@curriejean: I couldn't find that comment about me looking for the sense of humor I must think nature owes me. I actually have a pretty good one, but I have to admit that was a funny comment.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This halfwit apparently thinks that people "should" believe what she says simply because in her opinion, she's "proven" that there's no God. She's nuts. This is what leftists demand; that once they've "proven" that things are the way they say they are, no one has the right to believe otherwise. It doesn't work that way, and she's pretty sparse of gray matter for showing her colors like that and thinking no one would notice.
@TheRealScotius Dude, that's why you go and do the research yourself!! They're more then happy to say you have the right to believe in your God. It's just that, if one of us could take data and PROVE a certain hypothesis, the disbelieber would be WRONG weather they wanted to believe they were right. They see no evidence for God. What you're essentially saying is "Haha, they think that once they prove something they're right!" and that's just completely asinine.
@FireyVampireOctopus No, I'm saying that they've not proven that God doesn't exist, despite insisting they have. And there's nothing asinine about pointing that out.
@TheRealScotius you have the right to believe what you want, the majority of skeptics think that; its just that you don't get to say that your beliefs are FACT. Especially when there is not proof for them.
@wildcatlaw13 Of course! My point was only that the dippy woman in the video didn't prove what she was claiming she proved, and of course had no right to demand people agree with her, which really is what she was doing.
@TheRealScotius Having watched the atheist experience for years, I can tell you that Tracie would never try to demand that other people agree with her. Also, she has never said she proved God didn't exist. Atheism is not the position that God absolutely doesn't exist; it is simply a rejection of theistic claims. It is simply lacking belief in a God because theists haven't met their burden of proof. That is it.
@brez002 You sound utterly reasonable... what are you doing in this discussion? Anyway, you make your point in a much more friendly manner than some of the militants here, and I appreciate it. Granted, one person may not be able to "prove" to another that God exists, but I think it's also true that some people consider what they can observe to be ample evidence. For them, it's proven. For others, that might not be enough.
@TheRealScotius Yeah, well I can at least say that every story of personal experience I have heard would not have been enough evidence to convince me. In fact, I'm not aware of any claim that's been made that would even count as evidence at all. They usually seem to be people interpreting things to fit what they want to believe. And when it comes to the belief in a God, it is important to remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
@brez002 Since you sound open minded about this, I'd like to recommend a book to you called "The Way of Chang Tzu". Aside from simple observations, he makes some very complex ones. One I found particularly interesting was his observation about the various natural forces, how they go back to five elements, how those five elements go back to three, and how those three are really one. I'm sure you get what I'm suggesting, and it's intensely interesting reading.
@TheRealScotius To be honest, I don't really get what you're suggesting. That statement seems really vague; perhaps b/c it is too complicated to explain in a few hundred characters.
@brez002 I don't know which of my posts you're responding too, but I can assure you I'm not THAT complicated... let me know and I'll explain what I mean.
@TheRealScotius "One I found particularly interesting was his observation about the various natural forces, how they go back to five elements, how those five elements go back to three, and how those three are really one. I'm sure you get what I'm suggesting"
@wildcatlaw13 Nope. A friend of mine who had been a history professor at the university of Windsor and had studied some Latin told me the likely Latinized version of my name, Scott, would be Scotius.
I think you're the one who missed the point entirely. Hitchens totally destroyed Friel, making him look like a complete fool, who didn't even read Hitchens' book (calling it "God is not good." What a pathetic excuse for an interviewer. Forgot rule No. 1: Prepare!
Also, Friel's idiotic reminding Hitchens that they're playing a game of hypothesis only proves that he is mentally incapable of even conceiving that someone might accept his premise but disagree with him.
@curriejean He wants Hitchens to state that he isn't a good person, though he think he is. He's not trying to convince him. The atheist woman is missing the point. I don't understand how anyone can listen to this clip and think that any convincing is being done from either side.
@monsieurpickles I disagree with your take on this. I've listened to the interview and also the show in their entirety and Tracy was thinking pretty much the same thing I was. Hitchens was saying "even if" god existed and we are not perfect then Hitchens said he was STILL not worthy of worship, then it started all over again.
@Hopeful71 Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean. The MP sketch was really just about a guy not being able to speak because the interviewer took up the whole time clarifying his question.
Yeah I got that. And I like the idea but I am just thinking that it would have been...."more digestible" if you did more of mixing the MP video with it's audio intact as a reaction to the Hitchen's interview. Played them side by side (in a manner) instead of on top of each other. As it is now, it took me several minutes to figure out what you were doing.
Just a personal opinion...take of it what you will. It's all subjective.
@Hopeful71 Okay, I think I get you. Personally, I like it to take time for me to figure out what's going on in something I'm watching. Piques interest for me. But if that's not common, I'll have to take that into consideration if I make another thing. Maybe come up with some kind of creative compromise. Thanks for the input! :)
Is it possible for Todd Friel to be more dense? He is a mental midget compared to Hitchens.
Oracle195608 1 year ago
@curriejean: I couldn't find that comment about me looking for the sense of humor I must think nature owes me. I actually have a pretty good one, but I have to admit that was a funny comment.
TheRealScotius 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This halfwit apparently thinks that people "should" believe what she says simply because in her opinion, she's "proven" that there's no God. She's nuts. This is what leftists demand; that once they've "proven" that things are the way they say they are, no one has the right to believe otherwise. It doesn't work that way, and she's pretty sparse of gray matter for showing her colors like that and thinking no one would notice.
TheRealScotius 1 year ago
@TheRealScotius
If you ever want to succeed in discourse, you'll have to first let others speak for themselves, and then speak only for yourself.
curriejean 1 year ago
@TheRealScotius Dude, that's why you go and do the research yourself!! They're more then happy to say you have the right to believe in your God. It's just that, if one of us could take data and PROVE a certain hypothesis, the disbelieber would be WRONG weather they wanted to believe they were right. They see no evidence for God. What you're essentially saying is "Haha, they think that once they prove something they're right!" and that's just completely asinine.
No one wants to hear it, Troll.
FireyVampireOctopus 1 year ago
@FireyVampireOctopus No, I'm saying that they've not proven that God doesn't exist, despite insisting they have. And there's nothing asinine about pointing that out.
TheRealScotius 1 year ago
@TheRealScotius you have the right to believe what you want, the majority of skeptics think that; its just that you don't get to say that your beliefs are FACT. Especially when there is not proof for them.
wildcatlaw13 11 months ago
@wildcatlaw13 Of course! My point was only that the dippy woman in the video didn't prove what she was claiming she proved, and of course had no right to demand people agree with her, which really is what she was doing.
TheRealScotius 11 months ago
@TheRealScotius Having watched the atheist experience for years, I can tell you that Tracie would never try to demand that other people agree with her. Also, she has never said she proved God didn't exist. Atheism is not the position that God absolutely doesn't exist; it is simply a rejection of theistic claims. It is simply lacking belief in a God because theists haven't met their burden of proof. That is it.
brez002 11 months ago
@brez002 You sound utterly reasonable... what are you doing in this discussion? Anyway, you make your point in a much more friendly manner than some of the militants here, and I appreciate it. Granted, one person may not be able to "prove" to another that God exists, but I think it's also true that some people consider what they can observe to be ample evidence. For them, it's proven. For others, that might not be enough.
TheRealScotius 11 months ago
@TheRealScotius Yeah, well I can at least say that every story of personal experience I have heard would not have been enough evidence to convince me. In fact, I'm not aware of any claim that's been made that would even count as evidence at all. They usually seem to be people interpreting things to fit what they want to believe. And when it comes to the belief in a God, it is important to remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
brez002 11 months ago
@brez002 Since you sound open minded about this, I'd like to recommend a book to you called "The Way of Chang Tzu". Aside from simple observations, he makes some very complex ones. One I found particularly interesting was his observation about the various natural forces, how they go back to five elements, how those five elements go back to three, and how those three are really one. I'm sure you get what I'm suggesting, and it's intensely interesting reading.
TheRealScotius 11 months ago
@TheRealScotius To be honest, I don't really get what you're suggesting. That statement seems really vague; perhaps b/c it is too complicated to explain in a few hundred characters.
brez002 11 months ago
@brez002 I don't know which of my posts you're responding too, but I can assure you I'm not THAT complicated... let me know and I'll explain what I mean.
TheRealScotius 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRealScotius "One I found particularly interesting was his observation about the various natural forces, how they go back to five elements, how those five elements go back to three, and how those three are really one. I'm sure you get what I'm suggesting"
brez002 11 months ago
@TheRealScotius Got yeah, im in total agreement with you there.
By the way, is Scotius a play on SCOTUS (supreme court of the united states)?
wildcatlaw13 11 months ago
@wildcatlaw13 Nope. A friend of mine who had been a history professor at the university of Windsor and had studied some Latin told me the likely Latinized version of my name, Scott, would be Scotius.
TheRealScotius 11 months ago
@monsieurpickles
I think you're the one who missed the point entirely. Hitchens totally destroyed Friel, making him look like a complete fool, who didn't even read Hitchens' book (calling it "God is not good." What a pathetic excuse for an interviewer. Forgot rule No. 1: Prepare!
Also, Friel's idiotic reminding Hitchens that they're playing a game of hypothesis only proves that he is mentally incapable of even conceiving that someone might accept his premise but disagree with him.
Narwal88 1 year ago
@curriejean He wants Hitchens to state that he isn't a good person, though he think he is. He's not trying to convince him. The atheist woman is missing the point. I don't understand how anyone can listen to this clip and think that any convincing is being done from either side.
monsieurpickles 1 year ago
@monsieurpickles I disagree with your take on this. I've listened to the interview and also the show in their entirety and Tracy was thinking pretty much the same thing I was. Hitchens was saying "even if" god existed and we are not perfect then Hitchens said he was STILL not worthy of worship, then it started all over again.
rrpostalagain 1 year ago
Love MPFC but didn't quite get the reason for cutting it in as you did. Perhaps if more of the sketch intro were laid out to give it some context...
Hopeful71 1 year ago
@Hopeful71 Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean. The MP sketch was really just about a guy not being able to speak because the interviewer took up the whole time clarifying his question.
curriejean 1 year ago
@curriejean
Yeah I got that. And I like the idea but I am just thinking that it would have been...."more digestible" if you did more of mixing the MP video with it's audio intact as a reaction to the Hitchen's interview. Played them side by side (in a manner) instead of on top of each other. As it is now, it took me several minutes to figure out what you were doing.
Just a personal opinion...take of it what you will. It's all subjective.
BTW, the AE cuts were great
Hopeful71 1 year ago
@Hopeful71 Okay, I think I get you. Personally, I like it to take time for me to figure out what's going on in something I'm watching. Piques interest for me. But if that's not common, I'll have to take that into consideration if I make another thing. Maybe come up with some kind of creative compromise. Thanks for the input! :)
curriejean 1 year ago
@curriejean i thought it was awesome, well timed etc... love graham chapman laying across the desk: SHUT UP! SHUT! UP!
BANGBANGBANGBBANG 11 months ago
this was quirky fun.
belzondium 1 year ago
love this.
foreverconnected 1 year ago