Your video, Big Think: Penn Jillette lost over 100 lbs & Eats His Wants, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Congratulations! Your video, Big Think: John Cleese on Being Offended, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 9 Badge!

Your video, Big Think: John Cleese on Being Offended, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 6 Badge!

Since I suffer through this, I definitely appreciate the intent of the video. I will show this to my children, but...all the answers given are the most basic you can find on the subject...I expected much, much better from Big Think than the ABCs of depression.

Perhaps the next in the series will actually be more informative.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'big think, kevin, mitnick, troll, fbi, search warrant, donuts' to 'big think, kevin mitnick, troll, fbi, search warrant, donuts' - edited by xxovercastxx

I love how they use the Big Think style white background and similar font, if you can't think original ideas, steal, it's not like the bible says anything about stealing...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'rollins, gay, homophobia, marriage, big think' to 'rollins, gay, homophobia, marriage, big think, the gay marriage' - edited by RhesusMonk

>> ^VoodooV:
Ditto. Agnostic is the only sane choice. Fuck Atheists who want to put agnostics under their "umbrella"


If you're not agnostic, you're either a liar (falwell, robertson, et al) or insane (bush, shinyblurry).
>> ^VoodooV:

two sides of the same coin. different beliefs...same fanaticism.

Good to know that your position is "the only sane choice" but somehow it's the rest of us are the fanatics.

I'm an atheist, can I be under YOUR umbrella? I think both theists and atheists are under the agnostic umbrella. You can't know...hence why there's still a debate. Theists claim something that cannot be proved false. Russell's teapot and all...>> ^VoodooV:

Ditto. Agnostic is the only sane choice. Fuck Atheists who want to put agnostics under their "umbrella"

With so many agreeable comments, i taught myself how to quote properly * pats himself on the back *

>> ^ChaosEngine:
If Yahweh showed up tomorrow, I'd start looking to form a resistance.
^ I'm in and have a bunch of analytical minded friends who would be gearing up before they even heard the word 'resistance'.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
pineapple on pizza is an unholy abomination
^ /agree re pineapple. It belongs on my pizza's as much as i belong in churches, it ruins the experience.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

There is another position on this: anti-theist. Most strongly evinced by Christopher Hitchens.

>> ^volumptuous:

Richard Dawkins' approach to this is the term "non-theist".

^ The terms 'Anti-Theist' and 'Non-Theist' are more sensible/respectable than 'Atheist' imo (more so after hearing Dawkins mention Afairyist), but i accept the latter as it requires less side-track debating over terminology.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

I really, really hope that Videosift5 gives the ability to spend a PP on a "super upvote" for comments. (or something similar).
@Sepacore would get mine!! (above)

^ Cheers

>> ^Boise_Lib:
I'm absolutely against anyone, or thing, that shows the pettiness, jealousy, and just plan babyishness of Yahweh having any control over human beings.


^ /agree

>> ^Boise_Lib:
But, what about something (this is why I don't use the word "god"), which is benevolently seeking knowledge through it's extrusions--(that's us)--into this space-time we inhabit.
If we are all part of this thing can it really be abhorrent?


^ .. make duck bills with your fingers, put them to your temples and open them up as you pull your hands away: you're blowing my mind.

>> ^Boise_Lib:
My point is if there is something else out there, we--as a species--have no idea what that might be (all religions are wrong).

^ /agree

>> ^Boise_Lib:
[Sidepoint: The mixture of taste sensations evinced by the salty, savory ham and the sweet, sour pineapple enmeshed in melty cheese is a glorious thing.]

^ * slumps down in a corner and cries softly while singing Amy Grant's 'Innocence Lost' (Christian music, lol Google FTW) *

I can't relive my life
I can't retrace my tracks
I can't undo what's done
There is no going back

I chased a selfish dream
Did not survey the cost
Illusions disappeared
I've found my innocence lost

Some say it's lessons learned
Some say it's a living life
I say it's choices made
Knowing wrong from right

>> ^ChaosEngine:
What I do have to contend with is mainstream religion (and while we're at it, faulty thinking around astrology, homoeopathy, etc).
^ worked in offices for past 5 years.. don't get me started on astrology and homeopathy. The girls and 1 guy don't care what i say about religions and Gods.. but the moment i open my mouth about those other 2.. (think it's because i kept showing them proofs against the practices)


@Lawdeedaw
I see the points you're making, but there's a lot more to an Agnostic position than there is to either of the extremes. For 1, there's room to fluctuate to either end of the extremes without having to make an incredible claim that simply can't be backup in any scientific way as there are always 'trump cards' for this subject.

Better than Physics, Cosmology, Chemistry and Biology, imo Psychology has the greatest chance of proving God doesn't exist, but unfortunately it's not going to be an actual 'proof', at best (and it irritates/pains me to say) it will only be a really good reason to 'believe' or suggest that Gods are most likely figments of our imaginations off of our preferences. Easily ignored when in the face of 'faith'.

Call it 'safe' or even 'fence sitting' if need be, but i call it the result of thinking about the subject and being honest enough to accept 'i, nor anyone, actually knows.. but i think X due to Y'.

I used to think an Atheistic position for scientists was logical off of the point of 'no proof, don't believe'. But the reality is that scientists do believe things without evidence, they work their butts off to prove the idea, and either succeed or prove the opposite, sometimes even discovering things they had no intention of or even an idea that they were close to.. point being there are stages where they have reason to believe but don't have proof and these stages can make getting funding quite difficult.

For a Scientist, publicly and privately resting on an agnostic position somewhere between the 2 ends of the scale is more reasonable/justifiable and less arrogant/distracting.

If you can't honestly state "I know there is no God" in any/every debate/discussion, then technically you're Agnostic (unless stating the complete opposite).. but like me would take up a stance a pin prick away from 1 of the 2 disingenuous and arrogant extremes (specifically the good one, that doesn't 'justify' us not caring about others).

>> ^VoodooV:

Ditto. Agnostic is the only sane choice. Fuck Atheists who want to put agnostics under their "umbrella"

^ If it ever started raining/reigning in the way and with the unforgiving dedications a number of religions have in the past, i hazard the guess you would likely jump under my umbrella quick smart when it was the only place that gave us both the option to state 'i don't know/care' and live to tell about it.

/Agree re the disapproval of Atheists disregarding the line.. but to this day, I've never met an 'Atheist' that definitively stated when pushed 'i know God doesn't exist'.

If I claim that your house will be destroyed by aliens today, will you stay away from home?
>> ^VoodooV:

I can't reject what I don't know exists or not.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^VoodooV:
Ditto. Agnostic is the only sane choice. Fuck Atheists who want to put agnostics under their "umbrella"

Sigh... I won't put you under the atheist umbrella but to put it that I am not making a sane choice is rather petty.
But since we are being petty, here is a my argument. He (Neil) says he is a scientist but isn't going to make a claim either way. Okay, so he doesn't know if God exists and won't deny (take a stand) about something if it hasn't been unproven (So un-scientist-like; no leap of faith here...)
In other words he doesn't even know if science works at all. After all, God could snap his fingers and science could be turned on its head and cease to function. Neil is saying this is 100% possible that science is fucking useless and God is all important. He is also saying that this scenario may not be the case...
How scientific of him to take this position. Now you might argue my point is more hyperbole or illogical but really it isn't. It is just that the "safe" route is ridiculed for a reason... George Carlin I miss your jokes old man


We're talking about who or what created life, the universe, and everything. So yeah, I don't think I'm going out on a limb much when I say, "I don't know." However, asserting that you do know what did, or didn't does seem to be quite insane. Someday maybe we will know, but that day isn't today.

If you want to think that's petty, fine, but you seem to be projecting, IMO. Same with your "insights" into NDT's thought process. You seem to be putting a lot of words and thoughts into NDT's head that he didn't make...or assert to. These assertions that NDT and agnostics are cowardly is insulting and unfounded and again, if I dare say so, seem to be projecting your own insecurities onto NDT. And again, you're conflating the idea of god with religion. Atheists continue to make this flawed claim that if god does somehow exists, that obviously the theists are correct on religion and that god is this petty douchebag that likes to play with peoples lives and do shit like changing the laws of science for shits and grins. If god does exist, I'm going to go out on a limb and assert that god is nothing like Q from Star Trek.

I think it's quite the opposite of being cowardly and "not taking a stand" when one comes out publicly "takes a stand" to correct atheists that he is not an atheist. Obviously, if agnostics are the cowards you claim them to be, NDT wouldn't be coming out on this issue. Talk about being petty. Again, you doth protest too much. Atheists like to throw accusations of cowardice a lot for some reason....I'm sure that would be an interesting psychological study.

"It is just that the "safe" route is ridiculed for a reason..." I don't understand why you feel the need to ridicule it in the first place. You can't really cry foul about being petty when you make a statement like this. Again...no better than theists in this regard, you're one and the same. And really, if agnostic is subject to ridicule. Is it really the safe route? I'm sorry you feel you have to crush those who blaspheme against YOUR religion.

@Boise_Lib is quite right on this. Atheists really need to take a chill pill. The defensiveness, and quite frankly anger, when it comes to the atheist reaction to agnostics only serve to illustrate that you're no better than theists. Atheism always seemed to be more about getting revenge on theists instead of being logical and rational.

Try loving instead of hating, you'll live longer.

>> ^VoodooV:

Ditto. Agnostic is the only sane choice. Fuck Atheists who want to put agnostics under their "umbrella"


Sigh... I won't put you under the atheist umbrella but to put it that I am not making a sane choice is rather petty.

But since we are being petty, here is a my argument. He (Neil) says he is a scientist but isn't going to make a claim either way. Okay, so he doesn't know if God exists and won't deny (take a stand) about something if it hasn't been unproven (So un-scientist-like; no leap of faith here...)

In other words he doesn't even know if science works at all. After all, God could snap his fingers and science could be turned on its head and cease to function. Neil is saying this is 100% possible that science is fucking useless and God is all important. He is also saying that this scenario may not be the case...

How scientific of him to take this position. Now you might argue my point is more hyperbole or illogical but really it isn't. It is just that the "safe" route is ridiculed for a reason... George Carlin I miss your jokes old man

>> ^Boise_Lib:


That position shows a tendency to think of a god as one already defined by a religion.
If Yahweh shows up I'll be one of the first to join your resistance movement. I'm absolutely against anyone, or thing, that shows the pettiness, jealousy, and just plan babyishness of Yahweh having any control over human beings.
But, what about something (this is why I don't use the word "god"), which is benevolently seeking knowledge through it's extrusions--(that's us)--into this space-time we inhabit.
If we are all part of this thing can it really be abhorrent?
My point is if there is something else out there, we--as a species--have no idea what that might be (all religions are wrong).

Well, you're kinda redefining the terms of the debate (not that your point isn't interesting or valid). In broad terms, I agree with you. If it turns out that we are part of some benevolent science experiment of just the expression of the universe made conscious or the force or any one of a hundred ideas we've all had stoned, I won't rush out to take up arms against that.

But I don't really believe in that. I don't have to contend with it. What I do have to contend with is mainstream religion (and while we're at it, faulty thinking around astrology, homoeopathy, etc). It's a man made thing, but on the extreme outside chance they're right, well, I've posted this before, but it's still a great quote, so take it away Carl Marsalis

"Even if you could convince a variant thirteen, against all the evidence, that there really was a god? He'd just see him as a threat to be eliminated. If god were demonstrably real? Guys like me would just be looking for ways to find him and burn him down."



>> ^Boise_Lib:

[Sidepoint: The mixture of taste sensations evinced by the salty, savory ham and the sweet, sour pineapple enmeshed in melty cheese is a glorious thing.]


Heretic!

>> ^ChaosEngine:

There is another position on this: anti-theist. Most strongly evinced by Christopher Hitchens. Not only do you not believe in god, you're glad there's no god as the whole idea is abhorrent to you.
Personally, I fall into this camp. If Yahweh showed up tomorrow, I'd start looking to form a resistance.
That said, I don't conduct myself like this in daily life. Why? Because it has no bearing on me. I live my life mostly free from the influence of religion. I have many friends who are believers. We don't agree on this issue, but meh, we also don't agree on whether pineapple should ever be on a pizza (for the record, pineapple on pizza is an unholy abomination).

That position shows a tendency to think of a god as one already defined by a religion.

If Yahweh shows up I'll be one of the first to join your resistance movement. I'm absolutely against anyone, or thing, that shows the pettiness, jealousy, and just plan babyishness of Yahweh having any control over human beings.

But, what about something (this is why I don't use the word "god"), which is benevolently seeking knowledge through it's extrusions--(that's us)--into this space-time we inhabit.
If we are all part of this thing can it really be abhorrent?

My point is if there is something else out there, we--as a species--have no idea what that might be (all religions are wrong).

[Sidepoint: The mixture of taste sensations evinced by the salty, savory ham and the sweet, sour pineapple enmeshed in melty cheese is a glorious thing.]