I think the point of this story is that this is a fairly commonplace occurrance, part of daily life in the world of a black male in America, especially the South. In other words, maybe it isn't all that surprising that Z hasn't spent a day in prison nor even at a police station, and THAT's the problem.>> ^cyberwire:

How can you even bring up self defense if you put yourself in the situation by following the kid after the cops tell you not to... I just don get it... I cannot believe he hasn't stepped foot inside a cell by now like any other person in that situation would have if it were in any other town.

Never had, never will have, a Facebook page. Just don't see the point in joining something I know will just be a useless waste of my daily life. People I care about know my email, my cell number. Everyone else can kiss my ass.

The Sift is bad enough, thank you very much.

PART 2 OF (now) 3

M: [Why do you doubt science?]

SB: I am dubious of the philosophy of empiricism upon which science is founded upon. Empiricism assumes that truth can only be discerned through our senses, and that our minds merely processes and categorizes this truth. I reject this view because there are clearly truths that empiricism cannot evaluate, including the validity of empiricism itself.

You're confusing the philosophy of "empiricism" with "empirical data". The two are semantically related, but the former derives its name from the latter, not the other way around, just as stoic people are not necessarily stoicists, nor all humans humanitarian, nor all who exist existentialist.

Science is based on no philosophy. The scientific method can be derived entirely from logic, which Craig just told us is a rational thing to believe in (I agree). It happens that the scientific method can only be applied to empirical data (which is separate from the philosophy of empiricism), which is defined simply as information gathered from the senses. This has nothing to do with beliefs about what is knowable. Nothing in science suggests any opinion on what else is knowable or not, just what appears to be or not to be a candidate for experiment. Science is incapable of determining whether abortion is morally wrong, and it takes no stance on whether that information is knowable. That's a question for philosophers and such.

Are you still dubious of science, or just empiricism now? If you still are, can you point to any faulty information or conclusions science has arrived at that you are dubious about? Or if I've improperly worded the question to best get at your issues with science, please provide some specifics about science's methods, conclusions, or whatever that give you discomfort.

I would say my experience is generally subjective but is objectively confirmed, both by other people, and my daily life. You can say I have interpreted those experiences subjectively, and I am just fooling myself, of course.

"Objectively confirmed" does not include either confirmation by other people nor by your daily life. Those are both, by definition, subjective. The faithful company you keep too is a self-selected group of people drawn together because of their similar mental states. My best guess is that you are fooling yourself, and have found other people who are fooling themselves too who confirm your delusions.

All I can say is that truth is paramount to me and I am incapable of believing something just because I want it to be true. I would rather have nothing and die a meaningless death than live out a comfortable lie.

I accept that you are receiving your information from your own experience, and not just what makes you feel good to believe.

That took me a lot longer to write than I expected. I'll take a look at your description of God next.>> ^shinyblurry:
<comment reference link>

Having watched the first 30 seconds again and thought about it, with Craig's ...Premise Two cannot be proven, and that's Craig's argument completely sunk, and it could have been the end of the video too.

I think you're looking at the argument from the wrong perspective. Let's examine the premises:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist:

The basic question here is, in the absence of God, is there is any objective difference between good and evil? That, if there is no God, is the difference between good and evil like the difference between coke and pepsi? An example Craig gives is, is the difference like which side of the road that you drive on, which varies from culture to culture?

So, this is where you would make an argument for valid and binding objective moral values outside of Gods existence. You can invalidate the whole argument right here, but you have to provide a logical foundation. I have yet to see anyone refute premise one.

2. Objective moral values do exist

Now, to say this premise is false is to admit that objective moral values do not exist. IE, you will have to admit that torturing babies for fun isn't actually wrong. I have actually debated people who tried to defend it, but I give them credit for being intellectually honest, because that is the logical conclusion; that if objective moral values do not exist, torturing babies for fun isn't absolutely wrong. However, I think we both know that it is, therefore objective moral values do exist.

So, this is a rather tricky argument for an atheist. Qualia soup gets the whole thing wrong here. The basic trouble for you is, if you want to dispute premise one, you have to come up with a foundation for objective moral values outside of God. If you admit there is no such foundation, then we move to premise 2, and there you have to argue that objective moral values do not exist. If you can not argue it, or if you admit objective moral values do exist, then you are forced to accept premise 3, that therefore God exists.

For example, can we just accept that you and I exist, one independent of the other, neither a figment of the other's imagination? Can we accept that our normal external sensory input can be accepted as correct for the purposes of this conversation, (except in the trivial cases of optical illusions and so forth)? You probably know what I'm saying. I hate it when I get into an argument and think I've made a very strong point, only to have my opponent come back with, "Everything's subjective; you can't prove anything is real," or, "Maybe you imagined the whole thing, I mean, you can't prove you didn't," or, "You can prove anything with facts," or, "Well, you have your beliefs and I have mine," or some crap like that where I'm not talking about subjective facts or my own beliefs.

Yes, I can agree with all of this. I believe that the Universe is tangibly real, and is generally how it appears to be, in that it is not a malicious deception or a meaningless illusion. I believe we are both individuals made in the image of God with an independent existence and a soul. I believe we can come to meaningful conclusions about reality, and that there is a truth which is tangible, accessible to reason, and which does not change based on our interpretation or personal preferences.

Also, in theological arguments, I must insist on a couple things. The first is that words must have meaning. If you say something, you can't later say that it's not to be taken literally, or that that word has a different meaning when applied to God. The second is that everything logically entailed by a statement must stand with the original statement, and any other statement. If there's any inconsistencies, then at least one of the statements must be false.

I am very consistent when it comes to meanings. This is one of the hallmarks of literal interpretation, that the words in the bible, while they can sometimes be applied in a metaphorical sense, always have an intended meaning which is absolutely true in all circumstances.

Also, please don't assert supernatural things like the existence of Satan, or your knowledge of how he works, telling me these things like I'm ignorant of them, rather than fully aware of the stories, but sceptical. Say that it's what you believe or have come to believe or whatever, but don't say it like objective fact. Same goes for Bible verses. I don't accept them as fact any more than you'd accept Skeletor quotes as fact. To me that book is best treated as fiction, though it's possible it conveys some details of events that really happened, but pronouncements of the way the world is I absolutely do not accept as the word of God, especially since I don't believe he exists. I don't care if the Bible predicts atheists/sceptics. All that tells me is that people have been doubting the veracity of the word for 2,000 years, and someone took the precaution of adding a word or two against non-believers into the text so believers down the line would have justification "from God" for dismissing my arguments as guided by Satan, or whatever.

I generally won't propose arguments that would take faith to accept. I understand your natural skepticism because I used to be equally skeptical. I will just submit that when you are deceived, you don't know you are deceived:

2 Corinthians 4:4

In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

I admit the possibility that I could be deceived, so I think if we both can admit this, we will have a more fruitful conversation.

know you don't think Qualia's line of reasoning holds, but I don't know what you think of Craig's argument. Is it valid, in your mind? And here, I'm mostly interested in how you think. As I've said, the video was only intended to take apart the argument of one Christian apologist, and not to prove or disprove anything.

I think it is logically airtight. That if you cannot prove there is a foundation for objective moral values outside of God, and you cannot disprove that some actions are objectively wrong, that you must accept the conclusion of the argument.

I'm 99% sure you said in a comment somewhere that you're dubious of science. Could you explain what you mean by that? Science isn't a system of faith or a set of theories. It's a process of testing theories. Are you dubious of the process? What parts of it specifically do you mean?

I am dubious of the philosophy of empiricism upon which science is founded upon. Empiricism assumes that truth can only be discerned through our senses, and that our minds merely processes and categorizes this truth. I reject this view because there are clearly truths that empiricism cannot evaluate, including the validity of empiricism itself. I'll bring in craig again for this one:



I apologize for the title..it's just the best clip I could find.

Is it accurate to say that the sum of your experience of God is subjective, that's to say, is based solely on your own experience in your head, and possibly in things in the objective world that you have interpreted in a subjective way, and is not borne out in any demonstrable way in the measurable material world?

I would say my experience is generally subjective but is objectively confirmed, both by other people, and my daily life. You can say I have interpreted those experiences subjectively, and I am just fooling myself, of course. Personal experience is something hard to prove, as the other person is naturally skeptical of the other persons ability to evaluate what is true. All I can say is that truth is paramount to me and I am incapable of believing something just because I want it to be true. I would rather have nothing and die a meaningless death than live out a comfortable lie.

Please describe God. Where is he? When is he? What is he capable of? What does he feel? Is he immutable? Please add anything you can about why he did things like create the universe and animals and us and disease and suffering and inequality and joy, why he cares for us, why he cares what we do, why he made some things moral and some things evil, and any other informative facts. Is there a God the Father anymore, or just Jesus? Did Jesus have a human form and a godly form, or did he transmute from one to the other? What was Jesus before he was born? Was he born of the virgin Mary?

This is a rather large subject. I'll do my best..

God is perfect. He is holy, loving, and just. He exists outside of time and space in His own realm, which is called Heaven. He is capable of doing anything that can be done. As far as what God feels, that can be hard to quantify. For instance, you can say God feels love, but by definition, God is love. In general, from the bible, it seems God can be pleased, can be jealous, has compassion, is kind, is loving, can be grieved and can be angered. His nature is immutable, in that He is goodness itself. He is light and there is no darkness in Him. That doesn't change. He can however change how He interacts with us.

God created us out of the abundance of His love. It wasn't out of a need, as He already had perfect love within the relationships of the Holy Trinity, but it was an overflowing of that love. He created us to be in relationship to Him, as His children.

There were no diseases, or any inequality before the fall. He created the world perfectly, and He set us in paradise, to learn and grow under His care. However, because robots would be undesirable, He gave us free will to be obedient to Him or not. Unfortunately, we abused that, and broke fellowship with God. Sin and death were brought into the world because of it, and since then this has been a fallen creation. If you have something perfect, and introduce an imperfection, then it is no longer perfect and neither can anything perfect ever come from it. Sin and death ruined that perfection, and they are the cause for all of the disease and inequality today.

Because of this, God brought the law into the world, to give us a minimum standard for moral behavior. The law in itself was not capable of fixing the situation, as everyone fell short of the law, but rather it highlighted our need for a savior. This is the reason Jesus Christ came.

He came to Earth, putting aside His glory and position to live as a man, being the first human being since Adam to be born without sin. He lived a perfect life, though He was tempted in every way that we are, and fulfilled the entire law. Finally, He sacrificed Himself on the cross for the sins of mankind, as a substitutionary atonement for our crimes, and He tasted death for all men. God proved all of this by raising Him from the dead. So, Christ defeated death and sin on the cross, and imputed His righteousness, the righteousness of God, back into mankind. Therefore, anyone who accepts His Lordship will have his sins forgiven and receive eternal life. It is by the imputation of Gods perfect righteousness and substituionary atonement that the effects of the fall have been countered, and we are again reconciled to God and can enjoy perfect relationship to Him as His children.

God is three persons, the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus ascended to Heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father, making intercession on our behalf. Jesus was born of a virgin, and was both God and man; He had two natures, which were united for one purpose in submission to the Father. Jesus, before He was born as a human being, existed as God. "Before abraham was, I am."

John 1:1-3

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Hope that answers your questions.



>> ^messenger:

@shinyblurry

>> ^conan:

>> ^Deano:
>> ^conan:
hate the "gaydar" joke. stuff like this is what gives homophobes credit.

I'm honestly not sure how the joke was homophobic. Obviously Fry didn't seem to think so. What's your take on it?

I just don't think it's a good idea to make jokes about minorities whose members already find themselves constantly bullied in a "normal" (i.e. no David Chapelle or similar "rude" humor enviroment) show such as QI. The more bullies see this humor on regular TV, the more they think it's OK to make such jokes in their own daily life.
Ah well, maybe i'm oversensitive but i think homophobia definitely is a serious and pressing issue.


Didn't he just say something about them inventing "gaydar instead of radar"? Seemed fine to me and I wasn't aware that was a homophobic term. I've used it myself quite often along with friends and I can honestly say no one has ever sought to correct that.
I assumed it was in common usage by the gay community as well but that's only my assumption.

>> ^Deano:

>> ^conan:
hate the "gaydar" joke. stuff like this is what gives homophobes credit.

I'm honestly not sure how the joke was homophobic. Obviously Fry didn't seem to think so. What's your take on it?


I just don't think it's a good idea to make jokes about minorities whose members already find themselves constantly bullied in a "normal" (i.e. no David Chapelle or similar "rude" humor enviroment) show such as QI. The more bullies see this humor on regular TV, the more they think it's OK to make such jokes in their own daily life.

Ah well, maybe i'm oversensitive but i think homophobia definitely is a serious and pressing issue.

>> ^hpqp:

You make a good point in most of your comment, but I must object to the bit below. A person's belief in god(s) is unfortunately hardly ever a purely personal thing. They might teach it to their children (religious indoctrination is never a good thing, no matter how tame), they might base their political/ethical choices/decisions upon it, and they are upholding - by their adherence - a system of belief that is anti-rational, almost always totalitarian, often misogynistic and hateful, not to mention generally immoral, all because it is what they were indoctrinated with to begin with.
If one wants to have imaginary friends based on ancient books, fine. But they should at least be able to first grow up in a world where rational/critical thought is taught and respected, not its contrary. And that's not going to happen as long as religious beliefs aren't continually exposed for the hokum that they are.

_{drat, i ended up ranting again, sorry.}>> ^NetRunner:
[...] I find the whole concept of going around and challenging religious people's belief in God a bit repugnant -- much better to go after just the people who are using lines of scripture as a substitute for thinking for themselves.



Your objections are reasonable only if you make the following assumptions:

1) That teaching your children about your religion is the same as indoctrination (it isn't, though I know Dawkins proclaims that it is)
2) That "indoctrination" will, the majority of the time, result in adults who are incapable of rational/critical thought (cite me some studies that show this and you might persuade me its true; I suppose in a closed society in which a single religion permeated every aspect of daily life including work and education this might actually be plausible)
3) That making political or ethical choices based on a religion is always a bad thing (it might be... or it might not be--depends on the situation; Hitchens's story of the time a Muslim taxi driver went to great lengths to return the wallet Hitchens had left in his taxi precisely because he felt his religion required him to do so is one counter-example).
4) That all religions are anti-rational, misogynistic, totalitarian, and hateful (they aren't; check out Baha'i as just one counter-example)

@NetRunner, in reply to your comment, made the astute point that atheism does not "preclude dogma, bigotry, or hatred." In that same vein I would add it doesn't preclude irrationality either, though there seem to be no end these days of atheists--including yourself--insinuating that somehow atheists are more rational than their religious counterparts (for more on the fallibility of atheists in the areas of reason and logic, I recommend these interesting websites, all by the same author--an atheist for over 40 years):

The Reasoning Atheist
Handbook of Logic and Rational Thought, Book 1
Handbook of Logic and Rational Thought, Book 2

My point is that atheism has gone beyond a mere denial of the existence of a deity or deities and become for many people a type of worldview. And for those people, this worldview is as hostile to criticism and as capable of gross logic fails/critical thinking errors as the most fundamentalist of religions. That's one reason why I wholeheartedly agree with Netrunner that time is better spent arguing with people about what is moral or immoral than to waste time aggressively attacking people who--in many case--will actually agree with you about what is moral/immoral (just not for the same reasons that you have).

>> ^shinyblurry:

The march is on for the normalization of sin in our daily life. This is what the bill says:
(b) "Bullying" means any written, verbal, or physical act, or any electronic communication, by a pupil directed at 1 or more other pupils that is intended or that a reasonable person would know is likely to harm 1 or more pupils either directly or indirectly by doing any of the following:(i) Substantially interfering with educational opportunities, benefits, or programs of 1 or more pupils.(ii) Substantially and adversely affecting the ability of a pupil to participate in or benefit from the school district's or public school's educational programs or activities by placing the pupil in reasonable fear of physical harm.(iii) Having an actual and substantial detrimental effect on a pupil's physical or mental health or causing substantial emotional distress.
Meaning anyone who said to a gay student that they think that being gay is a sin would be indicted under the law as a bully. This is the ultimate goal of the gay movement, not just for the toleration of the lifestyle, or even the integration of the lifestyle, but the stifling of any dissent. They want anyone who says being gay is a sin to be labeled a bigot and to have it be declared hatespeech.
My question is, if gays are born that way, what about pedophiles? Aren't they just victims of their genetics and the behavior is irreversable? If a man can marry another man, why not his horse? Why not his car? Once you open these doors, you can never close them.
God has blessed this country greatly, and gave us much favor among the nations. Yet, from those who are given much, much more will be required. We have failed to do what is required in every respect. Judgement is upon us for breaking His law, it is at our peril to allow these things. If He didn't spare israel for them, He certainly won't spare the United States.


Luckily, this law allows me to state that I have a moral conviction that you're a moron. And I religiously believe morons should be punched at every available opportunity. The FSM told me to. Also...

>> ^shinyblurry:

Meaning anyone who said to a religious student that they think that being religious is retarded would be indicted under the law as a bully. This is the ultimate goal of the religious movement, not just for the toleration of the lifestyle, or even the integration of the lifestyle, but the stifling of any dissent. They want anyone who says being religious is retarded to be labeled a bigot and to have it be declared hatespeech.

FTFY

The march is on for the normalization of sin in our daily life. This is what the bill says:

(b) "Bullying" means any written, verbal, or physical act, or any electronic communication, by a pupil directed at 1 or more other pupils that is intended or that a reasonable person would know is likely to harm 1 or more pupils either directly or indirectly by doing any of the following:(i) Substantially interfering with educational opportunities, benefits, or programs of 1 or more pupils.(ii) Substantially and adversely affecting the ability of a pupil to participate in or benefit from the school district's or public school's educational programs or activities by placing the pupil in reasonable fear of physical harm.(iii) Having an actual and substantial detrimental effect on a pupil's physical or mental health or causing substantial emotional distress.

Meaning anyone who said to a gay student that they think that being gay is a sin would be indicted under the law as a bully. This is the ultimate goal of the gay movement, not just for the toleration of the lifestyle, or even the integration of the lifestyle, but the stifling of any dissent. They want anyone who says being gay is a sin to be labeled a bigot and to have it be declared hatespeech.

My question is, if gays are born that way, what about pedophiles? Aren't they just victims of their genetics and the behavior is irreversable? If a man can marry another man, why not his horse? Why not his car? Once you open these doors, you can never close them.

God has blessed this country greatly, and gave us much favor among the nations. Yet, from those who are given much, much more will be required. We have failed to do what is required in every respect. Judgement is upon us for breaking His law, it is at our peril to allow these things. If He didn't spare israel for them, He certainly won't spare the United States.

You have the right to conduct peaceful assembly. You want to protest, protest all you want. But when you start causing disruptions to others daily life you are, as netrunner said, - conducting civil disobedience.
I'm not saying that police officers don't overstep their bounds. They do it all the time. But there's a big difference between a woman getting wrongfully arrested, stripped naked and being forced to clothe herself in toilet paper and what's going on here. There's an even bigger difference between this and any Arab uprising. As soon as I see an OWS protester shoot video of a government sniper right before the sniper kills him - I'll change my mind. But if you're sitting in the street with out a permit and a police officer tells you to move and you don't move - You get arrested. Shocking!

The girl at 4:30 made me laugh. You're being detained for failure to comply - My guess is the officer told her and she didn't listen. You don't need your rights read to you because you are not under arrest. She'd be taken to the station and be arrested there or put into detention to cool down. At which point they would read her her rights. Most likely she got a ticket with a notice to appear and sent on her way. Sounds pretty harsh to me.

I was just being rhetorical and like to wiki everything in my daily life. >> ^EMPIRE:

Honestly Stingray, I don't think anyone here needed that description, american or not. I'm not american, and I know what the 4th of July celebrates. I'm pretty sure the average Videosifter is rather knowledgeable.

In the stresses of my daily life, I have long dreamed to live like these wonderful people.

Well you can do anything but lay off a my blue suede turban.

>> ^peggedbea:

i was stuck in a house today with fox news. it was horrible. ive decided i dont give fuck whether he is dead or not. it makes 0 difference in my daily life. i also imagine it makes 0 difference in anyone elses daily life. i thought we quit pretending the wars we started were about 9/11 a loooong time ago. him being alive or dead or some state in between matters as much to me as whether or not elvis is alive and living in a hotel room with no windows in vegas, with big foot.

i was stuck in a house today with fox news. it was horrible. ive decided i dont give fuck whether he is dead or not. it makes 0 difference in my daily life. i also imagine it makes 0 difference in anyone elses daily life. i thought we quit pretending the wars we started were about 9/11 a loooong time ago. him being alive or dead or some state in between matters as much to me as whether or not elvis is alive and living in a hotel room with no windows in vegas, with big foot.