>> ^Yogi:

And yet it's amazing to me that humans 100,000 years ago were faster...on muddy ground rather than with spikes on a rubber track. That's crazy!
Also...a rabbit could kick Bolt's ass


What?

And yet it's amazing to me that humans 100,000 years ago were faster...on muddy ground rather than with spikes on a rubber track. That's crazy!

Also...a rabbit could kick Bolt's ass

@VoodooV

The way to destroy political parties, oddly enough, is to make more of them viable. It's easy to be "not the other guys" when there's only 1 "other guy". When there's 3, 4 or 5 "other guys", some of them are bound to agree with each other now and then. Eventually it gets very muddy and you've got a semblance of people voting on issues rather than brand loyalty.

It's nice to see a well reasoned defense that the Universe had a beginning. The thought of science before that was that the Universe was infinite and had no beginning or end. This is something Einstein believed as well. It used to be one of the tools of the skeptic to say that creation couldn't be true. But, we now know the truth, that the Universe was created by something else. One of the discoverers of the cosmic background microwave radiation said this:

"Certainly there was something that set it all off. Certainly, if you
are religious, I can't think of a better theory of the origin of the universe
to match with Genesis"

Even men of science understood the definitive connection between God and the origin of the Universe. Materialists though like to posit that there are infinite Universes and dimensions, anything they can do to muddy the conclusion that there was a single source. They want an infinite stack of turtles because they don't ever want to see what is at the bottom of the pile.

It's clear the ultimate cause of all things is eternal, just by simple logic. Something doesn't come from nothing. Either there was always something, or there would never be anything. So, therefore something always has existed, which means it is eternal. The Universe has an eternal first cause which is transcendent, immaterial and timeless. Anyone with even the thinnest shred of reason can tell what that means, but reason doesn't often enter into the argument.

>> ^gwiz665:

Establishment clause.
He is using his position in state to propagate religion in general, even if it is non-denominational. That is preferential treatment to religion compared to no religion.
He is welcome to do it privately, but he is not allowed to mix his state-job together with his religionism, because he muddies the water that separates church and state.


One--Texas isn't even really a state... Two--does he actually propagate or just ask for a gathering? Propagating would be specifically arguing for a religion of his choice or religion at all. You know, I have prayed in the past. Sometimes it was necessary for me. This, even though I am atheist. It was about the psychological effects (Although when I pray it is a rare thing indeed.)

I know there is no God and I don't pray to one. So if I would, for whatever reason, ask for a prayer day, even for spiritual things, I am not necessarily propagating anything more than a state of mind. That's spiritual to me. My wife breastfeeding was spiritual to me (The first two babies... the third, I was like 'Fuck it.')

Of course Rick Perry is sliding a disingenuous motive in there. But what the heck. He didn't, in this video, advocate for anything inappropriate.

Also, the first amendment is at odds with the establishment clause anyways... And even if it is not--are you suggesting that the literal interpretation should always be followed in the constitution like atheists are demanding are followed in the establishment clause? That's dangerous. "The right to bear arms" has no limitations whatsoever. You couldn't argue that times have changed because the law has not. And before we get into the term militia, I will explain it. Back then it meant, "all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service." Dictionary.reference.com

So yeah, let's err on the side of reason.

Establishment clause.

He is using his position in state to propagate religion in general, even if it is non-denominational. That is preferential treatment to religion compared to no religion.

He is welcome to do it privately, but he is not allowed to mix his state-job together with his religionism, because he muddies the water that separates church and state.

>> ^shinyblurry:

What I am saying is that there is no distinction between atheists, that the distinction is false from the outset (as confirmed by the dictionary). People who hold these combinations of beliefs are just logically inconsistant. This is part of the delusion that is out there, that people try to cloak themselves in this inpenetrable void of unbelief. Sorry, but you are exposed:
Ask yourself this question:
Was the Universe deliberately created by a supreme intellect?
Yes = Theist
No = Atheist
I dont know = Agnostic
It's pretty much that simple. You can muddy it up all you like..but the basic question is fairly simple. Just as the definition of atheism is simple: a disbelief or denial of a god(s)
As far as my knowledge goes, I know quite a bit about all of those subjects, particularly evolutionary biology and general relativity. I am also well versed in philosophy, history, astronomy, biology, theology, and comparative religion. As well as apologetics in general. I know what constitutes a standard of evidence. However, I know God exists; He is as real to me as my own reflection in a mirror. I have plenty of evidence, directly from God. You may not consider it evidence because it personal testimony, but it is clearly evidence to me.
Again, Jesus commanded that we contend for the faith. Which means to preach the gospel and have answers to peoples questions. I never claimed to be perfect..but you know, your testimony here is fairly flawed..telling me to be humble in one breath and insulting me in the other. You ever notice how hypocrites usually contridict themselves within a few sentences? I do..

There is no contradiction or hypocrisy. I don't claim to be humble, or tell you to be humble. I'm pointing out that your arrogance make you sound like a fool, and you come here to make a mockery of religion.

"I know quite a bit about evolutionary biology and general relativity." Oh really? Pray tell what you do for a living and what exactly qualifies you as knowing "quite a bit" about these fields? Becoming an expert on one field is difficult enough, and apparently on videosift we have a self professed expert on two major fields of science.

What I am saying is that there is no distinction between atheists, that the distinction is false from the outset (as confirmed by the dictionary). People who hold these combinations of beliefs are just logically inconsistant. This is part of the delusion that is out there, that people try to cloak themselves in this inpenetrable void of unbelief. Sorry, but you are exposed:

Ask yourself this question:

Was the Universe deliberately created by a supreme intellect?

Yes = Theist
No = Atheist
I dont know = Agnostic

It's pretty much that simple. You can muddy it up all you like..but the basic question is fairly simple. Just as the definition of atheism is simple: a disbelief or denial of a god(s)

As far as my knowledge goes, I know quite a bit about all of those subjects, particularly evolutionary biology and general relativity. I am also well versed in philosophy, history, astronomy, biology, theology, and comparative religion. As well as apologetics in general. I know what constitutes a standard of evidence. However, I know God exists; He is as real to me as my own reflection in a mirror. I have plenty of evidence, directly from God. You may not consider it evidence because it personal testimony, but it is clearly evidence to me.

Again, Jesus commanded that we contend for the faith. Which means to preach the gospel and have answers to peoples questions. I never claimed to be perfect..but you know, your testimony here is fairly flawed..telling me to be humble in one breath and insulting me in the other. You ever notice how hypocrites usually contridict themselves within a few sentences? I do..>> ^mentality:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I know all about the schitzophrenic nuance militant atheists attempt to interject into the debate ..which really is because atheism is completely indefensible as a belief. At least someone like Christopher Hitchens is intellectually honest enough to say he doesn't believe..but many atheists try to hide behind an ambiguous definition by redefining atheism as not making any particular claims, which is patently false. I really don't care what wikipedia says, I'll go with the dictionary on this one, as well as personal experience. I've yet to meet an atheist who said he "lacked" belief who didn't unequivocably assert he is right, and not only right, but so right that I was in comparison intellectually inferior. Which is amusing to me, because as far as I am concerned an atheist might as well be rubbing two sticks together for all the discernment about reality.
Wrong. It is not a "redefinition" of atheism. It's a way of classifying different kinds of atheism. The kind of atheism that you're used to dealing with is merely a subset of atheists, the explicit/strong kind. Did you even try to read the wikipedia article? Oh wait, you're too arrogant to care. How would you like it if people bunched all Christians together, and viewed all of you as the Westboro Baptist Church?
And yet again you ignore the rest of my post. I'll spell it out again for you:
"I know this... I know that... I know all about... I don't care..."
These are all the signs of your own hubris. You don't know. You don't know and you don't care that there are different kinds of atheism. You don't know string theory, or general relativity, evolutionary biology, or even what the word "evidence" means. Yet you have the arrogance to talk like you are an expert. You sound like Ray Comfort - a fool, sure of his own righteousness and superiority. In the end, the only thing you achieve is to marginalize the Christian faith and make religious people look bad.
Try to remember that religion is a personal thing. Faith does not need your silly proofs and God does not need you to defend him.
Goodbye and good luck.

Dude, really, the positive experiences of some east Asian groups does not negate the negative experiences of other visible minorities, nor does it disqualify their claims for justice. There is no zero-sum, or black/white (no pun intended) on this issue.

I'm glad that those asian groups don't experience discrimination or prejudice despite the fact that some come to the table without the required language skills or adequate income. Bully for them. Some of us have fluent and native english skills, and have all the supposed advantages of being in the middle class, yet somehow get passed over.

I also love that fact that you lump all Asian groups together to muddy the issue again. Hmong and Japanese groups have vastly different household income, health outcomes, education levels, discriminatory experiences, and so on. They are not the same in any way, yet you can use extremes in either group to create a distorted picture of the "Asian" experience.

And this video is just ridiculous. Who cares about the fucking NBA/NCAA? Let it all be white and chinese for all I care. That's not what really matters in our society for most people. Aside from the fact that making a jump shot is a direct measure of performance in basketball; no way to manipulate it, either you can or you can't. SAT, GPA, and other measures of so-called "merit" are deeply flawed.

>> ^chilaxe:
Most of what's been said in the comments above this isn't true because Asian Americans outperform Whites, even though Asian Americans are a minority, were very recently more poor than any groups in the US, and had greater language disadvantages than anyone in the US.
All the people in the above comments who support racist discrimination against Asian Americans don't believe in personal accountability and are in favor of a permanently hyper-racialized society. http://videosift.com/poll/Is-discrimination-against-Asian-Americans-in-college-admissions-good-or-bad
This comment could be disproved if you can show that Asian Americans didn't have greater linguistic and financial barriers to overcome than any groups in the US, or that they don't outperform White people.

And what has this (supposed) objective morality provided the world? Haven't men and woman, supposedly living under the objective law of the one god, committed horrible atrocities on each other? It's a pointless debate, that William Lame Craig apparently loves to harp on. To say that there is one objective good, outside and above the thoughts and beliefs of man, is irrelevant.

It provides an absolute standard of conduct, one that is missing from atheism. How does it follow that since men have absolutely failed to live up to that standard that its irrelevnt? That indicates the depravity of man, not the absence of God.

Actual humans live in a real world composed of subjective moral decisions. Man's greatest natural ability, perhaps even greater than his ability to adapt, is his ability to rationalize.

This is why an absolute standard is necessary, because man is capable of rationalizing any type of behavior. The nazis rationalized that the holocaust was okay. It was subjectively good to them. Do you feel what they did objectively evil, and why?

Suppose that god existed, and this his objective truth was and will be concrete and always perfect. Why then have we decided that it's not OK to own slaves, stone divorced women, or marry rape victims to their rapists? Have we lost our way from the holy truth of the bible, or have we evolved as a society beyond those primitive ideas?

Though your question is entirely a strawman argument, ill answer you anyway. First of all, there is no biblical command to stone divorced women. That's just patently false. Second, there was no biblical institution of slavery. Jesus said everyone was equal in the eyes of God. There were laws on the treatment of slaves, that's true, but slavery back then had different connotations. Often times, people who couldn't otherwise take care of themselves would become slaves in exchange for room and board. People would sell themselves into slavery to pay off debts. This is in contrast to the involuntary slavery that was predominant in America.

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

Now it's interesting that you've brought up slavery because there has never been an abolition movement outside of the Christian west. That doesn't really speak too well for atheist values does it.

Now on your example of rape victims, there are different translations for the particular hebrew word. It's not clear that is what it is talking about. However, I'll address it in the literal sense, though I won't commit myself to this definition. Sex is considered the spiritual act of marriage. When people have relations they are cleaved together in the spirit. That's why fornication is forbidden. So, whether it was unfortunate or not, the couple were married spiritually at that point and thus they would only compound the sin by being seperated. If you want to talk about further misconceptions you have about the bible, I'll be happy to do so in private..but I am not going to muddy the debate about absolute values vs relative values any further.

>> ^KnivesOut:
And what has this (supposed) objective morality provided the world? Haven't men and woman, supposedly living under the objective law of the one god, committed horrible atrocities on each other? It's a pointless debate, that William Lame Craig apparently loves to harp on. To say that there is one objective good, outside and above the thoughts and beliefs of man, is irrelevant.
Actual humans live in a real world composed of subjective moral decisions. Man's greatest natural ability, perhaps even greater than his ability to adapt, is his ability to rationalize.
Suppose that god existed, and that his objective truth was and will be concrete and always perfect. Why then have we decided that it's not OK to own slaves, stone divorced women, or marry rape victims to their rapists? Have we lost our way from the holy truth of the bible, or have we evolved as a society beyond those primitive ideas?

>> ^blankfist:

But in @NetRunner's household you are affected by it. For some reason, FedEx, UPS and DHL have decided your neighborhood isn't cost effective to deliver to. However, the USPS must deliver to it, so they leverage their services. Otherwise, the private carriers would probably charge a premium to deliver there.

And my point is, it's not that my neighborhood is prohibitively expensive to deliver to, it's that using USPS deliver is more efficient generally (or as FedEx puts it, "cost effective"). That's why the whole product is being offered as a lower-cost alternative to traditional shipping to all US destinations for packages below a certain weight.

Like I said earlier, it makes sense. It costs money to own/operate a delivery truck, and doing a one-off delivery of a package to a residential area has to cost more than the additional cost of putting that package onto a mail truck that's going through my neighborhood anyways...

>> ^blankfist:
Finally, I think you're mistakenly conflating modern liberalism with Marxism here. They're incompatible. Like I said, if you speak to a real Marxist they won't say they have much if anything in common with Social Democrats. They don't consider SDs leftist and think they muddy the socialist philosophy. And Marxists are also anti-statist and anti-capitalist, and most SDs are pro state controlled capitalism.


I'm not conflating anything. It's the right that loves to conflate everything on the liberal agenda with Stalinist Communism.

I'm curious though, can you be specific? What philosophical position do Marxists take that would align with your position, but not mine?

On the topic of statism for example, I think I'm with the Marxists -- I think in a perfect world, it wouldn't be necessary, but until we achieve heaven on Earth, it's necessary.

But in @NetRunner's household you are affected by it. For some reason, FedEx, UPS and DHL have decided your neighborhood isn't cost effective to deliver to. However, the USPS must deliver to it, so they leverage their services. Otherwise, the private carriers would probably charge a premium to deliver there.

The private carriers do "duplicate effort", that's the whole point of competition. They do it, but they improve on the service or do it cheaper. One of the two. For FedEx, it's probably less to do with cost than improving the service. When I can afford to ship FedEx, I do. Especially if I want it to get there without fretting over whether or not it gets lost or delivered to the wrong house (which happens with the USPS on occasion).

Finally, I think you're mistakenly conflating modern liberalism with Marxism here. They're incompatible. Like I said, if you speak to a real Marxist they won't say they have much if anything in common with Social Democrats. They don't consider SDs leftist and think they muddy the socialist philosophy. And Marxists are also anti-statist and anti-capitalist, and most SDs are pro state controlled capitalism.

>> ^MaxWilder:

Note this video is from Mar 16, 2011.
While still a terrible disaster, it is being ranked behind Chernobyl in terms of magnitude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents


I've been seeing posts on reddit about meltdowns in 3 or 4 of the cores. A full on china syndrome in the 1st reactor. There's radioactive sludge in a city outside of the 20km exclusion zone. http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/hebf2/fukushima_nuclear_core_meltdown_confirmed/

At this point there's so much bullshit here that I have to put on my fucking hazmat suit.

At this point, just arguing about how it is or is not like Chernobyl is a bunch of bullshit. It just muddies the fucking waters so much that no one knows what the fucking truth is.

People are saying it melted right after the quake, people are saying it melted sometime after the quake, people are saying it could be in a runaway state right now.

In short, I wouldn't trust jack shit the government of Japan says, or TEPCO (They have a monetary interest in making things sound less dangerous).

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/2011/prn201106.html

After a full viewing, it really is just a re-packaging/re-branding of the same old, tired arguments and false equivalences, simply jazzed up a bit to sound fresh. It also seems extraordinarily difficult to argue the 'Reason for God' objectively without slipping in Christianity (inadvertently or otherwise). It tends to muddy the waters and makes it difficult to have a clear debate without slipping into canon/dogma which introduces a world of other topics.

I thought the Q&A session would be a bigger pay-off, but he seemed to back away from giving any qualitative answers. Say what you want about Hitchens...if you ask a question he will give a solid answer on the spot; I find it intellectually unsatisfying and a bit suspect that he deflected deeper questioning into "not having enough time" or "read my book" to some pretty simple and elegant questions.

That said, the last Q&A guy was a waste of everyone's time.

>> ^chilaxe:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since April 8th, 2009" href="http://videosift.com/member/longde">longde I'm not sure how those arguments support the contention that Asian Americans should be subject to racial discrimination.


I guess I should go back to the surface on this:

Two things have not been proven by the article or this thread:

1) That there is discrimination against asian americans in admissions.
2) If there is discrimination, what are the underlying reasons.

Lumping all asian americans into one group muddies this issue. The same with lumping all universities and collages into one group. This is better examined on a school/school system basis.

The one stat given above is not proof. If I look at that, then every group but African Americans are being discriminated against. Hispanics and whites should also be building a case with asians.