, is selfishness. She really seems to make any sort of altruism or cooperation look like a weakness. As a result, a lot of her characters in her novels are very unsympathetic and robot-like.

  • @DrKuha Well, selfishness has been the only thing that has actually worked. Socialism was a disaster and resulted in millions dying. Capitalism has resulted in millions being lifted out of poverty and untold amounts of wealth being created that if it weren't for selfishness would have never been created.

  • @elitesoldier55 Also, I might point out that capitalism is responsible for BILLIONS being thrust INTO poverty... I mean... Really... Look around you. Have you ever heard of China?

  • @DrKuha Pretty sure China isn't a capitalistic state. Your argument is invalid.(>- -)>

  • @ItsRickard I think they are referring to how the US's greed leads to other country's poverty. We have no problem buying junk from China for pennies while they starve because Hay It's Good For Me.

  • @ItsRickard No, you misinterpreted what I was saying. The only reason that American capitalism works at all is the fact that billions of other people live in poverty. So... Yeah.

  • @elitesoldier55 Socialism was not a disaster. The social programs in the US raised millions out of starving to death after extreme Capitalism almost sank us in the Great Depression. But I don't think Capitalism is the bad either, I just think regulated markets work and sensible social programs work. What doesn't work are societies based on extremes. Ayn Rand is an extreme thinker. Objectivism wouldn't work.

  • @DrKuha I've heard of RIchard Dawkins and some of his beliefs. How is Ayn Rand so different as to warrant being called a monster? Do you have a personal issue with her or is you r comment based on something rational?

  • shes a smart lady

  • we cannot say whether or not there is a God.  the universe is a great mystery

  • @gl0bal74 Yes. However, we can say that there's very very probably no God. Also, the universe is less and more of a mystery than you think.

  • She's like Nietzsche with a boner for absolute rationality. Needs moar Dionysus, but still not worthy of the utter bashing she receives by most philosophers.

  • One of the few things she said that actually had any reason

  • she is just wonderful....

  • 2011 and still people believe in god ? :S

  • The idea that everything is "God's will" makes people reluctant to make the world a better place. The only thing that can save our world is us.

  • Lord Cthulu is my lord and savior. All kneel to the dark one.

  • @Pull0utBoy LOL YUUUUUUUP

  • Human reason is limited. There's something to be said for the humility of that realization. Though humility is not something Ayn Rand would be known for I think.

    Also to operate entirely in the realm of reason is a deeply depressing act, and an act of escapism. The need to unravel, and contemplate, and understand the bare truth when there is something beautiful about whim, emotion, and insight. Reason is a useful tool, but like emotions and like faith not something that should consume you.

  • It IS fucking obvious, every culture in the world has different gods, its just mankinds need to look up to something that is bigger than us, that is why the celebs are celebs as well. We need idols and the early idols were just gods!

  • "it's pretty obvious" really? the biggest question man has debated for countless years? You think it's "pretty obvious"?

    When some of the greatest philosophers, scientists, and writers in human history have been unable to answer the question of God's existence, with plenty on either side?

    Oh, but if you think it's "pretty obvious" I guess they're all just numbskulls.

  • @memicoot

    Its pretty obvious to synbingaming because he doesnt have the ability to think abstractly

  • @helpmeinburning Abstractly (adjective): [1] Considered apart from concrete existence. [2] Not applied or practical; theoretical.

    That actually describes god quite well. I see nothing wrong with his thinking.

  • I agree with Ayn Rand on something... THE UNIVERSE IS COLLAPSING!

  • I believe in dogs.

  • I believe in God. You don't? That's cool. I'm mature enough to put it aside and have a beer with you. As for prayer and such I don't see the harm in asking for a little help but don't ask someone to do everything for you. You have to stand on your own two feet and do things for yourself. Don't be lazy, go out make the best of life!

  • How old is this?

    For those saying 'it's obvious' yes, in our day and age and freedom of information we can say it's obvious that god doesn't exist but back in the day it wasn't so easy.

  • If there were no God, there would be no atheists. --G.K. Chesterton

  • @corebound

    Fuck of. --foooooze

  • @foooooze

    Brilliant retort my friend, at least you could have slowed down enough to spell correctly.

  • @corebound

    thats like saying if there was no bogey man there would be no people that dont beleive in the bogey man

  • @corebound

    thats like saying if there was no bogey man there would be no people that dont beleive in the bogey man

  • @corebound Well that sounds like a fallacy... It should be formulated as; if there where no theists, there would be no atheists. the existence of God is irrelevant to the existence of religion... OBVIOUSLY!

  • Comment removed

  • @corebound that sounds like a fallacy, as the existence of gods are irrelevant to the existence of religions - Obviously!

    It should maybe be formulated as; "if there where no theists, there would be no atheists."

  • Ayn Rand was a nasty little fascist, logical or not.

  • @da531n As a fascist. I support this statement.

  • @jid314 Man if hell has people like her. I'd rather be down there.

  • @jid314

    There is no hell you silly sod

  • @2:30 She is asked why is it wrong to use emotions instead of reason, and then proceeds to give an argument based on emotion LOL

  • Helen Thomas lookin so fine