Have some of Nick Lowe's 70's Cockney Funk

Tags for this video have been changed from '1974, don, cornelius, michael, tito, funk, 70s' to '1974, don cornelius, michael, tito, funk, 70s, soul train' - edited by Grimm

Ooooh, sounds good man. But I still feel the need to wash the funk off me now.

There is nothing quite like slow pocket funk.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'japan, james brown, dance, cool mofo, horns' to 'zainichi funk, scary bomb, japan, james brown, dance, cool mofo, horns' - edited by SlipperyPete

Japan has totally "transistor radioed" jazz and funk. Anything with cool brass and drum beat, they took the music we take for granted and they're doing it better.

I think the band is called Zainichi Funk. If you want to buy their music from iTunes you need to go to the Japanese iTunes store!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'funk, pfunk, parliment funkadelic, bootsy' to 'funk, pfunk, parliament funkadelic, bootsy' - edited by bareboards2

How can you not see the flaw in this logic? Atheists do not make claims for which evidence must be provided, there is no point in trying to "DISPROVE" god, or any other imaginary entity. the "evidence that god doesnt exist" is that there is no evidence that god does exist.

Drac did make the claim "I'm saying there is no God, so there are no necessary assumptions about his nature, since he doesn't HAVE a nature" So therefore he has a burden of proof.

Also, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Finally, no matter how you've redefined the definition, atheism is the belief that there is no God:

"Atheism, from the Greek a-theos ("no-god") is the philosophical position that God doesn't exist. It is distinguished from agnosticism, the argument that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not"

(Academic American Encyclopedia)

Atheism, system of thought developed around the denial of God's existence. Atheism, so defined, first appeared during the Enlightement, the age of reason"

(Random House Encyclopedia-1977)

Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments, but these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods.

(Oxford Companion to Philosophy-1995)

Atheism (Greek, a- [private prefix] + theos, god) is the view that there is no divine being, no God"

(Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner, Editor-1996)

Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist.

(The World Book Encyclopedia-1991)

According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who maintains that there is no god.

(The Encyclopedia of Philosophy-1967)

Atheism denies the existence of deity

(Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia-Vol I)

This is what the world looks like to you, huh? absolute laws layed down and explained by God?

In the scientific worldview, there are no absolutes, our "laws" are based on repeated observations and revisions, take for instance Newtons first law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force.

Now, this actually works, it turns out that the world is this way*. It is natural for a curious human to ask "why?" because we expect,perhaps deep down that there is a reason and a purpose behind the world being arranged this way. But there doesnt seem to be any real reason, had Newton or Galileo lived in an alternate universe, where objects would move at random, independent of the forces acted upon them, well, then we wouldnt have this law, would we? Perhaps such a universe exist, but perhaps there are no Newtons there to check, because the evolution of life and therefore Newtons brain, requires objects to behave in this predictable Newtonian way.

We only have one sample, which is this Universe. Shoulds, woulds and perhaps don't explain away design. What you're really trying to express here is the anthropic principle. Take this example..let's say you're standing before a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all aiming for your heart, and then you hear the shots go off..and to your surprise you find that you're still alive, that they all missed. Should you be surprised that you do not observe you are dead? If you were dead, obviously you couldn't observe it. However, you are justified in being surprised you are alive, since all 100 marksmen missing you is extremely improbable. Which is the same reason we should be surprised that there is a conspiracy in the physical laws to support life in the Universe.

Anyway, here we are, we make our laws based on our observations of how things seem predictable, and if things arent that predictable, we cant make laws about them. For instance, why hasnt god, being so clever with the whole "law of motion" trick and all, made a similar law-system for finance? ie: "every 50 years, the market will collapse" and so on? or evolution " the ultimate goal of all of evolution is for all species to evolve big brains trunks, like the humans elephants have?

God laid down a lot of laws about how we should behave. The reason for the chaos in the world is because we haven't obeyed those laws.

No, it seems while God likes order and laws to apply to inanimate object, he's decided to go for chaos and indetermency when dealing with large, complex systems.

You'd almost think there was no god at all, huh?

*Yeah,yeah Einstein, relativity blah blah, for all intends and purposes, Newton will suffice here.

He gave us laws about how to live. Perhaps you have heard of the bible?

>> ^BicycleRepairMan

it's a particular style of music, and it's not too popular today. there are insane composers out there, but composing for an orchestra is a difficult thing.... for starters, most composers don't have an orchestra. secondly, there is very little funk in an orchestra, and that rules out a great many talents.

but really, it's kind of like saying "there haven't been any shakespeare's lately." which is a sorta-truth. there are incredible writers everywhere, but very few are writing sonnets in old english.

>> ^RadHazG:

I've always wondered why Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, and all the rest came around so long ago and are still considered some of the greatest, but for some reason since then nobody has come along to challenge them. Suppose we have a contender.

>> ^PHJF:

That isn't Manhattan, it's blue Tobias Funke.


"I'm afraid I just blue myself." Best costume ever. Good eye.

Not usually into funk, but this guy really makes it come alive!

>> ^PHJF:

That isn't Manhattan, it's blue Tobias Funke.


And here I thought he was a Smurf.

That isn't Manhattan, it's blue Tobias Funke.

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.