<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>gdp's Comments</title>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<link>https://www.intensedebate.com/users/2366806</link>
		<description>Comments by Jamietoejam</description>
<item>
<title>Big Hollywood : A New Year&#039;s Message to Ricky Gervais: Why Your Argument for Atheism Is Wrong</title>
<link>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lmeyers/2011/01/04/why-ricky-gervais-is-wrong/#IDComment119927739</link>
<description>Mr. Meyers wrote: &amp;quot;. . . why did Mr. Gervais and the media choose to release this article right before Christmas? The &amp;quot;media&amp;quot; released it at that time because that is when Gervais had released it--that&amp;#039;s kind of how these things work.  As for Mr. Gervais&amp;#039; timing, I don&amp;#039;t know, maybe he wanted to bring some holiday cheer to his fellow atheists?  (I for one was cheered).  Mr. Meyers wrote: &amp;quot;Second, there&amp;rsquo;s an arrogance that oozes throughout the piece.  Mr. Gervais is so insistent that he is right . . .&amp;quot; So what? Since when did taking a stand on an issue become a bad thing?  I wonder if Mr. Meyers gives his minister an equally hard time when he or she insists that Jesus is god.  Mr. Meyers claims that Mr. Gervais relied in part on &amp;quot;a few bad childhood experiences to bolster his case.&amp;quot; Mr. Gervais doesn&amp;#039;t mention any bad childhood experiences in the article.  He mentions childhood experiences but I don&amp;#039;t think any of them can be characterized as bad.  The &amp;#039;bad childhood experiences&amp;#039; Mr. Meyers complains about appear to be phantoms of his own mind. Speaking of which . . .  Mr. Meyers wrote: &amp;quot;Third, this is just more of the same from Hollywood--&amp;quot; That is just plain weird.  Mr. Gervais has done plenty of work in Hollywood, but so what?  What does that have to do with the merits of Mr. Gervais&amp;#039; article?  What does it have to do with anything for that matter?  Mr. Meyers wrote: &amp;quot;Yet Hollywood does not seem interested in making more money and generating higher ratings by actually delivering content that reflects the values of the majority of this country.&amp;quot; That is clearly wrong. Obviously the businesses that dominate that industry want more and more money and are eager to get it.  And they must be doing something right business-wise because if they didn&amp;#039;t deliver content that people were willing to fork over buckets of cash for, they would all be out of business within a year.  Does Mr. Meyers truly believe there are untapped millions to be made by delivering God-based content?  If so then why in the world is he whining about it?  If I believed as he does I would keep my mouth shut except to a few select investors and start my own production company--and best of luck to him in that venture.  &amp;quot;God&amp;rsquo;s existence cannot be proven or disproved via objective means.&amp;quot; How can Mr. Meyers be so sure of that?  Why even assume that? If an all-powerful creator god exists why shouldn&amp;#039;t we expect to find tons of objective evidence?  We seem to have tons of evidence for everything else that exists.  Why the suspiciously huge exception for god?  </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 6 Jan 2011 23:57:30 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lmeyers/2011/01/04/why-ricky-gervais-is-wrong/#IDComment119927739</guid>
</item>	</channel>
</rss>