>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm not talking about technicalities, though. If atheists are really so incensed about the evils of religion, they would be concentrating on religions, countries and cultures that had the most egregious examples of perceived evils. Instead, 99 percent of it concentrates on the God of the bible.

I'm only speaking for myself, not for The Atheists™. I do not generally go around condemning religions, individually or as a whole; I condemn when it is called for or when my opinion on something is requested. When Catholics rape children, I condemn. When Muslims throw acid in the faces of "immodestly" dressed women, I condemn. When Catholics deny their employees access to healthcare, I condemn. When Scientologists destroy the lives of people who want to leave their organization, I condemn. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, as they say, and there are no Buddhists or Hindus lecturing me on the meaninglessness of my life. I tend to argue mostly with Christians and so I tend to argue mostly against Christianity.

>> ^shinyblurry:
That is not what he was arguing, by any stretch of the imagination. He argued that to be free = meaningless, and that no one can live that way, on top of all of the logical, emotional, psychological and philosophical convolutions that this truth entails. He proposed Christianity as a solution to this problem, but he did not make it the thrust of his argument.

Nay, he proposed Jesus as the solution to this problem, a problem that I don't even necessarily accept is a problem as defined. It is entirely the thrust of his argument. Let me quote...

Nobody can live that way. To really believe that life is meaningless gets you into convolutions that are emotional, convolutions that are psychological, convolutions that are logical, convolutions that are philosophical, and you can't even live that way because life does have meaning and both freedom and meaning are found in Jesus Christ. That's the argument.

>> ^shinyblurry:
The argument is, though, that if you're free to make up your own meaning, then there is no actual meaning.

Agree. There is no inherent meaning in life; we find meaning as we go.

>> ^shinyblurry:
No, he is saying that there is no way to live that way and be logically consistent with your own knowledge and experience.

That's an even worse argument. I would argue that, at some level, every person who has ever lived has/had logical inconsistencies if you dig far enough. They're on the surface for some and deeply buried for others but we all have elements of contradiction in us.

>> ^shinyblurry:
Give a specific example.

Well there's a half-hour video at the top of this page. Will that do?

>> ^shinyblurry:
I think you might need to rewatch the video because I don't think you understood the point to these sections, or how they were supported by his overall argument.

I've watched it 3x now. If his argument is so poorly constructed/stated that it cannot be understood after 3 listens, that is his fault.

I'm guessing that's probably because you generally deal with English-speaking atheists. Technically we are arguing against Allah when we argue against God but why would we use an Arab word? Allah is not the name of the God of Islam and, even if it were, it would be the same God anyway. "Allah" means "the one God". It's what Arab Christians call God as well.

Krishna... well, I would argue against Krishna in much the same way as I argue against Yahweh if it ever came up, but it doesn't. There is no significant number of Hindus trying to force their beliefs on us, fighting societal advancement, or passing laws based on their holy book. Where I live these are the actions of Christians and so, merely out of priority, these are the people I argue against most frequently.

I'm not talking about technicalities, though. If atheists are really so incensed about the evils of religion, they would be concentrating on religions, countries and cultures that had the most egregious examples of perceived evils. Instead, 99 percent of it concentrates on the God of the bible. The fact is, Christianity has played a very positive role in shaping our civilization. If you want to read about it:

http://www.amazon.com/Book-that-Made-Your-World/dp/1595553223/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343535302&sr=1-1&keywords=the+book+that+made+your+world

Yes, an entertaining speaker and an entertaining, and funny, presentation, which is why I'm so disappointed that he gradually took it off the rails over the course of it.

The meaning of life
He's arguing that the meaning he finds in his own life, living for Jesus, is the only valid meaning and therefore non-Christians must have no meaning in their lives.

What? That is not what he was arguing, by any stretch of the imagination. He argued that to be free = meaningless, and that no one can live that way, on top of all of the logical, emotional, psychological and philosophical convolutions that this truth entails. He proposed Christianity as a solution to this problem, but he did not make it the thrust of his argument. He asked at the end, what is your alternative? What is your reason for life?

Few, if any, people have the luxury of never struggling with this question and yet most of us, religious positions aside, find meaning in our lives eventually. Many of us recognize that, in the grand scheme, our lives, even our entire species, will have no impact; Nothing any of us does will ultimately affect the outcome of the universe or existence, but that does not make life meaningless. We find meaning in many things in life. We find meaning in our relationships with others. We find meaning in our work. We find meaning in religion, both Christianity and others. It's different for each of us and there's nothing wrong with that.

The argument is, though, that if you're free to make up your own meaning, then there is no actual meaning.

Unfortunately for him, he builds his entire argument on this false premise. Even more unfortunate (for him), he makes an excellent point about what to do with conclusions that are based on a false premise.

I could stop here since I've destroyed his premise, but I'll continue below.

You do not appear to have understood the basic premise of his argument..

Freedom
There's no such thing as absolute freedom, God or not, except maybe in non-existence.

You're splitting hairs here..he is talking about what it means to be truly be free, in the sense of not having any meaning imposed upon you from the outside.

Nobody can live without meaning
I think people who live without any meaning in life are few and far between but I do not see why they could not live that way. They may be miserable, depressed, suicidal even, but they will not cease to exist in any way that is different from how the rest of us will cease to exist.

No, he is saying that there is no way to live that way and be logically consistent with your own knowledge and experience.

The Straw Frankenstein Monster
Over the course of the video he constructs a straw man out of pieces of ideas from various philosophers and thinkers, assembling them like Frankenstein's Monster and then, fittingly, being destroyed by his own creation.

Give a specific example.

Scientific Theories
This whole section is fucked and was pointless to bring up in the first place. His argument has nothing to do with scientific theory.

CS Lewis
In the case of this quote, at least, Lewis is a damn fool. Love is no less real because it is a chemical process. Music is no less enjoyable, art no less beautiful because they are biological reacitons.

Flowers and Love
"The only way to enjoy flowers and love is to not think." This is a typical (and baffling, for me) anti-knowledge argument that I see so often from fundamentalist Christians. I don't get it. Flowers smell as good and look as beautiful after you learn how your senses function as they did when you were ignorant. There is no reason to avoid learning. The world is just as amazing when you understand it.

I think you might need to rewatch the video because I don't think you understood the point to these sections, or how they were supported by his overall argument.

>> ^xxovercastxx

"My father's hands didn't build this company?!"

Another spoilt entitled white man thrust into the world of privilege at the expense of the community at large.

Ok, a little hyperbolic but it's catchy.

>> ^PHJF:

Lunar!?!?
Who the shit gives a shit about the moon anymore (unless it's Phobos)?!?! What is this, 1960?


If you want to go to mars, having a base on the moon is a good first step. And while a direct trip to the mars is still physically a possibility, a useful staging ground could be the moon. Water is heavy, and the discovery of polar water on the moon means you could drastically reduce takeoff weight by supplying water from the moon. Also, this is a very advanced rocket that could see use elsewhere. Most rockets don't burn in a controllable way; once you start them, they go until they run out of fuel. More over, most don't allow for thrust throttling, wide open throttle until the fuel depletes. And on top of all that, it is able to vector its thrust that is being dynamically altered to keep a relatively clean trajectory.

Another way to look at it is the moon is a good place to practice ferrying people. Might as well use your own back yard (the moon: 384,400 km away) than a distance planet (Mars: 56 million km away at the closet point) for a technology test bed.

>> ^messenger:

@shinyblurry
Please keep in mind when you answer me that I’m not asking you for the details because it’s an interesting story and I want to know all of the lore like a Star Wars fanboy. I’m asking because -- unlike the majority of people you probably speak with -- I’m giving your faith every benefit of the doubt I reasonably can as a rational person. For me to accept the story, it must hold together. For it to hold, all apparent problems must be resolved without relying on tautology.
My main thrust in this particular comment thread is dealing with the issue that for everything that appears impossible or utterly fantastic to me, when I raise it, you explain it, but with something else equally fantastic (Asserting that God has to punish us for our sins is just as fantastical as asserting that God doesn’t want to punish us), so I’m not left understanding things any better. So, I challenge that new thing, and on it goes until you run out of scripture.
Then, although my questions are as valid as before, you have no real answers. At these times you give quasi-answers: you phrase your answers in the passive voice (“…what was required…”); you answer with a leading question that asserts a comparison without your having to say they're equal (“Wouldn’t you…?”), with a rhetorical question (“Could it be that…?”), or a poor analogy rather than a declarative (The King’s law about adultery, or comparing rapists going to prison with lapsed church-goers (one example of a mortal sin) being sent to Hell); or you criticize how I’m thinking (“…instead of trying to constantly falsify it, you might actually try studying what Christian theologians (and not skeptics) have said about it.”; and, “use some common sense”). So my question doesn't get answered.
So, as you're talking to a group of mostly logical, scientific-minded sceptics here, why not frame your answers so they make sense to your audience? Ask yourself the next logical sceptical question that springs from the answer you just gave until you arrive at something that really makes sense.


I gave you quite a bit to work with in my replies. The reason I suggested reading the works of theologians is because they discuss the very things you are inquiring about "Why did God do X?", and that very in depth. These are issues which are not entirely concrete because God does not always tell us why He does "X". Some things can be inferred, some things can be logically deduced, and some things are yet a mystery.

@shinyblurry

Please keep in mind when you answer me that I’m not asking you for the details because it’s an interesting story and I want to know all of the lore like a Star Wars fanboy. I’m asking because -- unlike the majority of people you probably speak with -- I’m giving your faith every benefit of the doubt I reasonably can as a rational person. For me to accept the story, it must hold together. For it to hold, all apparent problems must be resolved without relying on tautology.

My main thrust in this particular comment thread is dealing with the issue that for everything that appears impossible or utterly fantastic to me, when I raise it, you explain it, but with something else equally fantastic (Asserting that God has to punish us for our sins is just as fantastical as asserting that God doesn’t want to punish us), so I’m not left understanding things any better. So, I challenge that new thing, and on it goes until you run out of scripture.

Then, although my questions are as valid as before, you have no real answers. At these times you give quasi-answers: you phrase your answers in the passive voice (“…what was required…”); you answer with a leading question that asserts a comparison without your having to say they're equal (“Wouldn’t you…?”), with a rhetorical question (“Could it be that…?”), or a poor analogy rather than a declarative (The King’s law about adultery, or comparing rapists going to prison with lapsed church-goers (one example of a mortal sin) being sent to Hell); or you criticize how I’m thinking (“…instead of trying to constantly falsify it, you might actually try studying what Christian theologians (and not skeptics) have said about it.”; and, “use some common sense”). So my question doesn't get answered.

So, as you're talking to a group of mostly logical, scientific-minded sceptics here, why not frame your answers so they make sense to your audience? Ask yourself the next logical sceptical question that springs from the answer you just gave until you arrive at something that really makes sense.

Tags for this video have been changed from '1955 Hover Board, Pathe' to '1955 Hover Board, Pathe, US Navy, Flying, Platform, VTOL, Thrust' - edited by calvados

Not only do I live in the US, but I live Oklahoma, one of the most religiously conservative states. I don't have a great deal of respect for that brand of religion, for sure. Which is precisely why it's so galling to see a video that suggests that's just what Christians have to be like--that Christians who reject the Bibliolatry and hermeneutic cutting and pasting of those idiots somehow aren't real Christians, that rejecting the sheep-like credulity of these so-called faithful means that the thoughtful ones haven't actually thought it through. And somehow it is averred that those who cling to the ancient traditions of Biblical understanding are inauthentically Christian, since they don't accept the quasi-heretical doctrines of 19th century upstarts.

Clearly false. Yet that's the whole thrust of the video!



With regard to your last two paragraphs, I think we're starting to move away from straightforward commentary on the video. But that's alright with me, if it's okay with you.

As far as dogmatic authority goes, I think that you're partly right about some religions. Specifically, the big Abrahamic religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It's important to remember that this is not the entire world of religion (even if they are important), so there are a number of statements about them that will be incorrect about other religions--in fact, most other religions.

It's true that the Big Three do indeed seem to require acceding to the truth of certain propositions in order to remain in their historical form: e.g., that the Torah was revealed by God, that Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead, and that Mohammad received the Qur'an from Michael. (for each religion respectively) There is certainly an important sense in which certain very liberal theologians are still Christian, but this is something very different than historical Christianity.

Nonetheless, this is something separate from moral authority. One may deny that there is anything correct about the metaphysical pronouncements of the Bible, and still accept that its moral teachings are profoundly important. This is precisely what philosophy Slavoj Zizek has done.

For most other religions, the number of specific propositions that must be accepted is few to none. Pronouncements about gods or salvation are amenable to multiple interpretations. The ancient Greek philosophers, for instance, were quite religious on the whole. Yet read a book on Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Platonism, and tell me what proposition about the gods that they agree on. You'll find it quite difficult.

The same can be said of Shinto, Hinduism, Buddhism, Western Pagan revivals, etc.

Moreover, I myself don't think that moral authority is actually essential to religion. It's certainly related to religion, but as I'm sure you've observed--there's not much of a correlation between religious belief and moral behavior. Simple observation shows most Christians to be liars. Morality is not why they are Christian.

Instead, I think it's something else--transcendence, and the promise of new states of being. Morality has almost nothing to do with this. The same man can be capable of the most holy ecstasies and raptures before the beauty of the God or gods that he prays to, a writer of the most delicately beautiful hymns and homilies--and the worst bastard on earth outside of church. Cardinal Richilieu was just such a person.

This is why we'll never get rid of religion, of course. But it's also why the monotheistic religions can be so dangerous. They incorrectly tie the ecstasies of the spirit to crude and intolerant dogmas, then demand that all others agree or face the sword or the pyre.

>> ^shveddy:

@HadouKen24 - All that you say is very dandy and very well may be true, but you'd be shocked at how widespread it is to cling to 19th century literalist beliefs. I'm not sure what country you're from, but here in the US it's remarkably common and even presidential candidates manage to think it despite pursuing the most powerful office in the world. I grew up in a particular Christian denomination, one of hundreds, and we had an official statement of faith that stated the absolute, literal, inerrant nature of the bible. This particular flavor of Christianity has about 3 million adherants, and again, this is only one of hundreds - many of which are even more conservative in their biblical interpretation.
When you say that it has been common for some time to regard sacred texts in a metaphorical sense I think that's definitely true, especially in the case of liberal theologians. However, when you take away the literal interpretations and leave interpretative metaphor all that remains is an interesting and influential piece of literature that has no specific authority. And I think this is a good thing. But the fact of the matter is that it lowers it to the same level as Moby Dick, Oedipus, Infinite Jest and Harry Potter - all of which are books that have interesting, moralistic metaphors just like the bible.
Let's face it, religion needs the teeth of absolute truth and the threat of moral superiority to have any privileged relevance over other interesting, moral works. I see neither in any of its texts.

>> ^kymbos:

You're all fake!


hehe

also check this out someone already did a flapping one man flier ..probably on sift
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/emergingtech/human-powered-flapping-wing-plane-first-ever-to-take-flight-video/2388

"Built from carbon fiber, foam, and balsa wood, the Snowbird weighs just 94 lbs. and has a wingspan of 105 feet, which is comparable to that of a Boeing 737–amazingly, the Snowbird weighs less than all of the pillows on board.

The wings’ thrust is due primarily to a low-pressure region around the leading edge, which integrates to provide a force known as “leading-edge suction”. The wings also passively twist in response to the flapping. This is due to a structure that is torsionally compliant in just the right amount to allow efficient thrusting (”aeroelastic tailoring”). It should be noted, though, that twisting is required only to prevent flow separation on sections along the wing. It does not produce thrust in the same way as required by sharp-edged wings with little leading-edge suction."

This is a serious record, more for the airplane design than for the throwing brawn. This isn't "most eggs eaten in 5 minutes". There are flight engineers who spend thousands of hours on this because it's relevant to their field and demonstrates their understanding of thrust, lift and glide. I've heard the engineers actually spend more time making the tools to form the plane than designing or throwing the plane itself.

I want to copulate to this song, in the 8 am sunlight, creeping through the room windows warming my thrusting ass.

I love saying the Maine caucus. Say it outloud. The Maine caucus excites me. The Maine caucus is going to be hard to deflate. What will be the thrust of the Maine caucus? And how deep will the Maine caucus penetrate?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'art, fire, bm, burning man, fire pendulum' to 'art, fire, flame, thrust, bm, burning man, fire pendulum' - edited by calvados

"If more parents treated their children like adults, we would have more adults in the world that grown-up children."

What a load of horseshit... Kids/teens are not adults and the ones that act like adults are usually the ones that have taken responsibility (got a job etc), or had responsibility thrust upon them, rather than bitching about the 30 minutes a day they have to contribute to the family.

Respect is earned, not freely handed out, and she has no respect for him despite the fact that he's providing for her. Why the fuck should he treat her like an adult when she isn't acting like one?

Freely admit the guy probably could have done something else with the lappy rather than blast the shit out of it, but you can tell all the way through that vid that he is pissed as hell and just holding on. Perhaps all the people bitching about how immature he's being would prefer he took a 3 inch belt and strapped some sense in to her?

That's a big problem with the world today, not parents snapping after being driven to the brink, kids who are so fucking entitled they believe everything should come to them and just can't understand why a parent wouldn't be more 'mature' about it. Actions have consequences and she just got hers. Kudos to the dad.

>> ^artician:

"you don't have to agree with the war, I just get sent there. You don't have to agree with politics, the country just tells me what to do."
That's... basically agreeing with whatever you're told.
I think Ventura took the moral high-ground with the situation at large, and the man speaking used the fact that they were in a wake (at a bar????) to defend his own brainwashing.
Just what I think though.


There's a sort of...distance there...an argument can be made that you sign up to serve your country so your life is now ours collectively. In a democracy this doesn't sound like THAT bad of a thing, it's not like serving "The Crown" where a king gets to tell you where you will die. This is supposed to be a democratic sort of decision where we decide that we are threatened by a country or entity and the people who serve go and be the "point of the spear."

It's not really agreeing or disagreeing with any particular decision, it's putting the onus on others.

In Live at the Beacon (Louis CKs $5 special) Louis pointed out that a soldier is joining up to protect his country "he thinks." That to me makes perfect sense, and lets me hold respect for soldiers who are in a moral grey area at times especially in illegal wars. Of course we're not going to bring up obvious violations of human rights which have their own discussion.

The point is, I feel that the democracy fails the soldiers far more than the soldiers fail the democracy. We have a failed state, it doesn't work...so the direction that our speartip thrusts (not sexual) is definitely suspect. It's of course EVERYONES responsibility to take the country back and not allow our spear to commit human rights offenses In Our Names.

That's my boring opinion...anyone read it?