dag yo, thanks for making the only site that I visit once a day... other than netflix and, well, maybe xhamster or pornhub or -- what is that, xvideos? It's some porn site.

You have most graciously helped mankind in its quest to see all of the things. Except snuff and cp -- and I know that, however it must pain you, you made the right decision on that one.

All hail dag, the snuff and cp king! Wait no, anti snuff and anti cp. Wait... why am I typing this and not deleting the text? What's going on -- I'm thinking and it's typing oh my god I've been sifted

BEWARE THE SIFT!! BEWARE!!!

IT HAS BECOME SELF AWARE AND IS UPLOADING OUR SOULS!!!!!!!!

ARE YOU SO PROUD NOW HUH?! HUH! NOW THAT YOUR PRECIOUS CREATION IS TREATING PEOPLE LIKE THE NAZIS TREATED THE JETS... I MEAN NAZIS TREATED THE JETS. JETS CELEBRATE CHAWNICKA. OH MY GOD MY UPLOADED BRAIN HAS BEEN UPLOADED WITH GOOGLE'S WORTHLESS ANDROID AUTOCORRECT. I TYPED JETS WRONG ONE TIME AND NOW I'LL FOREVER REMEMBER THAT THE JETS ARE A FOOTBALL TEAM OR AN AIRCRAFT. WHO KNOWS, MAYBE AFTER 1,000 YEARS OF LIVING AS AN ONLINE ENTITY MAYBE I'LL BELIEVE JESUS WAS IN THE JEWS...

THA KS A LOB ASSWHOLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

The work involved a good number of people, all contributing to moving the figure, it is a challenge, working from dawn to dusk, it is breathing life into something inanimate. I had hoped the fact that it reveals the work involved in it's creation might make it more interesting for a watching audience, who would see it's creation, rather than concealing it through sets etc.

I think it will make a lot more sense if you get up and dance to it
Comparing dance music (mostly electronica) to other types of music is an apples and oranges type thing in my mind. Have you ever tried to get your dance on while listening to Pink Floyd or Bach. It's really tough to do I dig seeing actual instruments being used in the creation of dance music. Also more types of music is never a bad thing. It's not like it takes up a slot someone else can't use.

man, that thumbnail looks like one of the pillars of creation (famous hubble telescope image) - http://www.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/2/j/2/f/5/image.related.StuffPortrait.238x286.12jmnm.png/1420610142560.jpg

I don't have any personal stakes in anything on videosift.

I'm just wonder what makes you think the way you do.

I've provided ample evidence.

You refuse to acknowledge it because your mind is set in stone.

Watch that CGP Grey video about mind viruses.

Or research the study that shows even tho during Obama's tenure, millions of jobs have been created..

People who dislike or disagree with Obama - even when shown the proof of job creation - refuse to acknowledge the millions of new positions that have re-open or been created. i.e. lantern, bobknight

You're bias.

Your mind is made up.

You think that I'm wrong.

No matter how much evidence I plop in front of you.

It's okay. You're only human.

Night. Argue with you later!

We'll start with the "youtube comments are toxic".

We're in agreement. Even youtube agrees.

While it's unfortunate that the comment cream doesn't rise on youtube..

This still doesn't eliminate that fact that tons of valid criticism is being censored by Sark & plenty of other unscrupulous agenda-pushers.

It's a perfect opportunity to squash any dissent, under the guise of -

"there is no real debate here. only insults & threats. I had to disable comments to spare my audience the vitriol"

However, imagine if the youtuber was an outspoken Scientologist or Creationist..

Snowball's chance in hell you aren't viewing that as a deceitful tactic to avoid scrutiny.

"Everyone knows creationism is easily debunked/scientology is a cult. Clearly they've disabled comments because they want to squash dissent/valid arguments"

Rarely, if ever, would you think -

"Disabled comments? I get it. They probably just got too many death threats. Scientologists have feelings too yuh know"

Nonetheless, when the EXACT SAME scenario is put in front of you..

..with regard to topics that tug at your liberal, tree-huggy sympathies..

You lose all skepticism. Why is that?

Literally all it takes is a 30 second google search to discover the inconsistencies in Sarkeesian's statements & actions.

From the first article -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the words of Tumblr user robbiebaldwin:

“She says she wants to ‘create a dialogue’ or ‘force video games into open debate,’ except she turns off both comments and even ratings on her videos. Wanting to hear your own voice in an echo chamber is the total opposite of ‘open debate.’”

Leading the charge against Sarkeesian’s decision is Tumblr user amazingatheist, who posted a ten-minute video entitled "Who’s The Damsel Now?"

Arguing that Sarkeesian’s “censorship” of YouTube comments counteracts her message about strong women
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Are you seeing the larger picture now @newtboy @Babymech etc.?

This self-described - "critic of sexism in pop culture" - is espousing a set of ideas & strong statements..

Then completely cowering, juking, and being absolutely non-responsive when called on her shit.

She disabled the RATINGS for FSM's sake!
The neutral, objective, non-threatening, non-absuive RATINGS!

That's the way you stand strong for your cause, right!
By disallowing even your supporters from showing their approval!

And before you even mention that cancel lecture of hers.

WHAM!

BAM!

Straight from Utah State -

"Throughout the day, Tuesday, Oct. 14, USU police and administrators worked with state and federal law enforcement agencies to assess the threat to our USU community and Ms. Sarkeesian. Together, we determined that there was no credible threat to students, staff or the speaker, and that this letter was intended to frighten the university into cancelling the event."

They were all "Please don't cancel. We love con-artists! We're Mormons, remember!"

*TooLong,Don'tGiveaFuck*

Anita Sarkeesian is a self-proclaimed pop-culture critic..

Who claims that she wants to 'create a dialogue' & 'force video games into open debate'..

She then proceeds to disallow any & all discourse or scrutiny of her work - positive or negative - going so far as to disable like & dislike ratings on her videos.

Oh and I forgot to add..

She conveniently forgot to disable the vitriol 'whining' on her Kickstarter page until AFTER those comments boosted her campaign to over $150,000 in donations.

[i'll search for the video while you whine about citing sources]

BUT AGAIN! THIS ISN"T JUST ABOUT HER!
It's the overall debacle & all the stupid articles surrounding it.

Tho first I have to slog thru this shitstorm because you're easily distracted by syntax & word choice.

Shit, this is pointless.

Oh well. Done for now.

Yes. So?

I know this is quite literally a foreign concept to you, but in other parts of the world, governments can and do help immensely.

In the past few years, my government has helped fix my house after an earthquake and practically rebuilt my thumb after an accident. Was it perfect? No, it's a human creation and therefore flawed. Was it better than relying on the private sector? By an order of magnitude.

I don't the current government of NZ. I didn't vote for them and I strongly disagree with many of their policies.

But I can divorce my opinion of the ruling party from my opinion of the institution as a concept.

Maybe try not acting like a spoilt teenager?

Everybody loses their shit over Sarkeesian et al because they are contentious. I think there is this perception that the attention that is generated as a result of all the frothing was somehow a cynical ploy to acquire fame, not for a cause, but for oneself. It's easy to feel how "SJWs" stole the limelight, that attention was diverted from rape to petty (in comparison at least) squabbles. I think it's a mistake to lay the blame on the originators of an opinion for the fact that it went viral. Fame is all our creation, not theirs.

You don't get to make up your own definitions.

A lack of proof ,is exactly that.

If I don't have to provide evidence, I can claim anything. Hence,creationism...God did it.

There is no evidence the universe has an edge or boundary,,in fact,that concept violates everything we know about the universe..
If anyone could actually demonstrate that there is an "outside"to the universe,they would be the most famous person on earth,,and,that would completely destroy every known model of the universe.

I'd love to get in on this conversation because this subject really interests me. This video touched on a lot of interesting theories.

@robdot - I don't understand people who think they "know" the answers to the universe. There are unanswered questions in every model. Do you know the answer to what dark matter and energy is? Nobody has yet detected it. Yet, our "universe" is supposedly filled with the stuff.

Let's also define what a universe is. My definition is; it's a place governed by the same set of physical laws.

So we have "our" universe, that we hypothesize about through our observations and measurements. We have theories that say "other" universes exist in some form or another. If their physical laws are different then ours, there would probably be no way to observe them, and therefore no way to prove their existence. Lack of proof is not proof that it doesn't exist.

I could write a book on what i "think" about what our universe is. For simplicity, let me just say that I moved from telecom engineering to software architect. In software, we create programs to run simulations. We create vast game worlds with whatever "physical" attributes we want to program into them. Lets assume we created artificial intelligence. In what context would "it" live? Most everyone assumes it would just be one conscience interacting with us in the form of a robot (Que cheesy Hollywood films).

Let's give it the power of quantum computing. It then decides to understand us (it's creator), it needs to program a simulation that mimics all it knows about our physical world. It wouldn't make one simulation, run it and be done. It would make many simulations, probably simultaneously, tweaking each new one based on the results of the previous ones.

Just imagine where this could lead. This intelligence could figure out how to create a multitude of different, very elegant universes. Its time scale would be different then our time. It's simulation could take seconds on its viewing scale, but appear to be billions of years when observing from within it. We have the power to pause, rewind, replay, tweak our simple creations. Imagine what this super intelligence could do with theirs?

Just like most things, belief can swing back and forth like a pendulum. But that pendulum will never swing one way (toward atheism) and stop.

Because a belief in a higher power is hard-coded into our DNA. Religion is man's attempt to interpret this. Some interpretations are more accurate than others, but 'whatever floats your boat'. There is great diversity in the creation, and great diversity in Man's interpretation of belief systems.

Atheism is also a belief. It requires a great deal of faith. Atheists are the few dissonant chords allowed in the symphony. But if you are drawn to that dissonance, you are out of tune.

The fish doesn't have to believe in the ocean. It's always there and sustains the fish. But the fish can't live outside of it.

Hey Enoch,

The premise of the video is wrong. Christians, if you include Catholics, make up around 1/3 of the worlds population. By 2050 it is predicted there will be over 3 billion Christians in the world. Christianity in many places in the world, especially Asia and Africa, is exploding. Even in the west, it is isn't exactly stagnating. 42 percent of the population of the United States believes in young earth creationism, for example:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

It is simply not true to say people no longer believe; believers are increasing, not decreasing, in the world.

It seems your position here is that the devil is infinitely more powerful than god, and far better at dealing with people, because he has managed to muddy the waters so much that his message(s) is infinitely more accepted than the 'true' but nearly unheard message of god, and god knows this and accepts it? That seems like a crazy sadistic god, that knows most people will be tricked by Satan (one of god's creations) into eternal hell (another one of his creations) through no fault of their own beyond the imperfect reasoning skills they were given by god, and he allows, even encourages it without ever setting the record straight? That sounds incredibly evil.

Many men of all religions have been raised from the dead...it happens in hospitals every single day.

We've been over the 'paid for our sins' fallacy, if he 'took our punishment of eternity in hell', who was that being 'raised from the dead', not Jesus. If he didn't spend eternity in hell, he didn't take the punishment prescribed for sinning, so certainly didn't even take the punishment for a single sinner.

What? Your soul is your enemy trying to destroy you?! What the hell? When did that happen...did you just become a Scientologist?

Your video, Character Creation Gone Wrong!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I think the author of this video, and presumably the Christians who have spoken to him, have a fundamental misunderstanding about what the bible says about atheists or those who don't believe. I don't know why messenger seems to think this was my argument for theism; I don't recall saying anything like this to anyone on this site, although I could be wrong.

What I believe is that yes, atheists are not able to see or comprehend the things of God because they are spiritually discerned:

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

But that isn't the end of the story:

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
Romans 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Romans 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

So, the colorblind person is given glimpses of Gods power and deity, through the creation, and other kinds of revelation such as in their conscience, to know that there is a God who created them and that they are accountable to Him. If it were simply that nonbelievers couldn't see God, they would have an excuse. Yet, that isn't what the bible says. In the end it's not that nonbelievers can't see God, it's that at some point in their lives they have seen God and rejected Him.

Most atheists I've spoken to have had supernatural experiences for which they cannot write off with materialistic explanations. Some will even change from atheism to theism in the course of a conversation because they suddenly realize that they had suppressed the truth of their own experience. God can and does give ample evidence of His existence and everyone at some point in their life will see it clearly and have a clear choice to make. It's when you choose to suppress the truth that you become self-deceived. It's not up to me to prove to someone God exists; it is up to me simply to be a faithful witness and pray they would respond to the revelation they already have.