You won't stand by? tell us then. what are you going to do?

Are you going to pout? Are you going to whine? Are you going to ramble incoherently? Are you going to abuse substances again to cope? Are you going to lash out more against people who don't buy into your anarchist-wannabe ideas while you sit at a computer, in comfort, enjoying the perks of a society of laws and law enforcement which you rail against?

Are you going to do nothing? Are you going to make another account? Are you going to leave?

I'm genuinely curious. What *are* you going to do if you aren't going to "stand-by" Talk is cheap.

Why can't modern journalists do a half decent job of coming up with good interview questions and asking them properly? This interview was remarkably amateurish and incoherent.

God uses the weak things of this world to shame the strong. The accolades of the world do not enhance or diminish the presentation of the truth. God will use it because He uses all things for those good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.

I'm still waiting for your reply here:

http://videosift.com/video/The-Incoherence-of-Atheism#comment-1720373

Hi voodooV..sorry it took me so long to reply.

you're committing another logical fallacy here. Argument from ignorance. just because you can't think of any other reason for morality doesn't prove god did it.

The fallacy you mentioned doesn't apply. The argument isn't for Gods existence, the argument is that atheism is incoherent because it has no foundation for morality, among other reasons. Ravi asked the question, without God what are the Ontic referrants for reality?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontic

To answer your question though. Survival...pure survival is pretty much the foundation of morality. what behavior ensures a long, prosperous and happy life? That's your morality right there. And it's all based on logic and reason, not an imaginary god.

is it better to be a dick to someone or is it better to work with other people. hrm...which ensures a higher probability of success in your endeavors.

is better in the long run to help or to hurt. Which ensures a greater likelyhood that people will be willing to help YOU out when you need it.

virtually everything that we consider moral today is the evolution (gasp) of instinctual rules we've learned over the millions (not thousands) of years that ensure a longer, happier life.

What you're talking about is pragmatism, which is to say that if it works then it is the best way to do things. Yet plenty of people have led long, prosperous and happy lives by exploiting other people for their gain. That's what works for them, so why shouldn't I emulate that standard of behavior instead of being self-sacrificing? Some of the most successful people who have ever lived got there by being terrible human beings. Basically, your standard of survival isn't about what is right, but what is right for me and that is entirely arbitrary. It also is an incoherent standard for morality.

Which is why only two of your commandments still hold up as secular laws.

I forget where I learned this but even biblical morality can be traced back to rules that made sense, at the time, that ensured survival. I think it has been shown that many of the biblical rules involving not eating certain foods can be traced back to diseases or some other logical reason, but hey, we didn't have an understanding of these pesky little things called bacteria and microorganisms back then so when you ate a certain food and died, that wasn't science, it was your imaginary sky god who was angry with you.

What's really interesting about that is that Moses was educated as an Egyptian prince, which was the most advanced country in the world at the time. He would have certainly been exposed to their medical knowledge, but you won't find a shred of that in the bible. The Egyptians were doing things like applying dung to peoples wounds, whereas the Laws of Moses detailed procedures for disease control, like hand washing and quarantine procedures, as well as public sanitation, and dietary laws which prevented the spread of parasites. They were thousands of years ahead of their time; we only started washing our hands to control disease in the past 200 years.

Even your fear and hatred of homosexuality and abortion can be easily explained by survival. When your village only numbered in the hundreds or maybe thousands and simple diseases and winters wiped out LOTS of people, discouraging homosexuality and abortion is actually a pretty good idea when the survival of your species is at stake. But when you've got advanced medicine and we've got the whole food and shelter thing dealt with and our population is now 7 billion. the whole "be fruitful and multiply" thing just isn't necessary anymore. In fact, it's becoming a problem. and Once again, survival will dictate our morality. If we do nothing to combat overpopulation and resources become an issue, I guarantee you that large families will eventually have a negative stigma attached to them until the situation is resolved.

You're talking to a former agnostic who once approved of homosexuality and abortion. I am not afraid of it, and I don't hate the people doing it. This is a clash of presuppositions; if there isn't a God then I couldn't give you an absolute reason why people cannot have homosexual relationships or murder their unborn children. If we're all just glorified apes contending for limited resources, then in that paradigm it may be necessary to cull the herd. I think the appropriate response though to someone contending we should eliminate vast swaths of the human populace to save the planet is, "you first".

But God is in control and this is His planet, and since He is still creating human beings, He will provide the resources to take care of them. It's the iniquity of mankind which is limiting the resources when the truth is that we have way more than enough to take care of everyone. Take for example the fact that over 30 thousand people starve to death every day. Is that because we don't have enough food? Actually, we have more than enough food yet we waste about 1/3 of the world food supply every year. The gross world product in 2012 was over 84 trillion dollars, more than enough to feed, clothe, house and vaccinate every single person on the planet. Those people die not because there isn't enough, but because the wickedness of man.

Don't ask me though, ask an anthropologist or sociologist. They've been studying this stuff for decades. I'm sure you could even find an anthropologist/sociologist that believes in god and they'd still say the same thing. our understanding of reality changes....as does morality. no one takes seriously the old biblical rules about stoning unruly kids, working the sabbath, and wearing clothing of two types of fabric anymore. So why should we listen other outdated biblical rules that don't apply anymore. As countless others of sifters have already informed you, you have the burden of proof and you haven't met it yet.

Call me when someone discovers a disease or some other problem that arises when you mix two fabrics and we'll revisit those rules k?

God has three kinds of laws, moral civil and cermonial. The rules you're referring to were civil and ceremonial laws for Israel and not for the rest of the world. They have no application today because they were connected to the Old Covenant God had with Israel. God has a New Covenant with the whole world that doesn't include those laws. The moral laws of God do not change with time, or ever. And although we fancy ourselves as more enlightened today, the reality of the world we live in tells us that human nature hasn't changed one bit. Human nature is every bit as ugly and self serving as it always has been. If you peel back the thin veneer of civility you will find a boiling pot of iniquity.

Stop committing basic logical fallacies and you might learn this stuff for yourself You haven't ever said anything that isn't easily invalidated by a simple logical fallacy or hasn't already been debunked long ago.

It's easy to speak in generalities; if I have committed a logical fallacy, then specifically point it out. The one that you detailed earlier did not apply.

Do you watch the Atheist Experience videos Shiny? because every time I watch one of the videos and listened to the same old tired theist "arguments" over and over again. I'm always reminded of you because you just aren't saying anything new. If you're serious about understanding why your ideas just don't pan out and you're not just trolling, you should seriously watch those.

I've watched the show, and again, I was a lifelong agnostic before becoming a Christian. I was pretty far left and would have probably fit in well with the lot of you not too many years ago. So, this is all to say that I understand where you're coming from and why you think and believe the way you do, because I used to think and believe in the same ways. Your mindset isn't a mystery to me. What I've learned about it is that God has to reveal Himself to a person before they will know anything about Him. Everyone gets some revelation and it is up to them to follow it. I received the revelation that there is a God and I pursued that for many years until He revealed Himself to me through His Son Jesus Christ. He has revealed Himself to you and everyone else on this website in some form or fashion. You would be shocked to hear some of the revelation people have received and turned away from, or rationalized away later. Statistics show that 10 percent of self professing atheists pray, and that is because they are unable to within themselves completely deny the revelation that they have received. I guarantee you there are atheists on this board who wrestle with all of this but since it isn't something atheists talk about (or would admit to publicly) you would never know it, that you're all keeping a lid on the truth.

seriously dude, you're sometimes worse than both of them.

because you enable them. you defend known racists and trolls. you come in here with your fake-conciliatory "lets all be friends, everyone's opinions are valid" bullshit. It's like you come into every sift, pick out the worst posts..and start defending them.

you're like the media. you take absolutely indefensible arguments of others and try to pretend they're equally valid to stoke the flames. What? you didn't think we noticed you working overtime to defend ching lately during his latest off his meds episode? not surprised at all that you're now swooping in to defend another shithead of the sift.

it's so fake and so transparent.

you're another bad symptom of a site that refuses to have moderators and lets known troublemakers back on that's devolved into just noise and incoherency

Actually, the proof that something did not end up in the hands of the Chinese, the Russians, or myself for that matter, is quite difficult, given that evidence of absence is impossible to obtain. However, the absence of evidence to the claim that they have gained access to information through Snowden himself is reason enough for me.

You want proof that nothing was transfered to them? Might as well try to prove the non-existance of the famous tea pot in orbit.

So the basic argument boils down to motivation as well as credibility of claims.

His motivation to keep access to his material restricted to the selected group of journalists is apparent from his own interviews. They are supposed to be the check on the government, they lack the information to fullfil the role, they need access to correct (what he perceived to be) a wrong, namely a grave breach of your consitution on a previously unheard of scale.
Providing access to Russia or China would instantly negate all hope of ever not drawing the short straw in this mess, as the US is the only country on the planet who can provide him with amnesty and therefore safety.

So why would he do it? For a shot at asylum? You know as well as I do that (permanent) asylum in China/Russia is worthless if the US is after you. Europe could guarantee one's safety, but given the lack of sovereignty vis-a-vis the US, it would not be an option.

That leaves credibility of claims. And that's where my first reason comes into play, the one you put down as "naive". His opponents, those in positions of power, be it inside government or the press, have a track record of being... let's not mince words here, lying sacks of shit. James Clapper's act of perjury on front of Congress is just the most prominent manifestation of it. The entire bunch lied their asses off during the preparation of the invasion of Iraq, they lied their asses off during the revelations triggered by Chelsea Manning and they lied their asses off about the total und unrelenting surveillance of American citizens in violation of their constitutional rights.

If you think supervision of the NSA by the Select Committee on Intelligence is actually working, I suggest you take a look at statements by Senator Wyden. The NSA even plays them for fools. Hell, Bruce Schneier was recently approached by members of Congress to explain to them what the NSA was doing, because the NSA refused to. Great oversight, works like a charm. By the way, it's the same fucking deal with GCHQ and the BND.

So yes, the fella who "stole" data is actually a trustworthy figure, because a) his claims were true and b) his actions pulled off the veil that covered the fact that 320 million Americans had their private data stolen and were sold out by agencies of their own government in conjunction with private intelligence contractors.

What else...

Ah, yeah. "Sloppy" and "stupid". Again, if he was sloppy and stupid, what does that say about the internal control structure of the intelligence industry? They didn't notice shit, they still claim to be unaware of what precisely he took with him. Great security, fellas.

"He could have allowed the press to do it's job without disclosing a much of what has been released."

He disclosed nothing. He is not an experienced journalist and therefore, by his own admission, not qualified to make the call what to publish and how. That's why he handed it over to Barton Gellman at the WaPo, Glenn Greenwald at the Guardian and Laura Poitras, who worked closely with Der Spiegel.

If Spiegel, WaPo and Guardian are not reputable institutions of journalism, none are. So he did precisely what you claim he should have done: he allowed the press to do its bloody job and released fuck all himself.

As for the cheap shot at not being an American: seventy years ago, your folks liberated us from the plague of fascism, brought us freedom. Am I supposed to just sit here and watch my brothers and sisters in the US become the subjects of total surveillance, the kind my country suffered from during two dictatorships in the last century?

Ironically, that would be un-American, at least the way I understand it.

And there's nothing gleeful about my concerns. I am deeply furious about this shit and even more so about the apathy of people all around the world. You think I want Americans to suffer from the same shit we went through as a petty form of payback?

Fuck that. It's the intelligence industry that I'm gunning for. Your nationality doesn't mean squat, some intelligence agency has its crosshairs on you wherever you live. It just happens to be an American citizen who had the balls to provide us with the info to finally try and protect citizens in all countries from the overreaching abuse by the intelligence industry.

In fact, I'd rather worry about our own massive problems within Europe (rise of fascism in Greece, 60% youth unemployment, unelected governments, etc). So can we please just dismantle all these spy agencies and get on with our lives?

Sorry if this is incoherent, but it's late and I'm even more pissed off than usual.

According to hermeneuticians, economics is apparently a matter of popular opinion. Ostriches. Like someone shot in the belly but continuing to work, ignoring the fact that he's bleeding out does not obviate the fact.

Collectivist anarchy cannot exist, unless what you mean by "anarchy" is chaos, for reasons already stated. But in the abstract, yes, you can advocate some sort of incoherence like anarcho-syndcalism and still call it anarchy. That's why some like to specify and call the (in my opinion) more coherent and desirable anarchism, libertarian anarchy or anarcho-capitalism, or free market anarchism, or voluntaryism. Any type of communalism or syndicate requires rulers to administer the "communal," which, unless unanimously selected, is in direct contrast with the purpose of anarchism (which means "without rulers"). And then you have the problem of coming up with and enforcing the "communal" rules without engaging in aggression.

Perhaps "we are getting snagged on definitions." I am not clear on your position so it could be the disagreements have to do with definitions. If you redefine socialism in a non-Marxist way, maybe you can make libertarian socialism coherent.

If you can come up with a social organization that involves zero initiation of violence against persons or their property, then whatever you want to call it, it agrees with libertarian anarchy.

Let me define the basic principle of the anarchism that I favor, to avoid semantic problems: non-aggression means never initiating violence against any individual or their property.
Property can only be a scarce resource. Non-scarce resources cannot be property or owned. You acquire property through homesteading, first appropriation, voluntary trade, or inheritance.
Legally, you can enforce contracts/voluntary agreements, and punish any violations of a person's "self" or property, meaning you can enforce non-aggression.
This view I call anarchy-capitalism, libertarian anarchy, or voluntaryism.
Or free market anarchy.

Nah, more likely a personal problem between yourself and the latest cabal of you and your fan boys. My suggestion for the pain you may be experiencing is to follow the lead of newtboy and utilize the 'ignore' feature. You sell the rest of the place short with your assumptions as well, 'to the amusement of no-one but your own ego.'

Was that 'incoherent' or 'nonsensical' enough for the sandy vagina contingent?

I thought it rather lucid and direct myself but hey, I'm a simply a fucking dumbass who is only here for my own amusement, right??

Nah, more likely they believe you posted more incoherent nonsensical crap to the amusement of no-one but you.

i understood him quite well.
what part of @chingalera 's communication do you find incoherent @VoodooV ?
i thought he was being very clear.

Looks like a bunch of sci-fi tropes slammed together incoherently - featuring Magic Mike, Jackie, and Ned Stark.

A mis-informed nutcase giving an angry, incoherent diatribe? Yes, that happened alot 5 years ago. Youtube is full of birther and truther videos. This video saddens me; it's not encouraging at all. Ignorant uninformed meathead spewing illogical anger to no end. Meatheads like this are a statist's wetdream; if this marine is representative, the powers that be have nothing to worry about.

As a comedic piece that was pretty good, some nice turns of phrase and a few genuine laugh out loud absurd moments.

But as a polemic it was just awful. Rambling, disjointed and mostly incoherent. If Brand is the modern day version of a revolutionary speaker, then it's no wonder we are in the situation we find ourselves in.

And to everyone criticising Paxman, clearly you are not used to watching a good political interviewer. He won't stand for nonsense or hand waving, he wants answers.

He is right -- you need innovation to create things and then competition to bring prices down, but then arrives at some strange conclusions and inconsistencies. (All the while sounding like he is on crack.)

He makes a case for government giving money to entrepreneurs. Isn't that the "partnership system" that we have now? The mix of giving "public" money to "private" entrepreneurs?

His "solutions" require omniscient central planning to know who to give money to.

It's kind of sad the level of audience he is addressing his ideas to.
MTV meets pop-econ.

Basically he is advocating, like in the other video, a form of crony capitalism here. And the "problem" is that we don't have enough of it. So we should be giving more money to cronies because it doesn't matter if their "pizzas" get bigger, their "success" will "trickle down" to the rest of us and everyone will have a bigger pizza even if it's nowhere near as big as that of the wealthy entrepreneurs. A dog chasing its tail.

It's a weird sort of crony capitalism, though, because you give money to everyone and then one or two of those will build successful businesses and employ everyone else who didn't do as much with the money that was given to them. That's a kind of circular and it's not realistic to think that a couple of entrepreneurs will make up for all the money "given" to everyone else, and the resulting inflation and the myriad of problems therein.

I think he is trying to appeal to both left and right wingers, but it seems rather incoherent, a fact he may be trying to disguise with the fast pace and choppy editing, i.e., a video version of "fast-tlking" (i.e., swindling) to prevent any real and careful analysis of what he says.

I think there's more useful information in the videos this guy produces, but alas, they're not as "zany" as these...

@carnivorous
not trying to butt in on your penis waving contest (ok.yes i am).
but i think what some here are trying to convey to you are your broad generalizations.

i am sure your points do apply to some of the younger generation but in no way represents ALL of them.

i am getting long in the greys and i know MANY of my generation that expend far too much energy on:social networks,candy crush and full out gossip and complaining (good lord do they complain).

i know this is veering off topic,but its a worthy topic.

my boys are in their twenties.they all are hard workers of the manual persuasion but they are all having a hard go.
this happens and the times are not ripe for an easy run.
do you know what bothers me the most about watching my boys struggle?
the fear.
they are afraid,uncertain and unsure.
when i was their age i was fearless.

when i was their age i was working for my friend who was a lighting director for russell simmons.def jam summer fest world tour baby!
traveled all over the country and the carribean,duffle bag in tow.
learned how to coil cable right proper too.

ok.not at first.
totally screwed that up the first night.
so my buddy made me unravel every inch of cable (even the ones done right by him and others) and learned the hard way how to coil cable proper.
you have any idea how MUCH cable is used for lighting?
well neither do i but im gonna go in measurements of miles (or hours of lost sleep,you decide).

i guess my point is (if i even have one):
manual labor has its advantages but so do intellectual pursuits.
they actually compliment each other.

but dont judge this generation too harshly.
they are afraid,
and uncertain.
something we (or at least I) never really had to deal with on that scale.

and so ends my rambling incoherent rant.
think ill go fix that broken screen door i have been putting off for ages.
yall got me in the mood to fix something.