There's a greater chance that one (or more) of the stars within about 6000 light years or so could give off a gamma ray burst that would wipe out any life in the solar system, no matter where we hid it. It's been postulated the previous-to-the-Yucatan-asteroid large scale die-offs could have happened due to GRB.

Yeah...

This is a prime example of complete stupidity permeating the defenses of internet distribution. This guy will die off before he gets a fraction of the notoriety of Steve Irwin.
You don't pick snakes up by their tails.
You can eat snake just fine provided you don't consume the venom glands.

On the topic of snuff. This is not snuff. Snuff will show the actual death of a person in visceral detail and is made for that purpose only. Showing the precursor to a horrific accident is not by any means a snuff film. While we know that someone dies off camera several minutes later, the video was not posted to show "death" and the glorious nature of death. Rather this video was posted by the friends of the deceased as a warning to people thinking of zorbing in the future.

>> ^spoco2:

It's so hard to not just want dickheads like this just removed from society, just taken out of altogether because they just have no right to live around other people. I've seen a share of fucktards like this on trains/at stations, and I just wish they were fenced off from the rest of the country and allowed to die off.
But that's not really the solution is it? The reason these fuckwits exist is fear and lack of education. This absolutely horrible, abhorrent mindset is born out of living a life that is insular and not exposed to people of other cultures and backgrounds and discovering that really it's ok that people exist that are 'different' to you, and the vast majority of people from any culture are really nice and just want a happy life. And the fear comes from thinking that these 'other' people are going to make you the minority instead of them, and thinking that you're losing your 'power'.
Urgh.

promote this horrible reality of some people in Australia. I'd love to believe that all of us here were as accepting as the majority of us are, but the fact is there's this entire set of horrible, racist shitheads, and there's an entire other set of people who aren't 'bad' people but have this racist undercurrent to them that comes up every now and again, and you are taken aback and go 'Fuck me, I'd never have guessed that you could feel that way about a whole race of people'
It just fucking saddens me. Any time I see something in the media about people being racist here I so want it not to be true.


Don't feel too bad, that exists in every country. It's not a racist thing, it's a human thing =(

It's so hard to not just want dickheads like this just removed from society, just taken out of altogether because they just have no right to live around other people. I've seen a share of fucktards like this on trains/at stations, and I just wish they were fenced off from the rest of the country and allowed to die off.

But that's not really the solution is it? The reason these fuckwits exist is fear and lack of education. This absolutely horrible, abhorrent mindset is born out of living a life that is insular and not exposed to people of other cultures and backgrounds and discovering that really it's ok that people exist that are 'different' to you, and the vast majority of people from any culture are really nice and just want a happy life. And the fear comes from thinking that these 'other' people are going to make you the minority instead of them, and thinking that you're losing your 'power'.

Urgh.


*promote this horrible reality of some people in Australia. I'd love to believe that all of us here were as accepting as the majority of us are, but the fact is there's this entire set of horrible, racist shitheads, and there's an entire other set of people who aren't 'bad' people but have this racist undercurrent to them that comes up every now and again, and you are taken aback and go 'Fuck me, I'd never have guessed that you could feel that way about a whole race of people'

It just fucking saddens me. Any time I see something in the media about people being racist here I so want it not to be true.

>> ^kymbos:

Someone suggested to me that the reason Americans are so fucking desperate to avoid the universal health care that the rest of the advanced world takes for granted, is because they spent 40 years fighting communism and that to accept 'socialised healthcare' is an admission that the Cold War was a waste of fucking time.
Interesting argument.


In other words, we're going to have to wait for everyone who lived through the cold war to die off before we can become progressive enough to have universal health care.

It's stuff like this that make me really despise pride. all these uninsured people, people who have died and who will die. All because we're too stubborn to say, "huh, maybe we're wrong and there is a better way to do this and someone else figured it out first"

All the moments where I grew as a person were usually right after I swallowed my pride and acknowledged that maybe someone else knew more than I on something.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

It's important to be rooted in idealism, but without pragmatism (and all of the qualities that go with it - cooperation, negotiation and compromise) there is no way reconcile your own idealism with the conflicting idealism of other factions.
If you want to create a healthcare system in a political climate dominated by business, you are going to have to make a few caveats to business. It's a foot in the door. Then, a few miles down the road you can renegotiate for something better. Same goes for foreign policy. While the use of new drone technology is troubling, it is an improvement over ground invasions, deploying troops and building bases in places they are unwelcome.
Democracy is a balancing act.

I understand what you're saying, and for the most part I'm forced to agree. But, saying the healthcare reform had a few caveats to business is like saying, "Lizzy Borden had a few issues with her parents."

The things that bother me most about Obama are the way his civil rights promises have been mostly ignored. He made no visible attempt to block the amnesty for telecom companies, indeed he voted for it. No investigation of torture and who ordered it. Increased use of the state secrets defense. In most ways as far as civil rights goes, he took the Bush line and doubled down.

I'm thankful (in some sad way) that it truly doesn't matter if I vote in this election...Kansas won't go for a Democrat for at least another 20 years or more (we'll need at least one more generation to die off, and maybe two or three). They sure aren't going to go for a somewhat-right-of-center black man.

What attracted you into conversation here is that the Sift is a de facto place for atheists to hang out. When you "speak your mind" about religion and atheism, there's two problems. The first is that since we are overwhelmingly non-believers, opinions against atheism and pro-religion are going to irritate a greater number of people, and so get the most attention. Our opinions against religion only offend you and maybe one or two other people ever, that I've seen. It's a numbers thing. Don't take it personally. The second is that, as I've mentioned already in this thread, you do come off supremely arrogant in your beliefs. Just saying, from our perspective. I'll turn it around to your perspective for a second. Consider these two sentences, a) "I consider the Bible to be fairy tales, and I don't understand why Christians people believe it's true." and b) "It's better to question the world rather than blindly accept a book of fairy tales." After which of these two sentences are you more likely to be able to continue reading for several more paragraphs, presumably all written in the same tone, with an open, clear, unangry mind? For most people —even atheists— the tone of the first sentence is preferable and more conducive to communication.

I'm not offended by your conversation, or your videos. In the past, I may have overreacted to insults, but they don't really bother me any longer. I am not sitting here enraged because some atheist suggested that God doesn't exist. I have heard just about every nasty thing anyone could possibly say about God, and then some. People have called me every sort of name that you could call someone. Even you can't resist putting in a dart here and there. That's just the way it is. If I let that bother me then I wouldn't be able to talk to anyone here.

If I've come off as arrogant, then that is unfortunate, because I don't feel superior to anyone here. I apologize to anyone who thinks that is the case. I am usually very direct in what I say, and I don't beat around the bush, and perhaps that has ruffled a few feathers. However, I always try to temper my speech with compassion and understanding. I don't think that is a fair characterization, and I think you are also ignoring the hyper sensitivity people have about their beliefs.

I've been using the sift since 06 or 07; the reason I finally signed up is because of the antitheistic bent the site had taken. Perhaps it was always there and I didn't really notice it. In any case, as a long time visitor here, I felt the site no longer represented me and I felt compelled to speak up for the other side of the argument. So I was not drawn to the sift because of atheism; I had already been using the sift for a long time.

I'll turn it back to the non-theist's perspective now. After listening to a cogent talk from Feynman explaining quite clearly why he would prefer to have no answer rather than possibly have a wrong answer, your first pitch over the plate was, "It's better to know the answer than remain ignorant of it", and then all rest of the stuff that followed that shows you didn't hear what he said at all. Feynman clearly doesn't prefer to "imagine that the answer is something else, because he doesn't like it." Then you used that as a launch pad for an assault on scientists in general through quotemining. I didn't read past the first paragraph. I moved straight down to see the reaction to your tone, and sure enough, it had started in earnest. I'd call that a failure in communication, unless you just wanted to vent, and maybe that day that's all the satisfaction you wanted. OK, but there you are. And you do this often enough, and people will see your avatar at the head of a comment somewhere else, and immediately their minds will shift into attack/defense mode, and your chances of communicating directly to their minds is almost zero – and they haven't even read a word yet.

Yet, someone who usually criticizes me agreed with me and said I had a good point. You say I didn't understand what Richard said, but apparently I understood it well enough to make a coherent point in opposition to what he said. What you're guilty of here is cherry picking. That sentence was part of an overall point and wasn't mean to be taken by itself.

In any case you say I failed, and perhaps I did in some ways, but not in the way you have asserted. You're right and you are wrong about what you've said here, but I get your overall point.

The fact is, since I've been here, this is the way people here have reacted to me. I don't get this reaction everywhere I go. Some of this is my fault, and some of it isn't. Either way I am not complaining. It is what it is. There is always room for improvement.

And to your comment about being invited. This place wasn't primarily designed for people to communicate opinions. It was designed for people to enjoy themselves while they procrastinate, feel a part of something, get some pseudo-community feelings going. There's no rule against giving any opinions here, nor against coming in large part to represent a certain opinion, but doing so runs against the main purpose of the place, organically defined by the intent of the people who come. This isn't an ideas discussion/debates forum with focus on arguing points to a conclusion. You can do that, but that's not the main purpose. What you tend to do here makes it more difficult for others to achieve their main purpose here, which is kicking up and not really thinking for an hour or two. And uh-oh, there's a comment from sb, killing the buzz. We could ignore it, but we just can't help reading what it says even though we already know it's almost certain to infuriate us with a relentless brand of reasoning that we do not understand.

Come on. People are not just here to relax, they are also here to promote their political, philosophical and (anti)religious ideologies. The sift loves red meat. People here love to express their opinions about what they love and what they hate, and they love to argue when anyone disagrees with them.

I get what you're saying. I could be more sensitive to how my comments will be perceived, and try to say things in a different way. I agree with you here. I'll keep it in mind.

In the end, however, the main purpose of this site is whatever the site operator purposes. What the site operator has said is that I am a valuable member of this community.

Fallacious arguments? Every time I point out a mistake, you invent a convenient new rule for understanding the Bible (or more likely you copy-paste what it says on some apologia clearinghouse website). I could literally find a quote that says, "oranges are black" and you'd justify it somehow. I just found a passage that gives two incompatible lineages from Joram to Joatham. And in a book that's supposed to be completely true, you excuse it by telling me the writers are taking artistic licence? WTF????? This isn't a poetry slam! It's the bloody word of God! If you claim everything in it is true, so much so that you've given up sex, condemn gay people, etc., then everything else in it *must* be literally true or you have no foundation for giving up sex or condemning gay people. Those could be metaphorical warnings about the lure of great pleasures in general. Either one of those things about Joram and Joatham written in the Bible is false, or anyone can point to any passage and call it optional, or poetry, or a style of writing, or just a metaphor. You can't have it both ways.

Now this is simply your ignorance talking. When I gave you my answer about the lineage in Matthew, I wasn't just pulling something out of a hat. Apparently you haven't heard of Chiastic structure:

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

It's not false, it is simply a writing style employed by Matthew to emphasize the lineage in a particular way. This is not some kind of desperate analysis to cover up a mistake, but is a well known style used in ancient literature. I'm not making excuses, or putting off something to metaphor; Matthew was definitely using Chiastic structure, and that is why that verse is symmetrical.

First, I'm saying the effects of personal prayer *can* be scientifically measured, so either your contention that God will not be tested is bunk, or self-prayer is really just meditation. You also didn't understand the set-up of the prayer-for-other test. In that scenario, there were real ill people in the hospitals, and they compared the outcomes for patients who had had others sincerely praying for them from a distance versus those who didn't. IOW, the sincere prayer happened. There has never been any measured health benefit for the ill people. They died off and recovered in equal numbers.

No, they can't be scientifically measured. You would never know during your test whether God was simply feeding you a certain kind of result. Think about it. God knows the entire time that you're trying to test for His existence outside of what He ordained (faith in Jesus Christ). His choice is either to give you results that will prove His existence outside of Christ or results that will make it ambiguous. What do you think He is going to do?

You keep saying that my position is one of cognitive dissonance. Look at yourself. You twist your mind into any shape you need for your dogma to hold true, never once truly considering the possibility that it's all in your head. You've said the words that you might be wrong, but you've never shown it's more than lip service. I've never seen you take a critical eye to your position on God and the Bible, despite the numerous opportunities I and others have given to you.

And this is exactly what Feynman's talking about when he says the scientific approach starts from the position that all hypotheses are wrong, then goes about trying to prove it through observation. Anything that's still standing afterwards is good scientific theory.

You're acting is if I have no evidence for my beliefs. If it was just a matter of believing the bible was true because I wanted to believe it, you might have a point. The reason I believe the bible is true because of personal revelation. I experience the presence of God in my daily life. It would be illogical for me to deny the existence of God based on the evidence I have received. I do not "twist my mind into any shape" to believe what I read in the bible. My worldview is internally consistent, and it is also rational. You may find it irrational because of your presuppositions, but that is because you reject the evidence I have receive apriori. To you there must always be some other explanation, and that is the way you interpret everything I say. You've already come to the conclusion that I am deluding myself, and everything I say you filter through that conclusion. Rather than letting the evidence interpret the conclusion, you are interpreting the evidence through the conclusion.

Religion, on the other hand, starts from the assuming the conclusion that God and the Bible are real, and any observational facts that don't line up must themselves be wrong facts, no matter how well documented they are. And when those facts can no longer be denied, then the Bible passages in question are suddenly no longer considered to have literal meaning, and now have only a "metaphorical" meaning, or must be understood from a different perspective.

If every word in the Bible is subject to this convenient wishy-washy fanciful method of interpretation, then it's a lousy foundation for a system of faith. You cannot follow anything that you can change the meaning of by arbitrarily saying, "That part is meant to be understood non-literally." The Bible, as it stands now, is either a 100% true book that we humans are incapable of understanding; OR a book that we are meant to learn from that also has lots of loopholes in it. It cannot be both, not as it stands now. The whole Bible should be re-written such that what's left in it is literal unmistakable unfudgeable truth. I think it would be a very, very short book, or, a much longer book filled with qualifications, something along these lines:

I'm well aware that many Christians have compromised with the world and reinterpreted the bible to reflect worldly wisdom, but I'm not one of them. Though not everything in the bible (like the song of solomon for instance) could, or should be taken literally, I believe it contains the literal history of planet Earth. As I've explained in other threads, I didn't always believe that. I assumed where science said it was right, the bible was wrong. It was only when I questioned that and investigated the evidence that I found it was the other way around. I believe the bible is true not only because of revelation, but because of the evidence, not in spite of it. You have unfairly mischaracterized me, because I am the last person you will talk to who will turn the bible into a metaphor to avoid the facts.

Otherwise, as you seem to fear about secular morality, the Bible itself could be interpreted to mean absolutely anything by anyone at any time, if they thought hard enough about it.

I don't fear that, I know that. You're absolutely right, you could make the bible say anything you want to. People do it all the time. It's only a literal reading that makes any sense. Even atheists know that:

destroy adam and eve and original sin and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God and take away the meaning of His death

-american atheist association

>> ^messenger:

stuff

@shinyblurry

Now you're just using fallacious arguments. Why don't you present your very best argument as to what you think falsifies the Bible and let's see if it holds any water?

Fallacious arguments? Every time I point out a mistake, you invent a convenient new rule for understanding the Bible (or more likely you copy-paste what it says on some apologia clearinghouse website). I could literally find a quote that says, "oranges are black" and you'd justify it somehow. I just found a passage that gives two incompatible lineages from Joram to Joatham. And in a book that's supposed to be completely true, you excuse it by telling me the writers are taking artistic licence? WTF????? This isn't a poetry slam! It's the bloody word of God! If you claim everything in it is true, so much so that you've given up sex, condemn gay people, etc., then everything else in it *must* be literally true or you have no foundation for giving up sex or condemning gay people. Those could be metaphorical warnings about the lure of great pleasures in general. Either one of those things about Joram and Joatham written in the Bible is false, or anyone can point to any passage and call it optional, or poetry, or a style of writing, or just a metaphor. You can't have it both ways.

I didn't pull it out of thin air. Scripture says do not test the Lord thy God. You haven't proven anything. God will not let you test Him with personal prayer any more than He will let you test Him through the prayers of others.

And from the other thread:

Or perhaps He had sovereignly arranged for only insincere prayers or prayers outside of His will to be prayed for at that time which would give the results of the test the appearance of randomness.

First, I'm saying the effects of personal prayer *can* be scientifically measured, so either your contention that God will not be tested is bunk, or self-prayer is really just meditation. You also didn't understand the set-up of the prayer-for-other test. In that scenario, there were real ill people in the hospitals, and they compared the outcomes for patients who had had others sincerely praying for them from a distance versus those who didn't. IOW, the sincere prayer happened. There has never been any measured health benefit for the ill people. They died off and recovered in equal numbers.

You keep saying that my position is one of cognitive dissonance. Look at yourself. You twist your mind into any shape you need for your dogma to hold true, never once truly considering the possibility that it's all in your head. You've said the words that you might be wrong, but you've never shown it's more than lip service. I've never seen you take a critical eye to your position on God and the Bible, despite the numerous opportunities I and others have given to you.

And this is exactly what Feynman's talking about when he says the scientific approach starts from the position that all hypotheses are wrong, then goes about trying to prove it through observation. Anything that's still standing afterwards is good scientific theory. Religion, on the other hand, starts from the assuming the conclusion that God and the Bible are real, and any observational facts that don't line up must themselves be wrong facts, no matter how well documented they are. And when those facts can no longer be denied, then the Bible passages in question are suddenly no longer considered to have literal meaning, and now have only a "metaphorical" meaning, or must be understood from a different perspective.

If every word in the Bible is subject to this convenient wishy-washy fanciful method of interpretation, then it's a lousy foundation for a system of faith. You cannot follow anything that you can change the meaning of by arbitrarily saying, "That part is meant to be understood non-literally." The Bible, as it stands now, is either a 100% true book that we humans are incapable of understanding; OR a book that we are meant to learn from that also has lots of loopholes in it. It cannot be both, not as it stands now. The whole Bible should be re-written such that what's left in it is literal unmistakable unfudgeable truth. I think it would be a very, very short book, or, a much longer book filled with qualifications, something along these lines:

"In the beginning (the beginning of time as we know it in the universe) God created the heavens and the earth (meaning the whole universe, and not necessarily that quickly—there could be a gap of several billion years all of which could still be considered "the beginning"; the "days" that pass are metaphorical, and do not represent normal days as we know them, nor did those things necessarily happen in that order). 2 Now the earth was formless (in the sense that it hadn't been defined yet as separate from the heavens) and empty (in the sense that it didn't have anything living on it, though it did have mass, including water and dirt supporting it), darkness was over the surface of the deep (the deep of the ocean; there was already light somewhere else, but there was still darkness in that location), and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters (this is not to be interpreted as God only being present in one place; this is a metaphor for a protective watcher)."

Otherwise, as you seem to fear about secular morality, the Bible itself could be interpreted to mean absolutely anything by anyone at any time, if they thought hard enough about it.

^ Quboid:
I completely agree. Come on Google! Get with the now.


^ ypsilon:
Opinion noted and there's really no way for me to refute it, as the opinion is held by many and it's pretty safe to say that it is the standard. But my opinion is that the design decisions of the past create false senses of what does and does not feel "right", and that it is not apparent until many years later when a group of people break that standard and do something different in mass, intentionally or unintentionally. In time, as people accept the change and the old guard dies off (or is assimilated), it becomes a standard in its own right.

Consider what was acceptable fashion 100 years ago versus today; what was acceptable in art, architecture, music, and culinary arts in the Western hemisphere. Think of how web design standards and video games have changed. Or our sexual zeitgeist, for that matter.

I dunno, I'd be down for a triangle view or a circular view if there were technology readily available for the masses to create with.

I don't think you should transpose how you feel the sift should be (not just you but in general)...it's not an individual's call. As far as pornography...as somebody that looks at it every day, not joking here, I masturbate to internet porn daily so I'm kind of a connoisseur, this is not porn. Would I show it to my mother? no. Then again, that's me. I would say this does walk some sort of line. Some might claim "slippery slope" others might cry "CENSORSHIP!" and both sides will be right and wrong at the same time.

What is a sure thing, though, keeping this on videosift won't change anything. The controversy will die off by Tuesday and it'll all be forgotten until it'll used as precedence in the next debate about some overtly provocative advertisement. Also I wouldn't view Vimeo as a propagator of pornography, so in some cases I think it's ok to use one of our accepted video hosts as a proxy for posting criterion.

[edit] no disrespect by the first part, I was speaking towards everybody here >> ^spoco2:

>> ^pumkinandstorm:
Sorry, but this is just fucking sad.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that because you had the sarcasm checkbox on... but my issue with this is that it's got zero merit other than being titillation. You said in your description of the video "In my opinion a really cool and original idea for an ad" What? Since when is using sex to sell something cool or original? It's neither. And as said before, this doesn't use the naked women in ANY clever way to sell what it's supposed to. It's a video of attractive women being naked, rubbing each other and kissing and that's it.
The sift should be above this. There's nothing wrong with sex and nudity, but to be here they should really have a point. This has none other than to arouse people. If there had been some clever or funny way that the nudity was worked into bike rental, then sure, that might warrant inclusion, but as it stands it's a not clever, not original, pretty sad example of someone in advertising going "Nope, I got nothing, let's just go with 'sex sells' shall we?"

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^criticalthud:
government really only reflects the mindset of the people.
we're stupid, so we have a stupid government.
but the older generations are REALLY stupid, and they're dying off. so there is reason to be optimistic.

Really? I'm not so sure. I think they were less enlightened, certainly, but what are we doing to prove we're less stupid?>> ^petpeeved:
I may be a simpleton but there really does seem to be a silver bullet to the mess we're in: remove the money incentive from national politics completely, starting with evicting all the lobbyists from Washington, and gutting the amount of money that flows into the political campaign warchests every election.
While I think that's a great idea, I'm very wary of the term "silver bullet". Fact is, that life is complex, and rarely has simple solutions. Economics and politics are an intricate interlocked system. Pulling on one thread alone never works.


there positives and negatives to be sure.
but overall for the species, the introduction of the internet allows a greater flow of information. This both increases overall awareness and allows for new associations to be drawn between bits of information. The overall effect is a palpable positive for intelligence, which despite our misplaced reliance on standardized testing, is heavily dependent on both awareness and the ability to create information associations based on logical connections.

The over 60 crowd is from a different era of both energy availability and access to information.
so i say, be a little patient. our timeline is much more instant - we demand instant change without necessarily being aware of how the tendencies of the species is changing . but in terms of evolution, we are changing rapidly, and the greatest catalyst, global/planet change, is just starting to take hold.

>> ^criticalthud:

government really only reflects the mindset of the people.
we're stupid, so we have a stupid government.
but the older generations are REALLY stupid, and they're dying off. so there is reason to be optimistic.


Really? I'm not so sure. I think they were less enlightened, certainly, but what are we doing to prove we're less stupid?>> ^petpeeved:

I may be a simpleton but there really does seem to be a silver bullet to the mess we're in: remove the money incentive from national politics completely, starting with evicting all the lobbyists from Washington, and gutting the amount of money that flows into the political campaign warchests every election.

While I think that's a great idea, I'm very wary of the term "silver bullet". Fact is, that life is complex, and rarely has simple solutions. Economics and politics are an intricate interlocked system. Pulling on one thread alone never works.

government really only reflects the mindset of the people.
we're stupid, so we have a stupid government.
but the older generations are REALLY stupid, and they're dying off. so there is reason to be optimistic.

Coming from a guy whose profile pic is — in meme years — like a century old >> ^budzos:

If he's 14 you have to wonder how many of the actual "trailer guy" trailers this kid has seen in the wild. The Trailer Voice really died off at the end of the 90s.