The problem with your riposte is that doesn't address my comment. The "justice" of a shooting by police where the facts are not yet known is not the concern of this sift. An angry mob outnumbering cops, say, 10 to 1, leaves cops with little option but to defend themselves from being killed. Or do you expect them to let mobs simply kill them?

A mob is not a gaggle of angry but thoughtful/idealistic/rational individuals, it's a "monster" with its own appetites, savage and anonymous. Witness riots by fans of sports teams that have won.

Do angry mobs run into burning buildings? Do they try to pile in to an ambulance while EMTs are attempting to load a stretcher? Then why the approval of fking with police trying to do a job?

The facts surrounding this shooting have yet to come to light.

Ignorance is expecting perfection from any human being, including cops.


>> ^poolcleaner:

>> ^quantumushroom:
"Hey, I just got a great idea, let's all form an angry mob and go scream at police, even though we have no idea what the hell's going on. We do know some guy was shot and killed. We have no idea why he was running from police, whether he threatened police with deadly force or had just killed someone else--hell, we don't have context for any of this--all I know is I'm with this mob screeching at police. Bring the kids, they'll want to see this!"

That's bullshit. It doesn't matter if the people here were ignorantly lead to believe a lie about what they were protesting or if they were just plain wrong and supported a radical ideal. We shouldn't do this in America where even the ignorant like yourself are protected. We should support those with differing opinions with a dialog, not brute force. You and those in political office that support your fucked up vision of the world are the reason we're in this in the first place.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 4 Badge!

Nein.

>> ^ant:

Does he still have nine/9 lives?

You may feel you have a responsibility to spread what you believe to be true. That's all fine and dandy, and I have no problem with that. Going to people who do not agree with you, and have made up their mind, and telling them they're wrong for believing what you cannot prove to be certainly true is again an intolerance and disrespectful view of other people. You do NOT have definitive proof, no matter how much you think you do. You don't. Period. Go ahead and try to convince them. There's nothing immoral about that. It is immoral to claim moral superiority and tell people they don't have valid opinions because they don't share yours.

Do you get why it's wrong for an atheist to berate you for believing in a god when you cannot prove with empirical evidence he definitely exists? It's not right. You know why? Because they can't prove with certainty god doesn't exist either. So, respect each other's beliefs, agree to disagree, and follow the Golden Rule for interacting with others in discussion:

Don't be douchey!

Why is it wrong for you to believe an atheist has no valid viewpoint on spirituality? It's really darn simple. First, you equated spirituality to being right or wrong. Then, you said he had no valid opinion about it. If you're equating spirituality to morality and ethics, then why do most atheists believe in the idea of right vs wrong? They have ethics and morality, and theirs isn't subordinate to yours just because you believe in the existence of God.

Even beyond that, it's absurd. If I don't believe in the role of gov't in our lives, does that render all my opinions about gov't useless and always wrong? Since you're all about religion, does that mean all your thoughts about science are completely invalid? Of course not.

Why are my religious views irrelevant? It's really simple. I'm not debating which of our religions is the correct one. I'm debating how to appropriately discuss religion, morality, and ethics with others. You are not the final arbiter of truth. Neither am I. Neither is messenger. We're all struggling to find more truth. Yours isn't more valid because you're Christian.

You're also not an atheist, yet you seem to know exactly what their beliefs are about morality. Instead of trying to argue your side, here's a totally wild idea - why don't you take a little time and understand where they're coming from before you spout ignorant crap about what they believe? I'm sure you don't appreciate when people spout crap about you that isn't true. IE, why don't you use the Christian Golden Rule?

You can stop spouting your religious views to justify your utter disrespect for others and their beliefs. I didn't read a single word of it. Quite frankly, you're pissing me off, and I would suggest you re-evaluate how you discuss this topic with others using that tone. I'm enlightened enough to not hold your douchebaggery against other devout Christians who are more respectful of others. More often than not, it's not convincing people to see it your way. It's causing an irrational recalcitrance against your views. If you truly are a believer of god and trying to change people's minds to a view like your own, this isn't the way to do it. Jesus didn't act like a petulant 5 year old know it all.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Dude, you can have spiritual insights and be an atheist. But you're also doing what many other religious people do that gives religion a bad name - presume that spirituality is synonymous with morality. It's not the same thing. Most atheists have a code or morality.
A spiritual atheist is a contradiction in terms, although I have actually met some. What insight could someone who is unaware they have a spirit offer? That would be like a blind person commenting on the beauty of a sunset.
Everyone has the internal witness of their own conscience to tell them right from wrong. I never said atheists cannot be moral. However, God has given specific revelation of a moral law that He expects everyone to follow.
I'm not getting into my personal religious beliefs with you. Quite frankly they are irrelevant.
How can we have an intellectually honest conversation about personal religious beliefs if you won't say what yours are?
For the record, you don't have definitive proof an omnipotent being revealed to you the absolute truth. You may believe you do, but you don't. Believe it all you want, strongly believe in it. That doesn't bother me, but you have no definitive proof for certain that God exists, let alone revealed to you the exact truth of his nature, etc. etc. etc.
Yes, it is very arrogant to think you have this knowledge. It's not arrogant of me to say that. You have no slam dunk evidence prove he has revealed this to you, or even if he exists. That's why it's called faith. I feel god has visited me in my lifetime to reveal truth, but I don't dare go around telling people that he most certainly did, and his truth is my beliefs, and therefore I know the truth and anyone who contradicts me is wrong. That's quite frankly repugnant and shows a total disrespect for others and their beliefs that haven't a thing to do with you.
Do you know much about Christianity? I have been commanded by God to preach the gospel and to let people know that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. That is my responsibility, and one day, we will all stand before Him, and we will have to give account for everything that we have done and said, every idle word. This includes what we did and didn't do. I have trouble understanding how you can know that I interpret the world through Christian theism yet fail to understand why I follow it to its logical conclusion, IE, obeying the will of God.
The gospel is a scandal to people because it convicts them of their sin and reveals the eternal destiny that they face without Jesus Christ. It is also the good news, that God sent His only begotten Son, who through His sacrifice on the cross, paid the price for our sins, and that God will forgive your sins and give you eternal life if you turn from them and trust in Jesus as your Lord and Savior.
I'm sorry but it isn't arrogant to tell someone that they are wrong, when they actually are wrong. In this case, if you saw someone walking into a burning building, would you not warn them not to go in there? That is exactly what I am doing, and whether you believe it is credible or not is not the issue. You're violating your own standard of conduct by telling me I am wrong, which is arrogant by your own definition. Neither can everything be definitively proven. You don't have any definitive proof that there are other minds, or that reality isn't an illusion. You cannot prove either conclusion with empirical evidence. Is it arrogant to say that you exist?
God has specifically said that He has given a general revelation of Himself in the Creation, in the things He has made, to everyone, so that no man has any excuse for not knowing there is a God. That is the revelation you have received. He has also given us a special revelation of Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. When you speak of definitive proof, what you are really talking about is knowing Jesus Christ personally. Well, that is what I am telling you. You can know Him today, if you prayed to Him and asked Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior. That is how He told us to know Him, and God will supply the proof. Your refusal to do that is like trying to find an octopus in the desert, and when you don't find any, declaring that there aren't any. There is only one way to know God, and if you don't go that route, you won't know anything about Him. That is why you believe you can know nothing for certain, because you have been given no certain knowledge about who God is.
>> ^heropsycho:

Dude, you can have spiritual insights and be an atheist. But you're also doing what many other religious people do that gives religion a bad name - presume that spirituality is synonymous with morality. It's not the same thing. Most atheists have a code or morality.

A spiritual atheist is a contradiction in terms, although I have actually met some. What insight could someone who is unaware they have a spirit offer? That would be like a blind person commenting on the beauty of a sunset.

Everyone has the internal witness of their own conscience to tell them right from wrong. I never said atheists cannot be moral. However, God has given specific revelation of a moral law that He expects everyone to follow.

I'm not getting into my personal religious beliefs with you. Quite frankly they are irrelevant.

How can we have an intellectually honest conversation about personal religious beliefs if you won't say what yours are?

For the record, you don't have definitive proof an omnipotent being revealed to you the absolute truth. You may believe you do, but you don't. Believe it all you want, strongly believe in it. That doesn't bother me, but you have no definitive proof for certain that God exists, let alone revealed to you the exact truth of his nature, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, it is very arrogant to think you have this knowledge. It's not arrogant of me to say that. You have no slam dunk evidence prove he has revealed this to you, or even if he exists. That's why it's called faith. I feel god has visited me in my lifetime to reveal truth, but I don't dare go around telling people that he most certainly did, and his truth is my beliefs, and therefore I know the truth and anyone who contradicts me is wrong. That's quite frankly repugnant and shows a total disrespect for others and their beliefs that haven't a thing to do with you.

Do you know much about Christianity? I have been commanded by God to preach the gospel and to let people know that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. That is my responsibility, and one day, we will all stand before Him, and we will have to give account for everything that we have done and said, every idle word. This includes what we did *and* didn't do. I have trouble understanding how you can know that I interpret the world through Christian theism yet fail to understand why I follow it to its logical conclusion, IE, obeying the will of God.

The gospel is a scandal to people because it convicts them of their sin and reveals the eternal destiny that they face without Jesus Christ. It is also the good news, that God sent His only begotten Son, who through His sacrifice on the cross, paid the price for our sins, and that God will forgive your sins and give you eternal life if you turn from them and trust in Jesus as your Lord and Savior.

I'm sorry but it isn't arrogant to tell someone that they are wrong, when they actually are wrong. In this case, if you saw someone walking into a burning building, would you not warn them not to go in there? That is exactly what I am doing, and whether you believe it is credible or not is not the issue. You're violating your own standard of conduct by telling me I am wrong, which is arrogant by your own definition. Neither can everything be definitively proven. You don't have any definitive proof that there are other minds, or that reality isn't an illusion. You cannot prove either conclusion with empirical evidence. Is it arrogant to say that you exist?

God has specifically said that He has given a general revelation of Himself in the Creation, in the things He has made, to everyone, so that no man has any excuse for not knowing there is a God. That is the revelation you have received. He has also given us a special revelation of Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. When you speak of definitive proof, what you are really talking about is knowing Jesus Christ personally. Well, that is what I am telling you. You can know Him today, if you prayed to Him and asked Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior. That is how He told us to know Him, and God will supply the proof. Your refusal to do that is like trying to find an octopus in the desert, and when you don't find any, declaring that there aren't any. There is only one way to know God, and if you don't go that route, you won't know anything about Him. That is why you believe you can know nothing for certain, because you have been given no certain knowledge about who God is.

>> ^heropsycho:

@spoco2

You THINK you know the truth of there even being a god, and you believe you know who this god is. But these are THOUGHTS and are not backed up by ANYTHING whatsoever. 2+2 = 4 is backed up by being able to SHOW it... you can take 2 beads, take another 2 beads, count them, and have 4 beads.

You cannot point at ANYTHING and say 'See, there's my proof that there is a god, he is the one in the bible, and that is true'.

If you prayed to Jesus Christ and sincerely admitted that you are a sinner, asked for His forgiveness and asked Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior, you would come to know there is a God. It is something which can be empirically verified.

And I said that it was fine for you to believe that there was one true god. Go right ahead and believe that you have found that 'truth'. It's your forcing of YOUR belief in this on others, this belief that cannot be shown to be true in any way. This belief of yours that a man who sleeps with another man is damned to hell forever and so should be feared and scorned is horrible.

If it's fine to believe that Jesus is God incarnate, then it is also fine for me to obey His commands, one of which is to preach the gospel. This is a fundamental right that every american has according to the first ammendment. Why should I be censored? You feel free to say what I believe is not correct. Why shouldn't you be censored?

A man who tells a lie, steals something, blasphemes the name of God, or looks at a woman with lust is on his way to hell. One sin isn't necessarily worse than any other sin; the wages of sin is death, and all have sinned. So the man who lies is just as guilty as the man who sleeps with another man. God cares so much about the well being of His Universe that He punishes all sin with eternity in hell. He cares so much about us that He gave His only Son to take our place in punishment, so we could be forgiven and have eternal life. Those who reject His mercy will have to face His justice.

My beliefs, those of science and observable phenomenon, do not say anything about how people choose to live their lives. My morals state that anyone is free to be with whoever they want to. They can live however they want, including believing in an invisible man in the sky with a long, flowing beard, as long as that way of living doesn't try to do harm to others.

You are doing harm to others. Mumford and Sons are not.

Many of your views may hide behind apron of true science, but I can guaranatee you that the presuppositions of your worldview are not based on empirical testing. As far as who is doing harm, if you saw someone in a burning building, would you not stop to try and rescue them? At least one atheist understands this:

http://videosift.com/video/Penn-Jillette-gets-a-Bible

Great point. So, they have your support to hose down the Police?
Who else? Politicians? Muggers? The military? Me, because I disagree?

If they disagree with the government, just hose down the police, eh?

The Police apprehend criminals, facing threats to their lives at any corner. Should they also be allowed to shoot politicians? Or just handcuff them? Hit them with batons?

As entertaining fodder it may be for VideoSift, I disagree.
Though I voiced my disgust with it, I still upvoted this video btw. Though it's entertaining, it doesn't support my political views.

>> ^heathen:

>> ^doogle:
Disgusting. You're not hired by the state to turn against it. You don't like the retirement plan? Learn another trade where you can sit on your ass all day waiting for an incident.

What!?
I have a job where I sit on my arse all day waiting for an incident, I monitor servers.
The only difference is that when I detect an incident I call somebody in one of the datacentres, these guys run into burning buildings full of smoke and save people's lives!
Let them retire earlier, they've earnt it.

>> ^longde:

LOL, why would you want a geriatric fireman running into your burning building to save you?>> ^chilaxe:
Retire at 58? Laziest mouth-breathers in the world.
Cutting-edge medicine is keeping people alive longer, so people have to save more for retirement --even if they work for the government.



Unless they're brain-dead or their hands have been amputated, they're able to work at an appropriate job, same as everybody else.

The idea that medical advances should continually extend the number of decades we spend in retirement but the money for it must be conjured from thin air is why people who are bad at economics bankrupt states like California, even with some of the highest taxes in the country.

LOL, why would you want a geriatric fireman running into your burning building to save you?>> ^chilaxe:

Retire at 58? Laziest mouth-breathers in the world.
Cutting-edge medicine is keeping people alive longer, so people have to save more for retirement --even if they work for the government.

>> ^doogle:

Disgusting. You're not hired by the state to turn against it. You don't like the retirement plan? Learn another trade where you can sit on your ass all day waiting for an incident.


What!?

I have a job where I sit on my arse all day waiting for an incident, I monitor servers.
The only difference is that when I detect an incident I call somebody in one of the datacentres, these guys run into burning buildings full of smoke and save people's lives!

Let them retire earlier, they've earnt it.

>> ^marinara:

Let's say WT7 had 20 columns holding up 47 floors (that's big). So these big ass columns get pushed around by by the "flooring under heat expansion" and then the other 20 ginormous columns fail instantly, and the whole thing goes down.
If one column can bring down WT7, it wasn't a skyscraper, it was a deathtrap.


One column?

Do you really believe that the professionals at NIST are suggesting that in WTC7 one column was compromised to the point of failure by the fire, but the other 19 were in pristine normal condition?

Right, anything to hang on to your internal belief system.

The body of professionals across the globe are convinced that the devastation of the lower floors of WTC7 and resulting fires were easily enough to cause the collapse. This was so evident that emergency workers were ordered to abandon the burning building in advance, and news crews were reporting about it's probable collapse before it went down.

Your 'theories' are stupid.

Please, keep parroting things like how house fires can't reach 1000 degrees, it helps people see how stupid your ideas are more quickly. Early steel makers regularly made do with wood fires for their forges, and somehow managed to get the steel to melt. A google scholar search will also quickly show that temperatures exceeding 1000 degrees can be reached by house fires within minutes.

@shinyblurry

Sorry for the delay... had some "real life" to deal with (as well as a little sift-nonsense).

Mainstream big bang theory says time and space had a beginning.

Yes, but that's not what we were talking about. You said all matter (material) sprang forth from nothing and BBT doesn't agree.

What about behaviors that have no advantage, which are actually determintal to your survival? Self-sacrifice, for instance..Someone who runs into a burning building to save a baby risking death to do it. If all morality is just selfishness, how do you explain this behavior. It's foolish from that standpoint, because it makes you less likely to survive. Why do people risk their lives for others?

You're the one who said we only act selfishly, not me. I don't believe that at all. My point was specifically that both selfish and non-selfish behavior are part of our nature to varying degrees and that non-selfish behavior tends to benefit us (biologically) more as a species than selfish behavior. That's all that's necessary for evolution to provide morality.

What if you have three men, and two decide that the other cannot be trusted..so they kill him. They did harm, but they think it was for the best, so is that ok? This is what morality by concensus easily leads to, when it is just mere opinion and agreement.

I think you're arguing whether or not this is a good system whereas I'm just stating that it's how it works. However, if we follow through on your example, those two men would probably face severe punishment (and/or death) for those actions because they went against the consensus of what the larger population thinks is moral behavior. Evolution by both natural and artificial selection.

While it's a subtle distinction, I believe it's an important one: There's a difference between making a decision based on your emotions and making a decision based on how it will effect other people. Yes, I believe that not causing harm or distress to other people is an objective base. I realize that's controversial.

Without an absolute standard of good which people have to obey, it could only be subjective opinion.

Agree. Unfortunately that's all we've got. Even your God doesn't stop or prevent people from doing horrible things. He leaves us to fend for ourselves and do the best we can.

God told us that everyone is equal. The bible is the original source for the conception of equality for all people, men and women, free or not. Knowing that, I would never deign to be someones "master", since I myself am only a servent and no better than they are.

God told us that it's ok to beat a slave as long as we don't kill him. Only Israelites are above slavery.

In Exodus we're told that if a bull goes on a killing spree, the bull and the bull's owner are to be put to death. However, if the bull kills slaves, then the bull's owner owes the slaves' owners some cash.

The NT is a little softer (not surprisingly) on slaves, but still states that it's ok to own people so long as you treat them reasonably well.

Generally, were you ok with slavery and other immoral acts before your conversion? Did you really need to be told that these things were wrong? Or did you already know? I bet you already knew and I bet you were no less moral a person then than you are now.

I say that's a wonderful validation for agnosticism. I just explained this to you the other day. We cannot know anything for sure because we only have our flawed senses and limited mental capacity to rely on. That's agnosticism.

As a former agnostic, I am familar with what it is. Are you agnostic?

Big bang theory doesn't say the universe sprang forth from nothing, it says the universe rapidly expanded from the singularity. All the matter of today's universe existed, in some form, in the singularity. Any proposals about the state of the universe prior to the Planck epoch are pure speculation. The rest of your argument is all based on this false presupposition so I won't bother refuting it.

Mainstream big bang theory says time and space had a beginning. If you don't want to discuss this, it's up to you.

Humans were social creatures long before they invented/discovered Yahweh. We lived in tribes. Hunters cooperated to bring home meat for everyone while gatherers collected fruits/vegetables to also share. Children were raised by the tribe as a whole. The tribe had safety in numbers. Members who were found to be stealing or cheating would find others were no longer willing to cooperate with them, possibly they would face exile. Tell me, would you be more likely to survive, especially in the wild, if you worked in harmony with the others or if you had to do everything for yourself? Similar traits are common in many mammals and birds. Warm-blooded creatures are generally too high-maintenance to be entirely self-sufficient. We can't crank out hundreds of offspring every mating season and walk away. We need to cooperate to survive. None of those non-human mammals have heard God's Word, either, and they seem to be doing pretty well.

As far as the animals go, it is written in the bible that God takes care of them. Yes, cooperation is necessary to survive but this doesn't account for all moral behaviors. The behaviors you describe all help perpetuate your existence because you are doing them to gain an advantage socially. What about behaviors that have no advantage, which are actually determintal to your survival? Self-sacrifice, for instance..Someone who runs into a burning building to save a baby risking death to do it. If all morality is just selfishness, how do you explain this behavior. It's foolish from that standpoint, because it makes you less likely to survive. Why do people risk their lives for others?

Coveting might lead to theft, murder, etc, or it might lead to nothing. Someone on my block drives a nice Audi A6. I see it now and then and think, "Man, I wish I had an A6" and then I go on with my day. I do not envy them, steal from them, assault them, or murder them. The line is drawn at which point I cause another person harm. Wishing I had an A6 doesn't hurt anyone.

Just because it doesn't lead to it every time, doesn't mean it won't eventually. It's suprising what people will compromise under certain circumstances. Personally, I've never seen anything good that came from it in my life. I think there plainly a wisdom to never coveting what you don't have, or refuse to earn for yourself. I know plenty of people who sit around jealous of other peoples things and accomplishments. They feel their lives are unfair because that everyone else has more than they do. Yet, if they just ignored that and did for themselves, to their own satisfaction, they would be much happier people.

I do not lack an objective standard for morality. Harmfulness is pretty damn objective. It's not my feelings, it's theirs. It's not ok to rape people because people don't like being raped, ergo rape is not morally justified in my world view. Is it justified in some peoples' world view? Yes, unfortunately it is, but they are a very small minority of the total population (though I'd be very happy for them to be even smaller).

It is so objective? What if you have three men, and two decide that the other cannot be trusted..so they kill him. They did harm, but they think it was for the best, so is that ok? This is what morality by concensus easily leads to, when it is just mere opinion and agreement. Do you know how much evil has been done in the world because of thinking like that? Feelings are not objective..they are really the most subjective thing you could think of. Without an absolute standard of good which people have to obey, it could only be subjective opinion. In which case people will just make it up as they go along. As a limited human with a subjective experience, how could your morality ever be objective?

@MarineGunrock There is a world of difference between a burning building and a person running from a cop. A fire doesn't come back with a vengeance. It's not innocent until proven guilty. It doesn't panic and shoot you on a whim because everyone has guns in your crazy country. It's not a person.

If your house was on fire, I'd help out in a second, but if you were chasing someone and even if you were wearing a cop uniform, I'd definitely think twice, meaning I'd probably not get involved.

Ah, from Neatorama:

A 23-year-old Alaskan was in his workshop when a heater unexpectedly ignited some chemicals, and the building suddenly burst into flames. For help, he turned to his dog Buddy:

“I just told him, ‘We need to get help,’ and then that’s the last time I seen him,” Heinrichs told the News-Tribune. “I didn’t train him or nothing. He just took off and went and did what he did. … He was just being a good dog.”

It’s a good thing Buddy sprung into action because trooper Terrence Shanigan, who was responding to the call about a fire, was having trouble with his vehicle’s global positioning system, which wasn’t working properly, reports the News-Tribune. “Shanigan, who almost took the long way around the neighborhood, came across Buddy on Caswell Loop Road,” reports the News-Tribune. “The dog took off, and acting on a hunch, Shanigan followed the dog down a side road.”

The budding young chemist received minor flash burns. Buddy will be receiving a silver-plated dog bowl.