Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Tuesday, January 22, 2008 | Reason : Comedy | print version Print | Comments

Document Top 10 Reasons to Believe Logic Over Religion

by Daily Garlic

Thanks to John Mertes for the link.

http://www.dailygarlic.com/anti-religion-atheism/2008/01/20/

Top 10 Reasons to Believe Logic Over Religion

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for turning my tap water into alcohol and a never ending food basket, but I'm tired of all these people whining and telling me how to live my life. You do your thing, I do my thing, we're all happy, but after reading that someone is paying Facebook to post a religious article titled "6 Reasons You Have To Believe In God", I figured I'd grab my own cross and at least have fun while getting ready to be crucified for having an opinion.

The argument that because complex life exists, it must have been "created" is ridiculous, and it's time someone said it. Yay, we have lots of chromosomes, we can see in color and keep erections for 4+ hours (commercials say see a doctor, I'd rather see a sorority house), but explaining away the unexplainable with magical explanations is as real as the emails I get from the prime minister of Nigeria who wants to send me $4 million dollars via a cashiers check.

image description1. "Earth is the perfect environment, it had to have been made for us"
Nai-eve. Get real. I point you to Arachaea, aka Archaebacteria and Extremophiles. These miraculous organisms live in ridiculously extreme climates. Climates much like that of, I don't know, other planets perhaps? The point is, different kinds of life require different things. Ours needs water, oxygen and beer. Anyway, as far as we know, in the 9 planets (fuck you, Pluto still counts) we have in our Solar System, we're the only ones with real sentient life, so I guess that means we're the only ones right? Oh wait, I forgot about the BILLIONS+ of other planets and solar systems in other galaxies and what not that we haven't been to or seen up close. So we're here, great, that's awesome, but if it were so damn perfect, Canada would be part of the United States, it wouldn't be so damn cold here in the winter, and Yellow Stone would shoot up Budweiser. Hey, a guy can dream right?

2. Free Will - Contradicting a Contradiction
God "gives" us "Free Will" so that we can choose which path to follow. He knows what we're going to do, but he's "giving" us the choice to, uhm, choose what he already knows we're going to do? To put it simply, if God can know 100% without a doubt you're going to do it, it's set in stone, you can't change it, you're just fulfilling destiny or a "plan" laid out by someone else. Either he gives us free will to do what we want (in which case there are many different paths and there is no way to KNOW which one we'll do), or it's all an illusion and you've got a puppet string coming out of your ass.

3. Hillary Clinton is leading the polls
If there is a God, and he does love us, then this would never have happened. Every time I realize my calendar doesn't say April, I wonder if there is a God and he has a sick sense of humor, but then it would have to be a really, really sick sense of humor.

4. Evolution
I don't actually think that evolution disproves creationism, actually if there was an "intelligent designer" this would have been an "intelligent design" to build in. It's nature's undo button once you figure out that giving tigers the ability to fly just wasn't the best idea out on the market. But since the church feels that evolution cannot co-exist with creationism, point me.

5. Intelligent Designs lack of a designer
Aren't we smart, we are truly awesome. Don't misunderstand me, I love walking on two legs and peeing standing up, but telling me that we have to be created by a magical being just because we exist, begs questioning.

Logic dictates that if (a) we are here so we must have come from somewhere, i.e. a "designer" who is more complex and intelligent than us, then (b) a complex and intelligent designer, would also have to have come from somewhere i.e. a "designer" who is even more complex and intelligent.

If the reasoning for a God is we're here, then where did he come from? My favorite famous lines are "he always was" and "no one knows". Shave the wool off your back and follow the herd if you believe that. If someone HAD to have created us, they would have HAD to have been created. If our creator could have ALWAYS been or just magically appeared, then so could we have.

We can't just assert that God is mightier and he just magically came to be, if that's the logic, I say someone still had to find him in the bottom of a cereal box, it's a paradox.

6. Ron Paul is behind in the polls
"Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation's capital." He's advocating for FREEDOM, come on, how can you not love freedom. He wants to legalize pot and I've seen him kiss at least 6 babies in the past week. He wants to get rid of the IRS, imagine a world without angry letters from those bastards! If God existed, Ron Paul wouldn't be just President, he would have been made Co-God back in the 60s.

7. Pot is illegal but Alcohol is A-Okay
Alcohol, the leading cause of drunk driving, and as such the leading cause of alcohol-related deaths, is totally cool for me to drive down to the liquor store to pick up and binge drink on. On the flip side, lighting up a joint and scarfing down a large pizza or two will get you boned hard. If God was around, he'd rather I eat a bag of Doritos and pass out than get drunk, beat my wife and piss on the couch. The worst that can happen with pot is smoking yourself stupid and passing out, but alcohol makes people angry. Hulk mad. If only there were a God… and then Ron Paul would set the record straight.

8. Bad things happen to good people, great things happen to bad people
For a society that constantly gets the short end of the stick when it comes to miracles, I've never fully understood how people can whipe away such an obvious shortcoming with one or two hail marys. If we're God's children, how come Bin Laden hasn't been bent over his knee and beat with a wooden spoon yet? Why the hell are people stopping to help stalled motorists and getting raped murdered, and why is it that every time a girl scout makes it to my door she's out of thin mints? I'm sick of it. Shortbread cookies suck, they do. There, I said it. Aside from such atrocities, every single day bad people get rewarded, while good people are getting creamed on the side of the road by drunk drivers. Give credit where credit is due, if you're an asshole, you should have karma spitting in your face, and if you're a good-looking, stand-up guy who wants some damn thin mints, you should get some damn thin mints.

9. Blind Faith
If we're supposed to believe in a God, and he wants us to believe in him, and the only way for eternal salvation is to believe, then why can't he take 30 seconds to hop off his throne made of golden baby carcasses and pop in and have coffee with me tomorrow? Starbucks, 10:30, I'll buy. If it's such a big deal to believe, why is it not such a big deal to give a reason to believe in?


10. The proof is in dying
Ever notice how religions promise us stuff that cannot be instantly proven? One of the biggest promises is heaven after we die or in Islam they promise 72 virgins. That has got to be the lowest thing.. promising pussy in the after life for accepting their religion.

The biggest logical fallacy is that a religion can offer us millions and millions of years of heaven for accepting their beliefs for just 100 years max? What is the ratio there there, how can accepting something for 100 years or so get you something for millions of years (or eternity) to come. When something looks too good to be true, it probably is.
Conclusion

I don't want you to change your views for me, hell I don't care if you DO believe that Jesus is magic and my house was struck by lightning and swiftly burnt to the ground right after posting this. It's your life, do what you want, but don't sit back and take everything you're told with a spoonful of sugar and a blindfold, that's for republicans.

Comments 1 - 50 of 75 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #114484 by Incredulous on January 22, 2008 at 9:37 am

Top reason for me is because religion is based on bollocks ... I mean it's not based on empirical, falsifiable evidence.

Other Comments by Incredulous

2. Comment #114486 by Mango on January 22, 2008 at 9:43 am

 avatarRon Paul? Get real, the man is a racist, homophobe, and misogynist. He's disproof of God in that if there's a loving God, why did he create Ron Paul.

Check out The New Republic's review of his newsletters in which he spews hate himself or doesn't disown it in his name over a period of many years.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

Other Comments by Mango

3. Comment #114487 by ScarSick on January 22, 2008 at 9:45 am

6. Ron Paul is behind in the polls

Is that some sort of sick joke?

We should all be thankful that he is behind in the polls and has no shot of winning.

Other Comments by ScarSick

4. Comment #114489 by BNCbright on January 22, 2008 at 9:58 am

 avatar"2. Free Will - Contradicting a Contradiction
God "gives" us "Free Will" so that we can choose which path to follow. He knows what we're going to do, but he's "giving" us the choice to, uhm, choose what he already knows we're going to do? To put it simply, if God can know 100% without a doubt you're going to do it, it's set in stone, you can't change it, you're just fulfilling destiny or a "plan" laid out by someone else. Either he gives us free will to do what we want (in which case there are many different paths and there is no way to KNOW which one we'll do), or it's all an illusion and you've got a puppet string coming out of your ass."


I'm not sure that the 'logic' here is particularly coherent.

If what you are going to do is 'predetermined' in some way, this doesn't necessarily mean that you are not free. Furthermore, we have no proof that we are free so this incompatibility would be no evidence against God either.

N.B. - there are many other good arguments against God - I'm not sticking up for the Theists here.

Think about it another way, without invoking God. A lot of people are determinists - they hold that on the macro-scale at least all events have causes, which in turn have causes and so on, back to some singularity (the Big Bang, say). To the extent that we are physical beings, our actions are also determined in the same way, governed by the natural laws. Does this mean that we don't have free will? I don't think so. I don't think we have free will if we are coerced to do something, or tricked into doing something in some way. Just because my actions are predictable, in the same way that all actions are predictable, this does not mean that I am not free in my actions.

After all, what is the alternative? If my actions are not predetermined, i.e. predictable if one was to have the requisite knowledge, then it seems that they must be random, doesn't it? To what extent are we any more free if our actions are randomly determined? So, arguing against determinism on the basis of truly random effects at the quantum level has two problems. One, you have to demonstrate that it actually effects the macro level, and secondly you have to show how randomly determined actions are free.

Another intuition; if a supremely intelligent alien race could accurately predict the future (through having accurately modeled the causation chains within our world)- would that effect our free will? Or, alternatively, imagine that there is a God, who knows exactly what we're going to do. He then 'dies,' 'forgets' or some-such, at this point does our 'freedom' change?

Final thought - if all physical processes are either determined, or random, and we think that this is incompatible with free will, and we think that free-will does exist, aren't we committed to positing the existence of some non-physical mental process (decision making) which then impacts on the physical world through action? Somethings got to give; either we accept no free will, or we accept that determinism and/or random events are compatible will free will, or we accept the existence of some non-physical process which affects the physical world.

Ask yourself which is the most plausible, or correct my logic, because I'm pretty sure that the 'logic' in the argument is not correct.

BNC

Other Comments by BNCbright

5. Comment #114492 by bruno_burned on January 22, 2008 at 10:01 am

 avatar"Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation's capital."

Ron Paul denies evolution. He's a nutter.

Other Comments by bruno_burned

6. Comment #114506 by BicycleRepairMan on January 22, 2008 at 10:41 am

 avatar
Ron Paul? Get real, the man is a racist, homophobe, and misogynist.


I dont want to sound like a Paulbot here, but besides those wacky newsletters (that he claims he didnt write and had nothing to do with) I've never seen or heard him make racist or homophobic statements, I've heard him deny evolution, yes, and in my book, that is nutty, but no actual racism or homophobia

Heres an interview on homosexuality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE (The host is clearly a maniac tho) And this is probably the very worst I've heard from Paul, as he should probably have hung up instead..

Heres an interview on abortion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8

He's also pretty clear on racism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKBlk1Vpeuw

Now, he could of course be a lying scumbag, and I'll accept that possibility, but, being known as the lonely "no-man" he is no stranger of openly expressing unpopular views, I mean, take the abortion video: When was the last time you heard a politician actually even TALK about it? most politicians avoid the A-word like the bulimic plague, because they KNOW they are gonna loose half their voters, no matter what they say..

So, in conclusion: I'm not sure I'd vote or support RP, but I'll admit I'm fascinated by him, and he seems to be the most honest of the current candidates. (honorable exception for Mike Gravel, my personal favorite.)

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

7. Comment #114510 by bamafreethinker on January 22, 2008 at 10:44 am

Free Will:

We must remember that, according to the New Testament, free will no longer entails resisting evil or choosing to do good or bad. Our actions towards our fellow beings are no longer judged – we are instead judged by our thoughts (whether we believe in the story of Jesus or not). It's whether we can wrap our little heads around a 2000 year old myth without anything to back it up accept hearsay and wishful thinking. The Old Testament was about free will. God said, "Do this, don't do that" and he judged you on how well you could follow his rules.

Eve's free will was not about how she thought. It apparently didn't make God angry that she didn't believe what he said about the apple. What mattered then was that she broke a strict command. Apparently she could have doubted god and believed the serpent for eternity and god would have been okay with that – but once she took the apple it was over. Her action reflected her beliefs – but it was the action that got her in trouble. Now it's the belief that sends us to hell… sad.

This new system not only condemns the vast majority of the human population that has existed for the past 2000 years but most of the current population as well. Actually a religion that merits good deeds and punishes bad ones (even if it's all make-believe) is far better that one based on how we think or believe. What we believe has little to do with how good a person we are – it's more how we are programmed as children and the information we are exposed to – either by choice or otherwise.


BTW – I loved this article!!!

Bama

Other Comments by bamafreethinker

8. Comment #114511 by rthille on January 22, 2008 at 10:44 am

It's Ron Paul's views on Abortion, Evolution and the separation of Church and State that have me rejecting him...

I like a lot of his views on smaller government in peoples' lives. The trouble is, the parts he _does_ want to be involved in...

Other Comments by rthille

9. Comment #114518 by BicycleRepairMan on January 22, 2008 at 10:58 am

 avatar
It's Ron Paul's views on Abortion, Evolution and the separation of Church and State that have me rejecting him...


Again, I'm not a ron pauler here, but he's pretty constitutional about church/state policy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsMEMQf64gU

And here is the abortion video again..
Abortion and Stem Cell Research
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

10. Comment #114521 by flobear on January 22, 2008 at 11:09 am

 avatarrthille: I'm with you. I like his libertarian views but if only he wasn't well... crazy.

BicycleRepairMan: The host in the first video scares the hell (no pun intended) out of me. If I ever invent a realize-you're-crazy ray gun, he's the first one I'll zap with it.

Other Comments by flobear

11. Comment #114524 by rthille on January 22, 2008 at 11:14 am

BicycleRepairMan, yeah, but he wants to amend the constitution so that we won't have the separation of church and state.

On the other hand, he seems like he's very willing to try to work within the system (Constitution and constitutional laws already enacted) to try to get what he wants, as opposed to Bush who just does what he wants, illegally.
Since I don't believe the country would, in my lifetime, go for amending the constitution to remove the separation of church and state, I believe Ron Paul would be a better, safer, president than Bush or someone like him. But I also don't believe he would be working toward an outcome I would approve of. Basically, I think he'd be struggling to go in the wrong direction (at least on a lot of issues), wasting a lot of time and effort. (Though, now that I think about it, having the government go nowhere might be a _good_ thing :-)

Other Comments by rthille

12. Comment #114529 by annabanana on January 22, 2008 at 11:22 am

 avatarBicycleRepairMan, have you seen this article yet?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

Ron Paul IS scary. He wants the states to have all the power. I'm sure you could see the eminent doom certain states would have if they were allowed to legislate their all too socially conservative views.

Other Comments by annabanana

13. Comment #114542 by robotaholic on January 22, 2008 at 11:38 am

 avatarI don't get why so many people are brainwashed by Ron Paul - he is a little twit who never had a chance to win a single primary- and if you notice, the people who like him behave like cult members.

Other Comments by robotaholic

14. Comment #114550 by movingshadow on January 22, 2008 at 11:55 am

 avatarI've come to the conclusion that the author is a bit of a dipshit.

Other Comments by movingshadow

15. Comment #114552 by Neil Schipper on January 22, 2008 at 11:58 am

Articles such as this with a smarmy know-it-all slacker vibe shouldn't really be highlighted here on rd.net. I do recognize the humour, and I can see some youth appeal, but the voice is not what I would call wise and knowledgeable. This site should have standards different from a twenty-something's blog.

Other Comments by Neil Schipper

16. Comment #114553 by annabanana on January 22, 2008 at 12:00 pm

 avatarRobotaholic,

I don't think RP supporters behave like cult members. Everyone here is tired of politics like they are and it's nice to THINK you have someone who isn't like all the rest. Ron Paul is different and radical and people have latched onto that quality.

But I'll say, Ron Paul isn't like the rest, that's for sure, but that doesn't automatically make him a good candidate either.

Other Comments by annabanana

17. Comment #114558 by Haymoon on January 22, 2008 at 12:04 pm

 avatarMaybe I'm being a bit of a stuff shirt but this article is not worthy of richarddawkins.net. It is not really that funny either.

Other Comments by Haymoon

18. Comment #114559 by rod-the-farmer on January 22, 2008 at 12:06 pm

 avatarSorry, but I found this mini-rant insufficiently funny, insufficiently accurate as a response to ANY article titled "Six Reasons You Have to Believe in God", and really a minor waste of my time spent reading it. Can we not do a better job ? I don't see a lot of intellectual credit coming to this site as a result. I notice he did not provide a link to the Six Reasons article.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

19. Comment #114572 by SRWB on January 22, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Besides shortbread cookies are way better than mint cookies! :-)

Other Comments by SRWB

20. Comment #114573 by dlitt on January 22, 2008 at 12:28 pm

 avatar
Comment #114552 by Neil Schipper on January 22, 2008 at 11:58 am
Articles such as this with a smarmy know-it-all slacker vibe shouldn't really be highlighted here on rd.net

No need to maintain a level of intellectual snobbery - variety is good. Plenty of room here for all.

Other Comments by dlitt

21. Comment #114609 by 13pranks on January 22, 2008 at 1:20 pm

It would have been funnier had it also been accompanied by devastating logic. I like beer as much as the next guy, but let's cover the basic critical thinking first, shall we?

Other Comments by 13pranks

22. Comment #114618 by Sans foi ni dieu on January 22, 2008 at 1:28 pm

 avatar"but if it were so damn perfect, Canada would be part of the United States"

No thanks. I prefer my "True North strong and free" over the "Bible belt giving me the belt". Otherwise it's funny.

Other Comments by Sans foi ni dieu

23. Comment #114623 by BAEOZ on January 22, 2008 at 1:32 pm

 avatar
If what you are going to do is 'predetermined' in some way, this doesn't necessarily mean that you are not free. Furthermore, we have no proof that we are free so this incompatibility would be no evidence against God either.


I think the point is, whatever you decide, God has always known what you were going to do. Long before you were born, it was known. Hence, you had no say in it. No matter how many times you've changed your mind, these changes were always known. You're naught more than a puppet.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

24. Comment #114630 by Dune010 on January 22, 2008 at 1:39 pm

 avatarComment #114573 by dlitt on January 22, 2008 at 12:28 pm

"No need to maintain a level of intellectual snobbery - variety is good. Plenty of room here for all."

But variety in quality?

Other Comments by Dune010

25. Comment #114644 by jtdman on January 22, 2008 at 1:53 pm

I liked it and who cares what he thinks about Ron Paul - the more voices being heard the better.

Pot-head slackers will appeal to other pot-head slackers just as the intellectuals will appeal to other intellectuals. Don't forget a good majority of the brainwashed are that way because they aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer - maybe they can relate to this guy.

Other Comments by jtdman

26. Comment #114667 by bamafreethinker on January 22, 2008 at 2:30 pm

I don't think this guy thought he was constructing a bullet-proof argument here. As RD himself has pointed out many times – comedy is a good way to raise consciousness sometimes without seeming too snobby. Sure, it's not the funniest thing I've read by a long shot, but it has its moments. If you were reading the thing the whole time looking for flaws in his reasoning, perhaps you were not seeing the forest for the trees. George Carlin's piece where he started praying to Joe Pesci or the whole FSM theorem are completely unreasonable, but they do make us think and laugh - both of which are good for us! Of course comedy is as subjective as a favorite color and maybe this is too shallow for average RD fan – but not everyone is average… I would like to thank Josh for putting this on and I would like to thank everyone for commenting – even if you didn't like it. Free speech and open forums rule!

I wish we had a good candidate for president. Does anyone remember Ross Perot? I don't remember a lot about his policies (I was a teenager) but I do remember he was not a politic – he said what he thought and didn't beat around the bush or cater to specific groups. He probably would have won if he hadn't have dropped out and then jumped back in at the last minute – shame.

Other Comments by bamafreethinker

27. Comment #114671 by al-rawandi on January 22, 2008 at 2:35 pm

 avatarBAEOZ,


Darwinistic determinism. I think there is a reconcilliation. That there is a degree of environmental and genetic predeterminism which greatly limits our choices. We do not have an infinite amount of choices.

Certainly, God does not limit them, but other things do.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

28. Comment #114697 by notsobad on January 22, 2008 at 3:14 pm

 avatarSome parts are mildly amusing but overall it's a weak article.
People like Pat Condell, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett are both funny and intellectually stunning.

Other Comments by notsobad

29. Comment #114700 by Steve Zara on January 22, 2008 at 3:18 pm

 avatar
People like Pat Condell, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett are both funny and intellectually stunning.


Pat Condell... intellectually stunning?

Witty, sure. Outrageous and outspoken, certanly. But intellectual?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

30. Comment #114701 by Diacanu on January 22, 2008 at 3:21 pm

 avatarWait'll they get a load of me.
*Joker grin*

Other Comments by Diacanu

31. Comment #114703 by Steve Zara on January 22, 2008 at 3:27 pm

 avatar
Ron Paul is different and radical and people have latched onto that quality.


Indeed, but it is rather puzzling to me how so many are prepared to turn a blind eye to some of his extreme views. I have even heard it argued that we need not worry, as he would never be able to put some of those policies into practise if elected. Not a very safe way to use your vote, in my opinion.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

32. Comment #114705 by notsobad on January 22, 2008 at 3:29 pm

 avatar
Pat Condell... intellectually stunning?

Witty, sure. Outrageous and outspoken, certanly. But intellectual?

I enjoy his practical approach and lack of political correctness.
See: "Why does faith deserve respect?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPAC_cGVnUg

I have even heard it argued that we need not worry, as he would never be able to put some of those policies into practise if elected. Not a very safe way to use your vote, in my opinion.

I guess people said similar things about Bush too...

Other Comments by notsobad

33. Comment #114706 by Steve Zara on January 22, 2008 at 3:33 pm

 avatar
I enjoy his practical approach and lack of political correctness.
See: "Why does faith deserve respect?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPAC_cGVnUg


Well, yes, but that is hardly intellectual, is it?

Sorry. I may be being fussy, but I think Harris and Dennett are definitely at a different level intellectually (well, at least academically) than Condell.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

34. Comment #114708 by Diacanu on January 22, 2008 at 3:40 pm

 avatarSteve Zara-

Well, yes, but that is hardly intellectual, is it?


I dunno, the monkeys who write SNL couldn't have done it.

Sorry. I may be being fussy,


Well....you are.

If Harris and Dennett are the standard, then where does that leave the rest of us?

Other Comments by Diacanu

35. Comment #114711 by Steve Zara on January 22, 2008 at 3:47 pm

 avatar
If Harris and Dennett are the standard, then where does that leave the rest of us?


Not saying they are the standard; I mean, Dennett is one of the most respected philosophers in the world. Just that, and no offence to Condell, but I don't think he would call himself intellectual. He is a stand-up comedian. Calling him intellectual is like calling Britney Spears modest. Or Amy Winehouse sober. Or Johhny Depp ugly.

People seem to think he is good at what he does. But it sure isn't publishing learned papers.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

36. Comment #114712 by Radesq on January 22, 2008 at 3:50 pm

 avatarComment #114701 by Diacanu
Wait'll they get a load of me.
*Joker grin*


I don't know if it's been mentioned elsewhere -- but rest in peace Heath Ledger. He will appear as the Joker in the upcoming Dark Knight film but he died today at the age of 28. The batboy mourns this loss.

Other Comments by Radesq

37. Comment #114713 by Steve Zara on January 22, 2008 at 3:51 pm

 avatar
I don't know if it's been mentioned elsewhere -- but rest in peace Heath Ledger. He will appear as the Joker in the upcoming Dark Knight film but he died today at the age of 28. The batboy mourns this loss.


As do many others. A very talented actor.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

38. Comment #114722 by Liveliest Crib on January 22, 2008 at 4:02 pm

Alcohol, the leading cause of drunk driving, and as such the leading cause of alcohol-related deaths

Is the intra-linguistic truth part of the joke? I would think alcohol is the only cause of drunk driving.

Other Comments by Liveliest Crib

39. Comment #114725 by Radesq on January 22, 2008 at 4:06 pm

 avatarThe second leading cause is cars.

Other Comments by Radesq

40. Comment #114731 by BAEOZ on January 22, 2008 at 4:15 pm

 avatar
Certainly, God does not limit them, but other things do.

If God knows what you're going to do, then you doing it doesn't change it. It would seem set in stone by God's knowing.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

41. Comment #114733 by BAEOZ on January 22, 2008 at 4:17 pm

 avatar
I would think alcohol is the only cause of drunk driving

No, you've got it all wrong. First, you get a drunk, strap on 4 wheels to his sides. Jerry-rig a motor to the back wheels and some form of steering to the front wheels and off you go, drunk-driving. Of course alcohol may be involved in you choosing to do this act to a drunk.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

42. Comment #114738 by Diacanu on January 22, 2008 at 4:37 pm

 avatarSteve Zara-

But it sure isn't publishing learned papers.


Doesn't have to be.

From Merriam Webster.

1 a: of or relating to the intellect or its use

b: developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : rational

c: requiring use of the intellect

2 a: given to study, reflection, and speculation

b: engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect

Other Comments by Diacanu

43. Comment #114740 by Diacanu on January 22, 2008 at 4:39 pm

 avatarRadesq-

I don't know if it's been mentioned elsewhere -- but rest in peace Heath Ledger. He will appear as the Joker in the upcoming Dark Knight film but he died today at the age of 28. The batboy mourns this loss.


What Steve said. :(

Other Comments by Diacanu

44. Comment #114741 by notsobad on January 22, 2008 at 4:40 pm

 avatar
Well, yes, but that is hardly intellectual, is it?

Sorry. I may be being fussy, but I think Harris and Dennett are definitely at a different level intellectually (well, at least academically) than Condell.

I should have used "witty" instead of "intellectual" to avoid the possible confusion with academical.

Other Comments by notsobad

45. Comment #114742 by Steve Zara on January 22, 2008 at 4:43 pm

 avatarDiacanu:

Well, if you are going to be pedantic (curse you - that is my role)...

Other Comments by Steve Zara

46. Comment #114745 by Radesq on January 22, 2008 at 4:54 pm

 avatarComment #114731 by BAEOZ

If God knows what you're going to do, then you doing it doesn't change it. It would seem set in stone by God's knowing.


I agree, but more than that if it is predetermined it relieves you of responsibility. If you do something wrong...you couldn't have done it any other way. Nobody goes to hell! Or if you are then it's God's fault for not stepping in and changing it. Which of course he can't (not because of freewill) because to change it would mean he was mistaken about how he thought it was going to turn out in the first place.

Other Comments by Radesq

47. Comment #114758 by Pieter on January 22, 2008 at 6:14 pm

Ok, time to clear up some nonsense about Dr. Paul here. 1st, that new republic article is part of smear campaign- his newsletter was not written by him, it certainly wouldn't have been published had he known about it, and he's already apologized for its contents and promised to be more aware of what gets written in his name- all this years ago after the original article was published.

Second, the Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution nonsense. Go back to when McCain was asked if he believed in evolution, and the the field of candidates was asked which did not. The 3 who raised their hands were Huckabee, Hunter, and Tancredo. The clips showing Paul apparently not believing in evolution are taken out of context.

Next, on abortion, a moral issue that for him ranks life ahead of liberty, and property, but it remains for him a personal moral issue. What he has against roe. v. wade is that decisions on abortion (ie, the legality of it) should be made at state and local levels, and that it's not a federal issue. Thus if roe v. wade is overturned federally, and it become a local issue (and roughly 65-75% of americans are pro-choice) it may only be banned in some areas. (so if you need an abortion just hop in the car across a state line and you should be ok). and at least he's not a true nutter who would be anti-abortion and anti-contraceptives.

anyways, i encourage everyone to check him out at ronpaul2008.com. the man has a record truly a cut above most people in the race for US president.

Other Comments by Pieter

48. Comment #114782 by gyokusai on January 22, 2008 at 7:42 pm

 avatarBah, Daily Garlic. Way too much testosterone for my taste, and BNCbright (#4) is right, that logic is garbled beyond repair. What this article lacks in braininess, it makes up for with cockiness, and in terms of witticism it went south pretty darn soon.

^_^J.

Other Comments by gyokusai

49. Comment #114787 by Diacanu on January 22, 2008 at 7:57 pm

 avatarPieter-

Ok, time to clear up some nonsense about Dr. Paul here...


Augh, fer chrissakes....*fast foreward*

Other Comments by Diacanu

50. Comment #114863 by GBile on January 23, 2008 at 4:25 am

I consider perfect:

The US as a part of Canada and Old faithful spouting Kokanee.

Other Comments by GBile
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: