Ack, I want to hear more! One of those videos that you look at and go, cool it's an entire 5 minutes of Trekkie AND civil rights goodness -- then it's over in a blink. Should have been 15 minutes. Damn.

We really need to hear more about Tack-eh's "liberal" conversations with Roddenberry... My wife is a TNG fanatic (and Asian), so this might be the selling point I've been looking for to get her to watch the OG with me, which she doesn't consider serious enough scifi.

Also, on the subject of the "South" -- my family is from Florida/SC and I remember my mom freaking out because she worked in a building (circa 1988) with a colored's only bathroom. She had no idea that there were still relics of segregation in public places. I don't know how it survived THAT long, but when you live an hour away from the nearest grocery store, yet the manatee "preserve" (they didn't look very preserved, the majority of them covered from head to tail in propeller scars...) is less than five minutes away, you're bound to find things that escaped the flow of time. Trailers on blocks of cement, just resting on top of the white sand in a hurricane fuckland... How smart my ancestors were.

I could really do without Simon Pegg popping up in it. I know he's a fanatic, just like with Star Trek, and i was his biggest fan during the Spaced years. But seeing his face every time Hollywood decide they want to pull in a few more niche viewers is getting old. I hope he stayed behind the scenes.

A computer big enough to accurately calculate the position and properties of every "particle" (and ever decreasing subdivisions of energy and matter) would need to be the size of the universe in the first place. We can't even simulate enough particles in an n-body simulation to match the number of stars in a galaxy, let alone individual molecules, or shall we go further and say atoms, or further and say protons, neutrons and electrons? And that's for ONE galaxy amongst hundreds of billions in the OBSERVABLE universe... using only ONE force - gravity!

The guy has a great point about the Big Bang - a billion billion galaxies worth of matter and energy created in a split second from nothing? Doesn't sound like like the conservation of energy that is so fundamental to physics, right? But that's no reason to throw out hundreds of years of evidence and research which has proven conservation of energy to be true since then. The big bang makes the most sense given what we see today... if you want to propose a better theory, it has to make more sense than the Big Bang theory. Saying that the big bang doesn't make sense is not an appropriate starting point for a new theory, and doesn't lead to "so therefore we're in a simulation."

And it's not good enough to appeal to simplicity like @robdot is doing - basically saying that everything we see could very easily be an illusion for our benefit. That's an argument for God, in my opinion... just like how religious fanatics say "it was God's will for this to happen" we'd instead say "well, that's what the simulation wanted to show us" and call it a day. Furthermore if the manifestations of physical laws out there in the universe are illusions, they are at least consistent illusions that we can calculate and predict. And in that case, what is the difference to our lives whether we call it "reality" or "simulation" or "computer"? It it still what we always knew it was. If something created our universe and allowed it to run like a simulation, it is almost certainly intangible to us and for all intents and purposes meaningless too, because we can't touch, feel, see or understand it on any level.

This is one of the topics i asked of my favourite professor - how can we trust what we see if it could be faked, and what exists beyond our universe? His answer was, if i have to doubt what i see, i might as well not do anything at all, and if you want an answer to the second question talk to a philosopher. This is a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one. The scientific method doesn't care what you call the place you live in nor "who" we think "created" it. You can't hope to understand anything if you don't base it on the evidence you have. You certainly can't form a theory on the basis that all evidence is untrustworthy.

What a load of horseshit.

I have no intention of arguing that Mohammed was anything other than a terrible human being.

But to say that all Muslims are guilty of mass rape or genocide is so patently absurd it's barely worth rebutting.

Are they guilty of cognitive dissonance? Hell yeah.

I've argued in the past that almost all members of religions are hypocrites; either you believe your religion is divine and therefore, infallible, or you're just making up your own morality and therefore tacitly acknowledging your religion is a flawed man-made thing.

But since the alternative is insane fanatical fundamentalism, I can forgive a little hypocrisy.

The moral gap between hypocrisy and mass rape or genocide is pretty fucking substantial. If you can't or won't understand that, then you're looking at the world in terms of absolutes and little better than a fanatic yourself.

Oh, and ordinarily, I would take this as given, but just in case you really are that simple, I think mass rape and genocide are Bad Things.

Do not rape people. Do not murder people. Especially do not do this to lots of people.

Clear?

"teaches right behavior"....
Do you mean like owning slaves, murdering infidels and heretics, raping women, crusading, inquisitioning, conquesting, etc.... Yeah, great book of morality, and wonderful moral behavior exhibited by it's believers...not.

It's only because people fail to follow the religious ideas wholly that religion is tolerated at all. If people acted like the fanatical Muslims, taking every word as law and acting on it, Christianity would have been outlawed in the US at the inception of the country (indeed, many of the founding fathers seemed to want this, at least in part). The 3 major western religions all require 'holy war' to spread the belief system if read honestly.

What he said is that only psychotics need religion to restrain them from immorality. If you aren't psychotic, religion harms you more than helps you.

Any catholic hospital would qualify as one opened by psychotics, since one of their 10 important rules is "no statues of anything", yet they do nothing but worship statues and icons. They institutionally ignore any 'rule' that's inconvenient, and insist on absolute adherence to any that further their current goals, which may change 180 deg tomorrow. Sure sounds psychotic to me.

Coming at this from the perspective of academic philosophy I think the truth of the matter is ultimately very simple (however the details can be almost infinitely complex and diverse in how we apply them).

Simply put it appears impossible to demonstrate any kind of ultimate ethical authority or perfect ethical principles objectively.

One can certainly assert them, but they would always be subject to the problem of underdetermination (no facts, only interpretations) and as such subjective.

Even strictly humanist systems of ethics like concequentialism and deontology are at their core based on some arbitrary assumption or rule e.g. minimising harm, maximising pleasure, setting a universal principle, putting the concequences before the intention etc. etc.

As such I think the only honest and objective absolute moral principle is "Nothing is true and everything is permitted" (the law of the strong). All else can only truly be supported by preference and necessity. We do not "Know" moral truth, we only appear to interpret and create it.

This being the case it is the opinion of myself and a great many post modern philosophers that ethics is essentially a specialised branch of aesthetics. An important one still, but none the less it is still a study of preference and beauty rather than one of epistemological truth.

By this logic one could certainly argue that the organic "Humanist" approach to ethics and morality as outlined in this video seems infinitely preferable to any sort of static absolute moral authority.

If morality is at its core just a measure of the degree of thought and extrapolation one applies to maximising preferable outcomes then the "humanist" seems like they would have an inherent advantage in their potential capacity to discover and refine ever more preferable principles and outcomes. A static system by its very nature seems less able to maximise it's own moral preferences when presented by ever changing circumstances.


However I'm about to kind of undermine that very point by suggesting that ultimately what we are calling "humanism" here is universal. i.e. that even the most static and dictatorial ethical system (e.g. Wahhabism or Christian fundamentalism) is still ultimately an expression of aesthetic preference and choice.

It is aesthetically preferable to a fundamentalist to assert the absolute moral authority and command of God and while arguably less developed and adaptable (and thus less preferable by most Humanist standards), it is still at it's core the exercise of a preference and as such covered by humanism in general.

i.e. if you want to be a "humanist" then you should probably be wary of placing ultimate blame for atrocities on specific doctrines, as the core of your own position is that morality is a human condition not a divine one. i.e. religion did not make people condone slavery or start wars, human behaviour did.

We can certainly argue for the empirical superiority of "humanism" vs natural authority by looking at history and the different behaviours of various groups & societies. But really what we are arguing there is simply that a more considered and tolerant approach appears to make most people seem happier and results in less unpleasant things happing.

i.e. a preference supported by consensus & unfortunately that doesn't give us any more moral authority than a fanatic or predator beyond our ability to enforce it and persuade others to conform.

"Nothing is true and everything is permitted", "right" and "wrong" can only be derived from subjective principles ergo "right" and "wrong" should probably instead be replaced with "desirable" and "undesirable" as this seems closer to what one is actually expressing with a moral preference.

I completely agree with the sentiment in the video, more freedom of thought seems to mean more capacity to extrapolate and empathise. The wider your understanding and experience of people and the world the more one appears to recognise and appreciate the shared condition of being human.

But I must never forget that this apparent superiority is ultimately based on an interpretation and preference of my own and not some absolute principle. The only absolute principle I can observe in nature seems to be that chaos & conflict tend towards increasing order and complexity, but by this standard it is only really the conflict itself which is moral or "good/right" and not the various beliefs of the combatants specifically.

@shinyblurry

"When we stand before God, everything will be in the open. There will be no secrets; you'll be exposed as the person you really are and not the person you present to other people. "

So, does that mean that even though we're Atheists and god should hate us, that he'll let us in anyway because even though we didn't believe he existed, we still actually lived our lives without forsaking others? you know. Without actually protesting and harassing others for fanatical beliefs, and helping others because we felt that humanity as a whole needed to improve rather than for fear of consequences if we don't?

Sounds like we Atheists have less to fear about judgement day than you do.

Quoting from an obviously man made book, even though it is 2000 years old, proves nothing, except you cannot think for yourself. If you have to quote this book, how about quoting the many evil things it says regarding slavery, woman, homosexuality, murder, rape, children, torture, etc,etc. The bible, as with other "holy" books, is vile and sickening; we are better off rid of it, and its twisted fanatics, before they drag us back to the dark ages.

Um...are you joking? Hope so.
Yes, huge difference, but from your initial reaction, I thought it was likely you would ignore that difference, only seeing red when slightly inconvenienced. I mean, it might be a sprite old lady in the cow suit (EDIT: thinking about it, that would make an awesome case for drinking milk), or a fanatic little girl (see SIA videos).
I would hope you would not force me to feel the need, however if I see someone punch an old lady, rest assured they're going to leave the scene with fewer teeth than she has in her mouth, no matter what that costs me, right or wrong.

If I was racist I would argue that Gardner was also deserving. No, I lost a great hero beside me in Iraq that were of the black skin. Further, his best friend was wounded in more ways than most people can imagine.

And you just stated what I stated--that the more men on Gardner was an inappropriate use of force...which incidentally makes me look like I did not agree with it.

As for the low intelligence comment, you have to understand. One, mobs are always of low intellect. No matter how smart each individual might be. Two, poor neighborhoods are statistically at a disadvantages in education, to say the least. That is more systemic racial policies at work. So yes, they are lower intellect for both of those reasons.

I remember once witnessing an accident. Immediately a woman stated her "eye-witness" account. I looked at her and wondered how the fuck she could have the accident as remotely backasswards as she did. In fact, had it not been for me, the wrong driver would have been cited. Only because I pointed out the physical evidence of where the damage was and that the car spun around did things come out correct. On a side note, she was definitely poor...

I know what Lantern said and he is worse than a Ferguson witness. He is inherently the type of never-changing sludgery that would make a fine Islamic fanatic if he were born in different circumstances. I only point this out because you used witnesses unjustly. Just like the woman in my situation was not a criminal mastermind, nevertheless she was not fit to speak. If there were a 100 women like her around, the same would hold true. And how long do you think everyone had to talk to each other? Definitely enough time to feed off one another.

this is a much better idea then the whole movie theater crap they have going atm. As a mame fanatic, I love it.

It is quite funny because the guy on the video, the so called 'priest' is one of the most twisted and unchristian leaders of the polish roman-catholic church. He is a businessman who begs old ladies like these, to send him their last money. He is a cynical hunter of 'jews' and 'anti-poles', whose sole purpose seems to be getting more money. He should be removed from the church, because he pushing it even beyond what catholic church normaly does, but he has such a fanatical following, that it is possible that he would start his own church. Number of followers possibly in tens of thousands, mostly poor people from the smaller cities and villages, older people, generaly people who feel forgoten and cheated by the system. He has a radio station, a tv station, a school - all catholic, tons of money etc. etc. The tv logo is his tv.

tl;dr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadeusz_Rydzyk#Controversies

when one of your first posts on this site is admitting that you don't give a shit about this community and that you admit that your sole purpose here is to push your Jesus agenda on the site, that tends to not win you too many friends.

Virtually everyone on this site has multiple facets to their personalty, like different things, talk about different subjects, do different things....

....whereas you are completely, utterly, fanatically focused on one...and one subject only. That tends to not win you any friends here.

...when your response to every question is to quote the bible instead of use any rational discourse. That tends to not win you any friends here.

in other words, you dug your own grave. You brought it on yourself. You've made poor decisions

you can spin it into your own persecution fantasy as you have before, but that's between you and your psychiatrist or your invisible sky daddy

But as @ChaosEngine has pointed out, since no punishments or administrative actions have happened. all the whining and persecution fantasies are just that.

It's getting to the point where I can't blame the inmates anymore for taking over the asylum when the warden is asleep at the wheel and refuses to enforce their own rules.

Once again, we see another user blatantly violate the rules....and nothing happens which proves my earlier point.

There have been rumblings for a long while now that the sift is in dire straits and we're seeing the fall of rome here. In this thread alone, we've had yet another user get fed up and abandon the sinking ship.

As for why the video itself isn't getting more attention. There are numerous sifts where the discussion has evolved far beyond the original video and took on a life of it's own. If you were an actual member of this community instead of a Bible Quote Robot, you would know that.

There are lots of things about this site you probably don't know because you've decided to be a One Note Charlie

You seriously need to calm down and read our stuff again if you think we're taking sides. You're so eager to defend your opinion, which is based on very little of actual factual information(no, short clip without ALL the relevant stuff that escalated to the result isn't enough), and especially the seemingly fanatic eagerness to make assumptions about us doesn't do your credibility much good. I doubt you'll ever understand what objectivity means if that is truly what you think. And yeah, filming him ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU KNOW there's multiple cameras already on him is very much so egging him on, no matter how correct one might be in doing it. I do agree that the drunk is an asshole and homophobic.

Saying "it's simple to see who started it" is nothing but jumping into conclusions, and that kind of shit leads to all kinds of messed up shit, no matter how probable it indeed in this case seems.

Hm, so if businesses don't create jobs, I guess the only other option would be employment by the state... That's the theory that John Galt put to the test in fiction, and Joseph Stalin put to the test in practice. (And we all know how well that went!)

Jeez, 4 years under a Clinton regime seems like such a long time! I suppose the only glimmer of hope would be that, given how pro-cronyism she clearly is, I doubt she really believes what she says here. Maybe what she means is that businesses don't create jobs unless they are cronies. Otherwise, they just have to go out of business. Perhaps having a hypocrite in office may be better than having a fanatic, but who can tell?

Of course, there's always the chance that she actually knows nothing of economics and has no common sense either....

People who spend all their lives in "public service" often have no clue of how businesses actually run or what businesses do or need to function. Such people live in a different world where money "magically" comes out of a (Federal-Reserve-controlled) "printing press" at the push of a button whenever the powers-that-be deem it so. They live in a world where the "customers" are forced by law to pay for "services" they don't want, and follow rules that are not applicable to the rulers themselves.


(But then, again, Hilary says she was "dead broke" when she left the White House. I guess we should take her word for it.)

Note: Ancient Rome also had its share of crazy Patricians and rulers. This tends to become more commonplace as empires go off the deep end.