Introvert that pretends to be an extrovert here, I have a love hate thing with smalltalk. When it comes to people I know, usually its just a way to grease social wheels to get onto something real so smalltalk is quite pleasant, wheras with more outer circle people, it can get exhausting and if not done while charged can lead to socially awkward moments. Usually the only times I have trouble with this is when people try to persist with social interactions I'm not interested in and eventually it burns me out or when trying to maintain relations with people that arent necessarily inner circle.

>> ^hpqp:

Fuck the Catholic Church and their woman-hating, backward thinking creed. This story makes me physically sick.

Agreed, when will people realize that their religious views DON'T MATTER when it comes to peoples health. This is about women having rights to THEIR OWN BODIES and being able to take responsibility for THEIR OWN HEALTH.

Oh Come on people! You're just south of Finland you've seen snow before!

What attracted you into conversation here is that the Sift is a de facto place for atheists to hang out. When you "speak your mind" about religion and atheism, there's two problems. The first is that since we are overwhelmingly non-believers, opinions against atheism and pro-religion are going to irritate a greater number of people, and so get the most attention. Our opinions against religion only offend you and maybe one or two other people ever, that I've seen. It's a numbers thing. Don't take it personally. The second is that, as I've mentioned already in this thread, you do come off supremely arrogant in your beliefs. Just saying, from our perspective. I'll turn it around to your perspective for a second. Consider these two sentences, a) "I consider the Bible to be fairy tales, and I don't understand why Christians people believe it's true." and b) "It's better to question the world rather than blindly accept a book of fairy tales." After which of these two sentences are you more likely to be able to continue reading for several more paragraphs, presumably all written in the same tone, with an open, clear, unangry mind? For most people —even atheists— the tone of the first sentence is preferable and more conducive to communication.

I'm not offended by your conversation, or your videos. In the past, I may have overreacted to insults, but they don't really bother me any longer. I am not sitting here enraged because some atheist suggested that God doesn't exist. I have heard just about every nasty thing anyone could possibly say about God, and then some. People have called me every sort of name that you could call someone. Even you can't resist putting in a dart here and there. That's just the way it is. If I let that bother me then I wouldn't be able to talk to anyone here.

If I've come off as arrogant, then that is unfortunate, because I don't feel superior to anyone here. I apologize to anyone who thinks that is the case. I am usually very direct in what I say, and I don't beat around the bush, and perhaps that has ruffled a few feathers. However, I always try to temper my speech with compassion and understanding. I don't think that is a fair characterization, and I think you are also ignoring the hyper sensitivity people have about their beliefs.

I've been using the sift since 06 or 07; the reason I finally signed up is because of the antitheistic bent the site had taken. Perhaps it was always there and I didn't really notice it. In any case, as a long time visitor here, I felt the site no longer represented me and I felt compelled to speak up for the other side of the argument. So I was not drawn to the sift because of atheism; I had already been using the sift for a long time.

I'll turn it back to the non-theist's perspective now. After listening to a cogent talk from Feynman explaining quite clearly why he would prefer to have no answer rather than possibly have a wrong answer, your first pitch over the plate was, "It's better to know the answer than remain ignorant of it", and then all rest of the stuff that followed that shows you didn't hear what he said at all. Feynman clearly doesn't prefer to "imagine that the answer is something else, because he doesn't like it." Then you used that as a launch pad for an assault on scientists in general through quotemining. I didn't read past the first paragraph. I moved straight down to see the reaction to your tone, and sure enough, it had started in earnest. I'd call that a failure in communication, unless you just wanted to vent, and maybe that day that's all the satisfaction you wanted. OK, but there you are. And you do this often enough, and people will see your avatar at the head of a comment somewhere else, and immediately their minds will shift into attack/defense mode, and your chances of communicating directly to their minds is almost zero – and they haven't even read a word yet.

Yet, someone who usually criticizes me agreed with me and said I had a good point. You say I didn't understand what Richard said, but apparently I understood it well enough to make a coherent point in opposition to what he said. What you're guilty of here is cherry picking. That sentence was part of an overall point and wasn't mean to be taken by itself.

In any case you say I failed, and perhaps I did in some ways, but not in the way you have asserted. You're right and you are wrong about what you've said here, but I get your overall point.

The fact is, since I've been here, this is the way people here have reacted to me. I don't get this reaction everywhere I go. Some of this is my fault, and some of it isn't. Either way I am not complaining. It is what it is. There is always room for improvement.

And to your comment about being invited. This place wasn't primarily designed for people to communicate opinions. It was designed for people to enjoy themselves while they procrastinate, feel a part of something, get some pseudo-community feelings going. There's no rule against giving any opinions here, nor against coming in large part to represent a certain opinion, but doing so runs against the main purpose of the place, organically defined by the intent of the people who come. This isn't an ideas discussion/debates forum with focus on arguing points to a conclusion. You can do that, but that's not the main purpose. What you tend to do here makes it more difficult for others to achieve their main purpose here, which is kicking up and not really thinking for an hour or two. And uh-oh, there's a comment from sb, killing the buzz. We could ignore it, but we just can't help reading what it says even though we already know it's almost certain to infuriate us with a relentless brand of reasoning that we do not understand.

Come on. People are not just here to relax, they are also here to promote their political, philosophical and (anti)religious ideologies. The sift loves red meat. People here love to express their opinions about what they love and what they hate, and they love to argue when anyone disagrees with them.

I get what you're saying. I could be more sensitive to how my comments will be perceived, and try to say things in a different way. I agree with you here. I'll keep it in mind.

In the end, however, the main purpose of this site is whatever the site operator purposes. What the site operator has said is that I am a valuable member of this community.

Fallacious arguments? Every time I point out a mistake, you invent a convenient new rule for understanding the Bible (or more likely you copy-paste what it says on some apologia clearinghouse website). I could literally find a quote that says, "oranges are black" and you'd justify it somehow. I just found a passage that gives two incompatible lineages from Joram to Joatham. And in a book that's supposed to be completely true, you excuse it by telling me the writers are taking artistic licence? WTF????? This isn't a poetry slam! It's the bloody word of God! If you claim everything in it is true, so much so that you've given up sex, condemn gay people, etc., then everything else in it *must* be literally true or you have no foundation for giving up sex or condemning gay people. Those could be metaphorical warnings about the lure of great pleasures in general. Either one of those things about Joram and Joatham written in the Bible is false, or anyone can point to any passage and call it optional, or poetry, or a style of writing, or just a metaphor. You can't have it both ways.

Now this is simply your ignorance talking. When I gave you my answer about the lineage in Matthew, I wasn't just pulling something out of a hat. Apparently you haven't heard of Chiastic structure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiastic_structure

It's not false, it is simply a writing style employed by Matthew to emphasize the lineage in a particular way. This is not some kind of desperate analysis to cover up a mistake, but is a well known style used in ancient literature. I'm not making excuses, or putting off something to metaphor; Matthew was definitely using Chiastic structure, and that is why that verse is symmetrical.

First, I'm saying the effects of personal prayer *can* be scientifically measured, so either your contention that God will not be tested is bunk, or self-prayer is really just meditation. You also didn't understand the set-up of the prayer-for-other test. In that scenario, there were real ill people in the hospitals, and they compared the outcomes for patients who had had others sincerely praying for them from a distance versus those who didn't. IOW, the sincere prayer happened. There has never been any measured health benefit for the ill people. They died off and recovered in equal numbers.

No, they can't be scientifically measured. You would never know during your test whether God was simply feeding you a certain kind of result. Think about it. God knows the entire time that you're trying to test for His existence outside of what He ordained (faith in Jesus Christ). His choice is either to give you results that will prove His existence outside of Christ or results that will make it ambiguous. What do you think He is going to do?

You keep saying that my position is one of cognitive dissonance. Look at yourself. You twist your mind into any shape you need for your dogma to hold true, never once truly considering the possibility that it's all in your head. You've said the words that you might be wrong, but you've never shown it's more than lip service. I've never seen you take a critical eye to your position on God and the Bible, despite the numerous opportunities I and others have given to you.

And this is exactly what Feynman's talking about when he says the scientific approach starts from the position that all hypotheses are wrong, then goes about trying to prove it through observation. Anything that's still standing afterwards is good scientific theory.

You're acting is if I have no evidence for my beliefs. If it was just a matter of believing the bible was true because I wanted to believe it, you might have a point. The reason I believe the bible is true because of personal revelation. I experience the presence of God in my daily life. It would be illogical for me to deny the existence of God based on the evidence I have received. I do not "twist my mind into any shape" to believe what I read in the bible. My worldview is internally consistent, and it is also rational. You may find it irrational because of your presuppositions, but that is because you reject the evidence I have receive apriori. To you there must always be some other explanation, and that is the way you interpret everything I say. You've already come to the conclusion that I am deluding myself, and everything I say you filter through that conclusion. Rather than letting the evidence interpret the conclusion, you are interpreting the evidence through the conclusion.

Religion, on the other hand, starts from the assuming the conclusion that God and the Bible are real, and any observational facts that don't line up must themselves be wrong facts, no matter how well documented they are. And when those facts can no longer be denied, then the Bible passages in question are suddenly no longer considered to have literal meaning, and now have only a "metaphorical" meaning, or must be understood from a different perspective.

If every word in the Bible is subject to this convenient wishy-washy fanciful method of interpretation, then it's a lousy foundation for a system of faith. You cannot follow anything that you can change the meaning of by arbitrarily saying, "That part is meant to be understood non-literally." The Bible, as it stands now, is either a 100% true book that we humans are incapable of understanding; OR a book that we are meant to learn from that also has lots of loopholes in it. It cannot be both, not as it stands now. The whole Bible should be re-written such that what's left in it is literal unmistakable unfudgeable truth. I think it would be a very, very short book, or, a much longer book filled with qualifications, something along these lines:

I'm well aware that many Christians have compromised with the world and reinterpreted the bible to reflect worldly wisdom, but I'm not one of them. Though not everything in the bible (like the song of solomon for instance) could, or should be taken literally, I believe it contains the literal history of planet Earth. As I've explained in other threads, I didn't always believe that. I assumed where science said it was right, the bible was wrong. It was only when I questioned that and investigated the evidence that I found it was the other way around. I believe the bible is true not only because of revelation, but because of the evidence, not in spite of it. You have unfairly mischaracterized me, because I am the last person you will talk to who will turn the bible into a metaphor to avoid the facts.

Otherwise, as you seem to fear about secular morality, the Bible itself could be interpreted to mean absolutely anything by anyone at any time, if they thought hard enough about it.

I don't fear that, I know that. You're absolutely right, you could make the bible say anything you want to. People do it all the time. It's only a literal reading that makes any sense. Even atheists know that:

destroy adam and eve and original sin and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God and take away the meaning of His death

-american atheist association

>> ^messenger:

stuff

I think this product will be for some, but not all. Oh look, I won your little debate.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

>> ^spoco2:
>> ^brycewi19:
>> ^spoco2:
'How to get that last mile to your destination?' Um... how about walking?
I mean, this thing is pretty damn cool, but come on people, walking a mile is actually a GOOD thing, not something to be avoided.
All the houses we've bought as a family I've mandated it had to be a 'good walk' away from the nearest train station so I can get me some daily exercise. A couple of kms each way each day does you a world of good. A lot moreso than standing on a powered board would.
Still, if it gets people out of cars, it's a net win.

I would maintain that there a lot of people who are going to work, just getting off the train or bus and still have a mile or two to go who don't necessarily want to be sweating in their work clothes before they get to their job.
My guess is that there are enough people who already showered, did their make-up or whatever, and still want to look good without looking like they just had their second morning workout.

If someone gets sweaty and dishevelled from just walking a mile, then I think they need that walking more than they realise

Or they live in a hot place? Ever walked a mile in NYC in August?

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^brycewi19:
>> ^spoco2:
'How to get that last mile to your destination?' Um... how about walking?
I mean, this thing is pretty damn cool, but come on people, walking a mile is actually a GOOD thing, not something to be avoided.
All the houses we've bought as a family I've mandated it had to be a 'good walk' away from the nearest train station so I can get me some daily exercise. A couple of kms each way each day does you a world of good. A lot moreso than standing on a powered board would.
Still, if it gets people out of cars, it's a net win.

I would maintain that there a lot of people who are going to work, just getting off the train or bus and still have a mile or two to go who don't necessarily want to be sweating in their work clothes before they get to their job.
My guess is that there are enough people who already showered, did their make-up or whatever, and still want to look good without looking like they just had their second morning workout.

If someone gets sweaty and dishevelled from just walking a mile, then I think they need that walking more than they realise

Or they live in a hot place? Ever walked a mile in NYC in August?

>> ^brycewi19:

>> ^spoco2:
'How to get that last mile to your destination?' Um... how about walking?
I mean, this thing is pretty damn cool, but come on people, walking a mile is actually a GOOD thing, not something to be avoided.
All the houses we've bought as a family I've mandated it had to be a 'good walk' away from the nearest train station so I can get me some daily exercise. A couple of kms each way each day does you a world of good. A lot moreso than standing on a powered board would.
Still, if it gets people out of cars, it's a net win.

I would maintain that there a lot of people who are going to work, just getting off the train or bus and still have a mile or two to go who don't necessarily want to be sweating in their work clothes before they get to their job.
My guess is that there are enough people who already showered, did their make-up or whatever, and still want to look good without looking like they just had their second morning workout.


If someone gets sweaty and dishevelled from just walking a mile, then I think they need that walking more than they realise

>> ^spoco2:

'How to get that last mile to your destination?' Um... how about walking?
I mean, this thing is pretty damn cool, but come on people, walking a mile is actually a GOOD thing, not something to be avoided.
All the houses we've bought as a family I've mandated it had to be a 'good walk' away from the nearest train station so I can get me some daily exercise. A couple of kms each way each day does you a world of good. A lot moreso than standing on a powered board would.
Still, if it gets people out of cars, it's a net win.


I would maintain that there a lot of people who are going to work, just getting off the train or bus and still have a mile or two to go who don't necessarily want to be sweating in their work clothes before they get to their job.
My guess is that there are enough people who already showered, did their make-up or whatever, and still want to look good without looking like they just had their second morning workout.

'How to get that last mile to your destination?' Um... how about walking?

I mean, this thing is pretty damn cool, but come on people, walking a mile is actually a GOOD thing, not something to be avoided.

All the houses we've bought as a family I've mandated it had to be a 'good walk' away from the nearest train station so I can get me some daily exercise. A couple of kms each way each day does you a world of good. A lot moreso than standing on a powered board would.

Still, if it gets people out of cars, it's a net win.

*promote again! Come-on people, it's the Plan 9 of hit singles!

On the topic of pro-religion posts, I wouldn't down-vote unless it's over the top offensive (though I don't think I ever have.) That's what the comment section is for. I can state my peace and leave an opinion. Some people are good at this, some people just blurt it out.

What discourages me is when my opinion is challenged. It's my opinion after all. I'm not saying you can't call me out when I say something stupid but don't spend many many posts trying to convince me that my opinion doesn't count for anything.

When I say this, I'm sorry, I have to point at you, @shinyblurry because this is what you do. You seem like a nice person and you sound firm in your faith (Good for you - I admire that). But I don't understand the way you come at people to try and convince them that they are incorrect and that your view is the only correct one. This only leads to comment wars and aggravation. Don't get me wrong, please comment, make your peace but don't keep posting and re-posting to tear someone else down. In the end it just crates animosity. Then people get their backs up against you and the downvoting begins because you don't let it go.

Sorry Shiny, to use you as an example, there are others here that do the same thing (such as @VoodooV above) and I see you were politely trying to avoid the debate this time - Kudos.

My point is, I don't think people downvote religious comments just because they are religious. I think they either don't agree with the facts or you have begun to preach at them. People don't like to be preached at. It's very condescending. I also think quoting passages as if they are absolute proof of a point is also offensive to a non-believer's intelligence. (no offense intended to believers intended.)

I myself have posted videos based on religion both pro and con. And yes, I too have noticed that the videos that are pro-religion are a harder sift. That's just a fact because the majority of the group doesn't identify with the content. That's just the way it is. I accept that. When people leave an anti-religious comment, I accept that too. What I don't do is start arguing with them because and tell them they are wrong. I have never had one of my religious posts downvoted into a discard (not that there have been more than a few.)

Thanks for the contest and for my awesome prize! As I was drinking my coffee this morning, I was daydreaming about how much better it would taste in a sexy, Videosift mug. Dreams do come true people!

This is their best song (and one of my personal favorite songs...sort of an anthem for me...), come on people. *beg

OMG he talks and acts just like Jon Lovitz in this video.

COME ON PEOPLE, watch it again. You'll hear it. "Yeah, that's the ticket!".

Odd. Me, him or us both.

@rbar Welcome back. You present a good definition of coercion, but how did you deduce that it applies to any situation where one has a "higher degree of power"? Did you miss the word "force" in there? Also, "threats" usually refer to "threats of force", the Oxford dictionary defines threat as a "a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage...", which sounds pretty violent to me. I don't think it was referring to threats like, "I'm not talking to you anymore!" or even, "I will fire you!". However harsh it may be to get fired, it doesn't involve violence.

Even if your idea of coercion has nothing to do with violence, I'm sure if you look hard enough though, you will find broader and more convenient definitions, but they won't escape the notion of denying rights.

Now, apparently you think an employee has a right to a job or is "entitled to something". What if no one needs what an employee has to offer, what then? Are the unskilled, the incompetent, and the dispensable, therefore, automatic victims of coercion?

If anyone with "power" can coerce, can you be coerced by a child's psychological manipulation? What about a person you're in love with, can they *coerce* you by leveraging your feelings towards them? What about a guy who is more qualified for a job than you are, is he coercing you out of that position?

If we just throw the word "coercion" around willy-nilly, we can pretty much justify anything a government can do to punish those perceived as coercive, and this punishment usually involves the use of force. So, instead of correcting social injustice, we'll likely end up causing more of it if more force is being used.

I need to refresh your memory on this talk of laziness, it was in objection to your statement that "all people always want to improve themselves", which you used to dismiss my concern about incentives and moral hazards in society.

I'm sure people give up laziness when their survival is threatened, but that's not the point of laziness. Rising above the petty needs of survival doesn't compel one to reach for the utmost excellence, that's where laziness comes in, people don't "always want to improve themselves", specially if they can live on a comfortable level by using force to solve their problems, imposing their costs on others. It's the lazy way out, get it?

Instead of increasing their power by becoming more competent, more useful, more productive, employees could argue that they are being coerced and use laws to forcefully remove the choices of employers as a way of giving them, the employees, more power. Having the choice of using force to solve their problems, would harm the incentive to improve themselves and that would establish a moral hazard: trying to do the hard thing, like becoming more productive (it's not easy!) would be punished by its very cost, while doing the easy thing, which is to rely on force to solve your problems, would be rewarded.