Monty Python revolutionized sketch comedy. SNL, Second City, The State, Upright Citizen's Brigade, etc. etc., would not exist without them. Holy Grail remains one of the most quotable movies ever, even after 35 years.

_The Origin of Species_ was not a theological book in any way, nor was it ever intended to be. In fact, Darwin was a devout Christian and was deeply troubled by the implications of his work as it related to the Christian creation story. Also, Godwin's Law dictates that this topic is now over since you invoked Hitler.

Atheism is an ideology, but not a religion. It has no codified dogma (no "bible", as it were), nor is it an organized institution. If its adherents seem to act in ways similar to religious people, that is only because they feel their ideology is under attack. Just as some people feel the need to defend or justify their faith, some atheists see the need to defend the lack thereof in predominantly religious societies.

@Allonzo:
Intellgent Design is inherently non-scientific because it looks for evidence to support a foregone conclusion. This conclusion is not quantifiable, cannot be reproduced, and cannot be proved or disproved. The arguments you've put forth amount essentially to gesturing wildly at scientific curiosities and saying, "boy that sure was convenient, eh?" Not only is that unscientific, it's illogical; it's the textbook definition of a post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc logical fallacy.

"I am suggesting that at some point after tossing a coin over and over again and it comes up heads every time, an intelligent and open minded person begins to think, “Maybe there is another force involved here.”

In fact, that is not what a rational, intelligent person should conclude, because that is the basis of superstition. People have been drawing fanciful conclusions based on circumstantial evidence for most of recorded human history. The scientific method changed all this, and it is the reliance on this method that has become the standard by which scientific conclusions are judged. You presuppose that "the laws of nature have been adjusted to allow for an advanced society," when it is equally logical to conclude that living things adapt to their environments, whatever those environments might present. Experimentation can be done to test the latter conclusion, but your conclusion is untestable.

Adjudicating the ownership of genomes, like much intellectual property, is problematic. For instance, if your neighbor pays Monsanto for the right to plant their drought and pesticide-resistant super-corn, and a crow drops a kernel onto your property, which germinates and grows into a stalk, should you have to now pay for the privelege of "planting" the super-corn as well? Or if natural processes cause your crops to cross-pollinate with the super-crops planted in the next field over, does Monsanto now own a license on your crops, which now carry a portion of their created and patented genome?

This is not so much an argument against GM foods as it is an expansion of the question. This is an area of burgeoning technology that raises legal questions our system is not yet equipped to answer.

There is no "war on Christmas," whatever that even means, any more than there was a war on farming during the industrial revolution. What is happening is that the dominant culture is changing, as it always does, and there are always people who react to change with hostility. This phenomenon exists entirely in the minds of those unhappy with the way the culture is changing; it's a perceived attack perpetrated by no one in particular.

@ changorkon:
The problem with Kirkegaard's Christian-centric arguments is that they have inherently less value (or are at least less useful) to someone coming from a non-Christian background, be they atheists or the faithful of other religions. The reliance on a faith-based conclusion in philosophical circles is often seen as a failure of the reasoning of the arguer. For many, "because of God" is not a viable philosophical argument or conclusion.

Someone keeps buying Michael Bolton albums and "Twilight" DVDs, and I know it ain't me.

Biologically necessary to the continuation of our species. Also responsible for inspiring or creating a great deal of art and literature.

She took a provision for end of life counseling, which she previously supported, and turned it into the infamous "death panels," a piece of hyperbolic, underhanded fiction, just to oppose the other side. This was not only hypocritical and intellectually dishonest, but demonstrably false. How much dirtier could politics be than saying the other side wants to murder your grandmother?

Referenced so frequently in response to anything that sounds even remotely like state-sponsored surveillance that it's become beyond trite. Has also become a go-to reference by people who may have read it once (or not at all) to make them seem smart. See also: Kafka-esque, proactive, paradigm, and synergy.

While I understand and agree with the sentiment, the proposition is a non-starter. Such a ban would be (and has already been ruled) completely unconstitutional.

I second Frogger's request for a feature allowing you to explain your cruds. I'm fine with getting a crud here and there, but if I don't know what the specific objection is, I have no idea how to refine my argument to address the objection.

Rededicating "Candle in the Wind" to Princess Diana was kind of ridiculous. Obviously it's his song and he can do what he wants to with it, but wouldn't it have been more meaningful to write a new song for her than to simply repurpose the old one he'd written for Marilyn Monroe?

... is neither science nor technology, for starters.

I feel like I have to defend the ShamWow, which has been unfairly maligned because of the shenanigans of it's pitch-man. It's not the towel's fault that Vince beat up a hooker.

Superfudge changed my life. Such as it was when I was 7, anyway.

I give him props for his ethical arguments and for taking seriously the big questions that led to the Existentialist movement. My only qualm is that he too often resorted to the cop-out of "God" as being the answer to those questions. Sartre probably said that better at some point.

Vampires are lvl 11 elites, zombies are lvl 2 brutes. Monster Manual 1 says vamps are scarier.

Jon Stewart spearheads the movement calling out corporate mainstream media. They aren't doing their job as the 4th Estate, and he shows that consistently.

A non-story. Its only redeeming feature is that it might have shined a light on the insane obsession in this country with "reality" television.

That it's the only piece of classical music many people can name or identify on hearing speaks to its importance. Every great composer had at least a few pieces that were hard as hell to play, but few of those were also as great as Beethoven's 9th.

The Green Party represents a truly progressive platform that the Democratic party only pretends to offer. The notion that it draws support away from Democrats may have been a valid complaint in the 2000 elections, but since then, Green Party candidates are as much opposed to the agenda of Democrat conterparts as they are of Republicans. They offer an alternative to what are essentially two center-right parties with very minor policy differences. That said, the Greens fare much better in Parliamentary systems than in the American model, in which the 2-party system has become immovably entrenched.

As long as it remains superimposed over images of cute animals, I have no problem with it.

The term as I've seen it used (and used it) is applied almost unversally to men. And I can't speak for anyone else, but when I call someone a douchebag, I'm not comparing them to a dirty vagina. Also, columnist Dan Savage addressed this in a recent Savage Love podcast. His observation is that the notion of douching as applied to female bits is a holdover from the 70s and 80s, and that most actual douching that occurs these days is anal. This fits the way I use the term a lot better: a total asshole with an undeservedly high opinion of himself.

The topic construction sounds like it was started by someone unfairly accused of domestic violence, but I'll bite... As far as criminal prosecution goes, obviously anyone accused is innocent until proven guilty. However, it is entirely within the interests of the state to provide protection to an alleged victim of domestic violence, so long as probable cause exists to charge the accused. If an error must be made either way, I'd rather the system err in favor of false accusers than actual perpetrators of domestic violence.

Vampire Ditka.

Also... "Either you agree that it is ok to discriminate against certain types of relationships in determining which relationships are to receive status and privilege from society, or you do not. If you agree, then I sincerely would like to understand your criteria for deciding when it is ok to discriminate and when it is not."

The sex of those people wishing to enter into a legal contract (which is what marriage is) has no bearing on the legality of that contract in any other case. Clearly, from a purely secular legal standpoint, denying people the right to enter into a contract of any kind based on their gender would be nonsensical, discriminatory and illegal. Except for marriage? I concede that this argument would also open the door for polygamous marriage, not that I think that would be society-crushing either. America has a proud tradition of throwing tradition in the garbage whenever it conflicts with civil liberties. USA! USA!

@Egorz13:
Your framing of the argument in terms of utilitarianism misses the point. The question is not whether Same-sex marriage benefits society, but whether its existence would substantively harm society. It would not. And since the specific society in question is the United States of America, the further issue is whether its absence harms society. (It does.)

Ultimately, the same-sex marriage debate is a question of civil rights. The 14th Amendment affords all citizens equal protection under federal law, and denying any two consenting adults the right to the legal protections and privileges marriage provides based on their gender is, to me, a clear violation of that Amendment. (caveat: I am not a lawyer) Legal precedent in America has been a long tradition of increasing civil rights for individuals, and I fully expect that we will eventually realize that denying any committed couple the right to marry helps no one and harms us all.