Sure its christian propeganda... but its soo funny!

[metcalfracing]

Its a rap video featuring popular atheists... Sure, its propeganda, but you should still find it funny if you don't take it seriously. http://youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw

[Serkat]

Lol, I actually... like... this??!? It was pretty funny. Actually the first time I laughed at something anti-atheist not because it was incredibly stupid but rather witty. Although I figure, as has been debated in the comments, that this might simply be too smart to be the result of a creationst's brain.

[27]

Funny, but not nearly as arrogant or irritating as the real Dawkins.

[wannywan]

Funny, but not nearly as arrogant or irritating as the real Dawkins. I love it when people label Dawkins (a polite 60 something Englishman) as arrogant. It really tells you something you something about the labeller.

[Mes Tarrant]

Hehehe Thank you for the video! I love it when people label Dawkins (a polite 60 something Englishman) as arrogant. It really tells you something you something about the labeller. Hahaha yeah, some of my favorite parts of his lectures are places where he addresses the issue of people calling him arrogant. I do love how he doesn't ignore any kind of comments and actually takes the time to put them all in their place.

[wannywan]

Yeah, it's so good. I mean, if he seems ignorant to you, it's really only because you might be a little bit touchy about someone not going out of their way to respect your particular brand of mumbo-jumbo. And why should anyone? The religious are the most intolerant group of people in respect to other belief systems (seeing as they they are mutually incompatible and mutually exclusive sytems). Why should anyone outside of a religion give it any special respect over and above other views that we can readily criticise such as political views etc?

[Mes Tarrant]

Yep. Dawkins has always been nothing but civil, but in return he has received death threats and the like from offended religious folk.

[Needcatscan]

All religious people find scientists and intellectuals in that area of discourse arrogant because, well, how dare the scientists/intellectuals know more about the subject than them! That makes them arrogant! Ignorant people call the non-ignorant arrogant. It's a fact of life.

[wannywan]

I completely agree.

[Keeper]

and scientists with religion?

[Omega Weapon]

and scientists with religion? He didn't say "all scientists". He said "that area of discourse". And that area of discourse obviously doesn't include religious people does it. Read.

[psychology student]

Yep. Dawkins has always been nothing but civil Really?

[Keeper]

I thought he said "all religious people". Doesn't that include religious scientists?

[Sornaensis]

Religious Scientists != Scientists. Science does not deal in the metaphysical or supernatural and naturally has nothing to say on the matter so a Religious Scientist would only base those ideas on his own personal beliefs rather than something that is evidenced.

[Keeper]

Religious Scientists != Scientists. Science does not deal in the metaphysical or supernatural and naturally has nothing to say on the matter so a Religious Scientist would only base those ideas on his own personal beliefs rather than something that is evidenced. I feel sorry for Newton then. And the man who discovered heredity (forgot his name). And Einstein.

[Sornaensis]

How were the outcomes of the work done by any of those men affected by their religious views? Other than possibly negatively? Einstein believed in a non-personal god. He wasn't religious. Newton did not believe in the trinity. He wasn't religious either.

[Keeper]

How were the outcomes of the work done by any of those men affected by their religious views? Other than possibly negatively? Einstein believed in a non-personal god. He wasn't religious. So what? A non-personal God means that he didn't believe in one period? Scientists who believe don't have to let it effect there work. 'Scan said that "all" religious people (I believe he meant all people with a belief in God, though I could be mistaken) are moaning morons. I disagree. Newton did not believe in the trinity. He wasn't religious either. I'm pretty sure Muslims don't either. If belief in God = religion, then they were religious. Being religious doesn't mean it effects your works in the content you put in. Where in the Bible (or any religious text) does it say "doctor everything to support this". It also doesn't say "dilliberatly skew the evidence", either for or against. For some reason, many Atheists seem to think that Theists are inherently dumber, less intuitive, more gullible and more naive then Atheists. And that they think they are better then the Atheists. Do you? Your reply to my post above seems to indicate this. Do you think that?

[Sornaensis]

Keeper, your tanget has NOTHING to do with.

[metcalfracing]

why does every thread here devolve into arguement!? I mean, its just a funny video... If anything its just a non-partisan juxtaposition of Atheists with white trash rappers... I don't really think that people have to get all bent out of shape about it.

[Universal Mind]

Imagine if Richard Dawkins and those others really did act like that. I must say that it does make a very good juxtaposition.

[wendylove]

For some reason, many Atheists seem to think that Theists are inherently dumber, less intuitive, more gullible and more naive then Atheists. So let me get this, you have shown that a belife in god does not equal religion. And yet your arguing against a person who said All religious people find scientists and intellectuals in that area of discourse arrogant because, well, how dare the scientists/intellectuals know more about the subject than them! That makes them arrogant! (I believe he meant all people with a belief in God, though I could be mistaken) are moaning morons Techniquely you are moaning, so it seems he is correct. I feel sorry for Newton then. And the man who discovered heredity (forgot his name). And Einstein. The only work of Newton that is used today is his mechanics theory. His alchemy is not used. Also, its Mendel. Seriously, I thought you were some kind of expert on Biology. And Einstein was using god as a metaphor, something religious people find hard to grasp. For example Dirac said God uses beautiful mathematics to describe the world. Now Dirac was an atheist. P.S. Dirac was proberly greater then Einstein, however we don't hear about him much.

[Keeper]

Keeper, your tanget has NOTHING to do with. ?Nothing to do with people making fun of idiots making a fool of themselves and making Theism look like the hobby of the braindead? Will you answer the question? So let me get this, you have shown that a belief in god does not equal religion. And yet your arguing against a person who said What I am arguing and what he believes are two entirely different things. For example: Someone believes X. X is almost always associated with Y. Someone thinks that if someone believes Y they are X. X may argue this point, saying that X is not Y. Someone else says All Y's are stupid. The person who believes X knows that this is someone who broad brushes. As X is still an integral part of Y, he defends Y for the sake of X. Techniquely you are moaning, so it seems he is correct. Me? I guess I am. Are you saying I am both though? Also, is someone who broad brushess a group and makes a wide claim not moaning? I seem to have. Is the person whom said "all religious types" not guilty of the same? The only work of Newton that is used today is his mechanics theory. And Calculus. And quiet a few other things I don't care to name (Calculus stuck in my mind due to my subjection to it). His alchemy is not used.[/quote] And? Also, its Mendel. Ah! Thank you Seriously, I thought you were some kind of expert on Biology. I don't recall ever saying I was. Also, forgetting someones name doesn't mean you don't know there works. And Einstein was using god as a metaphor, I don't suppose you could prove that? I have several quotes (you can find them quiet easily on the net) that point out that he DID believe in God. something religious people find hard to grasp. Are you sure it isn't you who doesn't want to believe it? For example Dirac said God uses beautiful mathematics to describe the world. Now Dirac was an atheist. So everyone who talks about God is using a metaphor? Why would an Atheist say that anyhow? P.S. Dirac was proberly greater then Einstein, however we don't hear about him much. Did you just try to prove that Atheists are inherently smarter/more important then Theists? Why else say that?

[MrBeelzy]

So who's been following the whole Expelled controversy that's going on? I mean, the video was entertaining, but the creationist side loves to misrepresent people like Dawkins and PZ Myers. The wiki has some info on how PZ Myers was not allowed into a screening of the movie that he had signed up for, and gives you an overview of some of the controversy, but that is just the start. The creators have made ridiculous claims about PZ trying to sneak in, and generally twist the situation to make them look bad. PZ recently crashed a conference call of theirs, and although you can look at this as a negative thing on his part, the creationists didn't kick him off until they could no longer respond to the things he said. Anyhow, Expelled Exposed has some reports and reviews on it all. Are atheists smarter than theists? By no means, but creationism is a ridiculous thing to believe in (and creationism is what we're dealing with here, not theism), and the burden of proof does lie on their shoulders. Science should never rely on faith, it's not really science if it does. The fact God and spirituality have no place in science or science education, and that is what skeptics and scientists take issue with.

[wendylove]

Someone believes X. X is almost always associated with Y. Someone thinks that if someone believes Y they are X. X may argue this point, saying that X is not Y. Someone else says All Y's are stupid. The person who believes X knows that this is someone who broad brushes. As X is still an integral part of Y, he defends Y for the sake of X. Yah, Keeper. Your stil arguing against something you have created yourself. Me? I guess I am. Are you saying I am both though? You could assume that somebody who doesn't know mendels name is an idiot. However, I'm not going too. Also, is someone who broad brushess a group and makes a wide claim not moaning? I seem to have. Is the person whom said "all religious types" not guilty of the same? The moaning assumption is looking to be correct. I don't recall ever saying I was. Also, forgetting someones name doesn't mean you don't know there works. Well, I already knew you was no Biology expert. I just wanted you to say that. If you forget someones name it does damage your apperence. It kind of like me saying I know calculus and someone asked you who invented calculus and then forgetting the name. Note, Leizbiz and Newton invented calculus. In reality, even children can remeber names. And Calculus. And quiet a few other things I don't care to name (Calculus stuck in my mind due to my subjection to it). Seriously, what is a subjection. Anyway, Newton work is basically just Calculus, which is just basically mechanics. I don't suppose you could prove that? I have several quotes (you can find them quiet easily on the net) that point out that he DID believe in God. Quote mining is bad Keeper. At best his position on does he believe in god is vague. So everyone who talks about God is using a metaphor? The point is this Keeper if you read this from Dirac God used beautiful mathematics in creating the world You would assume the person believes in god, however he was using a metaphor I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and as scientists honesty is our precise duty—we cannot help but admit that any religion is a pack of false statements, deprived of any real foundation. The very idea of God is a product of human imagination.... I do not recognize any religious myth, at least because they contradict one another...." As cleary pointed out by this quote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac The point is using God as a metaphor is common. In reality, Einstein was not a Newton who studied the bible all the time. He also believed the world was not created six thousand years ago. If you knew about GR then the bible would make no sense. You know everything being created in six days.

[Keeper]

Yah, Keeper. Your stil arguing against something you have created yourself. Explain? You could assume that somebody he doesn't know mendels name is an idiot. However, I not going too. What? The moaning assumption is looking to be correct. All Theists moan? Well, I already knew you was no Biology expert. Based on? I just wanted you to say that. To demonstrate your superiority? Please use better grammar. If you forget someones name it does damage your apperence. It kind of like me saying I know calculus and someone asked you who invented calculus and then forgetting the name. Note, Leizbiz and Newton invented calculus. In reality, even children can remeber names. Aside from you changing topics in the middle of your comment ... I don't see why you did. Thats like someone saying William Shockley invented the transistor (technically true), but some else saying "Your wrong. It was a team led by Shockley. Get your facts straight. I can remember names, Wendy. I would like to know if you can recall - without looking it up - all the famous scientists and inventors you've herd of. For example, without looking it up, what is the first name of the man the Tesla Coil is named after? Seriously, what is a subjection. Anyway, Newton work is basically just Calculus, which is just basically mechanics. Your point being? How did that not advance science and human civilization? How is he not a Great Inventor and Scientist "inspite of" his religion? Quote mining is bad Keeper. At best his position on does he believe in god is vague. But he did believe. Now, assuming this is true, was Einstein a great man? Was he one of the greatest minds of his era? The point is this Keeper if you read this from Dirac Answer my question. Don't try to misdirect. You would assume the person believes in god, however he was using a metaphor Maybe he was, but that doesn't mean Einstein did. As cleary pointed out by this quote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac The point is using God as a metaphor is common. In reality, Einstein was not a Newton who studied the bible all the time. He also believed the world was not created six thousand years ago. If you knew about GR then the bible would make no sense. You know everything being created in six days. What is the relivence of that? He [Einstein] believed in God. Newton believed in God. They where geniuses. Do you agree. I've noticed that whenever we debate you are very careful about which points of mine you respond to. Kindly reply to this with a full rebuttal of every point. Don't just pick ones you think you can use as strawmen.