Here's my take on the whole thing: the video had a few interesting points, but as an extremely secular person I can say that it could have been done better. It's no surprise you found it easy to deconstruct, because it was poorly constructed in the first place.

But here's the thing. You _are_ rationalizing. And in some cases you are deftly trying to avoid the point. For example, your response to the first question. You act exasperated, like you are saying something SOOOOOO obvious, then you write it off as if your point is proven, and you move on to the next question. The point of question one had NOTHING to do with faith. You know that. The point was that when someone's cancer goes away it is unfairly ATTRIBUTED to god.

Look at it this way: if cancer goes away 50 percent of the time, god gets credit for it 50 percent of the time. But really, this 50 percent recovery rate is a result of a person's immune system and medicine. God was not present, as can be proven by the direct relationship between advances in medicine and cancer recovery rates over the last say, hundred years.(And no god damn it, god was not responsible for that medicine. Science and logic were.)

Now how often do limbs regrow? Zero percent of the time, right? That's because medicine and immune systems don't regrow limbs. But on the other hand, if 5 percent of amputees regrew limbs, that 5 percent would be seen as an "ACT OF GOD!!!" That 5 percent recovery would be ATTRIBUTED to god. And if medicine improved the regrowth rate to 25 percent, god would then be getting credit for THAT percentage of recovery.

Do you see now? I've tried to lay it out as simply as possible. The point had nothing to do with faith. It has to do with a belief that is used to prove and justify itself. The old parental "I'm right because I'm right" type of thing. Or if it's easier for you, it is like a woman making herself pregnant. (Ahhh.. wait... that's already kinda been done according to you, hasn't it?)

And you DEFINITELY rationalized away the slavery thing. You are saying that that particular PART of the bible is obsolete because of its context of an ancient time, but what you are neglecting to acknowledge is that the WHOLE BIBLE is in the context of an ancient time.

You can't pick and choose what works for you, buddy. If you see the whole thing as a philosophy that's fine, but you can't hem and haw and say, "Wellllll.... this part's philosophy, but this part's fact." I'm a "tolerant" person, but this is exactly what pisses me off. If you want to take the plunge and be a literalist then f-ing do it. Either you agree with the bible and its contents or you don't. Either you agree with your book's support of slavery or you don't. And if you take some things as metaphorical or symbolic, like the blood of christ, then take the WHOLE THING as being symbolic. Meaning that the bible is NOT AT ALL FACTUAL, but is nothing more than a ppotential guide for how to lead a good life. All this picking and choosing is making me nauseous. From my perspective it is very short-sighted.

What you don't realize through most of your answers is that you are assuming in the first place that the bible is true, and that your faith is firmly rooted in reality. So you work within that assumption, breaking it into parts that are easier for you to digest. But for once, try to explain it to someone who believes the bible to be totally false. Someone who believes the bible to be the ultimate Harry Potter series, copyright 5 A.D. And don't mention that damn F word to me either. Faith. I've dirtied my mouth by saying it.

I apologize for being venemous. I am getting progressively angrier because I have tried to have this conversation with christians before...

Anyhow, I think this video was poorly executed. Agreed. But not nearly as poorly executed as all the justifications I see made by christians. That's one thing it was right about.

One more thing. If the answers are sooooo obvious to you, if you are so exasperated by the idiocy of this video, then why did you take the time to make such a lengthy reply. Did you do it because your faith was shaken in some way, or because you unequivocably believe in what you are saying? Or maybe it was a sense of duty?

I know that for my part I took the time because I believe what I'm saying. Can you, in your heart, say the same?

This may help there...

<a href='http://www.plime.com/redir.p?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4' class='plime' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'><b>flash video</b></a>

Good to see that something informative is added to this thread.

I don't believe there is a god, but this video was so pretentious, slow, and powerpoint "read aloud everything that appears on the screen" that I couldn't watch past the first question.

it could be the same reason why people b***h and moan about having "religion" shoved on them.

Atleast for a christian, they're/we're trying to get you guys in to heaven. eternal happiness. it could possibly be viewed as altruistic.
They're just being a*****es.
It's angering when someone goes out of their way to screw you.

Well think of it this way. Christians are witnessing their beliefs to other people, right? And they are doing so for the good of those other people, right? Well maybe people who "go out of their way to screw christians" are doing the same thing. Maybe they feel that they are 'witnessing' logic and reason for what they think will be the good of humankind. So how is that not the same thing? Is it because a non-christian cause can't be noble or right? Because that's certainly the message I get from a lot of witnessing christians, and got for the 19 years I myself was christian.

And did you ever consider that maybe the christian idea of heaven doesn't sound appealing to some people? Did you consider that to some, christian ideologies may appear to be utterly wrong? So can you see how a person who is assaulted day after day by these ideologies that they completely disagree with might get a little frustrated--even angry? Surely you can identify with that; your frustration with "those people who go out of their way" is pretty obvious.

I myself am frustrated right now, because about 90% of the time when I start a conversation like this with a christian I will get no reply. I start to wonder why I even waste my time. I mean, if these people really are so secure in their faith then why should they shy away from talking to me?

I took the time to reply because at the time, I had not yet seen the video and wanted to actually do as it requested...use logic and reasoning to talk about religion. My sense of "duty" bears no relation to you, or anyone else for that matter. I can absolutely say I took the time because I believe it...your opinion on my belief is irrelevant. I'll answer some of your points nonetheless.

My answer to #1 has EVERYTHING to do with faith. If God comes down and PROVES His existence, then the free will of man is destroyed. There would be no choice to believe or not. That is why (in my opinion) there are no more "fire and brimstone" type miracles today.

I wasn't saying that I agree with slavery either. What I meant was that references to it as an accepted practice were because it was people living in that time talking to other people living in that time.

And why do I have to either take the Bible as 100% factually literal or 100% metaphorical? There are damn few pieces of literature that are that black and white. Just because you say I have to doesn't mean I really have to. The parables Jesus told were not ever meant to be taken as true stories, simply metaphoric tales to make a point.

I am sorry you feel so frustrated and hostile. If you want, I won't shy away from talking about it in a rational polite manner.

I'm sorry. I was preoccupied in the other topics.
didn't know you responded. I'm not f5'ing this topic waiting for a reply. you're really not that important.

do I have a problem with people "witnessing" logic and reason. no. But logic and reason are independent of religion. Christians can be logical. Muslims can be logical. Buddhists, athiests and scientologists can be logical.
wait. no, not scientologists. bad example.

but,yes, contrary to popular beliefs, christians can be quite adept at logic.

but if you want to spread the gospel of logic, you do it by actually talking about logic, not by a poor refutation of someone's religion.
First of all, it's a terrible way to go about.
Going off on a tangent to incite hostility rather than a curious mind?
No, I'm pretty sure there are ulterior motives here. Frustration with Christians (yes, I know they are frustrating. I myself argue with them also, but that's a separate issue) being a prominent one.

but, all in all, all the athiests who tried to convert me, well, they really weren't looking out for my good. I became the center for their frustration with christianity. All down to the little smirk on their face after they made some supposed "bullet-proof" argument.

I've never claimed that non-christians can't be noble. I said the people who did this were a*****es. Am I stating that automatically Christians have an altrusitc motive? no. Many christians witness as some mechanism, but I've talked with many do really seem to care. I've yet to hear an athiest talk about wanting to reach out to people without some form of annoyance or even malice in their voice.
Frankly, the ones without the emotional baggage just don't care.

and I'll give you a little tip on life, everybody gets "assaulted day after day" by ideas they disagree with. I wouldn't call it assaulted, more of a diversity of beliefs. but honestly... assaulted? a bit of a loaded term. it's like their raping you with a bible or something.

When a person stops trying to prove I'm an idiot and venting about what not, but rather tries to sit down and talk ration and logic, then yes, I will talk.

I have yet to figure out what makes Scientology any crazier than any other religion.

Tom Cruise

I have to say that I would choose Tom Cruise over Fred Phelps.

so would I.
Westboro Baptist Church I took as universally understood to be an extreme case of braindeath.

and no, they aren't of the christian community. They separated themselves from the main christian body long time ago. (they claim their the only "Real" christians and that the rest are on their way to hell) and the mainstream christianity won't associate with them.