Religion Cannot StandThe Scrutiny Of A Good Education

[newpolitics]

I am an anti-theist, and as follows, I hold anti-christian views, since, christianity is a religion. So does this poster have anti-christian views, as evidenced by his first post. How is this confirmation bias? His first post is clearly a stab at christianity. I think you need to learn the meaning of your terms a little bit before throwing them all over the ground for me to step on.

This doesn't mean I don't like people who are christian, AT ALL. So, don't you use CONFIRMATION BIAS to form this belief about me. All is means, is I don't like christian beliefs and doctrine, or any religion which attempts to hold sway over my and or anyone else's life, pretending to have the truth. How ironic you talk about arrogance as a christian.

His first post, which you just admitted you didn't read, is based on a poll that doesn't show what he says it shows. How is that not confirmation bias?

And that's assuming the OP is the "other post" to which he referred. I didn't even consider it worth trying to find out which "other post" he didn't bother to read.

oh my FSM... you are fucking stupid. You are the ones who said that you were responding to Campbell because in his posts, previous to this thread, he is anti-christian and also vitriolic towards christians. This is what I was responding to, and then when I do, you slam me? How fucking backwards, imperceptive, and dishonest can you BE???? I feel like I'm losing my mind of this place of no logic or reason.

Can we have some semblance of integrity and logical continuity here? I admitted I was being vitriolic in some of my posts already, but this does not mean I am retracting my arguments which concur with the OP. Can you get over it, already?

 

[Cammmpbell]

His first post, which you just admitted you didn't read, is based on a poll that doesn't show what he says it shows. How is that not confirmation bias?

And that's assuming the OP is the "other post" to which he referred. I didn't even consider it worth trying to find out which "other post" he didn't bother to read.

oh my FSM... you are fucking stupid. You are the ones who said that you were responding to Campbell because in his posts, previous to this thread, he is anti-christian and also vitriolic towards christians. This is what I was responding to, and then when I do, you slam me? How fucking backwards, imperceptive, and dishonest can you BE???? I feel like I'm losing my mind of this place of no logic or reason.

Can we have some semblance of integrity and logical continuity here? I admitted I was being vitriolic in some of my posts already, but this does not mean I am retracting my arguments which concur with the OP. Can you get over it, already?

Shucks.......when I get into a religious argument here my rating falls from "could be mayor" to "Cammmpbell Sucks Off Goats"

 

[Cecilie1200]

I had most of the new testament memorized and could quote it chapter and verse 55 years ago when I was in my early 20's. I find that most folks settle in on something they believe which in most cases has absolutely nothing to do with what's in the bible. So thrill me some more. I've heard it all.

Satan has the Scriptures memorized chapter and verse and is able to quote them, too. Do you think that means he understands Christianity and God's teachings? That would have to be "No", because God Himself said that if Satan ever COULD understand what God was saying, he would be allowed back into Heaven.

So thrill me some more. I've heard it all, and I actually comprehended it.

LOL...at least me and satan read the thing. It could be in Greek and most of those who say they believe it wouldn't know the difference.

Don't get upset......we know you have lived a perfect life and that you will rise from the grave, meet the ghost floating on a cloud, fly off to paradise and live forever..................I'm a Jack and the Beanstalk man myself.

::snore:: "Christians don't agree with my interpretation of their sacred book, so that means they didn't read it!"

I'm sorry, were you attempting to be funny, or was this supposed to be a serious post and just inadvertently laughable?

I'm still waiting for your self-proclaimed brilliance to tackle something more substantial than "Christians are stupid, and I'M SMART BECAUSE I'M NOT A CHRISTIAN!" You're at . . . what? Fifteen, sixteen posts now saying the exact same thing and nothing else?

Any time you want to stop telling us you're brilliant and actually SHOW us, we'll certainly be willing to read it. Of course, we'll also then laugh and mock you relentlessly, but you're used to that, right?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am an anti-theist, and as follows, I hold anti-christian views, since, christianity is a religion. So does this poster have anti-christian views, as evidenced by his first post. How is this confirmation bias? His first post is clearly a stab at christianity. I think you need to learn the meaning of your terms a little bit before throwing them all over the ground for me to step on.

This doesn't mean I don't like people who are christian, AT ALL. So, don't you use CONFIRMATION BIAS to form this belief about me. All is means, is I don't like christian beliefs and doctrine, or any religion which attempts to hold sway over my and or anyone else's life, pretending to have the truth. How ironic you talk about arrogance as a christian.

His first post, which you just admitted you didn't read, is based on a poll that doesn't show what he says it shows. How is that not confirmation bias?

I never admitted that. I did read his first post, i just didn't follow the link. But, from you're description, that isn't confirmation bias, that would be a kind of strawman. confirmation bias isn't a logical fallacy. it is a built-in cognitive bias that we ALL tend to display. Only through conscious effort can we avoid it.

Yet, when I quoted his first post, you reacted like it was from another thread. Why is that?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am an anti-theist, and as follows, I hold anti-christian views, since, christianity is a religion. So does this poster have anti-christian views, as evidenced by his first post. How is this confirmation bias? His first post is clearly a stab at christianity. I think you need to learn the meaning of your terms a little bit before throwing them all over the ground for me to step on.

This doesn't mean I don't like people who are christian, AT ALL. So, don't you use CONFIRMATION BIAS to form this belief about me. All is means, is I don't like christian beliefs and doctrine, or any religion which attempts to hold sway over my and or anyone else's life, pretending to have the truth. How ironic you talk about arrogance as a christian.

"I'm anti-Christian, but I don't hate Christians."

Who knew irony could be this fucking funny?

By your logic: I hate pizza, therefore, I must hate all italians.

We are not our beliefs. Christianity is a belief-system. A Christian is not a belief, it is a person who holds certain beliefs. It is these beliefs that I am "anti."

How can you be so dishonest, honestly?

You, as usual, have it backwards. The correct analogy here is You hate Italy, therefore you hate pizza.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't hate all christians. I don't hate anybody, or at least, I try not to. So, stop making this assertion because it suits your christian worldview of atheists.

They have therapy for this level of self-delusion.

Let's see if you can be honest for two seconds, rather than just parroting, "You're projecting! You're making assumptions about me!" My bet is that honesty is utterly beyond you at this point. Try to surprise me.

First, do you deny that you said this: "Ignorance breeds religion and faith." Those are your words, right?

Second, IF you admit that those are your words, what do they constitute, if not hatred of and bigotry toward religious people? By all means, share with us whatever rationalization plays through your mind when you say things like that you allow you to continue mistakenly believing you're a nice, fair, rational person who doesn't hate.

I skip to the most ignorant posts and just start responding.

I'm going to skip over you're polemicist points, and try and clear this up. I was being a "polemic" when I said "ignorance breeds religion."

Are you somehow under the mistaken impression that calling an attack a "polemic" somehow makes it less bigoted in nature and motivation? Because trust me, breaking out the thesaurus changes nothing here.

I admit that, although I happen to think there is a lot of truth to this, and this is backed statistically if you look at the number of those with faith in many countries across the world, and how that changes with the quality and style of education in those countries.

You admit WHAT, precisely? That you were attacking Christians? Or that attacking Christians constitutes bigotry and hatred?

And I note with interest that while you confidently assert that your hatred is founded on statistics, you don't actually include any of those statistics, or any sources for them. Surely you don't think anything you've said so far has inclined me to take YOUR word for it? Because as a general rule, I don't listen to bigots. I laugh at them. You and the Klan: funny and irrelevant to intelligent people.

For instance, America is inordinately religious compared to most of the western world, and we have some of the worst education worldwide. All other developed nations have significantly lower rates of religious belief per capita and have better access to good education.

And again we see your opinion masquerading as settled, proven fact, not to mention a correlation credited with causation without any supporting logic or fact whatsoever.

"America's crappy education system is due to the fact that we're so much more religious than other countries." Really? Prove it. I must have missed the point where Christians took over running all the public school systems. You'd have thought there would have been a memo, at least.

I agree with the notion that a lack of education, especially scientific education... allows for greater faith and religion, because the two seem to be contradictory. That's a simple enough idea. A fundamentalist belief in the bible is incompatible with scientific thought. This, at least partially, demonstrates this notion empirically and in concept. Not all those religious are fundamentalists, but still many disbelieve scientific claims on similar grounds. So, you get the trend we see and would expect. In places where education is not valued highly, there is greater religious and fundamentalist thought.

Whoa there, Sparky. Who the fuck asked you if you agreed with any of this bullshit? Who the fuck even MENTIONED any of this bullshit, other than you, right now? There'll be time enough for you to expound on your crap when and if I ask you give me a dissertation on religious bigotry. I haven't done that as yet.

I guess I win my bet, though. You are, in fact, utterly incapable of any sort of honesty . . . or, for that matter, giving a straight answer to a question. I can only assume that this is because your existence depends on being able to tell yourself what an educated, enlightened, WONDERFUL human being you are, while simultaneously spewing the rankest forms of hatred and ignorance and presenting yourself as an hate-filled, ugly person.

 

[AVG-JOE]

All science is theory..........

Evolution is a FACT

God is a theory

Evolution does not address our origins. Would you say that abiogenesis is a fact?

Also, if evolution is a fact, how has it been proven? It seems to me that it is still a theory.

One mans fact is another mans theory... defining the terms outside your own heart is political and therefore pointless - either the theory of origins that you subscribe to is laughable in my opinion or not. That's all that matters to any one of us in the end.

The point of education is to have choices when you wade through the bullshit looking for a theory of origins that makes sense to you, in the privacy of your own attitude.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Satan has the Scriptures memorized chapter and verse and is able to quote them, too. Do you think that means he understands Christianity and God's teachings? That would have to be "No", because God Himself said that if Satan ever COULD understand what God was saying, he would be allowed back into Heaven.

So thrill me some more. I've heard it all, and I actually comprehended it.

LOL...at least me and satan read the thing. It could be in Greek and most of those who say they believe it wouldn't know the difference.

Don't get upset......we know you have lived a perfect life and that you will rise from the grave, meet the ghost floating on a cloud, fly off to paradise and live forever..................I'm a Jack and the Beanstalk man myself.

::snore:: "Christians don't agree with my interpretation of their sacred book, so that means they didn't read it!"

I'm sorry, were you attempting to be funny, or was this supposed to be a serious post and just inadvertently laughable?

I'm still waiting for your self-proclaimed brilliance to tackle something more substantial than "Christians are stupid, and I'M SMART BECAUSE I'M NOT A CHRISTIAN!" You're at . . . what? Fifteen, sixteen posts now saying the exact same thing and nothing else?

Any time you want to stop telling us you're brilliant and actually SHOW us, we'll certainly be willing to read it. Of course, we'll also then laugh and mock you relentlessly, but you're used to that, right?

I think people are tetched in the haid when they say they believe that stuff:

I have read the bible but now I read it with different eyes and perspective. It may SEEM like these verses are saying definitive things, but they are not. The word "hell" itself has been horribly misinterpreted and abused. So has "eternal" [/quote]



That's what the church is saying lately. It's their new stance after preaching hundreds of millions if not billions of fire and brimstone sermons.

Folks need to think a little. The church body as a whole is opportunistic. For a thousand years they required infant baptism but when the public rejected the "born in sin" concept and began to stay away they ignored their previous position and avoided all the scripture it was based on. They get real interested when donations begin to falter.

For thousands of years the church hunted down, tortured and killed innocent young women for practicing witchcraft. Now that we all know there's no such thing as a witch they have shut up about it...the scripture is still there.

For more than 4000 years the church tolerated slavery and sometimes accomodated it. When one human owning another was no longer a fad or socially acceptable the church shut up about it and they never preach about it at all. All the scripture about slaves obeying their masters etc. is still in the bible but one never hears a formal word about it from the church.

Nothing is new about all this...the church is presently in the process of distancing itself from the flame and heat concept for one reason and one reason only...it doesn't work any more. Most people, regardless of what they say in public, are no longer "AFRAID" of god. They live their lives in the most convenient and comfortable way they can and somehow believe an hour and a half a week and a little of their money dropped into the collection plate is enough to be troubled by religious activity.

I've read and I understand the bible. It's message is two fold and what's happening in the modern society is that at least half of it is being ignored by both the church and it's members. Any negative scripture or any negative thoughts are basically ignored and in addition to that all the sermons which used to be hell fire and brimstone in nature are now carefully worded and slanted toward hell being the absence from god and his angels. Just another desperate ploy attempting to maintain attendance and donations.

While the church has amassed enormous wealth and more real property than any entity except the governments all over the world youngsters by the hundreds of millions have starved to death or suffer from malnutrition.

The church is failing. The statistics all over the world are mind boggling and even here in the "Christian Nation" the number of folks who claim no religious affiliation whatsoever has doubled in the last twenty years. The Internet will put the finishing touches on it. If all the Catholic Hispanic illegals had not been streaming across the border by the millions for the last 25 years the statistical reports would be even more dismal for American churches.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Yeah, well, evolution cannot and does account for origin, and the more we learn the less convincing Abiogenesis becomes--except for the ignorant/confused and the true-believing scientists who just can't let it go.

Evolution or a process akin to it is an apparent fact assuming the ontology of the materialistic naturalist is correct. If it's not, all bets are off.

I believe them both to be the myths . . . of "modern education."

That's bullshit! Modern chemists and biologists are making new discoveries in to the chemical roots to the tree of life every day and they're very excited about their fields - just watch PBS for a month and you too will see!

I didn't say they weren't excited about their work or were not making new discoveries. I said, essentially. . . .

You don't have the faintest clue.

Evolution cannot account for origin. Period. The very idea is unscientific.

And abiogenises is not getting anywhere near origin. You don't know the science. I do. I also understand the difference between metaphysical naturalism and mechanistic naturalism. You don't.

In the meantime your opinion is of no import to me or to the abiogentic researcher scientists who know we are light-years away from explaining origins via chemical evolution.

It's not even close. Even Miller toward the end of his life acknowledged that.

Bioengineering is not abiogenic generation, Sir, which is the only thing you could be talking about beyond the presuppositions of a metaphysical naturalism in this regard.

Refute this with something more than an obscenity and an obscure reference to a PBS program: Prukrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

My work is predicated on the current science and the work of the leading lights of abiogenic research.

I seriously doubt you understand much of anything about the matter. The fact that you misunderstood the nature of my observation demonstrates that.

Why do you feel the need to attack me personally when discussing our opinions about subjects that are beyond proof because they are unrepeatable?

All we have on the subjects of Origins, God & The Afterlife is our opinions of the theories that are out there. There's no need to get personal.

In my opinion the concept of a chemical soup in a primitive ocean producing unique molecules with the ability and the 'desire' to self-replicate makes perfect sense. Earth truly is our Mother.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's bullshit! Modern chemists and biologists are making new discoveries in to the chemical roots to the tree of life every day and they're very excited about their fields - just watch PBS for a month and you too will see!

I didn't say they weren't excited about their work or were not making new discoveries. I said, essentially. . . .

You don't have the faintest clue.

Evolution cannot account for origin. Period. The very idea is unscientific.

And abiogenises is not getting anywhere near origin. You don't know the science. I do. I also understand the difference between metaphysical naturalism and mechanistic naturalism. You don't.

In the meantime your opinion is of no import to me or to the abiogentic researcher scientists who know we are light-years away from explaining origins via chemical evolution.

It's not even close. Even Miller toward the end of his life acknowledged that.

Bioengineering is not abiogenic generation, Sir, which is the only thing you could be talking about beyond the presuppositions of a metaphysical naturalism in this regard.

Refute this with something more than an obscenity and an obscure reference to a PBS program: Prukrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

My work is predicated on the current science and the work of the leading lights of abiogenic research.

I seriously doubt you understand much of anything about the matter. The fact that you misunderstood the nature of my observation demonstrates that.

Why do you feel the need to attack me personally when discussing our opinions about subjects that are beyond proof because they are unrepeatable?

All we have on the subjects of Origins, God & The Afterlife is our opinions of the theories that are out there. There's no need to get personal.

In my opinion the concept of a chemical soup in a primitive ocean producing unique molecules with the ability and the 'desire' to self-replicate makes perfect sense. Earth truly is our Mother.

Do we have a Father? Was it parthenogenesis?

 

[Cecilie1200]

His first post, which you just admitted you didn't read, is based on a poll that doesn't show what he says it shows. How is that not confirmation bias?

I never admitted that. I did read his first post, i just didn't follow the link. But, from you're description, that isn't confirmation bias, that would be a kind of strawman. confirmation bias isn't a logical fallacy. it is a built-in cognitive bias that we ALL tend to display. Only through conscious effort can we avoid it.

Yet, when I quoted his first post, you reacted like it was from another thread. Why is that?

If you want my advice, don't even try to untangle this pathetically illogical mess. At this point, he's just desperately trying to hide from himself the fact that his self-image is utterly at odds with who he really is and who everyone else sees. You will only get more circularity and distractions.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Why all the hate? Why do you care what someone else believes? It's no skin off your ass, what's the deal?

Isn't that always the question? I have never in my life purposely sought out atheists in order to tell them that I believe in God and think their beliefs are a crock of shit. But thanks to the wonders of the Internet, I literally lose count of the people I see EVERY SINGLE DAY who seek out Christians - and, to a lesser extent, other religious people - in order to tell them how stupid they are for believing what they do, just as though someone asked them and indicated that he was prepared to care about the answer.

Thank (insert your preferred Deity here) for the Internet then, eh?

 

[newpolitics]

His first post, which you just admitted you didn't read, is based on a poll that doesn't show what he says it shows. How is that not confirmation bias?

I never admitted that. I did read his first post, i just didn't follow the link. But, from you're description, that isn't confirmation bias, that would be a kind of strawman. confirmation bias isn't a logical fallacy. it is a built-in cognitive bias that we ALL tend to display. Only through conscious effort can we avoid it.

Yet, when I quoted his first post, you reacted like it was from another thread. Why is that?

I don't know... I just, don't know. You're killing me, man.

 

[AVG-JOE]

And I am not the rich man he was talking to at the time. Or do you think Christians are likewise supposed to start building Arks because God once commanded Noah to build one?

He also commanded Peter and the other Apostles to throw out their nets to catch fish. You think every Christian is commanded to do that?

What's funny about it is you actually think you are educated.

I have to call you on this one Avatar... the context of what Cammmpbell quoted is clearly a parable used for preaching to the masses and the context of what you quoted was clearly intended to be specific instructions to specific individuals at a specific time in history.

And common knowledge of Christianity shows a concern for the poor, at least on paper.

And where did YOU receive your theological training, that we should care what YOU agree with or disagree with? What makes YOU any more of an "expert" on Christianity than Cammmmpbell, who doesn't appear to even be an expert on the topography of the back of his own hand?

Me?

According to some, I'm The Devil.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLddJ1WceHQ]The Rolling Stones : Sympathy For The Devil (live) HQ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[newpolitics]

I never admitted that. I did read his first post, i just didn't follow the link. But, from you're description, that isn't confirmation bias, that would be a kind of strawman. confirmation bias isn't a logical fallacy. it is a built-in cognitive bias that we ALL tend to display. Only through conscious effort can we avoid it.

Yet, when I quoted his first post, you reacted like it was from another thread. Why is that?

If you want my advice, don't even try to untangle this pathetically illogical mess. At this point, he's just desperately trying to hide from himself the fact that his self-image is utterly at odds with who he really is and who everyone else sees. You will only get more circularity and distractions.

Surprisingly, you're psychological assessment is pretty spot-on, but what the fuck does that have to do the argument and points at hand? Nothing. You are so full of yourself you can't even have a logical debate on the points, yet you grandstand as someone who simply stands in the back of the room and doesn't bother anybody. It is the christians in this country, more than anyone, who are trying to effect legislation, based on morals and ideologies they themselves hold... not what would be best for everybody. This is a kind of grand narcissism among many christians. You vote these people into power, so I have a problem with your beliefs. Try to actually be logical for a second without succumbing to ad hominem attacks to try and win this argument. Then maybe, you would be worthy of consideration and respect enough for me to take you seriously.

 

[AVG-JOE]

You aren't using evidence, you are using confirmation bias.

I am an anti-theist, and as follows, I hold anti-christian views, since, christianity is a religion. So does this poster have anti-christian views, as evidenced by his first post. How is this confirmation bias? His first post is clearly a stab at christianity. I think you need to learn the meaning of your terms a little bit before throwing them all over the ground for me to step on.

This doesn't mean I don't like people who are christian, AT ALL. So, don't you use CONFIRMATION BIAS to form this belief about me. All is means, is I don't like christian beliefs and doctrine, or any religion which attempts to hold sway over my and or anyone else's life, pretending to have the truth. How ironic you talk about arrogance as a christian.

"I'm anti-Christian, but I don't hate Christians."

Who knew irony could be this fucking funny?

Didn't an angry young lady in leather once tell me that she hated homosexuality and did not hate homosexuals?

Irony is Ironic!

 

[newpolitics]

I am an anti-theist, and as follows, I hold anti-christian views, since, christianity is a religion. So does this poster have anti-christian views, as evidenced by his first post. How is this confirmation bias? His first post is clearly a stab at christianity. I think you need to learn the meaning of your terms a little bit before throwing them all over the ground for me to step on.

This doesn't mean I don't like people who are christian, AT ALL. So, don't you use CONFIRMATION BIAS to form this belief about me. All is means, is I don't like christian beliefs and doctrine, or any religion which attempts to hold sway over my and or anyone else's life, pretending to have the truth. How ironic you talk about arrogance as a christian.

"I'm anti-Christian, but I don't hate Christians."

Who knew irony could be this fucking funny?

Didn't an angry young lady in leather once tell me that she hated homosexuality and did not hate homosexuals?

Irony is Ironic!

Hmm. It is pretty IRONIC that a christian wouldn't be familiar with this type of nuance.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I didn't say they weren't excited about their work or were not making new discoveries. I said, essentially. . . .

You don't have the faintest clue.

Evolution cannot account for origin. Period. The very idea is unscientific.

And abiogenises is not getting anywhere near origin. You don't know the science. I do. I also understand the difference between metaphysical naturalism and mechanistic naturalism. You don't.

In the meantime your opinion is of no import to me or to the abiogentic researcher scientists who know we are light-years away from explaining origins via chemical evolution.

It's not even close. Even Miller toward the end of his life acknowledged that.

Bioengineering is not abiogenic generation, Sir, which is the only thing you could be talking about beyond the presuppositions of a metaphysical naturalism in this regard.

Refute this with something more than an obscenity and an obscure reference to a PBS program: Prukrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

My work is predicated on the current science and the work of the leading lights of abiogenic research.

I seriously doubt you understand much of anything about the matter. The fact that you misunderstood the nature of my observation demonstrates that.

Why do you feel the need to attack me personally when discussing our opinions about subjects that are beyond proof because they are unrepeatable?

All we have on the subjects of Origins, God & The Afterlife is our opinions of the theories that are out there. There's no need to get personal.

In my opinion the concept of a chemical soup in a primitive ocean producing unique molecules with the ability and the 'desire' to self-replicate makes perfect sense. Earth truly is our Mother.

Do we have a Father? Was it parthenogenesis?

Wet Rock + Starshine + Time = Sentient Life

Mother Earth / Father Time.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why all the hate? Why do you care what someone else believes? It's no skin off your ass, what's the deal?

Isn't that always the question? I have never in my life purposely sought out atheists in order to tell them that I believe in God and think their beliefs are a crock of shit. But thanks to the wonders of the Internet, I literally lose count of the people I see EVERY SINGLE DAY who seek out Christians - and, to a lesser extent, other religious people - in order to tell them how stupid they are for believing what they do, just as though someone asked them and indicated that he was prepared to care about the answer.

Thank (insert your preferred Deity here) for the Internet then, eh?

. . . Because you think I ENJOY encountering arrogant, hate-filled, ignorant bigots like yourself?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have to call you on this one Avatar... the context of what Cammmpbell quoted is clearly a parable used for preaching to the masses and the context of what you quoted was clearly intended to be specific instructions to specific individuals at a specific time in history.

And common knowledge of Christianity shows a concern for the poor, at least on paper.

And where did YOU receive your theological training, that we should care what YOU agree with or disagree with? What makes YOU any more of an "expert" on Christianity than Cammmmpbell, who doesn't appear to even be an expert on the topography of the back of his own hand?

Me?

According to some, I'm The Devil.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLddJ1WceHQ]The Rolling Stones : Sympathy For The Devil (live) HQ - YouTube[/ame]

And the conceit continues unabated.