Before any quotes, I'll give my own overarching point: Life without a higher purpose may be ultimately meaningless (I'll get more into what sense I mean), and that makes life more difficult than if there were ultimate meaning, but that has no bearing whatsoever on the truth value of the existence of Yahweh. You cannot derive Yahweh's existence (or any deity or pantheon) from your claim that life is easier that way. [Edit: Turns out I never actually get to that conclusion in my comments below, so you might as well address it here, but after you've read the rest.]

The point was never that a meaningless Universe makes life more difficult; you simply decided that was the point. The point the video makes, and which I have also been making, is that you are suffering from cognitive dissonance by having no ultimate justification for your value system, but living as if you do. You admit that under atheism the Universe is meaningless, and so we've been debating on whether you can find any justification for a value system in a meaningless Universe. The explanation you have ultimately given me is that you believe there is a right and wrong, and people do have value, because you feel it. Do you realize this proves what I have been saying all along?

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

Cognitive dissonance is the term used in modern psychology to describe the state of holding two or more conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously.

Your atheism tells you that life without God is meaningless. Your feelings tell you that life is meaningful. These are two conflicting cognitions. Instead of realizing that and re-evaluating your atheism, you say that you don't know why and you don't care. That is the very definition of cognitive dissonance.

But the fact is that somehow, in the context of my own little 80-year microblip in the lifespan of our planet, I do care. I just do. I have nothing more than a pet theory about why I care. I care, and I care a lot. I suppose I'm somewhat curious as to why I care, but it's not of primary importance for me to know. I just do, and it's pleasing to notice that just about everyone else around me does too. The only question for me is how to follow this desire of mine to be good given my circumstances.

The facts are simple: the existence of God explains everything that you feel about wanting to do good, and the love that you have for people and life, and your atheism denies it. Yet you embrace what is contrary to your own experience.

And why should I reject being a slave to chemicals? The chemicals MAKE ME FEEL GOOD, remember? Should I purposefully do things that make me feel bad? Why on Earth would I even consider it? Ridiculous.

So if it makes you feel good its okay to be a slave? You don't mind being enslaved to a mindless irrational process because you get rewarded for it like a rat activating a feeder?

I reject the description that I live my life "as a Christian does", as if Christians invented or have some original claim being good. All humans, regardless of faith or lack thereof, believe in the value of humans (or, any societies that don't value humans go extinct very quickly). We all generally shun murder and violence, foster mutual care, enjoy one another's company, feel protective, have a soft spot for babies and so forth, and have been doing all of this as a species since before Christianity began.

So I would turn it around and say instead that it's Christians who go about their lives living like normal humans, but thinking they're being good because their religion tells them to.

Most people in this world (around 85 - 90 percent) are theists. If we are going to talk about universal belief in this world then it is theism which is normal. That is historically where our morality comes from. Everyone who believes in God has an ultimate justification for right and wrong, but atheists do not. So I will modify this and say that you're living like a theist does but denying it with your atheism.

I can claim that I have a stronger sense of what's right and wrong than the psychopath simply because they are defined as lacking that sense (or, perhaps non-psychopaths are defined as people having that sense). And you're right that I do not claim that my way of determining which actions are appropriate is inherently superior to the psychopath's. As it happens, my way of determining morality puts me among the overwhelming majority, and so it's relatively easy for me to mitigate the negative impacts of people like that by identifying and avoiding them. I don't say that my way should be preferred to the pshychopath's; I just notice that it is, and I'm grateful for that, and for the fact that psychopathy is not a choice.

Actually, psychopaths do know right from wrong, but they don't care.

In any case, what you're saying here contradicts your later claim that my hypothetical about a society approving of child rape is ridiculous, and proves my point. You admit here that you couldn't say that your way of morality is superior to psychopathy, it just so happens that there are more of you than there are of them. You name that as the reason why your way should be preferred. Therefore what you're talking about is a herd morality.

Now think about if the situation were reversed and psychopaths were in the majority. Your version of morality would no longer be preferred, and psychopaths would no longer need to conform to your standards; you would need to conform to theirs. Whatever was normalized in a psychopathic society would be what was called good and whatever the psychopathic society rejected would be called evil. This is proof that everything I said was true. The entire point of my example was to show that if we simply have a herd morality where the majority tells us what is good and evil, then if the majority ever said child rape is good it would be. This is simply a fact. Whether you think it could happen or not is relevent to the point.

You're drowning in a sea of relativism, where a justifies b and b justifies c and c justifies d, and this goes into an infinite regress.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Can you give an example of a justification to infinite regression that would cause some kind of problem unique to non-thesitic morality?

I'll get to this later.

I don't accept that it's any more natural to worship Yahweh than some other deity or pantheon or idol, and I can't imagine how you could justify such a position without referring to dogma. Ask a Muslim. He'll tell you with the same conviction that Allah is the natural way and show you his own dogma. 100 years ago, a Japanese would have told you it was natural to worship the Emperor, and today he'd say it's natural to worship ancestors. My point is that any worship will satisfy our natural urge to worship, which is why almost all people worship something, and the object of worship you're brought up around is the one you're most likely to be comfortable with worshipping, naturally.

The reason I said this was in reply to your assertion that we developed religion because it answered questions and made us feel comfortable. My point was that we all come pre-programmed with a need for worship, which you apparently agree with. That is what is natural to us. It has nothing to do with whether it is more or less natural to worship Jesus. It is actually more natural for us to rebel against God because of our corrupt nature. It's only through personal revelation that we direct our worship in the right direction.

People don't naturally conclude life is meaningless; they know from their experience that it is very meaningful. They are taught it is meaningless through philosophy and the ennui that comes from modern life. You will never find a population of natural atheists anywhere on the planet.

The problem —and one that I fell into myself— is the conflation of two senses of the word "meaningless". For example, I can say without conflict that the planet and humanity is doomed and so forth, so our actions are ultimately meaningless, AND that interacting with people gives meaning to my life. Now, in the first sense, I mean there's no teleological purpose to my life. In the second sense, I mean certain people and things in my life give fulfillment/bliss.

The sense we agreed upon and have been discussing is that that life without God is meaningless. In this sense, it is still equally meaningless whether human civilization implodes or doesn't implode. Therefore the meaning you derive from your feelings is only an illusion created by chemical reactions in your brain.

Your anecdotal evidence about depression doesn't make you an authority on *the single cause* of depression. Some depressives follow your pattern, and others don't. I don't. When I'm depressed, my feeling isn't hopelessness. In fact, these days, I'm feeling rather hopeless, but I'm not depressed.

You can feel hopeless and not be depressed, but the source of the depression is almost always hopelessness. I'll give you some examples. If you put all of the worlds depressed people in a very large room, and gave each of them a check for 10 million dollars, you will have instantly cured around 80 percent of them. The majority of depression comes being stuck in a bad situation that you don't feel like you can change, situations that cause a lot of stress and unhappiness. A lot of money buys a lot of change. Many of the rest are probably depressed because of health issues, and if you could offer them a cure (hope), they would be cured as well. The remainder are probably depressed because of extreme neurosis. There are other causes of depression but you see my point. Hope is the solution to depression.

It's not my hope. I believe that dead is dead. Much simpler than your belief. Much more likely too. You're implying that I'm following some faulty reasoning about the afterlife. Among the things I don't know are an *infinite number of possibilities* of what could happen in the afterlife, one of which is your bible story. My best guess is nothing. Since nobody's ever come back from the dead to talk about it (Did nobody interview Lazarus? What a great opportunity missed!), nobody knows, so there's no reason to speculate about it ever. Your book says whatever it says, and I don't care because to me it's fairy tales. I'd have to be an idiot to live my life differently because of a book I didn't first believe in. Just like you'd be an idiot to live like a non-believer if you believe so much in Yahweh.

On what basis do you say your belief is more likely?

Someone has come back from the dead to talk about it: Jesus Christ. You don't have to believe the bible; you can ask Him yourself. You say there is no reason to speculate (ever); now that is an interesting statement from someone who believes in open inquiry. What you've said is actually the death of inquiry. And let's be clear about this; you have speculated. You are basing your conclusion on no evidence but merely your atheistic presuppositions about reality. You say no one has come back but one man has, but of course you dismiss the account as fantasy (again because of your atheistic presuppositions).

I would also ask how you think the brain understands the complex moral scenarios we find ourselves in and rewards or doesn't reward accordingly? Doesn't that seem fairly implausible to you?

It's quite plausible. I'm no biologist, but I'm sure there's a branch of evolutionary biology that deals with social feelings. My own pet theory is that these feelings are comparable to the ones that control the behaviour of all communal forms of life, like ants and zebras and red-winged blackbirds. It's evolution, either way, IMO.

Of course anything is possible when you summon your magic genie of evolution. "Time itself performs the miracles for you."

What makes someone a bad person?

In the absolute sense, religious faith, only, can bring that kind of judgement as a meaningful label.

In the relative sense where I would colloquially refer to someone as "a bad person" (my prime minister, Stephen Harper is an example), I mean someone who has shown they are sufficiently disruptive to other people's happiness due to acting too much in their own self-interest that they're best removed from influence and then avoided. But I would only use that term as a shorthand among people who knew that I don't moralize absolutely.

So no one is really bad?

Do you think this could have something to do with the fact that the bible says you should do things you don't want to do, or that you should stop doing things you don't want to stop doing?

An interesting question, but no. I don't believe it because everything I see points all religion being a human invention.

Well, I'm fairly sure you've told me before that you hate the idea of God telling you what to do.

Your hypothetical is an appeal to the ridiculous. It simply is a fact that just about everyone —including child rapists, I'm guessing— believes that child rape is wrong for the simple reason that it severely hurts children. If it increases a person's suffering, then it's wrong. I can think of nothing simpler. Your hypothetical is like one where a passage in the bible prescribed child rape. Would it be OK then? Does the bible that say that rape is wrong? Does it say you cannot marry a child?

I've covered this above, but I will also add that if we had evolved differently, then in your worldview, all of this would be moot. We are only in this particular configuration because of circumstance, and not design. It could just as easily be 1000 different other ways. There could easily be scenarios where we evolved to exploit children instead of nuture them.

In both cases, you didn't address my point. 1) I'm stating that Yahweh's laws are far, far more complex than secular morality. You countered that Yahweh's laws were as simple as Jesus' two rules. I showed that was wrong with my AIDS in Africa example (condoms saving lives). You can address that, or you can agree that Yahweh's laws are more complex that Harris' model of secular morality.

I hope I don't need to point out that the bible says nothing about condoms. Gods morality is really as simple as the two greatest commandments because if you follow those you will follow all the rest:

Romans 13:9-10

The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

When you love your neighbor and love God you are basically doing the whole law right there. There are some particulars that can emerge in different situations just like we have laws for different situations, and so Harris would have to accommodate those as well.

2) I also pointed out that Jesus gave us a moral model that requires the individual to determine for themselves based on fixed criteria what's good and what's not. "… as you would have your neighbour do unto you…" implicitly requires the individual to compare their actions with what they themselves would want someone else to do to them. That means relying on their own understanding. This contradicts your other statements that we shouldn't rely on our own understanding. You see? To follow Jesus' second law, you must rely on your own understanding.

Yes, in this case we would rely on our own understanding, as informed by the biblical worldview. What scripture is saying when it says "lean not on your own understanding" is that we make God the Lord of our reasoning. So, when we think about doing unto others, we would think about it in the context of how Jesus taught us to behave.

[you:]What about all of Pagan societies throughout the ages that sacrificed their children to demons?

You're making my point for me. Paganism is religion. Non-believers would never justify a habit of killing their own children.

Yes they would:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,880,00.html

So your answer is yes? You think that without religion, society may decide torturing babies is good because it decided that killing Jews was good?

[me:]If you think I’m being ridiculous, what do you think is more likely: that a society somewhere will suddenly realize that they feel just fine about torturing babies, or that a society somewhere will get the idea that it’s their god’s will that they torture babies? Human instinct is much more consistent than the will of any gods ever recorded.

Yes, I think an entire society could end up agreeing on something that depraved, just like the ancient Greek society approved of paedophilia. You also act as if I am trying to defend all religion, which I'm not. There are plenty of sick and depraved religions out there, and religions can easily corrupt a culture, like islam has done to the Arab culture.

In any case, there are many examples of non-believing societies doing sick and depraved things to their populations. Millions of Christians were murdered by communists in the 1940's and 50's. I highly recommend you read this book:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gracealoneca.com%2Fsitebuildercontent%2Fsitebu
ilderfiles%2Ftortured_for_christ.pdf&ei=PSNiUIyTCsPqiwLYtYGQCw&usg=AFQjCNG-ro4rM7dfvFCkgIvjnmgdhQnSPA&cad=rja

The fact is, in a meaningless Universe you simply can't prove anything without God. You actually have no basis for logic, rationality, morality, uniformity in nature, but you live as if you do. If I ask you how you know your reasoning is valid, you will reply "by using my reasoning".

You're slipping back into solipsism. We agreed not to go there. I'm not going to answer any of those things.

Now you're just trying to duck the issue, and perhaps you don't understand what solipsism is, because this is not solipsism. Solipsism is the belief that only your mind is sure to exist.

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

What I am talking about is right in line with the video. Without God you don't have any ultimate justification not just for any kind of value, but even for your own reasoning. It is a direct implication of a meaningless existence. This is what I mean about a justifies b justifies c justifies d into infinity. You have nowhere to stake a claim which can justify anything which you experience, or even your own rationality. If you feel you do, please demonstrate why you believe your reasoning is actually valid.

>> ^messenger:

stuff

>> ^chingalera:

Yeah people...Focus on the this cad-killer's loquacious verve and not his past douchebaggery! Go easy on the poor cunt, he kicked a nasty coke habit and has a bad ticker....lighten-up on him for Bosnia and Somalia, too

That's indeed the sole reason I posted it.

Yeah people...Focus on the this cad-killer's loquacious verve and not his past douchebaggery! Go easy on the poor cunt, he kicked a nasty coke habit and has a bad ticker....lighten-up on him for Bosnia and Somalia, too

>> ^dag:

Don't understand how solar flares keep revolvers from working. >> ^Payback:
It's probably solar flares. The locket thing is some kind of shielded power cell.



It's 15 years later with no lathes, electric tools or CAD/CAM machines to make spare parts or bullets. Hand made guns would be rampant. People would probably be hoarding the "good stuff" for military actions and guarding the Warlords. Glorified sheriffs like the ones pictured would just have flintlocks because that's all you'd need against bows and arrows.

Just my logic talking. I have no clue what the actual reason is. Probably the Black Smoke Monster.

That printing money thing sounded reasonable to me so I looked up currencies for backup. Being in Ireland where the price of petrol is the equivalent of 8.33 USD per gallon which my driving friends tell me is up about 25% these past 6 months it seemed like a global thing to me. ANYWAY.

I found a cool applet for showing historical exchange rates.
Really neat exchange rate thingy
I found it informative to take base as USD and the foreign exchanges as Euro, GBP & Chinese Yuan

These websites show historical oil prices for all those currencies:

Oil_vs_USD

Oil_vs_EUR

Oil_vs_GBP

Oil_vs_CNY

I looked at 180 days history for the above graphs.


As you can see, all the oil price graphs have a similar shape and have indeed gone up about 25% for all currencies. Also, you can see that none of the currencies have moved very much with respect to the USD. So yeah, either they're all printing money (CHINA DOES NOT NEED TO, for defs, yo) or the oil prices are not cos America's printing money.

I did actually look for counter-examples in surging economies but even AUD and CAD show the same jump. If anything, that the exchange rates wrt these countries have gone down and the commodity price of oil has gone up for all of them at a similar rate is a positive for the states.


So yeah, I don't accept your hypothesis.
>> ^bobknight33:

Sounds right. Presidents don't have control of gas prices as the left blamed Bush back when he was president. But there is a big difference between Obama and other presidents.

Under this administration there have been massive amount of printing money. Remember QE1, QE2 and possible QE3 have done nothing except debase our currency which has caused inflation. Gas prices will not come down to any great extent but will only go up along with everything else.

They were criminally reckless. Her disqualifying lack of knowledge was so extreme, there's no way she could have faked it until after the convention. Unless these other guys were clueless themselves about basic civics/history/world events, which is even sadder, but not hard to believe. They are political hacks, after all.

If you were interviewing a highly experienced engineer, you wouldn't ask him or her something basic like Newton's 3 Laws. But you would talk shop with such a person about issues that depend upon knowledge of the fundamentals. It wouldn't take 5 minutes to uncover an unsophisticated cad. So, I don't believe the book or the movie. They knew they were in trouble the first conversation they had with Palin.

On Edwards, it's not up to me to prove a negative. I don't know one way or the other. The McCain aid certainly can't prove his assertion, which is my point. I never was in the Edwards camp, but the fact that he was a lying philanderer counts for nothing. Wouldn't be the first time we had a president with those two flaws.>> ^shuac:

>> ^longde:
They should have pressed him alot more on why he knowingly put up an unqualified person as a candidate for the VP. He wasn't contrite enough, IMO.
Also, how does he know Edwards was unqualified?

While I agree that he wasn't contrite enough, you can't say he knowingly put up an unqualified candidate. They just did a crappy vetting job of her. And even if they had the time to fully vet her, I think she could've faked her way through it, she being a good politician.
The vetting process probably assumes a great deal about what a candidate knows because when you ascend to becoming somebody's veep pick, it's a safe bet that you know a few things about the world. In other words, they don't ever bother vetting a sophomore high school student because, why would they ever need to unless sophomore high school students is all we had? Yet that is the level of world knowledge Palin seems to have had...so the vetting questions do not start that far back, understand? My point here is that they didn't realize the full extent of her ignorance and instability until well after the convention. I read the book and saw the movie.
But my question for you about Edwards is this: do you believe he was qualified? You think a person with such crucially flawed judgement and character would be okie-dokie as president, is that right? Better than Palin? Probably, but that's not the only hurdle a potential president has to jump, is it?
So tell us why Edwards wasn't unqualified given his public record.

one of the leaders of the Libyan insurgents was a taliban. Nobody disputes this.
Cenk fail.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=taliban%20in%20libya&source=web&cd=11&ved=0CHUQFjAK&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2F8301-250_162-57328103%2F
cain-suggests-taliban-running-libya%2F&ei=y8_OTsCZCqTz0gH3o_AM&usg=AFQjCNFkctF5GXLoJ8lR9H3LlfsY3zv_fg&sig2=0jiIQUBIfqV9VR-Nwy5N3w&cad=rja

Where's the minecraft CAD program?

>> ^MaxWilder:

Lions are the best animals ever! Upvote! Upvote!


You are a cad, sir! You are also WRONG! 99% of all people agree that elephants are the best. People surveyed include: myself, my cat, two hobos.

Everyone stupid please STFU.

Anyway, I have seen several videos about these machines and the guy who makes them. He has an intimate bond with them, treats them more like animals than just machines.

What I find interesting is that he doesn't use any cad software or analytical computations in designing the constituent components. He just plays with the dimensions of motion until he gets a movement he is looking for, and adds it to the design. Considering the same motion translated through hundreds of different mechanism, even a small error gets magnified many times. I am often amazed it comes out working at all.

>> ^cybrbeast:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/westy" title="member since July 25th, 2006" class="profilelink">westy
As opposed to the refinement of aluminum from ore, the recycling of aluminum is quite efficient, so it's not that wasteful. Also it's for an art piece.
Was Michelangelo wasteful of the beautiful marble slab when he sculpted David?


well in this instance i think a huge slab of metal with slighty beveld edges would actualy have been more of a spectical than the end product due to the fact its not something we see often.

in the time david was sculpted it would have been the hight of technoligy/ablity to make the human form like that where as now we can work stuff using computers to an unbelievable level of detail its not really a spectical to see something like that formed. ( i mean there is just as much spectical in a CG model as there is in the real world cutting of it)

The thing is the end result of what he did to this table was not something mind blowingly original and the end table is haedly the most practical of tables having a ditch in it. granted for some person some place they would love the form of this table , but i think there are probably thousends of people that given a chance to have there 3d model /cad drawing turned into a phisical object would have ended up with something as nice if not nicer looking but allso more practical.

I'm betting $1.04 CAD (or $1 USD) those are blanks in them guns.

How you can all be so cruel to shinyblurry is beyond me - it's the best use of the term 'braggart' I've seen in 40 years. I was hoping he'd damn Hitchens for a mincing pimp, the cad and the bounder.

Huzzah!

I think Payback pretty much has it. Except, IMHO, I think some of the columns (vertical) were cropped/created using AFX/Maya type programs.
I work in Maya , Max , CAD , AFX etc... Drach's comments about shadows and 'his eye' were as vague as him saying "I work in CGI". Sorry, but 'bollocks mate'. The only shadow (raytraced) inconsistencies are on 'some' of the columns, and their corresponding shadows. Dystopian, I'll bet money that the water is real, as well as the channels it runs in. However some of the columns do not receive or create shadows as they should. If he did create the water in a 3D program, he should be working for one of the major animation houses as a fluid dynamics animator, but I don't think he did. I could be wrong though, because this was NOT a simple trick.

I love the sift, mostly because of the level of intelligence often displayed in the comments. But "CGI" is a vague term that could be used by anyone who's seen Lord of the Rings. If you know what you're talking about, be more specific please. You don't need to 'dumb it down', this isn't YouTube. >> ^Drachen_Jager:

Yeah, you can see it in the shadow-interaction if you look closely. The whole structure also stands out as a bit 'off' to me, but I work with CGI so I guess I have a trained eye.
The giveaway is the shadows though. Freeze frame it when his shadow is half on the structure. The edge of the shadow is blurred on the waterfall, but it's crisp on the floor.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
CGI water? I think you could pull something like this off with a hidden pump. I'd be disappointed if it were just CGI. >> ^Drachen_Jager:
It's just CGI guys. Pretty simple trick.
Very well done though.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.