Thank you!

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
Ahh brought back a lot of good memories, gratz on the star!

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations on your new bling. You got it finally!

Congratulations on reaching new heights on VideoSift. You have earned yourself 25 stars, earning you status of Silver Star member. You have been awarded 1 Power Point for achieving this level. Thanks for all your contributions.

Thanks!

You know, if the GOP wants Limbaugh to be their mouth-piece, I say go right ahead.

Limbaugh will be their undoing.


In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
good call

In reply to this comment by rougy:
And Steele just apologized to Herr Rush today.

Who's leading whom?

I hoped you would see the humor in it.

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
thanks you bastard :-D
heh

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
This was so gay...
>> ^JiggaJonson:
^Throbbin
"And he looks Muslim" ???
wtf is that supposed to mean
it sounds like a slight against Muslims in general which i'm not wholly against being an atheist. But dont use it in a similar fashion to the way people use the term "gay" to describe something they dont enjoy. urgh just dont be so fucking flippant about the words you toss around.
if he's a Muslim and you dont like that ideology then argue against it but dont just say "and he looks muslim" like that is supposed to be some kind of insult.
sh@t gets me so angry
srry sifters
tirade over...for now

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Ha... ha... ahahahahahahahahahahahaah -- monkey warriors!

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
I've heard about these in the military for years. In fact, the army is, right now, breeding a huge amount of Monkey Warriors which in many cases work out better than human soldiers because:

-You can pay then in bananas
-Less raw materials required to make tiny monkey body armor
-U.S. citizens care less about the phrase "50 Monkey Warriors were killed in Iraq today" than a similar phrase about human soldiers.

Yeah, that intro piece was the bit I was looking for - thanks for trying.

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
couldnt find the whole thing but that bit is hilarious. Here's a piece of it followed by more Norm hilarity.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Norm-MacDonald-on-Dennis-Miller-1998

In reply to this comment by dag:
Norm MacDonald is probably not a very nice man, but his humor hits me right in the sweet spot. There was a bit he did about quitting smoking I'd like to find.

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
If they wanted to drop big big cash on something tech they should invest in bringing broadband internet to rural/small urban parts of America.
Rural America is happy with their dialup America Online, thank you very much.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Hmm. The only "loose" scientific method i know of is used by sloppy or fraudulent scientists; let's not confuse evidence (however valid) with proof. As close as evidence can sometimes get you to proof, there is still a very clear line between the two. Thus, in the absence of proof, when we accept something as true, we are inescapably doing so with some measure of "faith". This is, of course, rarely "blind" faith, but rather, faith backed by evidence. Sometimes that evidence is strong and plentiful, sometimes it is weak or sparse, and sometimes it is non-existent (intuitive) or flat-out wrong. Still, in *all* cases (big and small), in the absence of repeatable, verifiable (i.e. scientific) proof, it requires "faith" to believe that something is true. That said, intuition is the only form of "blind faith" i am familiar with. In my experience most of what people call "blind faith" would be better described as "myopic faith", a willful restriction of scope when considering evidence rather than an evidence-less faith. This is why it tends to piss people off when they're accused of blind faith; such an accusation amounts to a callous rejection of the evidence they've relied on.

This is more or less my framework for understanding and discussing these things (faith, evidence, proof, etc.). I'm of course, always happy to refine it if someone points out flaws, but it hasn't changed much for me in recent years.

As to briefing you on my faith, i must ask, to what end? Are you genuinely curious? Just eager to debate for the fun of it? Looking to demonstrate your superiority? Looking to convert me to agnosticism or atheism? Wanting an examination of your beliefs so you can refine/alter them? Have you even examined your reasons? I ask because it's no small thing you ask of me, a stranger on the internet. My faith in Christ is, if you will, more of a journey than a destination. Describing it in a videosift comment box will be quite inadequate, as i'm sure you can imagine. Such things are much better done in patient, real life conversations. It is not scientific study, after all. So really, if i'm going to attempt this for you, i'd like to know where you want to go with it first.

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
If I may address two points in reverse order,

Perhaps I have painted you in an improper way, some days i get caught up trying to sharpen my argument skills do make poor assumptions to open a conversation up (my freinds find me bickering in the street with the Jehova's Witnesses frequently). To a degree I will admit fault on this occasion. I'm sorry if I was insulting at some point. If you're willing to continue the conversation please brief me on your perspective.

Secondly,

You are misconstruing what valid evidence is (I believe we have a serious disagreement on this point). Your understanding of your wife's love for you isnt based on faith, it's based on evidence (whether subjective, or anecdotal). I would argue that you do follow a loose scientific method while trying to understand your wife's love (since you do seem to be an analytical person.) But blind faith leads people down horrible paths in relationships the same way it does in many other aspects of life (I'm not saying you have blind faith just that you are misunderstanding your methods). The wife who is physically abused by her husband but goes back over and over again because she is convinced of his love for her is a valid example of poor evidence evaluation (anecdotal, subjective or otherwise).

You disappoint me, Jigga. I never said lack of disproof equals proof. Nothing of the sort. I specifically said there was no proof. It would aid this conversation greatly if you would read what i said. Reread my last comment and notice that lack of disproof creates the *option* of faith. For you to equate the option with the choice of that option and babble on about other deities was...well...choose your own label.

I also am quite a fan of scientific evidence in all fields where it is practical (i'm quite the pragmatist, you'll find). I've an ardent fan and user of the scientific method for most of my life. For you to insinuate i have some sort of disregard for science is again, reading things into me, not out of me. You seem to have a very disappointing reliance on stereotypes for discussion with complete strangers.

Finally, i'm disappointed that you know nothing of the practical limits of scientific knowledge and the necessity of "practical knowledge" for which one has no scientific evidence amassed. Consider my wife. She loves me. I "know" this based upon personal experience, her testimony and the testimony of others. Purely anecdotal, subjective evidence. Not at all scientific, yet i rely upon it daily in my choices and would be exceedingly stupid to demand a proper scientific study of my wife's love before accepting it as true. So i live "by faith" in it. Spend a day trying to be very aware of *why* you do most of what you do during that day, and you will find that most of your choices are made on just the same sort of unscientific evidence. This is practical knowledge. Even our court system relies heavily upon this. So again, we all regularly *must* live primarily "by faith" in all sorts of things, big and small. Why then does my faith in an un(dis)provable deity merit your scorn? And please try to limit yourself to *my* chosen faith. Don't waste my time again trying to paint me as some anti-science Kansan school board member or blabbing about aborigine faiths that i have not chosen to hold. I assure, i am not. If you find that you don't know enough about *my* personal faith, then you should probably either apologize for your assumption-based scorn or else ask me enough about it to be able to properly justify your scorn. Either would be fine with me. Further painting me with stereotypes, however, will end our conversation, as i have better things to do with my time. Thanks in advance for your understanding.

Oh, good, it seems we're more on the same page than i thought. If we lack proof of God's non-existence, then it seems to me quite wrong to limit the options for theists like myself are not limited to liar, ignoramus or (self-)deceived. So, may we now consider the option of faith? Faith being neither pretense, ignorance nor deception, but rather a sincere belief (possibly of varying degree) in that which is clearly unproven in any scientific sense and yet also admittedly impossible to disprove.

It seems to me that limiting what we "know" (in the practical sense, not the scientific sense) to that which can be scientifically proven is absurdly, paralyzingly impractical. We constantly live "by faith" in all sorts of little and big things. All humans regularly act as though "[we] know more about something than [we] possibly could". Why then, when it comes to the issue of theism, should my faith merit your derision? My theism didn't come from proof, and i'm not ever going to prove it. I believe one day God will force the matter, but i sure as hell can't do it for you. If you want to know what and why i believe about God and how that works in my life, i can talk about that.

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
The burden of proof lays in your hands not mine. Trying to disprove the existence of god would be like trying to disprove the existance of unicorns or dragons. We have stories about dragons and unicorns but maybe even those are bad analogies. Perhaps Bigfoot or Loch Ness would be better examples(since people actually do seem to believe said things are real) despite a lack of credible evidence.

Maybe you could answer a question for me and then i'll be able to help you.

Find something we can both agree isn't real, and then tell me how to disprove it's existence.