gdp's Comments

Big Hollywood : Chief Obama Defender Jon Stewart Takes on Breitbart

Thu, 9 Apr 2009 15:19:37 +0000

"Once again, Stewart attacks someone more important than himself...." "Oh, and by the way, I can disprove everything you've said." -AndrewPrice Still waiting big guy.

Big Hollywood : Chief Obama Defender Jon Stewart Takes on Breitbart

Thu, 9 Apr 2009 04:46:29 +0000

haha, again nothing but ad hominem attacks. you made a claim, 'max' called you on it, and cited facts, then asked you to refute it. you claimed numerous times you could but haven't. you are a phony. plain and simple. keep saying you are getting under peoples skin, but deep down if i pulled what you have the last 20 posts are so you'd all call me for what i am. the fact that andrew is doing it you all get in line to serve him, when in fact all he is is an intellectually dishonest lier and snake oiler. i don't expect any of you to see any of this because you'd rather bow to people rather then your supposed ideals. you'll say otherwise in posts to follow but you'll continue to let andrew play this deceitful charade. btw, i'm not 'max', now that that is settled you guys can get back to the circle jerk over the Breitbart photo. ah, poor kids are upset a lefty comedian made fun of their puppet master.

Big Hollywood : Chief Obama Defender Jon Stewart Takes on Breitbart

Thu, 9 Apr 2009 03:15:22 +0000

in a democracy like ours every voter (18 and above) is important right? or no?

Big Hollywood : Chief Obama Defender Jon Stewart Takes on Breitbart

Thu, 9 Apr 2009 03:12:17 +0000

yeah because the GOP base is so intellectual.

Big Hollywood : Chief Obama Defender Jon Stewart Takes on Breitbart

Thu, 9 Apr 2009 03:00:11 +0000

awesome. you refute points, they attack then say, "Oh, and by the way, I can disprove everything you've said. But then, why should I bother? What have you offered to motivate me?" man, really priceless. yeah andrew, facts 'why bother?' especially if you don't have them.

Big Hollywood : Does God Exist? Hitchens vs. Craig

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 22:54:04 +0000

ok so then Jesus is either a normal man, or he didn't exist if he was god. again, you can't have it both ways. i can't so neither can you. just seems that your whole argument isn't provable, and even if it was true, human brains could not comprehend any of it (illiterate tribes 2000 years ago even more so) so why keep making up as we go along? seems VERY worthless, and if there is a god there is a 100% chance he will never be described accurately anyway (making bibles and other sacred texts worthless). it's just being intellectually honest to yourself, and to me right now. rather then saying 'i don't know' (like i do) you say 'he exists outside everything' and this is supposed to mean something to anybody. c'mon, that's phony. and garbage. it means nothing. i wish your skeptism for atheism, and 'darwinism' could be reserved for: "You are arguing that God must be bound by the rules of this Universe because you and I are bound by the rules of this Universe. I am arguing that since God created this Universe, he preexisted it and exists as a thing apart from it and is therefore not bound by the rules he set down for it. As such he can also break or re-write the rules of this Universe as he sees fit; when he does so, we call those events Miracles." huh?

Big Hollywood : Does God Exist? Hitchens vs. Craig

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 22:29:12 +0000

so you are arguing that you follow what your religion says, not god? am i misinterpreting? that is a very curious statement. if you don't follow god, what's the point? at that level you are just in a club being told what to do by guys is silly hats, right? i mean your are choosing what is right and what is wrong, kind of like what we do as atheists. i'd like you to push/explain this a little further, if i didn't (or did) follow you... i've yet to hear a believer say they are willing to disregard a sacred text in favor of a religion or personal opinion/morals. curious. thanks in advance, take your time if needed.

Big Hollywood : Does God Exist? Hitchens vs. Craig

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 22:18:00 +0000

but generally when some says something exists they can prove it, as it's something that is real. god may be real to you using your extremely loose definition, but then so is santa claus, and my cousins imaginary friend to these people. again, this sort of logical absurdity gets us no where, and probably hurts us as a modern collective global culture. (this is why hitchens say 'religion poisons everything')

Big Hollywood : Does God Exist? Hitchens vs. Craig

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 22:13:48 +0000

but again, as you (or I) are creating this work of fiction or video game WE ARE EXISTING IN THE WORLD WE ARE MAKING IT IN. in fiction, your letters and sentences exist according to the rules of language, grammer. what they are printed on. where the book is sold as finished product. you are also a product of an egg and sperm from your mother and father. you are NEVER OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSE. again, c'mon. had your argument been that the bible is fiction why then you'd be on to something.

Big Hollywood : Does God Exist? Hitchens vs. Craig

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 22:04:55 +0000

good, sensible post. i could see where you'd make your other conclusions. though i don't agree with them. i'd recommend you read this it's (somewhat) short: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/... i think you, unlike others here, will at least try. this also shows the humanity that can be found in an atheistic worldview.

Big Hollywood : Does God Exist? Hitchens vs. Craig

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 21:12:10 +0000

'When I say, "religious ethics" I don't mean "what God approves" ' what's the difference? yeah say my arguments are drivel. nice double talk here.

Big Hollywood : Does God Exist? Hitchens vs. Craig

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 20:32:48 +0000

read or see the doc 'constantines sword' please. revisionist history is what you are spouting right now.

Big Hollywood : Does God Exist? Hitchens vs. Craig

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 20:31:11 +0000

Charles Darwins 'Origin of the species' SAYS NOTHING ABOUT god. that is all inferred by you. there are 'Darwinists' that believe in god. Charles Darwin's theory is rooted in science, not philosophy. if you didn't get this you should read it again for the first time. also take a real science class. you are talking about 'social darwinism' which has NOTHING to do with darwins scientific claims. social darwinsim is a pseudoscience. you should stop listening to what people SAY about darwin, and look about what he ACTUALLY said. Darwinism isn't a 'worldview' if you think this you don't get it. it's a scientific theory, like the theory of gravity. again read the books, not the white noise around them.

Big Hollywood : Does God Exist? Hitchens vs. Craig

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 20:16:57 +0000

well, i HAVE experienced a world WITHOUT god. see how easy that is. i just canceled you out. neither of us need evidence so we are back to were we started.

Big Hollywood : Does God Exist? Hitchens vs. Craig

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 20:15:10 +0000

"God doesn't exist in this universe. He predates it else he couldn't create it, and thus he is not defined by it or its rules." this is why atheists cannot argue theists, you make up the rules as you go along. if i was allowed to reason like this i could make up ANYTHING. all this ignores the idea that if god does exist outside everything, as the 'painter of the painting', how can he also be jesus? jesus was a member of this world (supposidly, but i'll give you that for now). using this logic it is like saying, 'god is the painter, the universe the painting, and him (as jesus) was some of the paint'. i mean, WHAT? how could anyone ever refute this absolute nonsense. you are not playing in the grounds of logic like i have to.

Big Hollywood : Does God Exist? Hitchens vs. Craig

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 20:10:15 +0000

"some theists say that ethics cannot do without religion because the very meaning of 'good' is nothing more then 'what god approves'. Plato refuted a similar claim more then two thousand years ago by arguing that if gods approve of some actions it must be because those actions are good, in which case it cannot be because be the gods' approval that makes them good. the alternative view makes divine approval entirely arbitrary: if the gods had happened to approve of torture and disapprove of helping neighbours, torture would have been good and helping our neighbours bad. some modern theists have attempted to extricate themselves from this type of dilemma by maintaining that god is good and so could not possibly approve of torture; but these theists are caught in a trap of their own making, for what can they possibly mean by the assertion that god is good? that god is approved of by god?" -peter singer. 'practical ethics' this of course, ignores all the immoral acts god asks his followers to partake in in the old testament. either way believers are on VERY thin ice morally, they are usually just unaware of alternate arguments.

Big Hollywood : Does God Exist? Hitchens vs. Craig

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 19:15:39 +0000

I too prefer Sam Harris' 'the end of faith' to Christopher Hitchens' 'god is not great'... i mean if i had to pick one. i think your claim that 'atheism doesn't answer much after saying there is no god'. is flat false. i mean what does the bible say after there is God? you can fill in lots, and i can do the same with atheism. two books 'being and nothingness' and 'the gay science' would be great for you to look at if you haven't already. if you think atheism doesn't go any further then the initial claim then i'd say reread the books, or you missed most of it. the problem with the books i listed (and believers interpretations of atheist beliefs) is that atheist literature does not have a whole following of apologetics and 'theologians' to explain every part of it. the ten or so books i've listed collectively show it--you just need to get it out yourself. we atheists don't have guys like william lane craig walking around to explain these things. i think we are all better for it as well. i will also say the three 'new age atheist' books (hitchens, harris, and dawkins) are not meant to be philosophical. they are anti-theist books, they are just arguments AGAINST theism. if you want philosophy with an atheist underpinning i'd recommend sartre. go for his philosophy books, then his literature. he is grossly under read in contemporary america.

Big Hollywood : Does God Exist? Hitchens vs. Craig

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 19:03:27 +0000

"Darwinism' believe it or not is not a philosophy. Atheism is not either. back to the library for you pal. i am an atheist, and the philosophy i believe and enjoy reading the most is existentialism. which has a thread of belief AND non belief in god, i prefer the non belief side. again, before you shout something think (and look) up what you are shouting means.

Big Hollywood : Does God Exist? Hitchens vs. Craig

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 19:00:39 +0000

i'd love ONE example when this happened. JUST ONE. you use 'darwinism' as the ultimate strawman, and you have no idea what his theory states/means.

Big Hollywood : Does God Exist? Hitchens vs. Craig

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 18:46:39 +0000

you shouldn't look at evolution as a ladder but as a tree, we are a branch of. funny you claim 'people are so invested in evolution', what are the alternatives we are missing? can you name one that is scientifically provable? i'll save you the trouble; you can't. but i would like to watch you spin your tires in the mud. as for 'junk dna' there really isn't such a thing. that's a buzz word from the ID movement. science explains it all. if you really care that much: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB130.html talkorigins.org can answer ANY claim you come up with. they'd be better then me. you see i am not an evolutionary biologist (and neither are you) so i'll leave it to them, as should you.