Tags for this video have been changed from 'christian, rapture, war, iran, wackos' to 'christian, rapture, war, iran, wackos, lieberman, hagee, blumenthal, jewish' - edited by dystopianfuturetoday

>> ^ponceleon:
Fringe faiths?
What faiths AREN'T based in belief of something "magical?" Sure your average BS american christian will probably go to the hospital if they get sick, but many will still believe that jesus was this magical guy who raised the dead, cured the sick, walked on water, yada yada.
If anything you have to hand it to people who go all-out-wacko over religion. At least they have the balls to have "real faith." If you believe in magical bs, put your money where you mouth is and let faith solve your problems.


You mistake balls with crazy, and magic with unfathomable power. I also don't understand what you mean by "real faith" when their basic faith model is that of having to prove God is real over and over again to themselves by only allowing room for direct intervention. Believing in causes that happen outside the universe isn't magic.

And lastly, what makes you think that not going to a doctor has anything more or less to do with faith in Gods healing? Most miracles in the bible took place through a person. No more or less reason to suggest that someone believing that God can use a doctor to heal someone is any less a derivative of faith than anything else. In fact, it is the thinking that you are suggesting that leads people astray from the real idea that God is working in everything and everyone and everywhere.

Back on topic though, it is pretty obvious from what happened that their faith is weaker and needs God to show himself in a very non-transparent way for them to have any connection with Him. It is this shallow needy faith that causes a lot of problems for people, not only in the church, but people on the outside looking in. These folks ended up killing a baby because of this insecurity which is a real tragedy.

Fringe faiths?

What faiths AREN'T based in belief of something "magical?" Sure your average BS american christian will probably go to the hospital if they get sick, but many will still believe that jesus was this magical guy who raised the dead, cured the sick, walked on water, yada yada.

If anything you have to hand it to people who go all-out-wacko over religion. At least they have the balls to have "real faith." If you believe in magical bs, put your money where you mouth is and let faith solve your problems.

^ What I said, in a nutshell, yeah.

You support these librul Euro wacko hippy experiments then, qm?

Shouldn't it be Xenu help you? Wackos.

McCain??? Sheeeeee--him just wants to be scufflin' and fightin' and shidz. Bomb, bomb, bomb, fight, fight, fight--the Johnny McNasty Show!! How about when he says he'll follow bin Laden to the gates of hell, then smiles that wacko smile and laughs that weird old-man laugh. We don't need an angry, crazy old guy for president. Can you imagine him pulling up his pants and tugging at his suspenders and stomping his feet, yelling at all those kids to get off the White House lawn during the Easter Egg hunt?

Dude, the "left" does NOT EXIST.

I wish that were the case.

you CANNOT group people into two halves.

You mean, like, the "haves" and "have-nots"?

Every time you say "the left" or "liberal" you sound like a fucking twat. Nobody knows what you mean by "left". Apparently to you it means "wrong", as in the opposite of "right". LOL.

Now now, no need to be profane or anti-fane. YOU may not know what a leftist is but a great many people do know what is meant by 'the left', leftist, socialist, etc. Obviously the term differs slightly from country to country. Both major parties in Britain are socialist; one is more conservative than the other.

The paradigm to replace "right" and "left" is "statist" versus "small-l" libertarian. It's not quite there yet, and in the meantime, "onservatism versus liberalism", or "right vs. left" will do.

I ask you this... where do you classify me? I like small government and nationalised healthcare. Yes you can have both. It doesn't

take much governmental apparatus to collect money and give it to hospitals.

You can have "both", but only for a very limited time, then it's over, and government balloons exponentially. Happens every single time it's been tried.

So am i "right" or "left"?

I don't believe gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage. I think abortion should be allowed, but restricted. I think

governments waste huge amounts of money. I think we need a government. I hate evil corporations. I agree with the principle of

property ownership. I love guns but I think they should be banned or at least restricted much more than they are in the USA. I served

in the RAF but I am a pacifist. But I would fight for my family. I opposed the war in Iraq for economic, constitutional and

humanitarian reasons. I hate the BBC, FOX, MOVEON, DISNEY, MTV, TYT, CONSERVAPEDIA, THE NATION, and i find DEMOCRACY

NOW intensely boring and annoying. I am agnostic about god.

SO fucking figure that out. Am I on the right? Or the left?

My interpretation? Generally speaking, I'd say you're left-leaning on most issues. You have an unexamined hostility towards capitalism and corporations, and while you're aware that government is wasteful and corrupt, you'd rather they wield the difference of power rather than 'the people'. You despise the major brands of media influence yet, like all artists, are frustrated because whether you support or oppose The Machine, you're still orbiting its imaginary center.

A pacifist is defined as "a person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind." That being the case, you're employing a paradox by stating you'd wound or kill to defend your family. In other words, idealism ends when enemies present viable threats. What I find amusing is, if some wacko outside your window yelled, "I have a gun and I'm going to shoot you!" you wouldn't hesitate to grab your own gun, whether the wacko "proved" he actually had a gun or not. That's not paranoia, it's common sense. But when a wacko like Saddam announces he's got a gun, and he's proven in the past he'll use it indiscriminately, and all your neighbors also believe he will use the gun, the anti-war left would rather you just ignore the situation. WTF.

I think you have a young, unexamined yet comfortable worldview, and though you claim to chortle at "2 opposing sides" you tend to view things in black and white. Iraq good, USA bad. UN good, USA bad. War is always wrong. Torture is always wrong. Corporations are always evil. Those seeking "social justice" are always good and working for the best interest of all and NEVER for self-gain.

And as for your declaration that "inevitable genocide" is "unacceptable"... wow.

To leave Iraq before it's stabilized delivers it unto chaos. The left (statists) have made it clear they don't give a shit about any resulting genocide. Like spoiled children, they want what they want and that's that, don't care about anything else.

Based on your worldview, were I you I'd reach the exact same conclusions about the Iraq war that you have. The difference then, is that I'm taking into account all possible outcomes, not just the ones I'd like to see happen. Had we not taken out Saddam, he'd probably have died at a ripe old age and his thug sons would've taken over and Iraq would still be a backwards hellhole.

Think of it like this dude, although maybe you can twist words into comebacks, maybe you're not actually making a point, you're just "debating"... the way you have been trained to debate, i.e. with 2 sided arguments.

You and many others on the sift want 'wiggle room' for those times uncomfortable facts and logic make themselves known, and this wiggle room is usually provided by suggesting that "no labels apply" or that their unique views exist outside of categorization.
Liberalism is a starting point, not the finish line.

It's kinda like you live in a dictatorship and you have been brainwashed to think like that.

Once your eyes are opened and knowledge and experience received, you can't go back to being a leftist, because you won't be able to 'unsee' the inherent flaws in what amounts to an unworkable and unjust system even less fair than capitalism.

So you don't like "2-sided arguments"...all right then, have you ever gone beyond your own foregone conclusions and considered Iraq just might benefit in the long run, that the US has given them an opportunity to make their fledgling government work and given their people a real shot at self-determination? It's something the UN has never done for any country.

I'm not upset by opposing points of view, and once again, I never picked up a keyboard to change anyone's mind. We're all working thru the thing.

Simply fucking scary. I can understand why psychologists and brain researchers pursue the reasons behind brainwashing and manipulation; it's both fascinating and scary that these people can have such utter and complete devotion to a wacko.

I could sit here for a full day and write a complete dissertation on the insanity presented in this video. However, I know all the Sifters here can already see this for themselves, and it would do nothing to help these deluded individuals. I can only hope that they come to their senses and are permitted to leave.

you know, it's a little late, but thank you for posting this comment, I actually just really read it and love it. You said what I wanted to say only better... :

In reply to this comment by kulpims:
you're all thinking in terms of rational explanations. what if there is none and the thing still works? if particle entaglement experiments have shown us anything it's that not only is all matter just energy but that everything in the universe is interconnected. the point is, we don't know shit yet. the behaviour of particles at quantum level shows bizzare results we are unable to backup properly with our newtonian ways. as we discovered that observation inevitably affects the results of experiments we were no longer just voayers looking from the outside into this newtonian rube-goldberg apparatus we call universe - we are the apparatus. our current description of reality is a sketch at best. i like the work David Bohm did with Karl Pribram on holonomic model of the brain and his ideas of the role consciencesness has in this universe. another wacko i like is David Deutsch and his four-strand theory of everything.
a quote from wiki about his theory:

"It aims not at the reduction of everything to particle physics, but rather mutual support among multiverse, computational, epistemological, and evolutionary principles."

I agree with you about providing the evidence when it comes to science. I disagree that Algore is trying to be accurate. He's admitted he "greatly exaggerated" the many doomsaying claims and scenarios in his crockumentary. Algore wants us to change our lifestyle and new policies to be implemented by the government whether the GW theory can be proven or not. That's unacceptable.

There's no "evidence" regarding faith or religion and I doubt there will be for a long time yet.

Most religious folks believe religion has done more good than harm,

Most atheists believe religion has done more harm than good.

That's where we stand. Do you see any parallels between dogmatic religion and environmentalism?

In reply to this comment by BicycleRepairMan:
In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
We're all annoyed by those we perceive as getting a free pass. As a believer that the earth's climate is what it's always been and no danger to humans, I'm angry Algore gets away with bad, distorted science with no rebuttals from anyone.

Yes, well, the difference is that if you describe Al Gore as "a lying fucking moron" or deem all his conclusions to be "A bunch of retarded shit" or lets say you use even stronger language, thats just uttering an opinion, and people have all the right to counter your arguments, and disagree with you, but they cant say you've committed a "hate crime" or "been offensive"

And lets say someone start raising their kids to worship Al Gore as if he was god, and lets say they call their kid a "Climate activist and proud liberal, aged 2"

Replace the name of Al Gore in the first paragraph with "Prophet Muhammed" and replace "Climate activist liberal" with "Roman Catholic" and you see my point.

Al Gore's ideas are fair game, besides they are not his ideas, there is actually and overwhelming scientific consensus about them. The point is that if he says "CO2 levels have gone up dramatically the last 15 years" the LEAST we can do is to say "Provide the fucking evidence" and when he says things like that he usually have the data to back it up. There may be exceptions, and some of the data may be disputed, but at least he makes a fucking effort to get it right..

Now compare that to the Pope who suddenly declared that dead, unbaptized babies didnt have to go to "limbo" after all, after the Catholic church had said for hundreds of years it was so. Wheres the fucking evidence? Is there ANY data available? No. he GETS AWAY with such nonsense. Easy as that. Its faith. No evidence is ever needed. Bullshit. Real parents are suffering because they believe in such shit.

Religious Ideas should be scrutinized the same way as everything else, these fucking charlatans and wacko's with their "send Money" shows, the creationist dolts without a single thread of evidence pushing their ideas on public schools, islamic scholars wining "hatecrime" whenever I tell them what I think of their pedophile, homophobic, bigoted, ignorant, racist warmongering hero, and the stupdid fucking ideas he came up with. No . We demand a free fucking pass. its faith. Beyond all criticism and scrutiny. And we demand to program our kids by washing their brains with this shit. Noone is to question that.

If you believe the creator of the universe takes an interest in your english exams or your sex-life or listens to your prayers then go right ahead, noones gonna stop you. But try pushing those ideas on others, or try to get laws changed in accordance with them, then I'm sorry: Personal conviction means fuck all, you need to provide some goddamn evidence.

With Al Gores ideas, the least you can say is that there is actually quite alot of evidence in favor of his case. Of course he may STILL be wrong, but he does have some data, at the very least. And thats the least we can demand, if Al Gore wants us to change our lifestyle, and new policies to be implemented by the government, then I say the same thing as I say to the pope: Provide the fucking evidence!

you're all thinking in terms of rational explanations. what if there is none and the thing still works? if particle entaglement experiments have shown us anything it's that not only is all matter just energy but that everything in the universe is interconnected. the point is, we don't know shit yet. the behaviour of particles at quantum level shows bizzare results we are unable to backup properly with our newtonian ways. as we discovered that observation inevitably affects the results of experiments we were no longer just voayers looking from the outside into this newtonian rube-goldberg apparatus we call universe - we are the apparatus. our current description of reality is a sketch at best. i like the work David Bohm did with Karl Pribram on holonomic model of the brain and his ideas of the role consciencesness has in this universe. another wacko i like is David Deutsch and his four-strand theory of everything.
a quote from wiki about his theory:

"It aims not at the reduction of everything to particle physics, but rather mutual support among multiverse, computational, epistemological, and evolutionary principles."

Seriously, you would never hear a thing from atheists if we weren't constantly under attack from religious nuts who want to force their beliefs on everybody else!

Just look at the tv show in this video. If nobody ever called them, the tv show would be done! Nothing left to talk about. But it's still going because wackos keep calling and trying to convince them to believe in things that are completely unfounded.

A perfect world for us would be one where nobody ever talked about unprovable things as if they were 100% completely true. We would all be free to use our minds to pursue more useful endeavors.

>> ^budzos:
What about the magic underpants?


>> ^MINK:
i think what's wrong with it is: it's kinda bullshit from a lot of perspectives, both in content and by omission. but upvote because it's interesting to see all sides.


I appreciate the upvote and the comment that it is good to see all sides. I agree, and I think the Mormon side is sadly underrepresented, especially on videosift.

See, what this video does is it states the IMPORTANT elements of the church. Because most of the time people choose to focus on the unusual things and take them out of context, people think certain things are far more important to the church than they really are. For instance, the sacred garments that they wear (which, by the way, is not unheard of in other religions) are not by any means a main focus of their faith. You won't hear them talking about them in church because they are sacred to them, and they don't want the issue misunderstood and trampled under the feet of cruel people like Safran. They are not considered magic in any way, they are simply a reminder to the members of the church of the covenants that they make with God to keep his commandments. People choose to make such a big deal out of them it amazes me. I watched that video where Mormons are seen talking about how the garments protect them from danger and all of that, but most members don't believe that stuff. Those people are just superstitious wackos that you get in any religion. That kind of Mormon is pretty common in Utah, as you can imagine. The symbols are not supposed to protect you from evil. They are just symbolic reminders to resist temptation. I love how that guy asks Mormon critics for information about the garments instead of, say, a BISHOP? Wouldn't that be a novel idea?

What about the content is misleading? And what did they omit that is more important than what they included?

Can't vote for him because he's a tax-raising, gun-grabbing, wacko-appeasing, Big Gummint liberal.

The drive-by media is simply too busy hiding Obama's radical left-wing agenda to address the half-truths about Islam.

The only thing bothering me about this video is the fact that the camera man is such a pussy. He had a terrific oppurtunity to say something like "Come here and prove how much of a man you are" and then proceed to self-defence the heck out of that christianfag. Sadly he probably was a fat slob like the man said. Damn, too bad there aren't wackos like these in my country. Would've been fun testing out self defence skills and then asking "Where is your GOD NOW?".