Photos
Last night, ABC’s Nightline, best known recently for Salma Hayek breastfeeding, gathered together a bunch of crazy people and Deepak Chopra to try to solve the mystery of whether Satan exists. It was a constant laugh-riot, and I recommend you all just watch the entire thing (which is provided below), but also here’s a highlight and a disturbing YouTube response from a guy whose only problem with this vaudevillian sideshow is the fact that one of the Satan-believers referred to Jesus as a “dude.”
When it comes to debates about the existence of Satan, it ain’t over ’til the hooker cries. (Also: that dogmatic audience member is your girlfriend):
Part 1 (mostly setting up the guests):
Part 2 (the good part!):
And this YouTube guy is super pissed that the pastor called Jesus a “dude.” (He also opposes calling Jesus “homie” or “cuz”).
Thanks for the laughs, Nightline. I especially liked the end of part 2, when the Hooker For Jesus says “the greatest achievement of satan is to make ‘em believe he’s not real.” Next week, Nightline‘s Face-Off series will take on the subject of whether or not Keyser Sose exists.
 |
 |
You Might Also Like
 The Videogum “Louis C.K. Promise”: Fresh Air And Nightline |  This Week In GIFs |  Who Should Play Young Jesus In The Young Jesus Movie?! |  What Bible Stories Should They Make Into Willow And/Or… |
I saw a group called Models for Jesus, and they weren’t super beautiful.
And then I saw a group of Christian Comedians, and I never laughed.
Which makes me wonder how good this hooker REALLY is
That Pastor dresses like a douche…
He also looks like Seth McFarlane.
Let’s deport him back to the Planet of The Worst
that pastor IS a douche. like, the worst. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Driscoll#Controversial_remarks
I can’t worship someone I can beat up? Yikes.
Putting Deepak Chopra in with that bunch was like having a debate on golf with Tiger Woods and three local country club pros.
The best is the background on the Dude Jesus’ youtube homepage. Yikes and yikes.
Humans really need to come to terms with causality.
I can’t wait to see how heated this post gets.
“GOD IS REAL ASSHOLES!” v.s. “NO ITS NOT DUMMY!”
I’m pretty sure the two differing camps in the comments section of Videogum are less “God exists” vs. “No he/she/it doesn’t” and more “I can quote obscure tv shows” vs. “I am here to talk about my internet crush on Gabe”.
I am certain that Nightline is the proper forum for facilitating theological progress!
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Ouch there. We love Lindsay, too.
ugh god, shut up.
So, I was always indifferent about Deepak Chopra before but he’s on the Express Train to Awesometown for me now.
I want a Hookers for Jesus t-shirt. Internet, get to work.
So… who ended up being right? I need to know. Real soon.
Something that was mentioned which I am confussed about too. How come people thank God when something great happens or gets accomplished, etc. And then blame themselves when something bad happens?
p.s. I wish people would worry more about themselves & less about other folk’s salvation.
Looks like someone’s going to burn in Hell…
Why do some people thank themselves when good things happen to them but blame God when bad things happen?
My mom is probably the only person at her Catholic church with “The Four Gifts” on her nightstand, so I emailed this to her. In retrospect, I’m pretty sure she’s mostly going to focus on how funny the idea of “Hookers for Jesus” is.
“you don’t believe in Him, you don’t get to be with Him” – classic
the white jesus guy on stage has a skull and crossbones on his shirt?
wait, that was some “The Onion” sketch, rite? like a special episode with a famous guest star, rite? this wasn’t really aired in prime-time in a mayor network, rite? tis’ just a big internet joke, rite?
rite?
oh god…
“A preacher and a former prostitute vs. a so-called heretic and Deepak Chopra”
one of the weirdest combination of words I’ve ever heard.
I hate Mark Driscoll so fucking much.
I hate watching him on a screen and not being able to use my punch-in-face reflex. Dude.
This was nonstop lulz. I just wish they had an actual voice of reason/rational humanist there to call bullshit on all of the fundie + new age malarkie. Imagine a half drunk Chris Hitchens or a Ben Stiller lookin’ Sam Harris completely demolishing those hacks. That being said, I’m getting really stoked for next week’s investigative piece: “Unicorn Blood: Is it really Pink?”
If you knew anything about the wizarding world you would know unicorn blood is silver. Open a fucking book.
Next up: debating the existence of french fries with the Naked Cowboy and Harvey Fierstein.
Study, Pray, Drink Red Bull, Go”
-The gospel according to Mark Driscoll
Ok, double post but I thought of a better one. Here’s a theological conundrum:
If Satan were to drink Red Bull, could he return to heaven (yknow, the whole wings thing)
har har (sorry ‘gummers)
they had a debate about the existence of satan. in a church. and all 4 participants are theists.
christ
Deepak rules.
Well my very first reaction before I even watched it was: “a bunch of crazy people and Deepak Chopra…redundant,” but I never realized how rational he was. Even though he did seem like a pretentious d-bag with somewhat unfounded principles here. Also, I heard the This American Life episode about Carlton Pearson and it was endlessly fascinating. I had more respect for him than anyone else on the stage. I did like how he and Deepak had matching Jemaine glasses.
Why was the hooker the only woman involved in the debate? I hated her. She makes women with thoughts look bad. By bad I mean “like they have no thoughts.” She treats the Bible like a horoscope. EVERYTHING IN THERE HAPPENED TO ME! IT IS SO ACCURATE IT’S SCARY!
Also, “70% of Americans believe that Satan exists:” That’s Your Country.
The reason I’m so confused about this is they all say that some god ‘created satan’, but wasn’t satan an angel who tried to become better than god?
Looks like someone didn’t do their homework. And by that, I mean some pastor didn’t read the bible. And by that I mean WHAT THE FUCK SERIOUSLY???
None of these buffoons is interested in evidence or reasoning. Even Chopra was hedging his appeals to science with the (ubiquitous among douchebag pretend-intellectuals) “in my opinion” — as if the laws of physics are true merely in the opinion of Deepak Chopra. What’s the point of having a debate when none of the parties will be swayed by reasoning and argumentation (other than to amplify the smugness and self-satisfaction of participants and audience members, of course)?
+10000 just what i was thinking
I don’t really know what Chopra’s all about, but he was the most sensible one here. It seemed like he was just saying “Everyone’s entitled to their opinion” so as not to offend the Christians, while also asserting they don’t have the right to force their views on others.
LOL. If you only understood that Chopra is the only one using “in my opinion” because he’s the only one on that stage that understands the concept that nothing is absolute, and that there are lessons to be learned even from those you don’t agree with. If that’s too intellectual for you, I’ll leave you to your Big Book of Dogma and not bother you anymore.
Hi Michael. Here are two counter-examples to your claim. 1. Kidnapping, raping, torturing and killing a two-year-old human being is absolutely morally wrong. On occasion we find some psychopath who disagrees with this, but such people are mistaken. This counter-example applies against your claim, if by “absolute” you “universally true.” 2. If God (i.e., an all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the universe) exists, then the fact that he (she, it, whatever) exists is an objective fact, not dependent on what you or I or Deepak Chopra thinks about it. If God does not exist, then the fact that he (etc.) does not exist is an objective fact, independent of what anyone thinks about it. This counter-example applies against your claim if by “absolute” you mean true whether or not anybody believes it. I hope that’s not too intellectual for you, LOL, etc.
I feel like I always do this, so sorry in advance for being all Professor Devil’s Advocate (oh my god no pun intended), but “kidnapping, raping, torturing and killing a two-year-old human being” is not absolutely wrong. It is absolutely wrong if you grew up in a culture based on ideals that would find those things absolutely wrong. It happens that you and I did, so you and I find those things morally unacceptable. That is fine. But it is not a law of the universe or even of our world that any of those things is “absolutely” “wrong.” In fact, Michael is mostly right; there is very little, if anything, that can be determined to be Absolutely True (by humans anyway), even based on our own experiences, because human experiences have mostly to do with sense and perceptions, which many philosophers believe cannot be trusted to represent Reality. So saying with certainty that a thing is true when an equipollent argument can be made against it is, in philosophical terms, dogmatic. The “fact” is that God’s (or Satan’s) existence can only be spoken of in purely subjective terms, i.e., based on individual experience, since it cannot be proven otherwise, and is therefore impossible to be considered an absolute truth. Chopra’s insistence on the phrase “in my opinion” doesn’t make him any less dogmatic than the other three, because in his experience, science has imbued his existence with more meaning than any idea of God or Satan has. The problem with this forum is that Nightline got what they thought was a diverse panel of people to talk about a subject with which they think they are familiar, but in reality it’s just 4 dogmatists with fundamentally disparate and unwavering views. I totally view this segment as a microcosm of the way America conducts so-called “intellectual” discourse: ideas merely bouncing off people, nothing being absorbed.
Christ, I’m feeling like I need a break from Videogum for a while.
Hi Carrie — Thanks for your thoughts. This reply will be ultra-quick b/c I am about to rush off to work. It seems to me that you are running together two types of question: metaphysical questions about what there is / how things are, and epistemological questions about what humans are capable of knowing. I completely agree with you on the epistemological front. Every human being is fallible about everything he or she believes; even the necessary truths of simple arithmetic cannot be grasped infallibly, without risk of error, by any of us (e.g., most of us have made mistakes balancing our check books). But that epistemological claim does not imply anything about whether the truths of simple arithmetic are somehow dependent on what an individual or a group of individuals thinks. Two plus two = four in every possible world; it is a necessary truth, and it is so whether or not anyone believes it. Now, the claim that God exists is (despite what some philosophers, e.g., Anselm, have claimed) not a necessary truth. But if it is true, it is true independently of what anyone thinks. Whether God exists is not up to us. It is true that no human has an infallible grasp on questions about God’s existence. But that does not imply that God’s existence is a subjective matter. (I’m an atheist, BTW; my point is that, if I’m wrong about God not existing, then I am objectively wrong). Re: the child-torture example: you are right that we believe that it’s wrong because we were brought up in a certain culture. But that does not imply that it is not objectively true that it is wrong to torture children (we believe that the earth is round because we were brought up in a certain culture, but that does not imply that the earth isn’t really round; people who believe that it is flat are mistaken). We have no infallible grasp on moral claims. Still, many of our beliefs, including our less controversial ones, are (I maintain) objectively true. Pointing out that those beliefs result from inculturation does go to show that they can be mistaken (an epistemological claim); but it does not go to show that they are never objectively true (a metaphysical claim). (While you are correct that many many philosophers would reject (parts of) what I am saying, many others would agree with me, even on the child-torture claim. There are plenty of us moral realists out there. But all that is beside the point. Not all philosophers agree on everything, and even were they do to so, they might still be wrong about it.)
Oh, hey, cool, there’s a new “Lost” on tonight.
Be objective, the earth is round in how many dimensions? When it comes to morals who decides where the lines are drawn (morality is not an intrinsic working of the universe)? And ffs 2 + 2 = 4 by definition!!
Listen to the extremely shitty Jesus Christ is not a dude RMX at
http://www.myspace.com/djunfun
That red head who tries to grill Chopra at the end is a stupid bitch. You think Jesus would send her the message to stop eating so fucking much.
The story of Carlton Pearson on This American Life “Heretics” was incredible.
Does Satan exist? Does it matter, really? Satan or no Satan, what matters most is that everyone has free will and everyone is ultimately responsible for their actions and choices. Who cares if there is a tempter behind the scenes? It’s still our choice. What matters most is how you treat those around you. The question that really matters is “Does God exist?” I’d like to see a group of scientists (physicists, astro-physicists, geologists, etc), theologists, sane pastors, and philosophers discuss THAT. Everything that matters in the universe, EVERYTHING, even life’s meaning itself depends on the existence of God. It’s truly the ultimate question.
The debate in a nutshell:
Mark Driscol: Satan exists.
(half of audience who believes Satan exists applaudes)
Carlton Pearson: No he doesn’t.
(other half who doesn’t believe Satan exists applaudes)
The Former Prostitute: Yes he does because I’ve seen him.
(half of audience who believes Satan exists applaudes)
Deepak Chopra: No he doesn’t.
(other half who doesn’t believe Satan exists applaudes)
THE END
Lindsay, are you a guy or a girl? You seem like an pretentious, “post-everything” kind of girl. First, you tell us we wish that those annoyingly ironic/self-aware “Paul Rudd dance” girls were our girlfriends? No, no, a thousand times no. Now, the idiot girl in this audience is our girlfriend? What’s really going on here? If I had to guess you’re a lot like the girl filming the Paul Rudd girl.
da reel qesthion is does aliens exist? FO REEL!
LOL da black dood says “ball-thered me” u know like insteed of bothered
I was watching the Holy Mountain the other day and was thinking ” It would be crazy if it were really like this.” When i watch this, though, it seems almost as crazy. Especially since it was on national fucking television. And there’s not one atheist/agnostic representative. Ridiculous.
70%? surely not? Maybe he said 11 and i just can’t hear anything. Or Satan whispered in my ear so that i won’t believe in him.
What do you mean “You people,” Deepak Chopra?!
I used to respect Night Line…
That Paster Mark, I think, runs a church in Seattle’s Capital Hill (gay/hipster) neighborhood, not the best marketer.
next on nightline, can spiderman beat up superman?