>> ^BoneyD:
"But we're in space, weight has nothing to do [with it]"
If it was a black hole they were trying to escape, then gravity is the force they are fighting. So weight is indeed a factor, Mr Cartoon Spock! <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/wink.gif">
On the other hand, like the movie, the properties of a black hole do appear to change once it's done eating the first thing it sees. It's both a gaping chasm that destroys a planet and a handy tunnel you can fly safely through two minutes later...
So maybe Cartoon Spock was right? <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/sick.gif">


Actually, weight doesn't have anything to do with it. It's mass. In that, Spock is still wrong, but so are you.

"But we're in space, weight has nothing to do [with it]"

If it was a black hole they were trying to escape, then gravity is the force they are fighting. So weight is indeed a factor, Mr Cartoon Spock!

On the other hand, like the movie, the properties of a black hole do appear to change once it's done eating the first thing it sees. It's both a gaping chasm that destroys a planet and a handy tunnel you can fly safely through two minutes later...

So maybe Cartoon Spock was right?

Ridicule you on a false assumption? Um, okay? Whatever you say, dear sir. I think the stress of defending your cognitive dissonance on the interwebs has finally taken its toll. With comments like "blankfist, fuck you're stupid" and "Whatever, Spock" I think it's time to take a break, and hopefully when you come back rested you'll be wittier next time.

What the hell does "whatever, spock" mean anyway? LOL!

>> ^qualm:
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

Not very good at this debating thing are you? I liked your "whatever, spock" comment better before you changed it. Haha. Lame.

I love the joke about the Chewy and Spock guys, that's soo fucking true for everything.

Poor Kathleen never stood a chance. Not sure if she'd be able to put up a challenge against anyone.

Who will win tomorrow's battle, Spock vs. Captain Kirk?

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Enoch does the Sift great service by his dreaming, wondering, and kind open-mindedness. I'm very glad we have him. He's the Kirk to all the Spocks. Well, maybe Guinan.

Namaste, friend.


guinan.../chuckles...thats great!
thanks sir schmawy.
the first man who got my first sift.
you rock brother!

Enoch does the Sift great service by his dreaming, wondering, and kind open-mindedness. I'm very glad we have him. He's the Kirk to all the Spocks. Well, maybe Guinan.

Namaste, friend.

http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Man-Who-Killed-Spock-Nicholas-Meyer

In reply to this comment by IAmTheBlurr:
Enoch,

I'm going to approach this as logically and without emotion, so when you read this, think Spock.

I understand your conclusion in your long post but I find it to be fundamentally false due to your premises being products of misunderstanding the term and qualities of "atheist".

Here are three unique statements to ponder. "There are no gods." "I don't believe that there are any gods." "We can't know if there are any gods."

Which one of those three best describe something that a purely atheistic person would say, and which would best describe what a purely agnostic person would say?

.
.
.

The correct answer is that a purely atheistic person would say "I don't believe that there are any gods" and that a purely agnostic person would say "We can't know if there are any gods".

The reason why neither are the first statement is because a purely atheistic person does not make any positive claims to the non-existence of any gods, a purely atheistic person an only make the statement that they do no believe in any gods. In this sense, someone can be both atheistic and agnostic in what they understand.

If anyone ever flat out says "There are no gods", they aren't just an atheist. I don't know what the term is for someone who makes the positive claim for there are absolutely absolutely no gods but it certainly isn't "atheist"; i don't even know if that term exists.

You know, someone should invent that word, it would clear up a lot of misconceptions.

Your rant seems to be littered with misconceptions about the terms of atheism and about what, in your mind, atheists are claiming. I just want to clear that up. I think that once you understand that purely atheistic people do not make any positive claims to the existence or non-existence of something, you'll understand that someone can state that they don't have any god beliefs -and- that we don't know what claims can be true, that people can be both atheistic and agnostic without containing contradicting thoughts.


i was using agnostic in its literal translation.not knowing.
by your comment..you agree.
but i thank you for clarifying,and doing so respectfully.
i get crap every time i comment on a sam harris video.
i agree with his premise,his execution sucks.
if you want to have an atheist argue an atheist point of view,grab dawkins or hitchens.
maybe sam harris's books are amazing,on that i cant comment having never read them.
i was just commenting on his debating skills on the videos i watch here on the sift.
in which i am summarily attacked,as if i somehow have personally offended all atheists.
and nobody sees the irony in that?
anyways.i understand your point,and as usual my point got lost in my own translation.
i am a great speaker (believe it or not LOL) but my sentence structure is something less than desirable.
nuance is lost in text many times.
i do grow weary of such inane arguments.they garner little but dust on a shelf.
i was actually trying to make a point that we are all on the same side.
that fundamentalist and absolutist thinking is dangerous.
ah well....guess not this time.

Enoch,

I'm going to approach this as logically and without emotion, so when you read this, think Spock.

I understand your conclusion in your long post but I find it to be fundamentally false due to your premises being products of misunderstanding the term and qualities of "atheist".

Here are three unique statements to ponder. "There are no gods." "I don't believe that there are any gods." "We can't know if there are any gods."

Which one of those three best describe something that a purely atheistic person would say, and which would best describe what a purely agnostic person would say?

.
.
.

The correct answer is that a purely atheistic person would say "I don't believe that there are any gods" and that a purely agnostic person would say "We can't know if there are any gods".

The reason why neither are the first statement is because a purely atheistic person does not make any positive claims to the non-existence of any gods, a purely atheistic person an only make the statement that they do no believe in any gods. In this sense, someone can be both atheistic and agnostic in what they understand.

If anyone ever flat out says "There are no gods", they aren't just an atheist. I don't know what the term is for someone who makes the positive claim for there are absolutely absolutely no gods but it certainly isn't "atheist"; i don't even know if that term exists.

You know, someone should invent that word, it would clear up a lot of misconceptions.

Your rant seems to be littered with misconceptions about the terms of atheism and about what, in your mind, atheists are claiming. I just want to clear that up. I think that once you understand that purely atheistic people do not make any positive claims to the existence or non-existence of something, you'll understand that someone can state that they don't have any god beliefs -and- that we don't know what claims can be true, that people can be both atheistic and agnostic without containing contradicting thoughts.

I dislike Caucasians, black people, Asians, Mexicans, green people, gray people, spooks, spicks, spocks, and the Dutch...

and every other name you can think of.

Everyone sucks - racially.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Jake, Tapper, Obama, vulcan, star trek, dr, spock, logic, ears, healthcare' to 'Jake Tapper, Obama, vulcan, star trek, spock, logic, ears, healthcare' - edited by xxovercastxx

oh I've seen this shit before.... one of these flew down and attached itself to Spock's back, they damn near blinded him killing it. If it wasn't for his Vulcan physiology he would have probably been blinded forever!

I think he meant Mr. Spock.