Expelled the movie ben stein talks with pz myers

[Ramohog]

Science is only a piece of the puzzle, but when you exalt this over wisdom, understanding and spiritual discernment, then you have stepped into the Satanic tree of knowledge deception, and have cut yourself of from knowing and understanding God along with His revelations and Manifestations backed up by prophecy and documeneted history.

[nowgleaning]

I think the problem is when people who like knitting start jabbing their knitting needles into the eyes of other people if they don't like knitting too-then their needles definitely do need to be taken away! Or if a knitter knits a sweater for a stranger then insists the stranger wear the sweater even tho they don't want to b/c they think it creepy or are already wearing a different sweater then they strangle the stranger with wool!

...ok, I think my point is knitting is evil & must be stopped!

[ScottBrown666]

PZ Myers is terrifying. Hear that music? He was about to cannibalize somebody.

[trailerfitter2]

@ScottBrown666 yeah i noticed the music was rather killer right the way through the production along with the use of the Berlin wall clips... clever editing too!

[l337pwnage]

soooo....religion is like smoking pot??

[dontyoumonkeyaround]

Just very simply, thank you for making 'Expelled: the Movie' (just aired on UCB TV). And what shame it brought to the U.K., cited as the birthplace of what is happening in the scientific community. To think we've celebrated that man (Darwin) on our £10 notes for decades. As for Mr Dawkins (the term Professor is one of honour, which he clearly doesn't deserve), I believe pressure should be started for Charles Simonyi to sue him for breach of contract.

[dontyoumonkeyaround]

For 13 years Dawkins held the Oxford Seat as Professor for Public Understanding of Science, funded by Mr Simonyi. Instead, Dawkins used the time there to promote his own atheistic agenda, thus promoting an enormous bias (i.e. MIS-understanding) in scientific understanding (but I suspect Simonyi himself is an atheist, so I doubt that will happen). In my own small researches (I'm not a scientist), I've come to the following conclusion:

[VictorEchoNovember79]

@dontyoumonkeyaround You forgot all the books he wrote, the classes he taught, the lectures he gave, the public speaking he did, the debates he entered, the T.V specials he made, the tutoring he did, the interviews he gave, ect ect...

[dontyoumonkeyaround]

@VictorEchoNovember79 ...indeed, those are the activities through which he abused his time in Oxford.

[VictorEchoNovember79]

@dontyoumonkeyaround If teaching science counts as "abusing time" then I doubt there is anything he could do to please you. Most of his books were about science, as well as his lectuers. He didn't teach atheism in class nor did he tutor anyone in it. Hell the only real atheistic thing he ever did was write The god delusion. Hate him as I am sure you will but don't lie about his time spent as a proffesional educator.

[dontyoumonkeyaround]

@VictorEchoNovember79 All Mr Dawkins' activities are empowered-either directly or indirectly-by his campaign to rid the world of religion,especially Biblical religion,especially creationism;after all, he calls it a disease.His books,lectures and interviews are steeped in his own philosophy.If he were truly to promote the public understanding of science, he would encourage examining other worldviews, debate and a broadening of study.Blatantly, neither he nor any of his 'Bright' comrades do this.

[VictorEchoNovember79]

@dontyoumonkeyaround I would concede every point from "All Mr Daw---- disease.His books,lec ----steeped in" --" philosophy". The fact is that it is not "his own" philosophy it is science and the evidence of science that runs into collision with creationism. I would also point out that Richard Dawkins writing a book has done quite a bit for encouraging debate, and caused a lot of people to examine other world view, mainly his. Other non debating 'brights' include Sam Harris, and Chris Hitchens =/

[dontyoumonkeyaround]

@VictorEchoNovember79 Consider again my point "it is impossible to PROVE anything about the past, without relying on UNPROVABLE assumptions."OPERATIONAL science happens in labs all over the world, and is about what we can observe in the now. Historical "science" puts up a front of authenticity, while proving nothing. Evidence is NEUTRAL. Deductions are made based on the world-view through which that evidence is examined. World-view is philosophy/ faith.Dawkins is driven by belief, not science.

[VictorEchoNovember79]

@dontyoumonkeyaround That has nothing to do with what we were discussing. Perhaps you sent this to the wrong person. If not it is a complete red herring. Richard Dawkins is a scientest, science is indeed nuetral. Don't pretend that the well though out reasoned rejection of creationist bad ideas constitutes any kind of commitment to another form of dogmatism or faith, that would be a complete non sequitor.

[dontyoumonkeyaround]

@VictorEchoNovember79 The point is that Dawkins is one of those voiciferous atheists, who for decades have been brainwashing us through education and media that their viewpoint is scientific and reliable, through which major social change has occured.Dig down a bit and the'science' of 'proving' the past is a constantly-changing myth:a far from reliable basis for social foundation or personal belief.Yet they have the audacity to to treat those with Biblical worldviews as 'lesser beings'.

[VictorEchoNovember79]

@dontyoumonkeyaround Thats not a point, thats an assertion. I would agree that he is a vocal critic of religion but you are not being truthful when you say he is brainwashing people. Look here are the facts. No on has proven that any god exists, some of us have noticed that and decided to point it out. Also the evidence directly contradicts many of the claims made in holy books. I fail to see how social change is relevant and I am sorry the frail construct of faith is so easily shaken by logic.

[dontyoumonkeyaround]

The whole philosophy derived from the Darwinian/Big Bang synthesis is based on the claim to have proved facts relating to what happened in the past.But earlier than verifiably dated recorded history,it is impossible to PROVE anything about the past, without relying on UNPROVABLE assumptions.Any statement relying on an unprovable assumption is a speculation. To claim that a speculation is FACT, is a lie.To teach lies as truth,is propaganda.Our society has been increasingly founded on propaganda.

[dontyoumonkeyaround]

The foundations of modern UK society, is built of lies.

[dontyoumonkeyaround]

Now of course, the Scientific Creationist communities in developing their alternative model(s) of the past also make statements based on unprovable assumptions. But a) apart from occasional outbursts from over zealous members frustrated at their lack of avenues of expression, they admit their unprovable assumptions, and b) comparing Creationism with the Evolutionary synthesis, the latter is based on a whole gamut of assumptions, whereas Scientific Creationism is based on only one –

[dontyoumonkeyaround]

that the Judeo-Christian Bible is the Word of God,a supernatural extraterrestrial. Applying Occam's Razor(from wikipedia: ""the simplest explanation is more likely the correct one." The principle of Occam's Razor recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions"). In comparing the two religions, I know which I believe and trust is most likely. If every there was a clearly demonstrable NEED to re-establish the Truth of God's Word, it is in the arena of science.

[beginization]

Scientist like Dawkins tried to fool the world with climate change and would not let other scientist even look at their data

The truth won out and the climate hoax exposed.

[MalachorWraith]

@beginization

Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. He doesn't do anything with climate change.

[dontyoumonkeyaround]

@MalachorWraith which part of the word "like" didn't you understand?

[MalachorWraith]

@dontyoumonkeyaround

The part of the word that implies the use of an example which you failed to understand. "Citrus fruit like oranges tend to have soft centers". Don't throw shit at me because you can't use the English language.

[dontyoumonkeyaround]

@MalachorWraith Is this supposed to make any sense???

[beginization]

wow what a fascist

[Houshalter]

WTF

[highwind8124]

expelledexposed(dot)com

[hitoallandme]

Quote from Ken Miller

[hitoallandme]

Editors of Scientific American asked Mark Mathis, the film's co-producer, why he and Stein didn't interview such people, like Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome Project), Francisco Ayala, or myself. Mathis cited me by name, saying "Ken Miller would have confused the film unnecessarily." In other words, showing a scientist who accepts both God and evolution would have confused their story line.

[xSpectatoronex]

Myers mistake in this analysis is that being religous is not like other social activities. religous gatherings are, but adhearence to religous tenents is a response to having asked certain kinds of question, unlike knitting or video games or sports which are purely recreational, and not arrived at for intelectual reasons.

[ArchibaldWatt]

Religion, it seems to me, is not arrived at for intellectual reasons. I've known plenty of Catholics in my life, they were all baptized Catholic and Catholic they remained. How could their 'pursuit' of Catholicism be considered 'intellectual' when they had no choice? Indoctrination is more like it. Nothing intellectual about that.

Religion needs to be reduced down to other pursuits like knitting, sports, etc. and not placed on a pedestal, where you can't criticize it. That's Myer's point.

[xSpectatoronex]

Religion exists (contrary to knitting and sports) as a result of having asked certain kinds of questions, I don't think that's disputable. To put it another way, if we ceaced to ask questions we would ceace to have religion.

Also, religion does not need to be reduced down to other pursuits in order to critisize it, it's critisized all the time as it is.

[bshaw7325]

Knitting and such does not divide people to the point of creating wars. War that kills millions of innocent woman, children, and men. Religion does. The sooner it goes away, the sooner we can evolve to the next level of human civilization, but it may be too late at this point.

[Lumpygob]

Asking a question is not the same as honestly seeking an answer. In my opinion, religion is a result of refusing to face certain answers. 

Instead of reality-based solutions, religion offers wishful thinking. Instead of engaging in productive dialog, religionists take offense at any divergent view. Whenever they have been allowed to, they have resorted to violence against people who disagree with their fantasies and superstitions.

As far as I know, knitting never killed anyone.

[FuzzyDuck]

So where can I find the rest of this atroci--I MEAN, WONDERFUL, SCATHING, IMPORTANT MASTERPIECE about just how mean science is?

[chrisman737]

People like to knit? Hmmm... Was St. Peter crucified because he liked to knit? Did Mother Teresa minister to the poorest of the poor and the dying because she liked to knit? PZ Myers is not thinking rationally.

[RussianAssassin21]

You must not understand the nature of his analogy.

[chrisman737]

Or he must not understand the nature of religion.

[ArchibaldWatt]

The nature of religion is to keep people from asking difficult questions and submitting to a phantom 'higher power'. Believe me, knitting a sweater would be a greater accomplishment than going to church for 1000 Sundays.

And I wouldn't use Mother Teresa as an example of a 'devout person' she was anything but. Again, had she knitted she would have done more good than all her years 'ministering' to India's poor and dying.

[chrisman737]

The nature of religion is to ENCOURAGE people to ask difficult questions about human life, the nature of morality, the reason for existence, and other questions. Prove that Mother Teresa was not a devout person. Give me the evidence, please.

[ArchibaldWatt]

You could not be more wrong, religion doesn't encourage people to ask difficult questions, it gives them easy answers and closes them off from asking more questions. What is the reason for existence? God made us. Why should we be good? God says so. Why do bad things happen to good people? God has a plan. Religion began as an explanation for the things people couldn't explain, lightning = Zeus, etc. So, religion isn't a question it's an answer, and a bad one.

[chrisman737]

Why do we exist? What is morality? What is love? What does it mean to sacrifice oneself for another? Atheists can give only flat, lifeless scientific answers to these questions, and even then they have trouble truly answering these questions in depth. Religion tackles the difficult and profound questions of human existence.

[bshaw7325]

Why do we exist? Why do snakes exist? If you would take the time to research evolutionary biology, you might understand that we are here for the same reasons that all other animals are here. No magic and no heaven. Sorry.

[chrisman737]

Evolutionary biology answers some questions but not all. Francis Collins, the head of the human genome project, very much holds to the evolutionary theory but also has moved from leaning toward atheism to professing faith in God and in Jesus Christ. He sees in the architecture of life the evidence of a creator, and yet he totally supports evolution.

[ArgoSG]

There have been Islamic Suicide Bomber neurosurgeons. What is your point?

[vejlin]

False dichotomy. The failure of evolutionary biology to explain all questions doesn't imply anything about the existence of a God. To claim that "modern biology can't explain everything" is proof that "a god must exist" simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Going even further and saying it is proof that "my chosen god must exist" is even more far fetched. I'd appreciate it if you would take the time to go through the details of this "proof" of god's existence. Need more than "it's self evident"

[chrisman737]

I did not say that evolutionary biology's failures automatically implies something about the existence of a God. However, you said that if I would "take the time to research evolutionary biology, you might understand we are here for the same reasons that all other animals are here. No magic and no heaven." Evolutionary biology does NOT tell us the why of existence, nor does it immediately prove that there is no heaven. It was your sloppy generalization to which I was taking exception.

[chrisman737]

Whoops...Obviously, the quote above actually came from someone else (bshaw) and not you...but I am assuming that you would support bshaw's view.

[MalachorWraith]

@vejlin

That's extremely well said and I would add on top of it that applying scrutiny to ideas means doing it to your own as well, ie; you can't begin to criticize evolution while ignoring the flaws of creationism.

[a0eoj]

ArchibaldWatt - Isn't it pathetic how intellectually retarded most religious people seem to be? They really better hope there's not a god; she might not be too happy with the way religious people utilize their brain.

[ArchibaldWatt]

As to proving that Mother Teresa was not a devout person, she took money from Haitian dictators, Charles Keating of the famous savings and loan scandal, she even wrote a letter on his behalf when he came to trial. In her world, the ends justified the means, she took money from criminals, said they were good people for giving her money, which allowed them to dodge culpability for a longer time than they would have. The ends justify the means is not a virtuous line of thinking, there ya go.

[chrisman737]

This is not proof of anything, nor have you cited your sources.

[bshaw7325]

The sources are well documented and it does prove something. It is proof of the what vile and disgusting people like her can get away with when they use "God" as their ally. Disgusting misuse of power as it has been from it's conception.

[1sophie1joey1]

wow that gut must lead a very depressing life, Ben Stein you are a great person and think you ought to lead America through these horrible times.

[hiverhythm]

Woooo! Stein Palin 2012!

[alanshemper]

Listen to that scary music, that guy is definitely evil

[PwnIgnorance]

PZ Meyers is a great guy ... anyone else think this was taken out of context?

By the way... he thought he was being interviewed for a movie "Crossroads: Where Science and Religion Meet". Something to that nature.

[EpiGnosin]

Not really. He said that religion should not affect my life as much as it does. That's his point.

My religion has completely cleaned up my life. It's lead to peace of mind. It's lead to my abandoning violence as a means of solving a problem. It's lead to my understanding that revenge is a cold dish to both parties.

But I shouldn't let religion affect my life?

[litluminous]

No. Your own ethics should lead you to those conclusions. The fact that you require divine command to be good is not a point in your favor from an ethical point of view.

[joshmc6]

Its interesting just curious but where does your ethics come from? Your world-view of course but what makes something right or wrong?

[jmasterdude89]

@litluminous that's an idiotic comment liked by idiotic youtubers

[LennartCrescens]

@jmasterdude89 because what he has written is true?

[ArchibaldWatt]

I'm an atheist and I've never used violence to solve a problem.

If you used religion as a means to cleaning up your life, great. But we, as a whole, should not be using religion to govern. That is the point. Your beliefs belong in the home, not in the laws or the courts. What worked for you, may not work for other, it certainly wouldn't work for me, I think religious views are disgusting and dangerous.

Glad it had a positive influence on you though, keep it to yourself, k :).

[supershiva11]

"something fun to do on the weekend, and not affect their lives" oh. my. fucking. god. listen to yourself pz. LISTEN! you spent your LIFE learning about life coming from no life and a huge bang from nothing, also believing we are apes worth nothing, but you are one to say it shouldn't effect us? screw you!

[hugiesrox]

being apes doesn't mean being worth nothing.

It ties you to the glorious animal kingdom with all its quirkiness and wonder.

Being made from dust from some intangible thingamabob that now decides never to show itself is much less fulfilling in my opinion.

[variag62]

Quirkiness and wonder... along with eating each other alive, killing each others' babies, killing off family on a regular basis, wiping out whole other species (ethnic cleansing anyone?) kicking siblings out so they die and we live, forming hunting parties that deliberately target competitors... need I go on?

[npozar]

but that's what people also do, right? Too bad that you see only these things in the animal kingdom.

[thealchemist1111]

the study of life coming from no life is abiogenesis. One of the great mysteries. We hardly hear about it because not much can be said about it. Evolution though.. prayer is only so effective against a flu pandemic.

[ThrakhathOfKilrah]

@Irocivan

When he says "allow you to keep your religion" I think you would have to the exception of that rule.

You so deep into it that it affects your judgment. You need to get "out" of there and get some fresh air.

I was looking forward to go to Darwinian church but found out there is no church, no services, no priest and no holy book. I also found out there was no such thing as Darwinian. There are just people who understand science and those who do not.

[beginization]

@ThrakhathOfKilrah Doesnt Dawkins have his own church yet, I thought that was the reason for him preaching his version of radical atheism ?

as to the rest of your comment would you force people from praticing religion like stalin and lenin did ?

[ThrakhathOfKilrah]

@beginization

No his reason for for criticizing religion is really that fundamentalist nuts in US are sabotaging education, and especially the field of knowledge he has invest his life in - biology. He could call out the fundamentalist but instead he goes for what he sees as the "root" of the problem - religon itself. It really isn't more complicated than that.

I do not understand your question? Why would I force anyone not to practice their religion? What on earth makes you think that?

[beginization]

@ThrakhathOfKilrah

Science was around before Dawkins and it was started and mainly done by religous people, This guy sounds like a fascist like Stalin and Lenin want to control how people worship. If he was content in his atheism he would not talk like a fascist. Most of the important discoveries and inventions were made by people who had a belief. Atheists cant imagine as they only believe what they see, he is jealous.

[ThrakhathOfKilrah]

@beginization

Atheists can imagine. But their real asset, in common with scientists, is that they can differentiate imagination from reality. That is where you are different because you cannot.

Wether someone is religious or not when they make a great discovery does not constitute proof of that religious conviction. You need to learn to separate truth from consequence.

[beginization]

@ThrakhathOfKilrah No they cant as I have spoken to many atheist who claim they only believe things they can see, You atheist are trying to claim science as your own God and Dawkins isa high priest preaching his doctrin of radical atheism which you sound like your part of his church.

[ThrakhathOfKilrah]

@beginization

"You atheist are trying to claim science as your own*

One of the great things about science is that it benefits everyone. The reason it is inaccessible to you is because you haven't given it a shot. There are lots of good popular science books out there. All you have to do is start reading.

"Dawkins isa high priest"

It must be difficult for you to understand... authority is not important in science - only evidence and proper conduct is.

[beginization]

@ThrakhathOfKilrah

People of faith started investigating life long ago before Dawkins arrived or do you think it wicked as Dawkins puts it for religous people to work in the field of science, watch the BBC interview with Dawkins as that was the last time he let himsself be interview by anyone without his control. 90% of science is theory ? you actually seen a black how or can see quantum mech.. you must have good eyes.

[ThrakhathOfKilrah]

@beginization

I am beginning to notice some tendencies about you

1) You are unable to punctuate properly making your comments difficult to comprehend

2) You never stick to the subject, just dodge responses, and spit out one empty statement after another

3) You seem completely obsessed with Dawkins. Dawkins is just one of many critics of religion. Its called free speech. He is right on some things and wrong on others. Respond to his actual statements or get over him!

[ThrakhathOfKilrah]

"People of faith started investigating life long ago before Dawkins arrived"

What does that have to do with anything? It doesn't matter what faith you have when doing science as long as you have proper conduct.

A lot of scientists are religious and a lot of scientists are not. For most part it does not matter, because they understand that when they do their job they do their job. When Dawkins speaks of religion he does not speak in the name of science. He speaks for himself. Get it?

[ThrakhathOfKilrah]

"watch the BBC interview with Dawkins as that was the last time he let himsself be interview by anyone without his control."

Um, ok, what ever you say - but I'm not interested.

"90% of science is theory ?"

Are you referring to something he said in the interview or what are you referring to? Does it have anything to do with the subject we were discussing? You really need to learn to punctuate properly. I'm sincerely hoping you are not just word farting or trolling.

[ThrakhathOfKilrah]

Second... You could not even in principle "see" a black hole and you could not even in principle "see" quantum phenomena. What you can do is see the indirect evidence of black holes (infra red light from the event horizon and back drop objects) and quantum phenomena (refraction, quantum tunneling, cryptographically application). "Seeing something" does not necessarily constitute repeatable and testable data but the measurement involved in astronomy and physics does!

[beginization]

@ThrakhathOfKilrah

Thats where atheist like you are trying to protect your High priest Dawkins, he is the head of this new radical atheism movement that teaches bigotry is OK.

We much older ex atheist think your movement is going to cause alot of damage to the atheists all over the world. This idea of Dawkins to be as disrespectful of any culture which has any beliefs is like what Lenin and Stalin preached.

[ThrakhathOfKilrah]

@beginization

The only thing that is worse than being a bigoted little crackpot is being a bigoted little crackpot that is constantly failing to improve despite having the benefit of being constantly corrected on each single mistake. That makes you the looser of looser. You are not only an idiot but you have proven not to have a potential of becoming less of an idiot. Even if you understood that the key is in a willingness to learn and a genuine curiosity, you are simply to lazy. Good bye!

[beginization]

@ThrakhathOfKilrah

If I was you I would read about Stalin, Lenin and Mao as when you force your views on others and expect them to do what you say than get angry and cry your upset that I wont follow your religous teachings that is called fascism. And I am sure if you atheist had the power to force others you would do it. The past always tries to return if we drop our guard and the teachings of Lenin your following calling it atheism wont fool anyone.

[ThrakhathOfKilrah]

@beginization

watch?v=LZr-JZYctvA

[mistereveready]

@beginization atheist aren't a collection of dogmatic views like the most religions. it just means w/o god. not all atheist are nice people and not all of them are dictators. atheism != communism is true. i am atheist, and i can easily say fuck dawkins, as i can say fuck jesus. the difference is, i actually like dawkins, but he's not above scrutiny or jokes. i don't like the character jesus much, and when i say fuck him, and the holy spirit, i mean it. luckily the holy spirit is fiction.

[irocivan]

PZ Meyers: "We do not want to take religion from people".

Woow, THANK YOU PZ MEYERS, it is nice you want to allow us to keep religion!. Who do you think you are? Perhaps you are one of the less than 10% intelligent people in the world that should be selected to determine the next evolution step. By "WE" you probably mean you and the other members of the Darwinian church.

[themanatee000]

wow! you, busymartian, are absolutely wrong. absolutely wrong. that reason has changed three times. I repeat three times. Now the producers of the film are saying that they didn't try to gate crash, but instead the producer wanted "PZ to pay his ten dollars like everyone else". That is the statement they said most recently, you obviously know nothing on the movie, the subject, and about evolution. Shame on you.

[themanatee000]

wow! you, busymartian, are absolutely wrong. absolutely wrong. that reason has changed three times. I repeat three times. Now the producers of the film are saying that they didn't try to gate crash, but instead the producer wanted PZ to pay his ten dollars like everyone else. That is the statement they said most recently, you obviously know nothing on the movie, the subject, and about evolution. Shame on you.

[themanatee000]

wow! you, busymartian, are absolutely wrong. absolutely wrong. that reason has changed three times. I repeat three times. Now the producers of the film are saying that they didn't try to gate crash, but instead the producer wanted PZ to pay his ten dollars like everyone else. That is the statement they said most recently, you obviously know nothing on the movie, the subject, and about evolution. Shame on you.

[themanatee000]

wow! you, busymartian, are absolutely wrong. absolutely wrong. that reason has changed three times. I repeat three times. Now the producers of the film are saying that they didn't try to gate crash, but instead the producer wanted PZ to pay his ten dollars like everyone else. That is the statement they said most recently, you obviously know nothing on the movie, the subject, and about evolution. Shame on you.

[busymartian]

PZ is a GATECRASHER! He tried to sneak into this movie like a little cockroach. Who knows how he would have disrupted the screening of this important piece of truth. Dawkins got caught red-handed hiding in the shadows like a vampire! They're trying to silence us!

[bubbah]

You seem to be using sarcasm, but just in case anyone doesn't know: He didn't try to sneak in. He signed up for the movie with his full name on a public site.

[busymartian]

Yes. I was being sarcastic. Apparently there were strict guidelines on seeing the movie. Press members were asked to sign a document promising not to say anything bad about it. In Ben Stein's words, "What are they afraid of?"

[hiverhythm]

Hahaha. It's funny because as they're framing atheism as nazi-ism and fascism, they're acting totalitarianly fascist themselves. Someone should make a joke about this. Like what do fascists do when they're embarrassed about being fascist?

[rogersmithbigo]

Evolution does not try to answer the question of how life began. Humanity simply does not know the answers and we may never know them. There is a reason that intelligent design is disregarded by the scientific community. There is absolutely no evidence of intelligent design. Intelligent Design was created without scientific process; in fact it was created using wild imaginations. Could life have been created by intelligent design? SURE! Do we have any evidence of this, what so ever? NO!!

[DaveGrossmanSoloBass]

Don't bother commenting on this video with any criticism. Your comments will be deleted. They've wiped the comments from all their other videos just today.

Kinda ironic considering who these people are so against suppression of other people's views. Actually, it's hypocrisy, not irony. Actually, it's not even hypocrisy because these people know that they are simply trying to push their religion and not encourage freedom of speech.

Pathetic.

[DaveGrossmanSoloBass]

Actually, nevermind on that, I may have been looking at different copies of the same videos. It looks like some of my comments are still on some getexpelled videos. Sorry.

[irocivan]

If we haven't been created by an intelligence, where our intelligence comes from? I understand you believe you are intelligent, right?

[simonandtheghost]

why ask people on the internet?? read a book

[gobaskof]

WOOO, GO PZ!