Love Letter to Ted Haggard LIVE

[awaseniu]

I personally think that Haggard is lying about being a former Gay. I think that he is just another Homophobe.

[igorfrankenstein]

Hillarious... **** ......

[jhr459]

I am always amazed at these people that are so outraged about gay/religious/irreligious/etc/­etc that hang around those very sites. I can't stand republicans or RW evangelicals and you will NEVER find me there trying to -well, I'm not exactly sure what y'all are trying to do on sites you so obviously hate. weird, huh?

[EmpiricalMiracle]

Tribe: what's 3+3? you can't answer it.

Eddy and Claire: Um yeah we can, it's 6.

Tribe: Why aren't you answering my question? Because you can't.

Eddy and Claire: *tap, tap tap* Hello? Is this thing on? We've already answered it. Anyway, the answer is 6.

Tribe: Answer my question. What is 3+3?

(Claire looks at Eddy in disbelief): Can Tribe not read? Is that the problem? SIX!!!

[eddygoombah]

pretty much, empirical...

well summed up

[TribeofShabazz]

What's 3 + 3? Don't try to insult me. I did not berate you.

Here's a real question. What's today's Supreme Mathematics and why? If you can't answer that, then "shutty," and just be an innocent bystander watching the discourse unfold.

[eddygoombah]

facepalm.

[EmpiricalMiracle]

Who's berating? My point is you keep asking the same question over and over, they keep providing an answer and you keep ignoring the fact they answered it. Bringing up a question about the Nation of Gods and Earths is completely irrelevant.

But I think Eddy just said it best. *facepalm*

[clairewaldorf2]

"Supreme mathmatics"? We should shut up and allow you to drivel on incoherently, though you appear to know nothing, understand nothing, offer nothing worthwhile?

[TribeofShabazz]

Instead of asking me to drivel on incoherently, perhaps the q. that you may ask is what is "Supreme Mathematics," and the "Supreme Alpahbet?"

[eddygoombah]

actually Tribe, maybe the question YOU should ask is "How can I get a doctor to prescribe me some Thorazine?"

...because you apparently need it

[clairewaldorf2]

Other than this question, why would I ask you anything? You have amply demonstrated that you are an ignoramus.

[jhr459]

well then claire, why don't you take your fucking bag of marbles and head on home. bitch

[clairewaldorf2]

huh? what are you talking about?

[eddygoombah]

oh n000es! not the marble insult!

wait.... yeah... what the fuck is he talking about?!

[TribeofShabazz]

It may be a shock that as a former member of the Nation of Islam & now the Nation of Gods & Earths (or Five % NOI) that I say we need to forgive Ted Haggard. The Bible states "we have all fallen short of the glory of God."

Paul the apostle taught homosexuality is an "unnatural sin." The reason y it is so hard for 1 to stop being gay is b/c unlike other sins, it is unnatural. When 1 repents (or turns) from sin, God changes the person. Believers must remain steadfast though & fight temptation.

[eddygoombah]

once you and haggard realize that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and stop preaching hatred and bigotry, then I'll forgive him and discontinue thinking that you are bereft of normal psychosocial behaviors

[TribeofShabazz]

I am not preaching anything. If u are judging Haggard based upon hypocrital dogma that his religion and holy book go against, then the Bible is the only thing we can go by. Otherwise, our effort to condone or criticize him is in vain. He is evangelical based upon the Bible. Hence, I am arguing accordingly (properly).

[eddygoombah]

i criticize any hypocrite that outlandishly condemns a group of people, and then turns out to be a part of that group.

there are a number of christians that aren't homophobic. So I can only assume that the bible isn't inherently homophobic. The onus is on Ted.

[TribeofShabazz]

I hear you, and understand that I am Islamic (akthough I am not a Muslim any longer [do some research on the Nation of Gods & Earths]) so I rely more on the Qur'an obviously, however there is truth in the Bible. U cannot base your opinion on what man says, but what His Majesty, the Almighty says. I hope that u will agree. Peace!

[eddygoombah]

Well I don't believe that "the almighty" is out there. So, I respectfully cannot agree. Everything anyone said or written down is formulated through man, by man. So i try to stick with the most objective most empirical form of information, which tends not to be any form of religious book since they were written by superstitious bronze age men. Not very reliable if you ask me.

[TribeofShabazz]

So I don't understand how else to explain you that there is nothing whasoever for you to criticize. Don't you guys get it? U're criticizing dude based upon his theological beliefs.

Let me explain to you how far-fetched the concept of an infinite God not creating the universe & being infinite on a very small scale. If you had a big of detached watch parts & shook them in a bag for 1 billion years, what's the probability that when u open it up, there will be a completely connected watch or

[TribeofShabazz]

that if I threw paint at a canvass for a billion years, 1 could make the Mona Lisa, or even if 1 put a million letters in a bag and shook it up for 3 billion yrs, what's the probability that it will become an encylcopedia. 0! THIS IS EMPERICAL EVIDENCE!

What you are simply propagating is a theory. Thats y many in the scientitifc comm. call it the "Big Bang Theory," & in the past 10 yrs now say there was a God who kicked the ball but let it keep on rolling. Its time to grow up in this thing

[eddygoombah]

please look up the difference between a "theory" and a "scientific theory" before you come at me with a "just a theory" argument. First understand the actual definition first.

[TribeofShabazz]

I did, and I wouldn't come with less sir.

[eddygoombah]

no, you still haven't provided that you understand that the difference between a semantic theory and a scientific theory. and just making a blanket statement like "Thats y many in the scientitifc comm. call it the "Big Bang Theory," & in the past 10 yrs now say there was a God who kicked the ball but let it keep on rolling" without ANY proof backing up this claim does not make the claim true.

[TribeofShabazz]

It's intereting that you completely avoided responding to the examples of "if you had detached watch parts & shook them in a bag for 1 billion years, what's the probability that when u open it up, there will be a completely connected watch or that if I threw paint at a canvass for a billion years, 1 could make the Mona Lisa, or even if 1 put a million letters in a bag and shook it up for 3 billion yrs, what's the probability that it will become an encylcopedia. 0! THIS IS EMPERICAL EVIDENCE!"

[eddygoombah]

again... I'll ask....

lolwut?

[clairewaldorf2]

As i said before: 1) the odds of us having this conversation after 4.5 billion years of evolution is esssentially 0, but here we are having it; 2) watches are not self-replicating organisms, and 3) evolution is not the blindly random process you imagine it to be, it is highly organized by natural selection and chemistry. Try reading Richard Dawkins "The Blind Watchmaker" to understand the argument fully. Right now, you are just mindlessly parroting invalid arguments you have heard or read.

[clairewaldorf2]

Again, you are overlooking that organisms are self-replicating; paintings are not.

[clairewaldorf2]

You are using the term "theory" under the misconception that in science that means an unproven idea. A scientific theory means much more and is a system by which a series of facts are tied together ad explained.

[clairewaldorf2]

You are also making the statistically invalid assumption that you can calculate probability backwards. The likliehood of any future event when looking forward millions of years is wildly improbable. For instance, i could make the observation that 4.5 billion years ago, the odds of you and iIhaving this conversation now are so huge that the probability is essentially 0; and yet here we are.

[clairewaldorf2]

You also presume that it evolution is proposed as a random process. But is is profoundly non-random due to "natural selection." There is genetic variation in any breeding population of organisms due to random mutation, and some organisms will have characteristics that make it more likely they will successfully produce offspring, thereby passing their to a new generation, and so on through time, leading to change in population's genetic makeup.

[eddygoombah]

no, i'm criticizing this "dude" because he was an anti-gay homophobe preaching that the bible condemned homosexuality... and then turned out to be a meth smoking homosexual...

regardless of what your theology may entail regarding the creation of the universe, I assure you that magical pixies in my pants creating the universe 5 minutes ago and implanted memories of your entire life to fool you is JUST AS PLAUSIBLE as your theological idea of creation.

[clairewaldorf2]

What you are ignoring (or the significance of it simply escapes you) is that watches are not self-replicating.

[TribeofShabazz]

If you had detached watch parts & shook them in a bag for 1 billion years, what's the probability that when u open it up, there will be a completely connected watch or that if I threw paint at a canvass for a billion years, 1 could make the Mona Lisa, or even if 1 put a million letters in a bag and shook it up for 3 billion yrs, what's the probability that it will become an encylcopedia. ZERO! THIS IS EMPERICAL EVIDENCE!

[eddygoombah]

ummm... what? you don't know what empirical evidence is... I can't believe I've been sitting here wasting my time with someone professing claims of grandeur about life, god, and science... and the guy doesn't even know the fundamental facets of science...

tribe... man... educate yourself... do us both a favor,

[TribeofShabazz]

Whatever! I'm tired!

[clairewaldorf2]

spamming will tire one out, will it not?.

[TribeofShabazz]

Spamming?

[clairewaldorf2]

tribe was a numbnuts. He's simply regurgitated whatever he heard without ever once thinking of what he was saying. The watch argument is one of the chessiest, stupidest analogies in history and I wish these creationist embeciles would just drop it. But, I suppose their inability to analyse the shortcomings of the argument is what marks them as embeciles.

[TribeofShabazz]

Instead of criticizing what I am saying (the watch argument which is great), why don't you show me why my argument holds no water.? Peace!

[eddygoombah]

omg... it's called PHI 101...

The watchmaker does not prove that god exists... just that design makes it appear that he does to people who think design = god. It is not a valid argument.

Howabout you watch this vid:

watch?v=URXuuVmgO0M

[clairewaldorf2]

As I said twice already, your argument is not valid because a watch is a mechanical device and is not self-replicating. DNA is, with modification from generation to generation, so change is inevitable, in the genetic makeup of the organism, and the form and functions of its inner workings and outside form. Hey, here's an idea, go read Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker."

[clairewaldorf2]

Your argument also fails because you call on human experience (design implies designer.) Everything in human experience is finite, yet you introduce something entirely outside human experience (an infinite being) to explain life. Your analogous designer might be powerful, but not infinite.

The designer is natural selection, which explains why we have vestigial organs and structures and why atavisms sometimes occur in offspring. Those wouldn't occur in specially designed organisms.

[clairewaldorf2]

Also, the inorganic watch's parts are designed to perform a function and without them the watch would not function. This is not true of living organisms because organs can evolve and change function, as in the case of the bacterial flagellum. Also, organic parts often don't function perfectly in their roles because they have evolved from earlier structures that performed other tasks and new mechanical demands may put stress on the imperfect "design" (for example, the human backbone).

[TribeofShabazz]

So what r u trying to disprove me on?

[eddygoombah]

ummm... you asked for more clarification on the watch argument. There you go...

You're the one making the claim that there must be a designer since there is an apparent design. The onus is upon you to prove this claim. If you came to me saying the there is a magical dwarf living in your pants that grants wishes... I don't need to disprove that... you nees to present evidence for me to believe you. Thus far, the watchmaker argument is not evidence for god.

[clairewaldorf2]

Is it too soon for the face palm?

[eddygoombah]

no no, claire... not yet. let's see if any of that sunk in before we do that...

[EmpiricalMiracle]

No claire. I think one was due a long time ago.

[TribeofShabazz]

I can see what you are trying to say, however I am being a realist in my analogies. Magical dwarves that grant wishes is obviosly erroneous. On the other hand, watches and their parts are real.

[eddygoombah]

no, you missed the point again.

watches are not self replicating, this has been told you a few times, but you haven't really seemed to grasp this. regardless, saying that there is a god that designed everything is an outstanding claim that needs outstanding evidence to support it. The watchmaker argument does not do this.

[TribeofShabazz]

So do you believe that this all just "happened" by accident, or via the collision of a myriad of chemical and celestial bodies (obviously non-Heavenly as we think of it)?

[eddygoombah]

Honestly, I don't know exactly what caused everything to exist. And the real fact is that no one does. However, me saying that "I don't know" doesn't automatically make the theistic creator any more correct. Theism is not the default position. There are many theories as to why, most of which point to a natural cause. To assume that there was a "who" behind creation is considerably narrowing the field of possible causality. A more honest question would be to ask "what" created...

[eddygoombah]

nor am I saying that this all just happened by accident, simply because I do not believe in a god. The truth is even atheists can believe in creation and not believe in evolution. Look up Raelians. No, the only thing I am asserting is that Ted Haggard is a hypocrite that deserves ridicule and that I happen not to believe in his god. I also feel horribly for his wife and kids. They are the true victims of his actions.

[eddygoombah]

and you may see the "Magical dwarves" as erroneous, but to me the idea of an all powerful, all knowing, all good creator of everything is equally erroneous. Both are outstanding claims that need outstanding evidence to support them. Unfortunately, as I and claire have shown, the watchmaker argument is not proof.

[TribeofShabazz]

NO! NO! NO! If anything I showed you that the watchmaker argument is proof based upon the fact that you cannot put all of those items in a bag and come up with a watch, letters in a bag and come up with an encyclopedia, or throwing paint at a canvass & coming up with the Mona Lisa. You & Claire are sadly mistaken & obviously missing this simple truth. Your close-mindedness shows that if anyone's argument offers no proof (NONE WHATSOEVER), it's atheism. Creationism shows otherwise. Allow

[TribeofShabazz]

me to say that I do not believe in actual places called Heaven or Hell. Five Percenters do not believe in a mystery (spirit or "spook" God). We believe that God has always been a Black man. He created the universe. Every 25,000 years, a new God is born taking upon himself the attributes of the previous Gods which justifies the position of the Qur'an that we are not of the polytheists (only one God [at a time]). The last God who will destroy earth is Master W.D. Fard Muhammad, Mahdi & Messiah

[eddygoombah]

allow me claire:

*facepalm*

tribe.. not only did you COMPLETELY miss the point, but I kinda think you are insane.

[TribeofShabazz]

What does "facepalm" mean?

LOL! Y am I insane? Yet you have time to record video of you singing with a guitar in your hands about an evangelical preacher? Now whose crazy now?

[eddygoombah]

facepalm is the act of seeing something so frustratingly idiotic and stupid that you slap you face with your palm.

Tribe.. you are insane... and you haven't shown you obtain any critical thinking skills at all, let alone any real grasp of reality. you are insane.

[scruethedemiurge]

Mr. Goombah, that was some excellent guitar playing! I'm really impressed with that and the singing as well. You're quite tallanted, but I wonder - and this is not in any way to defend the intellectually/psychologically warped world view of Ted Haggard or any fundi Christian - but why would you mock him about his drug problem and his apparant sexual identity chrisis? Yes he's been living in hypocricy - "homosexuality is a sin" - while he's doing it himself, but to laugh at his personal problems?

[eddygoombah]

i am making fun at a hypocrite. If you condemn a fraction of people to hell for their behavior, and then end up being one of those people, you deserve a big "Ha HAAA!!" in your face.

[scruethedemiurge]

Also, have you given any more thought to what we've discussed about Venomfangx needing a nice partner with whom to do some gay stuff? I think that would do him a world of good, like in Plato's Symposium, when one of the speakers remarked about the bond of honor a good homosexual relationship generates between two reasonable men. I happen to know from experience the truth about that LOL!

Perhaps we could work on setting Venomfangx up with Ted Haggard! How about that for an idea?

[eddygoombah]

please stop bringing up the vfx and whatever gay stuff you are implying. I do not get the joke, and find it odd that you keep wanting to bring it up.

[scruethedemiurge]

Do you think I'm weird just because I have some compassion for the fundies and want to help them get healthy? I'm not suggesting we can't have some laughs about them in the mean time, but I think we should also focus on helping them get well. That would be to our benifit as well as long as we share the same planet with them.

[eddygoombah]

no, i think you're weird because you keep bringing up the idea of doing "gay stuff" with vfx.

[clairewaldorf2]

OK, what empirical evidence do you have for these beliefs?

[clairewaldorf2]

And you simply have not understood a single word I said.

[secretMachine]

lol, great song and voice. your sexiness was a bonus. *wink

[totallybarefoot]

I cried.

[BigMoose1972]

hahahaha this rawks!

[Kabane52]

Beautiful.

[migkillertwo]

second'd

[Bsblrook2]

This song is amazing. I want to put it on my ipod lmao

[CousinoMacul]

Awesome! This just replaced the live acoustic version of Tribute to Kent Hovind as my channel's featured video.

[eddygoombah]

LOL.... wow. Eric Cartman would be proud

[Juggaloserialeater]

Ha! pwnt

[jaredcormier]

dude, loved it, 5 stars + a few good laughs

[KeithTruth]

hey eddy this is antiglobalists,

i want to tell you i apologize fr saying you live in a fantasy and tell you g ood job on the music.

[eddygoombah]

hey thanks man... I'm sorry also that everything got outa hand. water under the bridge, dude. look forward to seeing more of you 'round the Tube.

[danieltrujillo]

haahahahahahahaha 10 stars if i could

[Clovions]

lol...

[Kunado]

"It's not fair, It's not faiiiirrrrrr, you still got my underwear....", Best song verse ever.

[NotSoOldHippy]

Love it. If you get an opportunity to screw Ted, please be sure to get it on video -- and wear a condom! There's no telling where that guy has been.

[AtheistAaron]

EJ, you rock my fucking socks off. =0

Hasta la vista, baby.

[TextAndViolence]

damnit i wish i could sing like that! i can play guitar but i suck SOOooo bad at singing that i stopped playing guitar :(

[LynxChan]

"Happy Endings" is a place where

you and I could "speak in tongues"

for eternity.

Fantastic!

[CapnOrdinary]

AWESOME! Loved it. 5* and fav'd.

[magentamesh]

5 stars. What a clever way of addressing the whole T-Hag fiasco.

[AVoiceFromGermany]

Great lyrics, great music, great performance.

5 stars

[HisRoyalDudeliness]

heh

[Metaleks]

Lovely ^_^

[nethius]

lol

[palmtreez101]

Wow, Mike must have really loved Ted, damn.

[hairyreasoner]

Eddy....

I don't know how to say this, so I'll just blurt it out...

I love you.

[RabidApe]

another classic!

[pornoopel]

great song! 5* and so favorited! :)

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

I live in Colorado Springs. Ted Haggard and his minions scare me.

[mistawulf]

I searched for crystal meth and this is what I get? wtf.

jk, nicely done.

[mynamemyway]

brillant, innovated. this subject with ted haggard hasn't been dealt with that much here on youtube

[Dalbert342]

Eddy,I am reuploading the song on my channel..hope you dont mind

[eddygoombah]

go for it

[Dalbert342]

thanks,man...and you need to make a CD

[Saturninefilms]

I envy your voice.

[thinkmorepink]

Really enjoyed this one , dear. lovely job.

[spiderofdoom]

i'm also impressed by your characterisation - you really showed the human side of this character... it was very insightful.

[spiderofdoom]

wow, I really like the structure of the vocals over the guitar.

[creationismisstupid]

Great song!

Ted Haggard no longer gay? That would be the first miracle ever. If T.Haggard believes that himself that shows how wacko religiots really are. I hope that Haggard will have disappeared from public attention for ever.

[DeviantCare]

Seriously, you are becoming a Idol to me. Great work.

[Desertphile]

It brought a tear to my eye!

[Brainmold]

You should make an atheist album.

[netlord80]

Man you always make such great songs!

[TheKidFrom13thStreet]

The song sounds amazing...and the lyrics are funny as hell.

[EyeeShare]

"you still got my underwear.." HAHAHA!

Great song, yes.

[KT45]

great job!!!

[zbambam5]

Ted is weeping right now over this song( he misses his gay lover)

[Bekll]

You have a really nice voice. I love listening to it.

[NaoTio]

A very catchy song! I'm sure Ted appreciates it.

*thumbs up*

[thequestionmarkofGod]

How sweet a broken hearted love song :D

[AkbarTheGreat]

XD Awesome.