^Don't forget about the abortions. We are going to need lots and lots of abortions. We're gonna pack limbo to capacity!

You're addressing my ideas by cutting and pasting from an atheist wikipedia? I've seen so many appeals to outside authority in this thread, it makes me wonder if anyone here has come to any independent conclusions..every time i say anything someone just punches it into google and finds the rebuttal and then their world makes sense again..its just depressing

>> ^shuac:
Well, I'd like to address this idea of atheist/agnostic for sb's benefit. I doubt it'll change his mind but at least it'll be out there for the record.
Questions about atheism and agnosticism are questions about belief and knowledge, respectively.
BELIEF
theism / atheism addresses the issue of belief. For any claim asserting the existence of a god, a theist is an individual who accepts (or positively believes) that the claim is true, while an atheist (literally, "one without theism") is someone who does not.
Note that this doesn't mean that theists must accept any existence claim about any god. One can be a theist with respect to some claims and an atheist with respect to others. In particular, followers of one religion are typically atheists with respect to the gods of all other religions.
To be more precise about the issue of belief, consider the two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god:
1. The god exists.
2. The god does not exist.
There are two positions one can take with respect to either claim:
1. Belief or acceptance of the claim.
2. Disbelief or rejection of the claim.
There is room for a third option regarding the existence of god; one can simply not know, nor believe that god exists or believe that god does not exist. One can merely state that the proof in favor of a god is not there, but one may also assert that the proof against god may not be there, so one can hold an opinion in the limbo state.
For claim number 1 (the god exists), the theist takes the first position (belief), while the atheist takes the second (disbelief).
For claim number 2 (the god does not exist), the theist takes the second position (disbelief), while the atheist can hold either position (belief or disbelief).
Notice, therefore, that atheists need not positively believe that no gods exist. Some do, and this position is often known as strong atheism. By contrast, other atheists hold that neither claim is sufficiently supported by evidence to justify acceptance, a position known as weak atheism. (The weak atheism position is often confused with agnosticism, which is discussed below.)
While logic dictates that exactly one of the two claims above must be true (assuming the concept of "god" is sufficiently well-defined in the first place), there is no such restriction in the case of belief. Just because someone doesn't believe something, that doesn't mean they believe the opposite. This is one reason why the theist's accusation that atheism requires "just as much faith" as theism is unfounded (except possibly in the case of particularly strong forms of strong atheism, discussed below).
An example of disbelief not being the complete opposite of belief is that just because I do not believe Joe Montana was the greatest football quarterback of all time doesn't mean I think he was the worst either. Disbelief is not the opposite. It is not a logical proposition.
KNOWLEDGE
gnosticism / agnosticism (in the general sense being discussed here) addresses the issue of what one knows or claims to know.
For any claim regarding the existence of a god, a gnostic is an individual who claims knowledge that the assertion is true and an agnostic (literally, "one who lacks knowledge") is someone who makes no such claim. Obviously, based on these definitions, the terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. Let me just go ahead and say that again, giving it its own line for emphasis.
The terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive.
One can be...
1. an agnostic atheist, meaning someone who doesn't claim to know whether or not a god exists (agnostic) but doesn't find belief to be justified by evidence or argument (atheist).
2. a gnostic atheist, someone who believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true
3. an agnostic theist, someone who believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know that this belief is true
4. a gnostic theist, someone who believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true
Typically, the gnostic's assertion of knowledge is esoteric and may well be attributed to divine revelation. In some cases, the gnostic will assert that the knowledge of a god's existence is available to anyone, although rarely through empirical, scientific evidence.
Many people assume that atheists believe that gods can be proved not to exist, but this isn't strictly true. In fact, there is no term commonly used to describe such an atheist, since their position would be even more extreme than strong atheism. Such a person might be called an "untheist" or "antitheist", perhaps. According to our definitions, they would simply be called a gnostic atheist who happens to think that his or her belief can be proven.
While many atheists would probably agree that given any sufficiently detailed description of a god, that particular god could be convincingly argued against, that is very different from constructing an airtight proof of universal non-existence.

Well, I'd like to address this idea of atheist/agnostic for sb's benefit. I doubt it'll change his mind but at least it'll be out there for the record.

Questions about atheism and agnosticism are questions about belief and knowledge, respectively.

BELIEF

theism / atheism addresses the issue of belief. For any claim asserting the existence of a god, a theist is an individual who accepts (or positively believes) that the claim is true, while an atheist (literally, "one without theism") is someone who does not.

Note that this doesn't mean that theists must accept any existence claim about any god. One can be a theist with respect to some claims and an atheist with respect to others. In particular, followers of one religion are typically atheists with respect to the gods of all other religions.

To be more precise about the issue of belief, consider the two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god:

1. The god exists.
2. The god does not exist.

There are two positions one can take with respect to either claim:

1. Belief or acceptance of the claim.
2. Disbelief or rejection of the claim.

There is room for a third option regarding the existence of god; one can simply not know, nor believe that god exists or believe that god does not exist. One can merely state that the proof in favor of a god is not there, but one may also assert that the proof against god may not be there, so one can hold an opinion in the limbo state.

For claim number 1 (the god exists), the theist takes the first position (belief), while the atheist takes the second (disbelief).

For claim number 2 (the god does not exist), the theist takes the second position (disbelief), while the atheist can hold either position (belief or disbelief).

Notice, therefore, that atheists need not positively believe that no gods exist. Some do, and this position is often known as strong atheism. By contrast, other atheists hold that neither claim is sufficiently supported by evidence to justify acceptance, a position known as weak atheism. (The weak atheism position is often confused with agnosticism, which is discussed below.)

While logic dictates that exactly one of the two claims above must be true (assuming the concept of "god" is sufficiently well-defined in the first place), there is no such restriction in the case of belief. Just because someone doesn't believe something, that doesn't mean they believe the opposite. This is one reason why the theist's accusation that atheism requires "just as much faith" as theism is unfounded (except possibly in the case of particularly strong forms of strong atheism, discussed below).

An example of disbelief not being the complete opposite of belief is that just because I do not believe Joe Montana was the greatest football quarterback of all time doesn't mean I think he was the worst either. Disbelief is not the opposite. It is not a logical proposition.

KNOWLEDGE

gnosticism / agnosticism (in the general sense being discussed here) addresses the issue of what one knows or claims to know.

For any claim regarding the existence of a god, a gnostic is an individual who claims knowledge that the assertion is true and an agnostic (literally, "one who lacks knowledge") is someone who makes no such claim. Obviously, based on these definitions, the terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. Let me just go ahead and say that again, giving it its own line for emphasis.

The terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive.

One can be...

1. an agnostic atheist, meaning someone who doesn't claim to know whether or not a god exists (agnostic) but doesn't find belief to be justified by evidence or argument (atheist).

2. a gnostic atheist, someone who believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true

3. an agnostic theist, someone who believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know that this belief is true

4. a gnostic theist, someone who believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true

Typically, the gnostic's assertion of knowledge is esoteric and may well be attributed to divine revelation. In some cases, the gnostic will assert that the knowledge of a god's existence is available to anyone, although rarely through empirical, scientific evidence.

Many people assume that atheists believe that gods can be proved not to exist, but this isn't strictly true. In fact, there is no term commonly used to describe such an atheist, since their position would be even more extreme than strong atheism. Such a person might be called an "untheist" or "antitheist", perhaps. According to our definitions, they would simply be called a gnostic atheist who happens to think that his or her belief can be proven.

While many atheists would probably agree that given any sufficiently detailed description of a god, that particular god could be convincingly argued against, that is very different from constructing an airtight proof of universal non-existence.

Well Lil Sis, quite well.

...and thank you very much. I appreciated, still do, finding your tracks around here whilst in I was relegated to Limbo.

How's marital life lady? Congratulations to you, I'm very happy for you.
In reply to this comment by Lann:
Hey, welcome back! How goes it down there?

>> ^KnivesOut:

So did the entire market take a hit because one exchange as compromised?
On another note, is now the time to buy bitcoins?


Yes, but not much.

Mt.Gox is was the primary exchange with >95% of all BTC/USD trades taking place there. So it going down means:

1) All the active balances in USD & BTC are locked in Mt.Gox database until they reactivate.
2) If Mt.Gox decides that they can't cover their accounts they may go bankrupt, which means all the money in point #1 goes into legal limbo.
3) All trading has to move to a different exchange, probably tradehill.
4) Liquidity just disappeared for about 24hrs, which happens at least once a week in most markets, but BTC is accustomed to 24/7

Tradehill is already hopping, right now it's back at 15USD/BTC

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Payback" title="member since July 22nd, 2006" class="profilelink">Payback
You don't think they had a script? No major film starts production without a script. That's a highly experimental form of filmmaking.
The script actually sat in limbo for a long time, John Malkovich liked it, and he wanted it to be made, but he didn't think he should be in it. One producer wanted to change it to "Being Tom Cruise".


Yes, but scripts go through so many phases, including rewrites during production. Besides, you're using a script that was posted onto the internet. How could you even think for a moment that it's anything close to legit? Who knows where it originated from.

@Payback

You don't think they had a script? No major film starts production without a script. That's a highly experimental form of filmmaking.

The script actually sat in limbo for a long time, John Malkovich liked it, and he wanted it to be made, but he didn't think he should be in it. One producer wanted to change it to "Being Tom Cruise".

This video seems to be in some kind of weird limbo, where it can't be discussed or discarded or anything. Can you or @lucky760 kill it?

[edit] Never mind, or thank you. it's dead.

Nine vote limbo...
*beg

>> ^CaveBear:

I thought GM would pull out of it so I hung on to my GM stock. Then they went bankrupt and my stock was worthless. Then they offered new stock and made Wall Street guys richer. My stock is still worthless. It's all a Wall Street game of Greed and Lies.
I will never buy any GM product again.


Exactly. In addition, instead of their assets going to someone else who has been doing well, like ford, GM gets the ride free and clear...and the while leaving out all the financial responsibility they owed their previous stock holders. It isn't like all those people would be out of a job anyway, other firms would want to buy up those assets and put them to work, Saturn was on that track till the deal feel through and the government bailed out GM proper. Now, Saturn sits in liability limbo because of the bail out...more toxic waste.

"As always, you have 8 minutes."

"Dammit woman it's just source code it hasn't been compiled yet. Please god don't send me back into limbo. The program doesn't do anythGNAAAAAHHHH"

Only published or personal queue videos may be flagged dead - ignoring dead request by Duckman33.

this shit makes no sense to me.

published= 10+ votes
pque= under 10 votes

so wtf are newly posted videos?
in Sift Limbo ?

At first it was nice and shiny and new paint smell.Now the drywall is cracking and the taps are leaking.

Mathias: On the moors, we were attacked by a hamstrathrope, a were-hamster. I was murdered, an unnatural death, and now I walk the earth in limbo until the were-hamsters's curse is lifted.
Bjorn: Shut up!
Mathias: The hamster's bloodline must be severed; the last remaining were-hamster must be destroyed. It's you, Bjorn.

They *were* but they're long defunked. The singer who wrote the tune is dead now. He was the father of one of my best friends in high-school and in those few hallucinogenic years of limbo post-hs.

I grew up in a really conservative 'old money' city that had, as an alternative repercussion, one of the best music things happening back in the 70s and early 80s. (The days when the people trying to harm you for living outside of normative boundaries wore either Doc Martins or motorcycle boots; when you knew the politics of your enemies by the colour of their boot-laces.)

The short story is: The folks who made it happen had kids, I went to school with those kids, and I can proudly say that if it wasn't for the parents of my mates I'd be a fooking tax lawyer or somesuch awfulness.

Not to worry! My comments were more, to justify my claiming it as a dupe and not to chastise yourself.

I find if I give a reason as I dupe, then it takes less effort for someone to evoke isdupe and get the post cleared away so you can get posting something else without having to wait. On that same note, you should ask another member to isdupe this for you quickly so it doesn't linger in limbo and gain more comments that are only going to get lost anyway.
Cheers!

In reply to this comment by GDGD:
That was an attempt to post quickly, not skirt the system. During submission, that other post did not pop up =(

>> ^Sagemind:

This post: 9 hours 1 minute 54 seconds ago
The other one: 9 hours 49 minutes 4 seconds ago
dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Cute-Girl-Has-A-Catchy-Dance-No-Ad-At-End
The lettering at the end does not make it a different video.