You know, the points you are trying to make are not getting any better by attesting someone you happen to disagree with deep emotional problems, effectively questioning their sanity. I you like Bob as much as you profess, sifting through his videos for clues about his emotional development is a pretty poor way of showing it.
By the way, one doesen't have to be emotionally troubled to hold a grudge against the religious types who just won't keep their superstitions to themselves.
Evidence of what? Evidence that gay-bashers are bullies who revel in the pain of others, who are barely kept in check by laws that forbid them to openly indulge their bloodlust, who, when they have the mean to, try to turn the world into a playground for there most disgusting, vile, murderous impulses?
The evidences are there, available to every member of the public willing to look, and more importantly, willing to aknowledge the reality they show.
***
“Shitting on Bill Gates doesn't help your case.“
I don't shit on Bill Gates, unless the issue is Microsoft abusive business practices. Of course, I'm on the side with the bigger stick, so in recent years, I've toned down my indignation
But there's another thing I ommited last time: people who -like Bill Gates- give a lot of their money to charity because they want to leave a better legacy than “abused his monopolitistic position all his life”, are a minority among the richest. For the most part, they give to charities only a fraction of what the state give them through tax cuts; don't do this out of the goodness of their heart but because they want to be seen as “generous” by their peers or the population at large, use it (more often than not) as a trick to dodge taxes they own, and many charities are not so charitable to begin with.
And when one rich guy decides to do something genuinly generous, there's always the risk of seeing his peers freaking out if it turns out that the charitable project is more than feel-good pretense.
So, when taxing rich people more, the money “lost” from rich generous donors is more than balanced by the money “won” by forcing greedy, egoistical and avaricious rich people to pay their dues.
“Not only does he claim people with faith in a God are mentally deficient“
He was not talking about religious believers, he was talking about a subset of religious believers, namely creationists. Now, had he pretended that every religious believer was a creationist there would be a point to be made about Bob despising Christianity, but since his attack was leveled only at this very contemptible subgroup… So your point three: does'nt exist: entirelly fictional, a fine exemple of simulated outrage.
But you're kinda right: Bob is wrong to call creationists “retards”: Creationists are bald-faced liars, who cry crocodile tears when someone refuses to play along and pretend that they are fine, honest people who sincerely believe the bullshit they peddle.
They're not only liars, by the way: they're also political poltroons: not only don't they have the guts to admit that their in it to wrestle the control of schools from people who smarter, more erudite, and more honest that they will ever be and turn the next generation into obedient little lackeys of the self-proclaimed beholders of the “moral authority”, but they keep rebranding their own lie: from creationism, to intelligent design, to “teaching the controversy”.., better try to reword the same crap again and again and again than staying consistent: that would be like, a fraction of an angstrom closer to displaying some actual fortitude.
And quite frankly: that's your problem with Bob? He expressed contempt at charlatans and con-artists and chauvinists, and you're declaring that this is a psychological problem!? What's next? Playing the persecution card when someone will tell you that he finds child molesters who became priests to have easy access to kids disgusting?
The term used (“mentally-deficient”) may have been wrong, but the contempt expressed entirely deserved, and as counter-intuitive as it might seem, much more respectful that the kind of fake-commiseration (“I despise you but I'm going to pretend that I care for you”) that so many people use as an erzatz for civility nowadays.
I think it's a great rhetorical tactic, when somebody accuses some group of acting like bullies, to say “You must be so traumatized by bullying that you can't think rationally”. That way you can blame the victim and act like you care.
But really, the Christian Right is a group of bullies. May they all get hangnails.
@It's not a rational tactic to question Bob's intellectual honesty by way of speculating on dampened emotions
I certainly don't suspect emotion problems on everyone I disagree with, in fact Bob is the only one I ever have.
And I haven't really deliberately looked for 'clues' (even though I DID call them that), I've just followed his videos for some time now and have been consistently surprised at how much Bob changes his tone and demeanor towards this vague, blurry, generalized vision of what he thinks makes up 'Christians' or 'conservatives'.
Like for example, in the TGO episode “Supreme Responsibility”, when referring to a MASS MURDERER, he described him as 'your basic far right militant douchebag'. Now, if Bob actually, honestly thinks that a murderer is a 'basic' right-winger, then he wouldn't have any reason to be as passive as he is in videos like the ones I've linked before.
Also, I don't think Bob is ignorant enough to believe that, either. I do think he's smart enough to know people who are ignorant of politics, as well as people who like Transformers 3 are not functionally retarded.
But if not for a desire to accurately describe people he doesn't like, why WOULD Bob be saying the nasty things he does? The only explanation I can think of is: he's just being a bitter asshole when he makes 'those comments'. From that, I extrapolate: he has an emotional inclination to be an asshole to people with 'those comments'. Makes sense enough, right?
But here's the big thing about 'those comments'. Those comments are–as far as I can recollect–just about the only things that come out of his mouth when talking about politics. When reviewing a movie, for instance, he'll give his opinion, but only ever alongside 4 and a half minutes of telling you why he has that opinion.
With, say, conservatives/Christians/the GOP (all mushed into one, grey blob), he doesn't ever get very specific. “They're racist, they're hateful, they're sexist”. That's it. He vaguely throws vague attacks at a vague generalization of an ideology.
For perspective, here's a video that just came out that's very similar to Bob's video posted above but on the opposite end of the political spectrum. The main difference being that, instead of attacking the entire liberal/DNC platform, it focuses solely on Obama himself and a few other high-level Democrats. It focuses solely on actual things he actually did, rather than just reasons he sucks 'just because. http://youtu.be/wPjBXufufUU
I've never heard Bob really go in-depth with his politics. I've never heard him sit down and talk about the issues; I've mostly (mostly) just heard an endless slew of accusations and claims, without even trying to back them up.
And I'm not saying that Bob HAS to do anything but levy his bitter, angry attacks 80% of the time, but the point still stands that when he's talking about politics, 80% of the time it's just bitter insults.
Therefore, I conclude that his politics are mostly (80%?) motivated by emotions, and not by logic or reason.
@He was not talking about religious believers, he was talking about a subset of religious believers, namely creationists. Now, had he pretended that every religious believer was a creationist there would be a point to be made about Bob despising Christianity, but since his attack was leveled only at this very contemptible subgroup…
Now, I really, really don't want to misunderstand you here, but this paragraph makes it sound like you don't know Christianity is a creationist theology.
So just in case you don't know, the whole point of Christianity is that there is an all powerful, loving God who made everything in existence and submitting yourself to him is the way to heaven. This is textbook creationism, and Bob, having been raised in Catholic school, PROOOOBABLY knows that as well.
So I don't see what your point is.
****
@But there's another thing I ommited last time: people who -like Bill Gates- give a lot of their money to charity because they want to leave a better legacy than “abused his monopolitistic position all his life”, are a minority among the richest. For the most part, they give to charities only a fraction of what the state give them through tax cuts; don't do this out of the goodness of their heart but because they want to be seen as “generous” by their peers or the population at large, use it (more often than not) as a trick to dodge taxes they own, and many charities are not so charitable to begin with.
I get a sense from this that you don't trust rich people very much. =P
Yet you do, however, trust the government to handle the same amount of money just fine. =P =P =P
Man, it's totally awesome how long is this is going on for.
Dave, you are omitting some fairly obvious possibilities in your “proof” that Bob is irrational.
Here's what I think is happening: lots of people agree with Bob that the Christian Right – not all Christians, just the Right-wing political ones, are bullies who promote discrimination, sexism, homophobia, and ignorance. Also, a lot of people agree with him that Transformers 3 and, by extension, just about everything Michael Bay is responsible for is utter crap and that people who like his stuff are making the movies worse for everyone by allowing him to keep doing it. I'm not saying everyone agrees, but I do, and so do lots of other people.
I think when Bob throws out assertions without backing them up he's talking to me. I don't need to be convinced, I just like listening to him spike the football. Of course the Bay fans aren't “functionally retarded”. He's just calling them stupid, because they seem stupid to him. They also seem stupid to me. I am amused by his mockery of them, even if it seems irrational and unfair.
So in that sense, you're right: Bob's big smackdown comments are emotional, designed to get an emotional response from people who agree with him and to annoy people who don't.
But…that's not to say his opinions aren't based on reason. I don't think Conservative Christians are a menace because I just hate them arbitrarily. I don't like them for what I see as fairly logical reasons. Sometimes I want to explain them. Sometimes I just want to express my aggravation. I get Bob on this.
So let me say this: the “whole point” of Christianity is not that there's a loving God who made everything and blah blah. That's the way Christianity – and religion – sucker people. Those things are self-evidently not real. The point of Christianity is to use people's fear of death and need for meaning to acquire money and power.
That said, when people complain about “Creationists”, they're complaining not about all Christians but about the ones who think some version of Creation Science should be taught in school instead of – or alongside – evolution. That's because the evidence for Evolution is pretty much ironclad, whereas the case that the world was created 6,000 years ago and man walked with Dinosaurs is down to wishful thinking. But of course, the purpose of opposing the teaching of Evolution has nothing to do with educating people and everything to do with making kids less informed so that they'll be more easily suckered into believing the various silly things you need to believe to be a Christian.
As for rich people vs. the government…the government is controlled, to some extent, by my votes, my activism, and my opinions. Rich people can do whatever they want. I like it when I have control of huge sums of money, thus I trust the government more than rich people. Moreover, I trust that an institution designed to represent the collective self-interest of Americans will do that, and a group (like a corporation) designed to enrich a few major shareholders will do that. Since I don't care about the shareholders and I do care about the American people…see? It's not hard.
“Like for example, in the TGO episode “Supreme Responsibility”, when referring to a MASS MURDERER, he described him as 'your basic far right militant douchebag'. Now, if Bob actually, honestly thinks that a murderer is a 'basic' right-winger“
David, let me tell you the rule number one of the bullshiter: If you want to peddle bullshit, if you want to tell obvious lies to people, the first step is to make sure that your interlocuter believes that you believe your own bullshit.
I'm going to take an exemple I know well France counts a little less than 17 million right-wing voters The main conservative party has around 200.000 members The far-right counts around 50-60.000 militants Basic right wingers: 17.000.000 far-right douchebags: 60.000 Or, if you want a picture: Basic right wingers= # far-right militant douchebags = * ######################################## ######################################## ######################################## ######################################## ######################################## #####################*################## ######################################## ######################################## ##################### If you were really stupid enough to not understand the difference, you would be too cognitively limited to use a keyboard, and therefore not posting here. The fact that you cannot be actually believing your own discourse makes you look like a snake oil salesman, thus, you're breaking the First Rule.
***
“But if not for a desire to accurately describe people he doesn't like, why WOULD Bob be saying the nasty things he does?“
Because fake politeness is a waste of time. And because most partisans tend to interpret anything that's not unapologetic display of hostility as signs of weakness and never try to back up their claim unless openly and violently challenged.
“Now, I really, really don't want to misunderstand you here, but this paragraph makes it sound like you don't know Christianity is a creationist theology.“
Christianity is not a theology Christianity is a fuckton of sects whith a common origin, and they all have their own specific sets of theological interpretations and biblical exegesis, and not only christian sects often disagree whith each others but often sects harbor disagreement within their own ranks.
And not only that, but none of the mainstream christian denominations support creationism. At most they postulate that natural selection exists because God intented it, and even then, they make clear which side they're on. And beyond the hierachy, what is the opinion of actual biblical scholars? Well, they're not shy about describing creationists standard bearers as con-artists.
“Christianity is a creationist theology” is not merely a false postulate: it's a lie a sin, and also a perfect expression of creationism's moral bankruptcy. According to creationists, not only should Christians reject science, they should at the same time reject their traditional religious authorities and submit the diktats of self-proclaimed keepers of the heterodoxy who are often as illiterate in religion than they are in biology. It's not “reject your priest of your science teacher, you can't have both”, it's “reject your priest and your science teacher and from now on defer only to me“
***
“the whole point of Christianity is that there is an all powerful, loving God who made everything in existence and submitting yourself to him is the way to heaven.“
Only the fundies pretend that God is a control freak who micromanage every single physical reaction in the universe while at the same time demanding that self-aware living creatures spend their time as submissive sycophants.
***
I get a sense from this that you don't trust rich people very much. =P
Full disclosure: I'm part of the dreaded 1% So when I talk about the many vices and few virtues of the very rich: I talk as an insider: I know my people, and I've learned by experience how untrustworthy most of “us” are.
@Nixou You sure do have a penchant for taking peoples comments out of proportion. I never said he should keep it bottled up and be a MANLY MAN. I said he should probably get therapy, which is by the way, THE OPPOSITE OF KEEPING IT BOTTLED UP!
Hey James. GO FUCK YOURSELF! You lost this election and the Liberals won. So much for the whole lesser of two evils being too evil bullshit. Now shut up and count your gold.
Congrats Dems. I hope the next four years of House obstructionism feels more tolerable than the last two. At least the Supreme Court isn't likely to get worse.
Amazing how everyone on television but Bill O'Reilly seems to think Romney ran a brilliant campaign. I don't like it when he agrees with me, especially when he follows legitimately reasonable remarks by implying that non-whites are ruining America by turning it into an entitlement society. Not that he's talking about race or anything.
P.S. Can we finally get some bi-partisan support for abolishing the Electoral College NOW?
Looking for our Early Pension Release plan, to get financial freedom-the cost of accessing or unlocking your pension early. Want more plans like early pension release, Get Pension Early, Pension Advice.
MOVIEBOB CENTRAL 
You know, the points you are trying to make are not getting any better by attesting someone you happen to disagree with deep emotional problems, effectively questioning their sanity. I you like Bob as much as you profess, sifting through his videos for clues about his emotional development is a pretty poor way of showing it.
By the way, one doesen't have to be emotionally troubled to hold a grudge against the religious types who just won't keep their superstitions to themselves.
LikeLike
“Please present to me actual evidence of that.“
Evidence of what?
Evidence that gay-bashers are bullies who revel in the pain of others, who are barely kept in check by laws that forbid them to openly indulge their bloodlust, who, when they have the mean to, try to turn the world into a playground for there most disgusting, vile, murderous impulses?
The evidences are there, available to every member of the public willing to look, and more importantly, willing to aknowledge the reality they show.
***
“Shitting on Bill Gates doesn't help your case.“
I don't shit on Bill Gates, unless the issue is Microsoft abusive business practices. Of course, I'm on the side with the bigger stick, so in recent years, I've toned down my indignation
But there's another thing I ommited last time: people who -like Bill Gates- give a lot of their money to charity because they want to leave a better legacy than “abused his monopolitistic position all his life”, are a minority among the richest. For the most part, they give to charities only a fraction of what the state give them through tax cuts; don't do this out of the goodness of their heart but because they want to be seen as “generous” by their peers or the population at large, use it (more often than not) as a trick to dodge taxes they own, and many charities are not so charitable to begin with.
And when one rich guy decides to do something genuinly generous, there's always the risk of seeing his peers freaking out if it turns out that the charitable project is more than feel-good pretense.
So, when taxing rich people more, the money “lost” from rich generous donors is more than balanced by the money “won” by forcing greedy, egoistical and avaricious rich people to pay their dues.
LikeLike
“Not only does he claim people with faith in a God are mentally deficient“
He was not talking about religious believers, he was talking about a subset of religious believers, namely creationists. Now, had he pretended that every religious believer was a creationist there would be a point to be made about Bob despising Christianity, but since his attack was leveled only at this very contemptible subgroup…
So your point three: does'nt exist: entirelly fictional, a fine exemple of simulated outrage.
But you're kinda right: Bob is wrong to call creationists “retards”: Creationists are bald-faced liars, who cry crocodile tears when someone refuses to play along and pretend that they are fine, honest people who sincerely believe the bullshit they peddle.
They're not only liars, by the way: they're also political poltroons: not only don't they have the guts to admit that their in it to wrestle the control of schools from people who smarter, more erudite, and more honest that they will ever be and turn the next generation into obedient little lackeys of the self-proclaimed beholders of the “moral authority”, but they keep rebranding their own lie: from creationism, to intelligent design, to “teaching the controversy”.., better try to reword the same crap again and again and again than staying consistent: that would be like, a fraction of an angstrom closer to displaying some actual fortitude.
And quite frankly: that's your problem with Bob? He expressed contempt at charlatans and con-artists and chauvinists, and you're declaring that this is a psychological problem!? What's next? Playing the persecution card when someone will tell you that he finds child molesters who became priests to have easy access to kids disgusting?
The term used (“mentally-deficient”) may have been wrong, but the contempt expressed entirely deserved, and as counter-intuitive as it might seem, much more respectful that the kind of fake-commiseration (“I despise you but I'm going to pretend that I care for you”) that so many people use as an erzatz for civility nowadays.
LikeLike
I wonder if Bob is actually going to have the courage to answer these criticisms.
LikeLike
I think it's a great rhetorical tactic, when somebody accuses some group of acting like bullies, to say “You must be so traumatized by bullying that you can't think rationally”. That way you can blame the victim and act like you care.
But really, the Christian Right is a group of bullies. May they all get hangnails.
LikeLike
@It's not a rational tactic to question Bob's intellectual honesty by way of speculating on dampened emotions
I certainly don't suspect emotion problems on everyone I disagree with, in fact Bob is the only one I ever have.
And I haven't really deliberately looked for 'clues' (even though I DID call them that), I've just followed his videos for some time now and have been consistently surprised at how much Bob changes his tone and demeanor towards this vague, blurry, generalized vision of what he thinks makes up 'Christians' or 'conservatives'.
Like for example, in the TGO episode “Supreme Responsibility”, when referring to a MASS MURDERER, he described him as 'your basic far right militant douchebag'. Now, if Bob actually, honestly thinks that a murderer is a 'basic' right-winger, then he wouldn't have any reason to be as passive as he is in videos like the ones I've linked before.
Also, I don't think Bob is ignorant enough to believe that, either. I do think he's smart enough to know people who are ignorant of politics, as well as people who like Transformers 3 are not functionally retarded.
But if not for a desire to accurately describe people he doesn't like, why WOULD Bob be saying the nasty things he does? The only explanation I can think of is: he's just being a bitter asshole when he makes 'those comments'. From that, I extrapolate: he has an emotional inclination to be an asshole to people with 'those comments'. Makes sense enough, right?
But here's the big thing about 'those comments'. Those comments are–as far as I can recollect–just about the only things that come out of his mouth when talking about politics. When reviewing a movie, for instance, he'll give his opinion, but only ever alongside 4 and a half minutes of telling you why he has that opinion.
With, say, conservatives/Christians/the GOP (all mushed into one, grey blob), he doesn't ever get very specific. “They're racist, they're hateful, they're sexist”. That's it. He vaguely throws vague attacks at a vague generalization of an ideology.
For perspective, here's a video that just came out that's very similar to Bob's video posted above but on the opposite end of the political spectrum. The main difference being that, instead of attacking the entire liberal/DNC platform, it focuses solely on Obama himself and a few other high-level Democrats. It focuses solely on actual things he actually did, rather than just reasons he sucks 'just because.
http://youtu.be/wPjBXufufUU
I've never heard Bob really go in-depth with his politics. I've never heard him sit down and talk about the issues; I've mostly (mostly) just heard an endless slew of accusations and claims, without even trying to back them up.
And I'm not saying that Bob HAS to do anything but levy his bitter, angry attacks 80% of the time, but the point still stands that when he's talking about politics, 80% of the time it's just bitter insults.
Therefore, I conclude that his politics are mostly (80%?) motivated by emotions, and not by logic or reason.
[continued…]
LikeLike
[…continued]
@He was not talking about religious believers, he was talking about a subset of religious believers, namely creationists. Now, had he pretended that every religious believer was a creationist there would be a point to be made about Bob despising Christianity, but since his attack was leveled only at this very contemptible subgroup…
Now, I really, really don't want to misunderstand you here, but this paragraph makes it sound like you don't know Christianity is a creationist theology.
So just in case you don't know, the whole point of Christianity is that there is an all powerful, loving God who made everything in existence and submitting yourself to him is the way to heaven. This is textbook creationism, and Bob, having been raised in Catholic school, PROOOOBABLY knows that as well.
So I don't see what your point is.
****
@But there's another thing I ommited last time: people who -like Bill Gates- give a lot of their money to charity because they want to leave a better legacy than “abused his monopolitistic position all his life”, are a minority among the richest. For the most part, they give to charities only a fraction of what the state give them through tax cuts; don't do this out of the goodness of their heart but because they want to be seen as “generous” by their peers or the population at large, use it (more often than not) as a trick to dodge taxes they own, and many charities are not so charitable to begin with.
I get a sense from this that you don't trust rich people very much. =P
Yet you do, however, trust the government to handle the same amount of money just fine. =P =P =P
LikeLike
So what you are saying is, that in order to follow their faith properly, Chistians are obligated to limit and/or disrupt scientific discovery?
LikeLike
Man, it's totally awesome how long is this is going on for.
Dave, you are omitting some fairly obvious possibilities in your “proof” that Bob is irrational.
Here's what I think is happening: lots of people agree with Bob that the Christian Right – not all Christians, just the Right-wing political ones, are bullies who promote discrimination, sexism, homophobia, and ignorance. Also, a lot of people agree with him that Transformers 3 and, by extension, just about everything Michael Bay is responsible for is utter crap and that people who like his stuff are making the movies worse for everyone by allowing him to keep doing it. I'm not saying everyone agrees, but I do, and so do lots of other people.
I think when Bob throws out assertions without backing them up he's talking to me. I don't need to be convinced, I just like listening to him spike the football. Of course the Bay fans aren't “functionally retarded”. He's just calling them stupid, because they seem stupid to him. They also seem stupid to me. I am amused by his mockery of them, even if it seems irrational and unfair.
So in that sense, you're right: Bob's big smackdown comments are emotional, designed to get an emotional response from people who agree with him and to annoy people who don't.
But…that's not to say his opinions aren't based on reason. I don't think Conservative Christians are a menace because I just hate them arbitrarily. I don't like them for what I see as fairly logical reasons. Sometimes I want to explain them. Sometimes I just want to express my aggravation. I get Bob on this.
So let me say this: the “whole point” of Christianity is not that there's a loving God who made everything and blah blah. That's the way Christianity – and religion – sucker people. Those things are self-evidently not real. The point of Christianity is to use people's fear of death and need for meaning to acquire money and power.
That said, when people complain about “Creationists”, they're complaining not about all Christians but about the ones who think some version of Creation Science should be taught in school instead of – or alongside – evolution. That's because the evidence for Evolution is pretty much ironclad, whereas the case that the world was created 6,000 years ago and man walked with Dinosaurs is down to wishful thinking. But of course, the purpose of opposing the teaching of Evolution has nothing to do with educating people and everything to do with making kids less informed so that they'll be more easily suckered into believing the various silly things you need to believe to be a Christian.
As for rich people vs. the government…the government is controlled, to some extent, by my votes, my activism, and my opinions. Rich people can do whatever they want. I like it when I have control of huge sums of money, thus I trust the government more than rich people. Moreover, I trust that an institution designed to represent the collective self-interest of Americans will do that, and a group (like a corporation) designed to enrich a few major shareholders will do that. Since I don't care about the shareholders and I do care about the American people…see? It's not hard.
LikeLike
Wow. We are still posting comments on this?
LikeLike
“Like for example, in the TGO episode “Supreme Responsibility”, when referring to a MASS MURDERER, he described him as 'your basic far right militant douchebag'. Now, if Bob actually, honestly thinks that a murderer is a 'basic' right-winger“
David, let me tell you the rule number one of the bullshiter:
If you want to peddle bullshit, if you want to tell obvious lies to people, the first step is to make sure that your interlocuter believes that you believe your own bullshit.
I'm going to take an exemple I know well
France counts a little less than 17 million right-wing voters
The main conservative party has around 200.000 members
The far-right counts around 50-60.000 militants
Basic right wingers: 17.000.000
far-right douchebags: 60.000
Or, if you want a picture:
Basic right wingers= #
far-right militant douchebags = *
########################################
########################################
########################################
########################################
########################################
#####################*##################
########################################
########################################
#####################
If you were really stupid enough to not understand the difference, you would be too cognitively limited to use a keyboard, and therefore not posting here.
The fact that you cannot be actually believing your own discourse makes you look like a snake oil salesman, thus, you're breaking the First Rule.
***
“But if not for a desire to accurately describe people he doesn't like, why WOULD Bob be saying the nasty things he does?“
Because fake politeness is a waste of time. And because most partisans tend to interpret anything that's not unapologetic display of hostility as signs of weakness and never try to back up their claim unless openly and violently challenged.
LikeLike
“Now, I really, really don't want to misunderstand you here, but this paragraph makes it sound like you don't know Christianity is a creationist theology.“
Christianity is not a theology
Christianity is a fuckton of sects whith a common origin, and they all have their own specific sets of theological interpretations and biblical exegesis, and not only christian sects often disagree whith each others but often sects harbor disagreement within their own ranks.
And not only that, but none of the mainstream christian denominations support creationism. At most they postulate that natural selection exists because God intented it, and even then, they make clear which side they're on. And beyond the hierachy, what is the opinion of actual biblical scholars? Well, they're not shy about describing creationists standard bearers as con-artists.
“Christianity is a creationist theology” is not merely a false postulate: it's a lie a sin, and also a perfect expression of creationism's moral bankruptcy. According to creationists, not only should Christians reject science, they should at the same time reject their traditional religious authorities and submit the diktats of self-proclaimed keepers of the heterodoxy who are often as illiterate in religion than they are in biology. It's not “reject your priest of your science teacher, you can't have both”, it's “reject your priest and your science teacher and from now on defer only to me“
***
“the whole point of Christianity is that there is an all powerful, loving God who made everything in existence and submitting yourself to him is the way to heaven.“
Only the fundies pretend that God is a control freak who micromanage every single physical reaction in the universe while at the same time demanding that self-aware living creatures spend their time as submissive sycophants.
***
I get a sense from this that you don't trust rich people very much. =P
Full disclosure: I'm part of the dreaded 1%
So when I talk about the many vices and few virtues of the very rich: I talk as an insider: I know my people, and I've learned by experience how untrustworthy most of “us” are.
LikeLike
@Nixou('s last comments)
All of my love, you may have it now. ❤
LikeLike
@Nixou
You sure do have a penchant for taking peoples comments out of proportion. I never said he should keep it bottled up and be a MANLY MAN. I said he should probably get therapy, which is by the way, THE OPPOSITE OF KEEPING IT BOTTLED UP!
LikeLike
Oh no! Nobody has posted on this thread today! I think it's finally dying!
Quick
Liberals are stealing all the money!
Conservatives eat babies!
Religious people are addicted to huffing paste!
If you disagree with anything I say you're horrible!
LikeLike
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R6_Chr2vro XD
-Megabyte
LikeLike
Hey James.
GO FUCK YOURSELF! You lost this election and the Liberals won. So much for the whole lesser of two evils being too evil bullshit. Now shut up and count your gold.
LikeLike
Congrats Dems. I hope the next four years of House obstructionism feels more tolerable than the last two. At least the Supreme Court isn't likely to get worse.
Amazing how everyone on television but Bill O'Reilly seems to think Romney ran a brilliant campaign. I don't like it when he agrees with me, especially when he follows legitimately reasonable remarks by implying that non-whites are ruining America by turning it into an entitlement society. Not that he's talking about race or anything.
P.S. Can we finally get some bi-partisan support for abolishing the Electoral College NOW?
LikeLike
Looking for our Early Pension Release plan, to get financial freedom-the cost of accessing or unlocking your pension early. Want more plans like early pension release, Get Pension Early, Pension Advice.
LikeLike