I wish Republicans would change the name of their party. They have nothing in common with the party of Abe Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt. Maybe they could resurrect the name "The Know-Nothing Party".

http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/media_content/m-2445.jpg

This new fad dance is pretty hardcore....The whole idea of a plump Asian man showin'-out disco-styley with fit young gals is kinna like watching a teddy-bear-costume-wearin', death-metal band at a $5 dollar cover bar!

Yay, thank you!

In reply to this comment by messenger:
Lemme flex my privileged muscles: *promote. ;>> ^Rawred:

promote
>> ^siftbot:

Invocations (promote) cannot be called by Rawred because Rawred is not privileged - sorry.

Lemme flex my privileged muscles: *promote. >> ^Rawred:

promote
>> ^siftbot:

Invocations (promote) cannot be called by Rawred because Rawred is not privileged - sorry.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'cat, teddy, dresser, paw, swipe, drop' to 'cat, teddy, dresser, paw, swipe, drop, yawn' - edited by messenger

Your video, Teddy The Cat Is An Asshole, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 90 Badge!

Upvote x100
Couldn't have been more perfect if it was scripted
"Ok Teddy we need you to manifest in one scene the spirit of the entire cat species"

>> ^PalmliX:

Hey thanks for your response Enzo!
If I had a Teddy Bear, then wouldn't I be justified in believing it's real because I could sense it with all 5 of my senses? As would anyone else I handed it to?
Or are you suggesting that I couldn't detect this bear with any of my senses, but I still believed it was real? Then I think most people would probably call me mentally ill. Myself included.
I also find the idea of ganging up with other people who share a belief (even if it's completely in contrast to your own) against those without any belief, a little scary.
Is it is far better to have ANY belief, no matter how ridiculous, unfounded, or even dangerous, than no belief? And should we really team up with other believers and "go against" those who make no such claims? Personally I would call this type of behavior mob/herd mentality or gang warfare, tribalism. An us or them mentality. I find this idea in a modern society a little frightening.
Your closing question "The non-believer is the real threat, ask yourself why." It's a difficult question to answer for a "non-believer" such as myself. Non-believer in the sense that so far, no one person's claim about the existence of an invisible Teddy Bear... has convinced me enough to worry and loose sleep at night.
I don't see how someone who doesn't believe in some variation of an unprovable belief is more of a threat than someone who does. Wouldn't it just be one less thing to fight about? i.e. if no one believed in Teddy Bears then there wouldn't be an issue in the first place? Because no one would even be talking about it?
I'm interested to hear your answer!
- Adam

The teddy bear belief I put represents the belief in the supernatural. There are people who simply don't believe in supernatural things at all. No ghosts, no spirit world, no voodoo, mind reading, water divining, astrology, and yes, even gods. This is the one step you need to consider.

When you say "I don't see how someone who doesn't believe in some variation of an unprovable belief is more of a threat than someone who does.", you're admitting that the belief in question doesn't exist. It's unprovable because it's a product of the mind and is limited to the mind, otherwise there would be a way for science to detect it. It can be incredibly real for the believer, but it doesn't exist in the real world, (therefore unprovable), and doesn't effect anyone who doesn't believe it. The non-believer is the only threat because the belief is dependent on more minds that believe, that's the only way the belief can propagate. This is why religion pushes faith and belief above all else.

The benefits of not believing in the supernatural are endless. For me personally, it's that the phrase "Why me?" has lost all meaning. Just consider how much anxiety and guilt you have for things like, "am i on the right path?", "am I being punished for something?", "what's god trying to tell me?", "is that a sign or just coincidence?". All that goes away. It's liberating like you wouldn't believe.

I have a feeling that by "real" @Enzoblue meant that the Teddy bear was alive and had thoughts and desires, like most of us projected onto our stuffed animals as children, not that there was any question whether the toy physically existed in the world, like how Calvin believes Hobbes is "real".>> ^PalmliX:
If I had a Teddy Bear, then wouldn't I be justified in believing it's real because I could sense it with all 5 of my senses? As would anyone else I handed it to?

Hey thanks for your response Enzo!

If I had a Teddy Bear, then wouldn't I be justified in believing it's real because I could sense it with all 5 of my senses? As would anyone else I handed it to?

Or are you suggesting that I couldn't detect this bear with any of my senses, but I still believed it was real? Then I think most people would probably call me mentally ill. Myself included.

I also find the idea of ganging up with other people who share a belief (even if it's completely in contrast to your own) against those without any belief, a little scary.

Is it is far better to have ANY belief, no matter how ridiculous, unfounded, or even dangerous, than no belief? And should we really team up with other believers and "go against" those who make no such claims? Personally I would call this type of behavior mob/herd mentality or gang warfare, tribalism. An us or them mentality. I find this idea in a modern society a little frightening.

Your closing question "The non-believer is the real threat, ask yourself why." It's a difficult question to answer for a "non-believer" such as myself. Non-believer in the sense that so far, no one person's claim about the existence of an invisible Teddy Bear... has convinced me enough to worry and loose sleep at night.

I don't see how someone who doesn't believe in some variation of an unprovable belief is more of a threat than someone who does. Wouldn't it just be one less thing to fight about? i.e. if no one believed in Teddy Bears then there wouldn't be an issue in the first place? Because no one would even be talking about it?

I'm interested to hear your answer!

- Adam
>> ^Enzoblue:

>> ^PalmliX:


It's like if you have a teddy bear. You believe that it's real and helps/comforts you in life. Other people have different teddy bears and you laugh at them because they believe their teddy bears are real and you know they aren't. Or you have people with the same teddy bear you have, but they treat it in ways you feel is wrong and not what your teddy bear would like, using it as a pillow maybe.
Then someone comes along without any teddy bear at all and tells you that you don't need one.
Suddenly the people with other teddy bears or teddy bear ways don't seem so bad. At least they have a teddy bear. You would even gang up with the false teddy bear people to go against this guy.
The non-believer is the real threat, ask yourself why.

>> ^PalmliX:

Hi Shinyblurry,
I suppose everyone picks on you because you're one of few Christians on the sift who actually sticks around and defends his position. Are there any others? Not many stay I imagine...
Being such a representative of the faith I want to ask you an honest question that isn't designed to be sarcastic or make you look bad in any way but is just a simple question that I have wondered about for a long time and I'm curious to what your answer is because you seem to give fairly thorough answers.
Growing up I lived with a single mom who basically held the same view I held now, she didn't know if there was a God or not but she also encouraged me to experiment with any religious views that I felt like. I remember going to various church services on many different occasions, we had Jewish friends and took part in their ceremonies/festivities, same with Christian friends, even Muslim etc.. All this time my Mom was remarkable in the fact she neither dismissed or accepted any of these views, she/we simply took part with an open mind didn't try to impose any judgments. Did we give all religions equal time? No not necessarily but I don't think it would of been possible to live a more open and genuinely inquisitive childhood. My mother didn't stand in my way of finding a fulfilling religious path in life nor a none religious one.
Anyway, don't want to sidetrack this question too much, just wanted to give you some background as to where I'm coming from.
My question is this:
From this open point of view, I found that as a child, and later in life, all I saw around me were people telling me that their religion was the right one. They were all perfectly sincere and genuine in their beliefs, and they all seemed perfectly happy enough, but I personally found it odd that no God ever made an attempt to connect with me personally. From my point of view, everyone was genuine in their beliefs, but their beliefs were all different, so how was I supposed to know which one to choose? I attempted to pray to god when I was child because I was genuinely curious and wanted to know what I was missing, but I never received any indication that something was listening to me. Of course we could argue that I went about it in the wrong way, as I most likely did, but as a child (and as a grown up now) who grew up in a household where I was free to follow any path that I liked, how I was supposed to know that your God, i.e. the Christian God with Jesus in the mix was the right one to follow.
You mentioned in a previous comment that "God gives everyone enough information and opportunities to make the right choices" but personally all the information I see are 2 books and a whole bunch of HUMANS telling me that they are true. But the problem for me personally is that there are many many books with many many human supporters backing them up and from my point of view they are essentially all equal, i.e. I have never seen any indications that one group has more truth behind it than any other. Why does God then, rely on these imperfect human agents in order to spread the truth about it's existence, why didn't God attempt to make a personal connection with me?
Again please don't take this as any kind of personal attack, I'm generally interested in the answer to this question and I'd like to think that I have an open mind. In order to potentially make this question simpler to answer, here's an analogy that I think works well... say a human child was lost to his parents in the woods and he/she somehow managed to survive in the wilderness (not very likely I realize). This child would have no concept of human language or culture, would essentially be a wild animal but would still, for all intents and purposes, be human. Would this person ever come to find God/Jesus? If so how, with no bible or other people to tell him/her about it. Would God come to this person personally and inform them of everything they need to know? If so, why didn't God come to me to help me make a decision?
Cheers,
- Adam


It's like if you have a teddy bear. You believe that it's real and helps/comforts you in life. Other people have different teddy bears and you laugh at them because they believe their teddy bears are real and you know they aren't. Or you have people with the same teddy bear you have, but they treat it in ways you feel is wrong and not what your teddy bear would like, using it as a pillow maybe.

Then someone comes along without any teddy bear at all and tells you that you don't need one.

Suddenly the people with other teddy bears or teddy bear ways don't seem so bad. At least they have a teddy bear. You would even gang up with the false teddy bear people to go against this guy.

The non-believer is the real threat, ask yourself why.

Heh well said I was going to side with Gordon at first after seeing the hit, then I remembered he's a totaly dick.

>> ^Quboid:

It really didn't look that bad, I suspect if it had been a professional player on the receiving end, rather than a middle-aged professional potty-mouth, he'd have got up and played on - after rolling around in apparent agony until Sheringham got booked, of course.
The really nasty ones are when the player's standing leg is caught so their leg and foot below the point of contact can't give way due to being planted in the turf. Then the point of contact is what gives away; the bone breaks. This is what can end careers.
Ramsey may actually have caused the most damage himself, he landed jarringly on his elbow and could have dislocated his shoulder. It wasn't a very nice challenge, but there's plenty of people who would love the chance to do much worse to Ramsey.

>> ^Sagemind:

Hold it WTF, This isn't even a real game.
"It's supposed to be a friendly game to raise money for charity but someone clearly forgot to tell Teddy Sheringham."
http://www.daily
mail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2150994/Soccer-Aid-Gordon-Ramsay-injured-Teddy-Sheringham-charity-match.html


Yeah they have this every year. I should also point out that two years ago Gordon made some challenges that weren't cool either. They're just a bunch of old guys banging around on a field like idiots for charity.

Hold it WTF, This isn't even a real game.
"It's supposed to be a friendly game to raise money for charity but someone clearly forgot to tell Teddy Sheringham."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2150994/Soccer-Aid-Gordon-Ramsay-injured-Teddy-Sheringham-charity-match.html

>> ^Deano:

Anyone see Ramsay get nailed by Sheringham during Socceraid yesterday? They had to stretcher him off!


http://videosift.com/video/Teddy-Sheringham-hospitalizes-Gordon-Ramsey