no idea how interesting this will be. John Stossell is the host, and he's an admitted but regretful Atheist. anyway, thought i'd point it out for those who might want to watch.
He could bring up this moral tidbit from the Old Testament: This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him--2 Kings 6:28-29
They are different channels own by the same fellow. How is a science v. God discussion worthy of time on a putative business channel?
Hey ... cannibalism in the OT; cannibalism in the NT. At least they're consistent!
But it is us they accuse of eating babies . . .
How strange. I thought I knew a lot of the juicy parts of the bible. But not that. Are there Kosher rules for eating babies? Don't serve with dairy products or something?
Please report on the outcome! I don't have the stomach for FOX.
will do. i'll be watching the Eagles game tonight but i'll dvr it and report back.
I believe it's 6pm for the left coast. I have my dvr set
related article from The Blaze.
This generated the usual inane comments from those who somehow believe using your brain is a sin. I'm about at the end of my rope with these people.
If I didn't mention it earlier, I'd like to suggest we set up a system for flash mobbing theblaze comments sections. I'm guessing this isn't a new idea, probably called troll mobbing or something similar. It would really be a public service. When they're left alone, those within the echo chamber convince them they're the only side of an issue and that everyone agrees with them except those "insane raving atheists". The comments just get weirder, more violent and increasingly lacking in any connection to reality. It's what happens when memes are allowed to commit incest without fresh DNA added to the mix.
In the video, Stossel says he wishes he could believe in god, that it gives people comfort and purpose.
He also states that his parents fled pre-Nazi germany and assimilated in the US.
It makes me pause. I've read that many Jews lost all faith during the holocaust - they found it impossible to believe there was purpose to their persecution, and felt that no god would behave in such a heinous manner.
I've also heard people say they lost faith as a result of 911, for the same reasons. I suppose others were comforted by faith.
I don't know. I find it comforting to know that, when times are bad, I'm not being singled out by a malicious deity, it's just that bad things happen, it's random, and it's neither fair nor unfair, neither a god's love nor a god's psychosis, it just is.
Once again it ends in a draw (it seems) with both sides refusing to give to the other. It's funny from OUR side though because it's easy to see the delusion of their side of the argument. I think the non-theist did a fine job of stating the case. -That would be a win and not a draw.
I always get the impression of the WALL that exist between the 2 sides when seeing the arguments like this. Where on one side is “fear that we will each be annihilated”, “hope that an afterlife exists”, “faith that the story is true”, and the other is “our observation has been extended and disagrees with the creation stories”, “evidence directly contradicts the story”, “apparent is the truth that religion is false”. That barrier is difficult to cross.
Mr. Bill Nye the Science Guy did hit upon the philosophy I'm writing about, Orderism. He hinted that the truly amazing thing is that we exist at all. It is the self-organizing property of the universe that has finally assembled us. If self-organization did not exist, we would not exist. Mr. Nye even took it one step further and said that life may be the Universe trying to become aware of itself.
Life may be the Universe trying to become aware of itself, it can't be proven, but it is a great thought, and one of the pillars of Orderism.
Big surprise. One side cites evidence, observation and objective explanations for phenomena. The other goes with appeals to emotion and hasn't enough substance behind their assertions to fill a thimble. Objective and rational on one side; subjective and irrational on the other. The two might as well have been speaking two different languages.