>> ^lucky760:
Is that kitten in the Matrix or what?


The cat clip is from a website in Japan called "Nikoniko Douga." Basically, as the vid plays people can stream their comments across the screen, which is what you're seeing. I have no idea why it's popular, as most of the comments are utter gibberish or typical YouTube-style comment nonsense.

Upvote for Shiba-ken, IMO the best-est dogs in the whole world. They're clever and cute, although they can be a little fickle personality-wise sometimes. I miss Kenta-kun, the Shiba my host family had when I lived in Japan. He knew a ton of commands, like the typical sit, lay down, roll over, shake hands, and speak as well as stranger commands like "sleep" (he'd close his eyes).

Re: evidence against God:
Well, obviously this is a tough one, because you can never prove a negative. The problem is you cannot prove it positively either. Or rather, no one has. We can prove that zebras exist, because there are pictures/videos, many, many people have seen zebras and the thought "makes sense" to us. While I have not seen a zebra, I take it faith, for lack of a better word, that they exist and that it is not an elaborate scheme or conspiracy. It is also relatively easy to verify the theory of a zebra at any given time. It is not all that easy to verify a proof of God, because all the "evidence" are aberrations: Jesus in a can of beans, someone being healed of some disease or being awed by nature. Do you see my point?
To be able to dispute a claim of God, I have to have a definition to go on. Many times when someone disproves a definition, people go "well, but that's not my God". If you make a hypothesis of your God, I'll do my best to disprove that hypothesis.

The Christian Creation theory is not just illogical it is blatantly false and foolish. Creation makes very definite claims, for instance young earth Creationism (earth <10.000 years old) is provably false, the claim that God made all species they way they are now with no transitions is provably false. When a religious doctrine makes such definite claims about our natural world the scientific method has crushed them every time. God seems to retreat into more muddy waters every time science proves him wrong; "God in the gaps".

Re: faith and logic
Your argument that you are able to correlate your faith and logic is more indicative of your ability to overlook some scripture and accept other parts. To make the Bible, for instance, cover the world as we see it now, we have to pick-and-choose which parts we really want to follow and which parts are just gibberish. I think this is a wrong way to go about it. There is a reason the Bible is as it is, you have to either accept it or not. Christianity as an idea is also "evolved" over time, into the many, many variations we see now. Some differences are greater than others, and some are minute. I am troubled by the pick-and-choosing, because that is not the way we learn things about the world. I view the Bible as the evidence that Christians use, and in that case you have to be able to fit everything into your theory, if it doesn't fit, you must acquit. Or make a new theory.

I respect your reverence of your parents, but they can be wrong too. Not that you should questions everything they say, but my point is that they may not really have the answer you are looking for.

The Scientific method is not well equipped to handle moral or ethical questions, because they are not (yet, anyway) a countable, measurable thing. We can't observe moral in its pure form, only the effects it has on people. It is possible to form theories about how it has originated through social sciences and anthropology, but "hard science" has trouble with it. Concerning philosophical questions, it really depends on what kind of philosophical question it is. Some are surprisingly easily bounded in biological evidence, while others are more ethereal.

If God chose to reveal himself, he would manifest in our natural world and thus the scientific method would suddenly apply to at least that avatar in our world. We could then do tests and gather evidence on this manifestation and, at least, get some ideas of how he exists. The fact that this has never happened, does seem to show a tendency.

Re: Existence of the universe
You're just throwing curve balls, aren't you?

Your third possible answer is the same as number two or one. The unmoved mover would need an origin too, and either he has his own 3 or he came from nothing or he always existed.

The problem with inserting God in that theory is that it can never explain anything. You enter into an infinite regress, that goes: "Us <-- God <-- superGod <-- supersuperGod" and so on (<-- "made by").
We have very little scientific evidence that shows the origin of the universe, but that does not mean that we should insert a prime mover into the equation, because that does not logically add up.

I will submit that the nature of the universe may be more mysterious than we think now and that the three possibilities does not adequately cover what "really" happened. Time could be cyclical, or something entirely different from a different point of view than our 3 dimensional world. I'm inclined to that the universe always existed in some form or another, but I have no scientific basis for that thought.

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by thepinky:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
[snip]

Really wanted to upvote this, but the gibberish text made it less than impossible.

Yeah! great stuff! I don't remember when or where I first heard this but its been a favorite ever since. I have to admit it's fun to sing along even if all I say is gibberish... makes me feel like I can speak French

In reply to this comment by poolcleaner:
Whoa, dude. I've never heard of this. Thanks!

McStupid.

One of the biggest differences that I know of between liberals and cons is that the liberals actually try to keep reliably informed whereas the cons are always too lazy to make the effort.

That's why you'll hear them spout gibberish like "politicians are all the same" or "you're just repeating liberal media lies", etc., because they are too thick skulled to educate themselves.

Those McCain supporters who actually believe that Obama is a terrorist are some of the biggest and most vocal embarrassments in our country today.

And let's just spell something out while we're at it: the number one reason why most McCain supporters will not vote for Obama is simply because he is a black man.

Total bullshit.

Steller, you make a lot of leaps in reason here.

"Meager, but respectable $5 an hour"?

What's so respectable about that?

You still haven't bothered to look around and see what's really happening.

You seem to be regurgitating the gibberish you learned in an Econ 101 class being taught by some Friedman/Rand fanatic.

Have you ever worked for a living?

Have you ever had to find and keep a job that could actually keep your bills paid from month to month for $5 an hour?

Upvote for counting to potato on its own, no need to even watch the video!

That was pure gibberish...

Can someone post this video with subtitles/translation? All I got was gibberish.

The problem with a phonetic language is that people who speak different dialects (Bostonians, Southerners, Jamaicans) will naturally be inclined to spell the words as THEY would spell them, and since there is no central dialectical authority with English, no one would consent to the overhaul.

Look at the Chinese language. Someone from Hong Kong would be speaking mostly gibberish to someone from Beijing. But written Chinese is the same for everyone in China, so they can still communicate with each other.

gm is right, words communicate concepts and ideas, and not sounds for the most part.

Every year, The Spelling Society that advocates this silly overhaul of English protests outside the National Spelling Bee. It really would cause way too many problems and solve none.

It is gibberish, that's why I wrote it.

^NordlichReiter

"This is argument by question,"

can you explain why that argument was fallacious in your own words? pointing to a website which claims all arguments ending in a question mark are fallacious prove nothing about your understanding of the issue or the arguments.

As for the rest, it appears to be an argument by gibberish:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#gibberish

well I read a book called "The Totality of Being" by a Jane Joyce that is a sci-fi about Lucifer coming in 2012 as a 12-year-old girl that heals the suffering... It said that Lucifer comes from Luce or Luz, Light... but we now know that light is manipulated. So its not only light that these guys need to profess such gibberish, but knowing how to use it!

What? You think I'm just being a contrarian all the time? I can't have a perspective that isn't just me playing devil's advocate? They were all bad presidents. All of them. I was serious about my parents getting screwed by social security, and I'm not sure why that comment necessitated a downvote. If they would've invested the same amount of money they were forced to pay to the government for social security, they'd have a great nest egg right now. Instead, the government decided that monthly poverty level payments are fair.

But, that's evil capitalist gibberish I'm speaking, right? The State should take care of all of us.

Also, If I select the gibberish text and paste it in another document, the text comes out fine, which further makes me think it is a CSS error in the Sift pages code somewhere, something defining the font type.
All other text is handled fine, it is just the Blue titles, throughout the Sift, on videos or sift Talk.

Oh, and also, the status bar at the bottom of the page reads fine when I mouse over the blue title text (links), which reads as plain text.

well maybe you should learn how to decode this gibberish Mr. socalled "sagemind"