John Safran v's God.

There's a notice: Video Removed by the User.

Got it here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9m2TADZQ7M&mode=related&search=

Try this link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRmC0DaE6rE

ahh, that's a slightly different one.

Thanks dp

John safran does some radical stuff.

Those were amusing. The Mormon movie people seemed not to realize that it was a joke. Also, its funny how defensive some of the people got when John Safran went door-to-door in the second video.

Great movie. I've seen the trailer before, but not the entire video. And it's funny to see the polite hollywood people shooting him down in 20 different ways. If the guy and his video weren't so obviously not Mormon, he could've gotten further.

As a Mormon, I'm always a little confused that people expect me to be offended by stuff like this, or that South Park episode, or other such comedy videos. I think they're hilarious, and I really don't know too many Mormons who don't think the same...

PS I was a character in The R.M. (one of the posters they showed)

Bertrand Russell was of the opinion that of all the religions in the world with their contradictory teachings, only one of them could be right. He, seeing the hypocrisy of the clergy, chose to believe none of them could be right. This is precisely the reason I find it more interesting and profitable to converse with atheists than with believers.

Oh my gosh that was too funny.

Why do you assume it was to offend you?

Maybe it really was to show what it's like to be bothered/accosted/approached by a complete stranger that talks over you, knocks on your door to talk about something that interests them, but not you.

Obviously those in the video who shut their doors on their faces, tried to hit them with a broom, or told them they were being inappropriate, didn't like it.

What I find most interesting is that the Mormons would appear to be feeling outraged and offended that an atheist would dare attempt to sell them his ideology.

Personally, I am not offended that someone would try to help me save my "soul". The intention seems mostly honourable and charitable to me. I thank them for their concern and attempt to demonstrate the depth of their delusion. I have often seen the disgust and outrage that my apparent ridicule of their belief inspires. Of course, they feel entirely justified in their ridicule of my (lack of) belief.

A "true" Christian would be equally annoyed by someone being hit with a broom for proselytizing, regardless of which side of the fence they are on.

That's because they believe completely and arrogantly in their own moral superiority. Considering the depth of their dangerous indoctrination, it's not surprising.

Aww c'mon Wilso. You are just saying that because you want to hurt God. You must be angry with him. You can still be forigven though

I agree with you. The genius of the religious position is that the extreme arrogance is hidden from itself by it's own presumed "truth". Thus they don't feel arrogant, they feel humbled at being one of those who "know" the one true god.

Wilso...I have a question about your signature line.

Postulate 1....Lack of evidence of "something" is evidence that there is no "something"

Could it be that people are just not looking for evidence in the right place?
2 examples...yesterday I heard a news story about a small purple shelled snail that has recently gone extinct (due to global warming)....its sole habitat was a small island off the coast of India.
Let's say human had ever visited this island. In addition, someone said, "I feel, after studying various species, that there must be a least one other species of snail that exists in the world."……I know, this is probably not the best way to explain it, maybe I'll revise later.

Some could respond. "there's no evidence of other snails, no there are no other snails." Well, there is no evidence because no one had ever been to where they lived, may not even be away that the place where they live exists, or if they eventually discovered that place, may visit it at a time of day when the snails cannot be found."

Yet, the snails were there all that time. They existed regardless of the evidence people had.
They did not suddenly come into existence when evidence of them were finally found, they had been there all along.

2nd example

There is a blind spot in the back of everyones eye, where it connects to the brain stem. Take a piece of paper and draw a figure on the right side of the page, and draw a small figure, a circle, X, happy face, whatever, on the right side of the page.

Now, close your left eye. Slowly bring the paper closer to your face. At a certain point, the figure on the right will disappear. If you were asked, "What do you see?", to be specific, you would say "white"….if the paper where blue, purple, yellow….you would say you see that color.

However, the X you drew is obviously still there.

Say you were blindfolded, your head restrained in place, your eyes positioned so they could only look straight and the paper stuck at the proper distance from your eyes, then the blindfold taken off your right eye. When you were asked what you see, you would swear there was no X, and that there was no evidence there was an X, and so there is no X.
Yet, the X is obviously there.

So, how can lack of evidence be evidence "something" does not exist?

Just a thought.

Wilso has never been a master of the syllogism . . .

You can't hurt something that doesn't exist.





Actually, I'm very good at it. But I'm so busy in my real life, that I don't have the time to make more than a few quick posts a week, and am not going to waste my valuable time on delusional nut cases and their superstitions.

OK, that explains it. . .

But that doesn't answer my question re your signature line.

I don't care if you or anyone else believes or not, but what you wrote, I feel, is incorrect.

What's your view?