dupe, http://www.videosift.com/video/Animusic-Pipe-Dreams

Tags for this video have been changed from 'amazing, invention' to 'amazing, invention, animusic, pipe dream' - edited by burdturgler

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Animusic-Pipe-Dreams

This video has been declared a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by lucky760.

It sounds to me, gwiz665, as if your beef is not really with religion, but with malignant ideological authoritarianism. But this isn't a problem merely in religion. Communist China and the Russia are/were both atheist, and are both committed to the veracity of science, and yet their subjection to ideological authoritarianism has seriously set back scientific progress in both countries. Russia failed to study statistics after WWII, for instance, because it was perceived to be out of line with party ideology.

It has only been in areas of ideological tolerance--for both religious and scientific thought--that any major scientific advances have occurred in the last two hundred years. I believe your animus toward religion is misplaced. While religion has frequently been a transmitter of malignant authoritarianism, I would submit that this is not because of irrational elements within religion, but because of the widespread acceptance of religious thought. It was easier for authoritarian attitudes and ideas to spread through this medium as a result. If some other ideology becomes widespread, then it acts as the vector by which authoritarianism is spread. Communism acted as such a vector, as I noted, (Communism does not, in itself, mandate authoritarianism) as has nationalism in causing World Wars I and II.

Denouncing religion in favor of science will only render science itself subject to the same social and historical forces, thus perverting it and rendering far less effective.

In addition, your understanding of religion is, as I noted, extremely flawed. You do not seem to grasp the implication of "orthodoxy" versus "orthopraxy." Here it is: Primarily orthopraxic religions do not have creeds. Thus, there are no creeds to submit to. Only a general sense of what moral principles to act on, and the performance of a few ritual acts. This leads to vast diversity in all areas of thought, including the ethical. (Compare Stoicism to Epicureanism to Cynicism sometime. Then remember that they arose from the same culture with the same religion.)

"Supernatural" elements do not always require faith. "Faith" does not always mean "unquestioning belief."

During the Dark Ages--classified by historians as the first half of the medieval period, roughly 476 to 1000--there was relatively little religiously motivated violence. There was plenty of violence of other kinds, but Christianity was used as a tool to abate it to some extent. (There are exceptions, of course. There was the beheading of remnants of paganism in the Eastern Roman Empire, the bloody persecution by Charlemagne of pagans in the Saxon Wars, and the persecution of Norwegian heathens by King Olaf I. Without these three elements, there's a substantial chance some pagan religions might have survived.)

In the second half of the medieval period, the Crusades were not motivated merely, or even mainly, by Christianity. The Western Crusaders marching on Jerusalem murdered Christians just as readily as they murdered Muslims and Jews. They killed because they had been trained for war since childhood. Though there was a rise in violence caused by religion as evidenced by the Albigensian Crusades, which were religiously motivated, and the Inquisition.

I think it's obvious to some extent that aspects of most religions are in there to control the populace. But the same can be said of government. Government is far more explicitly "control over individuals way of life, their income, and their thoughts." Religion, in contrast, has far more often been an agent of change and rebellion in various cultures. That's how Christianity and Islam started--though there were elements of authoritarianism from the beginning. From a less authoritarian perspective, one also has Protestant Christianity, Sikhism, Mormonism, the Quakers, the Shakers, modern pagan revivalism, the Nation of Islam, Rastafarianism, Druze, and many more. Each of these religions was created explicitly to rebel against the authority structure of the day.

You really don't seem to have studied "religion" very much, Gwiz, and yet you're awfully quick to condemn it. I would recommend a great deal more study before consigning such an integral aspect of human experience to the great dustbin of history.

I'm going to offend some people here but I have to.

This guy has it all, pro choice and anti 2nd amendment.

Just because I support the 2nd amendment does not make me a religious conservative. I support the constitution, what does that make me?

And know I wont explain it to you naysayers out there, this guy is just the same as the other guy if not worse. He is "A peace loving decoy ready for retaliation." (-Dirty harry gorillaz).

He says he is pro gun, yet he supports the ban in Chicago, and in the District of Columbia even though they struck it down. Yet it is still illegal to own any automatic or semi auto gun? That's every gun except revolvers and lever actions and pump shot guns. Not to mention the class 3 weapons, that are classified assault. That usually means any weapon with a "bayonet lug", recoil suppressors, or heat plating (commonly seen on shotguns particularly the Spas series.)

http://www.popandsports.com/?p=1118

"Barack Obama's Gun-Related Votes The U.S. Senate Debated:
Obama
Voted:
Supporting concealed carry for citizens10
Anti-gun
Banning many common semi-automatic firearms11
Anti-gun
Disallowing self-defense in towns where guns are banned12
Anti-gun
Imposing one handgun a month restrictions13
Anti-gun
Requiring lock up your safety trigger locks14
Anti-gun
Protecting gun dealers from frivolous lawsuits15
Anti-gun
Outlawing gun confiscations during a national emergency16
Pro-gun
Squelching the free speech rights of gun owners17
Anti-gun
Restricting the interstate sales of firearms18
Anti-gun
Repealing the gun ban in Washington, DC19
Anti-gun

4 James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins, "Court to hear gun case," Chicago Tribune, November 20, 2007.
5 Illinois State Senate, vote on SB 2165 (41-16), May 25, 2004.
6 Obama says, "National legislation will prevent other states' flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents." David Mendell, "Democratic hopefuls vary a bit on death penalty," Chicago Tribune, February 20, 2004.
6 Obama says, "National legislation will prevent other states' flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents." David Mendell, "Democratic hopefuls vary a bit on death penalty," Chicago Tribune, February 20, 2004.
7 See the Gun Owners of America fact sheet at http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm.
8 John Chase, "Keyes, Obama are far apart on guns; Views on assault weapons at odds," Chicago Tribune, September 15, 2004.
9 Senators Chuck Schumer and John Kerry had both cosponsored S. 1431 in 2003, a bill that would have banned any semi-auto shotgun that also contained a pistol grip, which the bill defined as "a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip." According to that definition, just about any semi-automatic shotgun would be banned.
10 See supra note 6.
11 About the so-called "assault weapons" ban, Obama says, "I believe we need to renew -- not roll back -- this common sense gun law." See supra note 8.
12 See supra note 5.
13 As a state senator, "Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic 'assault weapons' and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month." "Obama Record May be Gold Mine for Critics," Associated Press, January 17, 2007.
14 On July 28, 2005, Senator Obama voted for a provision requiring gun dealers to include the sale of a lock-up-your-safety device with every handgun sold. The amendment, offered by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI), passed by a vote of 70-30. The provision amended the gun makers' protection act (S. 397).
15On July 29, 2005, Senator Obama voted against S. 397, a bill that was designed to put an end to the frivolous lawsuits that were threatening to put many gun dealers out of business. While an argument could be made that a pro-gun Senator might vote against this bill because it contained a lock-up-your-safety provision (see supra note 14), the fact that Obama voted in favor of that trigger lock amendment (but against the overall bill) indicates his real animus against helping gun dealers protect themselves from the anti-gun lawsuits that were aimed at driving them into bankruptcy.
16 On July 13, 2006, Sen. Obama voted for Emergency Powers language that saw only 16 of the most ardent anti-gun senators vote against it. The amendment provides that no money can be used by federal agents to confiscate firearms during a declared state of emergency. The amendment was added to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill (HR 5441).
17 On January 18, 2007, Senator Obama voted against a pro-gun amendment to strike language in S. 1 that would infringe upon the free speech rights of groups like Gun Owners of America. The amendment, which passed, struck requirements that would have required GOA to monitor and report on its communications with its members, and could easily have led to government demands for GOA's membership list (a.k.a. registration).
18 Obama has frequently made statements which indicate that he would restrict the interstate sale of firearms. For example, he told the NAACP that, "We've got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren't loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they're not made in our communities. There aren't any gun manufacturers here, right here in the middle of Detroit." Senator Barack Obama, at the NAACP Presidential Primary Forum, July 12, 2007.
19 See supra note 4. " Quoted from a (I Know absolutely conservative site ).

http://www.gop.com/images/research/062608Research2.pdf (this is a PDF) - its hard to find stuff that isn't blatantly republican.

All i am saying is do a little digging on this. I don't want warmongering republican or a lair democrat for president.

I have know problem with commonsense law, but don't lie about your record. I support background checks and the tests needed to get a CCW.

Get this, in some states all you need is hunters education can get a CCW.

This argument has nothing to do with pro choice or pro life in which case I am indifferent.

from the thumbnail, it looks to be a dupe: http://www.videosift.com/video/Animusic-Pipe-Dreams

It reminds me of Animusic.

>> ^volumptuous:
"However, Dawkins is a biologist."
Sorry, but Dr.Dawkins is also a PhD in Philosophy, and professor of Ethology. Combining Philosophy, ethology and evolutionary biology is precisely what qualifies him to make these claims.


Speaking as a student of philosophy, Dawkins is no philosopher. Daniel Dennett is, on the other hand, if you want an example of a prominent atheist/humanist philosopher opposed to religion.


I find all this animus toward religion to be just as misdirected as religious animus toward atheists. It is motivated by the exact same kind of disagreement and, frequently, lack of mutual understanding. Religion has a certain place in the human experience, and serves a certain purpose. If you get rid of religion, other institutions will step in to take up the slack. I have noticed that many atheists simply don't recognize this.

I also find it strange that people have the impression that, worldwide, religion is in decline. This is particularly strange given the role religion plays in the struggle between the Middle East and the West, which is perhaps the defining struggle of at least the last two decades, and could be the defining struggle of the century. Moreover, it also ignores the rapid increase of religiosity in areas like China, where Islam and Christianity are finally starting to make inroads in some areas.

Oof. I feel that some of Condi's points need to be responded to.

1) Not all "terrorists" are alike, obviously. Condi needs to get it straight that Hezbollah is not Al Qaeda. They are very different organizations with somewhat opposed goals. They shouldn't be lumped together. As Paul points out, it is highly unlikely that Iran would be helping Sunni terrorists, and Condi's answer is just some more of the vague hand waving he was complaining about.

2) Iran Nuclear Program: Iran is currently approaching a major energy crisis. Lack of maintenance and support for their oil refinement infrastructure, combined with increased energy demand, has been having serious effects on their economy. It's projected that within a decade, Iran will not be exporting any oil at all. To help combat the crisis, Iran is now requiring all of its automobile manufacturers to make hybrid cars only. It is only reasonable that they move to nuclear energy. That's not to say that they might not also work on nuclear bombs on the hush-hush as well; it's in their interests. But as things stand, they can't afford /not/ to build nuclear reactors at this time.

3) The supposed unilaterality of the opposition to Iran is not as simple as it seems. To be sure, the craziness of Ahmadinejad does tend to make non-Iranians worry, but the real worry isn't that Iran will bomb anyone. Rather, the power afforded by nuclear weapons would make Iran a far more influential country, with far more say as to how the Western countries interfere in the Middle East. To be sure, there is some truth to Condi's assertion that it's a national security matter; a rise in Iranian power could threaten our petroleum supply. In response, one must answer with the cliche, nonetheless true, that we need to reduce our dependence on petroleum period. A more far-sighted foreign policy would allow Iran to do as it wills in the region--decreasing Middle Eastern animus toward the West and especially America--and simultaneously move toward alternative energy sources in serious way. The Bush administration's lack of concern with alternative energy is well established by now.

and a dupe, sorry
http://www.videosift.com/video/Animusic-Pipe-Dreams

Tags for this video have been changed from 'amazing, automated, music, if, only, it, were, real' to 'amazing, automated, music, if, only, it, were, real, animusic' - edited by fissionchips

pretty intense.. I wonder if the virtual Neal was hand animated or if he's under midi control as in the animusic stuff

now turn up the subwoofer for Starship Groove
http://www.videosift.com/video/Animusic-2-Starship-Groove

Wow, this reminds me of Animusic without music.