Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views :

An Important Message About Brit Hume

/
/
/
137 Views

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest

17 Comments

  1. Nice message, but I was somewhat distracted by the Google Ad ™ that popped up while watching it: the one for Quantum Jumping. Google really should realize one of these days that just because something is mentioned on a site, advertising there might not be the best idea.

  2. So if Tiger Woods converts to Christianity, he’ll be forgiven? Just like prominent politician Bill Clinton was forgiven (by Fox News and, presumably, Jesus Christ) for his infidelity?

    Just watched the Daily Show clips. Sweeeet.

  3. Brit Hume is an asshat. I saw the Daily Show clips, too. Loved Samantha Bee’s take on Jehovah’s Witnesses – “It’s like Scientology for black people!”

    The DS has come back with guns ablazin’. Flippin’ sweet!

  4. It’s striking how sin is such a pervasive, assumed condition of spirituality among Christians like Hume (ironic last name). That forgiveness is necessary from a deity instead of, I don’t know, real people with emotions.

    Having read the Bible, it seemed to me that Yahweh made these rules simply because he could. There was no instrinsic or objective reason not to, say, kill people outside of stopping more people from sucking his metaphysical dick, and boy did he get mad about that.

    How about we worry about hurting people in reality instead of some god that made stupid rules.

  5. I actually don’t mind this. I feel like christians like Brit Hume should be more honest so they can show their true colors. This is a shining example of how to use douchebaggery to destroy yourself.

    For every Brit Hume, how many “moderate” christians are there that are just better about keeping their mouths shut when it isn’t PC?

    Please douchebags, let us know how you feel.

  6. Is it just me, or does it seem like Hume doesn’t actually believe the bullshit that he is vomiting out? Whenever he says this stuff, he appears to have a totally dead affect (it could be argued that this is his normal state of being, I realize that). I am starting to suspect that he sees that the “personalities” over at Fox News (O’Reilly, Glen Beck) are getting all of the attention and the money, and maybe he wants to ride on the gravy train with them. He is also making a name for himself with the fundies of the U.S., who I am sure are lapping this up like my cat drinks the milk (lactose free–of course) that I give him when I am done eating my morning breakfast cereal. I think that it is all an act, a put on, a show, etc, etc.

  7. “Brit seems to think that choosing a philosophical outlook is something akin to choosing a new car, where you analyze the benefits and the drawbacks before you pick.”

    Not sure what you mean here. I would argue that we all should be doing exactly this.

    E.g. – Skepticism: More work, but you’ll be able to have a pretty good handle on what’s true and what’s false.

    – Religious fundamentalism: Much easier, but you’ll be spending your life as a credulous fool.

    Skepticism wins!

    On what other basis than considering the benefits and the drawbacks would we want to give or withhold credence toward a philosophical outlook?

    Perhaps I’m not understanding what you mean by “philosophical outlook” and “analyze the benefits and the drawbacks”.

  8. What is “true” in a religious context is highly subjective though.
    Apart from the obvious claims made by, say, young earth creationists, most religions don’t really make a lot of testable claims. So you are left with analysing the benefits and the drawbacks.

    Of course, if truth is on offer somewher (e.g. in skepticism) there really is no contending option.

  9. @Rebecca: “I would recommend choosing a religion based on what is true”

    I agree in the strongest possible terms.

    I am at least a “moderate” Pragmatist. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism )

    I don’t think that there is any obvious conflict between “what is true” and “what offers solutions to problems”. (Indeed it may be that it is not possible for there to be such a conflict. )

    This seems obvious. If my car runs out of gas and stops, I should (a) add more gas to the tank, or (b) pray for a miracle.

    Things “work” because they are true. We recognize that things are “true” because they work.

    We recognize that some religious ideas are false because they don’t work in the real world. We recognize that some scientific ideas are true because they do work in the real world.

    We should select our philosophical ideas such that they “work” in the real world, i.e. “conform to the real world”, i.e, “are true”.

    @exarch: “most religions don’t really make a lot of testable claims”

    My understanding is that the scientific consensus is that “non-testable claims”may be treated as false claims, cf the classic “invisible pink unicorn” or Sagan’s “invisible dragon in the garage”. ( http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm )

    If no test shows the existence of “X”, then we may assume that “X” does not exist.

Leave a Comment

This div height required for enabling the sticky sidebar