Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^Drax:

You know when you've been playing too much Skyrim when....

....you try and make a Skyrim joke from this video -_-

Something about Nords having 50% frost resistance?

And by the time she was finished, she went back indoors with one more frosted hoop that she started with

Hard for Frost not to look a bit of a pervert here.

*music *cute

Cake icing/frosting in barrels?

As much fun as this looks, what kind of idiot leaves cans of frosting out so the bears can get at it?

I basically have the opposite reaction to most frosting.

This is an old video. Which frosts my beehind even more.

Truthout.org has loads of alt news. They also send out emails that are summarized nicely and easy to link through to read the whole thing.

>> ^highdileeho:

Thanks for the post. I try to keep up to date with news of this sort, you know, the ones that aren't covered in mainstream media outlets. I was Hopng you could pass along reccomedations for online news sources. I check " the raw story, rn.com, and reddit news".

When atheists argue that "God" does not exist, they are usually arguing against a specific idea of god as defined by one or another religion, which is possible to do, both with logic and physical/scientific evidence (example: the Abrahamic God that apparently made all of humanity from the incestuous offspring of two people is easily disproven, while his omnipotence is logically incompatible with his omni-benevolence).

If He is so easily disproven, it's interesting how no one in history has ever done so. What you're detailing in the supposed conflict between Gods omnipotence and omni-benevolence is the logical problem of evil. Plantigas free will defense proves that they are in fact logically compatible, so you don't have an argument here.

Let's put it this way: do you believe fairies exist? If no, prove it! You can't explain why dew drops are so neatly arranged on spider webs, or how the beautiful designs in the frost of windowpanes are made, so fairies make them. Tada!! Sure, you can be agnostic about fairies, arguing that they're manmade fiction, and explain scientifically how dew drops and frost patterns work, but that's just eliminating one definition of "fairy", there are infinitely more! A-fairyists, meanwhile, live with the evidence-based assumption that the probability of fairies existing is null, and the burden of proof lies on those who insist that some sort of fairies exist.

See where this is getting?

Yes, I see where you're conflating the issue. Anyone can make a claim, but that doesn't make every claim equally valid. Yes, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, and you can't disprove a universal negative. Yet just because you cannot disprove the existence of God does not make the God hypothesis equal to cosmic teapots. There is no good reason to believe there are cosmic teapots, but plenty of good reasons to believe there is a God. The difference lies in the explanatory power of the claim, which is the basis for believing any theory.

You believe in the theory of abiogenesis, presumably, even though there is no actual evidence for life from non-life. So by your logic, a magic teapot could be an equally valid explanation for the origin of life. But since Abiogenesis has more explanatory power (barely) for the origin of life than a magic teapot, that makes it more probable and gives you justification for believing it.

The burden of proof lies with whomever is making a claim, for or against. Your epistemological position about uncertainty is countered by the fact that certain claims have more explanatory power than others. I cannot absolutely prove magic teapots don't exist, but that doesn't mean I don't have good reasons to believe they don't exist; since they explain precisely nothing they can safely be discarded as a valid claim.

>> ^hpqp:
@GeeSussFreeK: I do agree, however, that many atheists like to posit the position that God, indeed, does not exist. That would require some evidence as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
@shinyblurry: Yes, they do like to posit that. When asked for that evidence however, they like to say they merely "lack belief", which is meaningless. Basically, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to say no to the question of whether God exists but escape the burden of proof. That is what this "lack of belief" is all about. It's not an "i don't know", it's a "no, but i dont have to provide any evidence for that".
When atheists argue that "God" does not exist, they are usually arguing against a specific idea of god as defined by one or another religion, which is possible to do, both with logic and physical/scientific evidence (example: the Abrahamic God that apparently made all of humanity from the incestuous offspring of two people is easily disproven, while his omnipotence is logically incompatible with his omni-benevolence).
I love how shiny uses the expression "want to have our cake and eat it to", which is a very rational and feasible desire (I'm a greedy atheist, I don't share my babby-cake with anyone. Mmmm, fetus fudge! <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smileevil.gif">).
Let's put it this way: do you believe fairies exist? If no, prove it! You can't explain why dew drops are so neatly arranged on spider webs, or how the beautiful designs in the frost of windowpanes are made, so fairies make them. Tada!! Sure, you can be agnostic about fairies, arguing that they're manmade fiction, and explain scientifically how dew drops and frost patterns work, but that's just eliminating one definition of "fairy", there are infinitely more! A-fairyists, meanwhile, live with the evidence-based assumption that the probability of fairies existing is null, and the burden of proof lies on those who insist that some sort of fairies exist.
See where this is getting?

@GeeSussFreeK: I do agree, however, that many atheists like to posit the position that God, indeed, does not exist. That would require some evidence as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

@shinyblurry: Yes, they do like to posit that. When asked for that evidence however, they like to say they merely "lack belief", which is meaningless. Basically, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to say no to the question of whether God exists but escape the burden of proof. That is what this "lack of belief" is all about. It's not an "i don't know", it's a "no, but i dont have to provide any evidence for that".

When atheists argue that "God" does not exist, they are usually arguing against a specific idea of god as defined by one or another religion, which is possible to do, both with logic and physical/scientific evidence (example: the Abrahamic God that apparently made all of humanity from the incestuous offspring of two people is easily disproven, while his omnipotence is logically incompatible with his omni-benevolence).

I love how shiny uses the expression "want to have our cake and eat it to", which is a very rational and feasible desire (I'm a greedy atheist, I don't share my babby-cake with anyone. Mmmm, fetus fudge! ).

Let's put it this way: do you believe fairies exist? If no, prove it! You can't explain why dew drops are so neatly arranged on spider webs, or how the beautiful designs in the frost of windowpanes are made, so fairies make them. Tada!! Sure, you can be agnostic about fairies, arguing that they're manmade fiction, and explain scientifically how dew drops and frost patterns work, but that's just eliminating one definition of "fairy", there are infinitely more! A-fairyists, meanwhile, live with the evidence-based assumption that the probability of fairies existing is null, and the burden of proof lies on those who insist that some sort of fairies exist.

See where this is getting?

Just keep practicing. I'm sure you'll get there! >> ^solecist:

>> ^notarobot:
And if you drink too much you might spend the rest of your night clinging to your toilet. Not everyone who uses drugs does so to to get fucked up.

ah, so the reason i didn't see an improvement in my hand-eye coordination is because i took one too many hits! i should have just hit that shit once or twice, then i'd be better at doing a backflip while simultaneously frosting a cake.

>> ^notarobot:

And if you drink too much you might spend the rest of your night clinging to your toilet. Not everyone who uses drugs does so to to get fucked up.


ah, so the reason i didn't see an improvement in my hand-eye coordination is because i took one too many hits! i should have just hit that shit once or twice, then i'd be better at doing a backflip while simultaneously frosting a cake.

Trying futilely to fix this old dead vid and reread your comment. Hilarious.

In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
Some highlights with translations:

"My degree is in enginering...that speaks to my practical and analytical side."

But my FROSTED side speaks to the deliciousness that is me! TENNIS anyone?

"When I'm not being my integrated self, I'm wallowing in the muck of my own secret hell just like everybody else."

I'm wallowing in the muck of my own secret hell for all to see online.

"But my parole office says I'm mostly done with that now."

I killed my parole officer.

"I'm a man with a big heart."

It's in a jar in my refrigerator labeled PAROEL OFFCER.

"I'm seeking a connection on many levels..."

Such as intercoursal, sexual and copulatical.

"Yeah baby."

Austin Powers and I own a timeshare in the 1990s.

"If you identify as a very good girl, then we would probably not be a very good fit."

If your remains can be identified, you're too risky to keep as a trophy.

"I'm a bit of a bad boy."

My mom thinks I'm cool.

"If we click, I'll probably challenge you and surprise you sexually."

I'm uncircumcised.

Something else we can agree on ....

Much bad is done in the name of religion.

Drives me crazy.

In reply to this comment by EMPIRE:
Yeah. I think we can both agree that's just insane. But I'll bet you all it takes is 1 single born-again christian up the organization ladder to see the word "atheist" and freak the fuck out.





In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
Here's something we can agree on...

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/10/17/dont-believe-in-g
od

This sucks. Like, big time.

This is where religion and the fear of backlash from religious people is strangling good sense and actually creates harm.

Frosts my ass.

Here's something we can agree on...

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/10/17/dont-believe-in-god

This sucks. Like, big time.

This is where religion and the fear of backlash from religious people is strangling good sense and actually creates harm.

Frosts my ass.