I think he probably was discussing something to the effect of "it has less scientific purpose or efficiency than robotic exploration of space." I don't think he's ever said anything like "it's too expensive relative to other government programs." He's always been an advocate for an increased science budget. I just think he knows that the scientific reasoning for manned space exploration (especially low earth orbit) is poorly substantiated. It's more like a PR campaign for science funding, and a recruitment tool for kids.

Honestly man, you come across as cynical as anybody on here. I'm sorry if I'm the first to break the news, but there is no Santa Claus.
>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bmacs27:
I find this funny though, because he came out so adamantly against the manned-space program at first. He called it a joy-ride for jocks. Someone must have smacked him around and said, sorry, scientific satellites don't sell, and you're our sales guy. Get with the program.

You really believe that? Jesus there's some cynical fucks on here.

Yeah, thanks for the meaningless semantics. And OF COURSE atheists are prone to the same foibles as anyone else. That goes right along with them NOT being a group. They share a disbelief in gods. Aside from that one single thing all bets are off.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^budzos:
>> ^bcglorf:

Atheism is no more a religion than liberalism, conservatism, communism or capitalism. It is just a set of ideas that one can hold to.

It's less of a religion than those things. Atheism is NOT a set of ideas. It's a single lack of belief.
It's EXACTLY as much of a religion as not believing in Santa Claus.
My being rude here is not based on atheism. It's the act of a sane man confronted by insane people who twist words like fucking SNAKES.

Semantics.
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god/deity. Blame my math background but I still call a set with only 1 item a set. And I stand by my assertion that atheists ARE every bit as human and prone to irrational beliefs as anyone else.

>> ^budzos:

>> ^bcglorf:

Atheism is no more a religion than liberalism, conservatism, communism or capitalism. It is just a set of ideas that one can hold to.

It's less of a religion than those things. Atheism is NOT a set of ideas. It's a single lack of belief.
It's EXACTLY as much of a religion as not believing in Santa Claus.
My being rude here is not based on atheism. It's the act of a sane man confronted by insane people who twist words like fucking SNAKES.


Semantics.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god/deity. Blame my math background but I still call a set with only 1 item a set. And I stand by my assertion that atheists ARE every bit as human and prone to irrational beliefs as anyone else.

>> ^bcglorf:


Atheism is no more a religion than liberalism, conservatism, communism or capitalism. It is just a set of ideas that one can hold to.


It's less of a religion than those things. Atheism is NOT a set of ideas. It's a single lack of belief.

It's EXACTLY as much of a religion as not believing in Santa Claus.

My being rude here is not based on atheism. It's the act of a sane man confronted by insane people who twist words like fucking SNAKES.

The commentary and downvotes are well within the spirit of the channel. The description reads....

--------------

"Commercial Sift
by looris

Commercials, advertisements, and everything about someone trying to gain money, to sell crap, to get discounts, to promote things, and so on.

http://mlx.videosift.com/
Style courtesy of mlx, who has done a great job and won a prize for that, because commercials are never without a price

http://maxbarry.com/jennifergovernment/
Logo is from Jennifer Government by Max Barry, which is a GREAT modern-cyberpunk book about corporations which all of you should really buy. Really, do yourself this favour."

--------------

I don't get the picture that looris had free ad time for ruthless corporations in mind when he made this channel. If Coca Cola wants comment free advertising on this site, let them pay for it.

Just because you don't see the politics, doesn't mean they aren't there. Outside of all of Coke's unethical business practices and labor abuse, The Coca-Cola Company, itself, spends a lot of money on politics, supporting candidates and political front groups: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coca-Cola_Company

Beyond this, I think advertising diabetes inducing products to kids, and co-opting the iconography of a beloved cultural holiday is gross. Santa Clause doesn't drink Coke, he drinks hot cocoa and apple cider.

Anyway, I know you probably don't care about any of this and just wanted to enjoy a cute commercial. I get that and I'm sorry I've antagonized you. I've paid a visit to your pq, so net gain for you.

Your video, The Grim Reaper gets his present from Santa Claus, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Christmas' to 'Christmas, coke, argentina, santa claus, what is that blue thing' - edited by bareboards2

cookies and milk all over the world? i'd say that's an american phenomenon. over here (GER) for example children get their presents on the evening of 24th, not on the morning of 25th. interested where the Kris Kringle the clip says originated from germany comes from? It's "Christkind": before christmas was heavily americanized during the last few years presents where delivered by Christkind, an angel-like figure. the modern image of Santa Claus - named "Nikolaus" - i.e. a white-bearded man dressed in red usually only appeared for celebration of Dec. 6th, a day much more similar to the US version of christmas: children put their boots (compare: christmas stockings) out front on the evening of Dec 5th to find them filled with gingerbread, oranges and some small presents on the morning of Dec 6th. so what has happened the last few years? "Nikolaus" (with which the holiday of Dec 6th shares its name with) became "Weihnachtsmann" (translates to Christmas-man) and the younger kids believe he is responsible for their presents on Dec 24th. so basically in Germany you have two stories folks believed in when they were kids, depending on how old they are. but neither of them involves cookies and milk :-)

and on a personal note: it's a shame really that especially media propagates the US version of christmas. as a German parent nowadays it's hard to pass on the christmas version of your own childhood and that of your parents. if you raise kids and want to give them a story to believe in for a few years you are constantly competing with the "other" version of christmas, at least confusing kids in what is "real". it really saddens me that i cannot relive many of the traditions of my own childhood with my kids (hint: Christkind's method of present delivery differs from that of Weihnachtsmann's). but i guess that's what ever-changing culture does to you :-)

Happy Holidays fellow sifters, whatever version you want to believe in :-)

Even Santa Clause was present that day.

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.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It most certainly is a leap of faith to say that there is no God, since you cannot disprove God. You have no evidence that God doesn't exist..



As an excercise in futility, please explain the difference:

>> ^shinyblurry:

It most certainly is a leap of faith to say that there is no Santa Clause on a flying donkey, since you cannot disprove Santa Clause on a flying donkey. You have no evidence that Santa Clause on a flying donkey doesn't exist..

Good chart, makes my long winded explanations unneeded, I can just link the chart!

>> ^hpqp:

@Boise_Lib
The term "agnostic" is often used by people who are atheists for all intents and purposes, but fear the stigma that comes with the word atheist, or (worse) think that being atheist means believing no god(s) exist(s).
Gnostic/Agnostic is about one's position towards the knowledge (gnosis="knowledge") of god(s)(and the metaphysical in general); theism/atheism is about one's belief/lack of belief in god(s).
Here's a helpful chart: http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/
I agree with Richard Dawkins' two categories of agnosticism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Atheist
If you meet a self-proclaimed agnostic, ask them whether they are agnostic about vampires, fairies, goblins or Santa Claus. If the answer is a categorical "no", then you can assume that person's "agnosticism" is really just the result of their fear of being rejected/stigmatised as an atheist by religious people.

@Boise_Lib

The term "agnostic" is often used by people who are atheists for all intents and purposes, but fear the stigma that comes with the word atheist, or (worse) think that being atheist means believing no god(s) exist(s).

Gnostic/Agnostic is about one's position towards the knowledge (gnosis="knowledge") of god(s)(and the metaphysical in general); theism/atheism is about one's belief/lack of belief in god(s).

Here's a helpful chart: http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/

I agree with Richard Dawkins' two categories of agnosticism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Atheist

If you meet a self-proclaimed agnostic, ask them whether they are agnostic about vampires, fairies, goblins or Santa Claus. If the answer is a categorical "no", then you can assume that person's "agnosticism" is really just the result of their fear of being rejected/stigmatised as an atheist by religious people.

I think the ultimate observer is Santa Claus. He knows if you've been naughty or nice and lets face it, blowing up cats in a bunker is pretty darned "naughty." The information is on his list, we just have to wait until Christmas to receive it.

This, of course, explains why physicists never get good toys for Christmas and why members of the so-called "scientific community" are all so intent on trying to disprove Santa's existence.

>> ^hpqp:

@SDGundamX
You make a very fair point, and I agree with you to a certain degree. I agree that it is important to respect people, even when one does not respect certain among their beliefs.
When it comes to evidence, however, I disagree that there is no evidence against the beliefs of theists; all the evidence points to those beliefs being the creation of men from a specific timeperiod in history. In a court case you don't necessarily need a "smoking gun" to disprove someone's alibi, if their alibi is so obviously made up, or logically impossible.
As for the New Atheists themselves are the ones demanding special treatment. They are essentially saying that everyone must think the same way that they do, and those who don't are somehow inferior., I would refer you to my Santa Claus comparison above. Sure, Santa Claus may exist, but for a grown person to believe in Santa when all the evidence points to him being the production of the human imagination is - to put it bluntly - dumb... even idiotic.
You say A lot of people believe because they feel their faith improves their life--provides them with social and psychological comfort, gives them a sense of mission and hope, etc. This is exactly the delusion that the so-called "New Atheists" are trying to fight against (amongst other things) because not only is it an empty promise, but it also lends credence (and thus power) to the belief systems it is attached to (X-ity, Islam, etc.) which in turn do far more damage.
It's funny that you exclude Scientology because "Hubbard admitted to making it up". Historical evidence shows that John Smith was a conman and a charlatan, yet try and tell a mormon today that his/her faith is based on a conman's made up religion. The people who believe may or may not be charlatans (look at all the preachers/gurus who make huge profits... heck, check out the golden decked halls of the Vatican), but those who founded such beliefs most probably were, at least to a certain degree.
Finally, as to whether or not being rude is always counterproductive, it would seem that is a matter of divergent opinions (you can tell what mine are in the comments above).


See my answer to @BicycleRepairMan--what people accept as evidence in this matter and how much evidence is required for people to believe (or not believe) in a religion varies from person to person. Further complicating matters is that belief is not binary--it's a very wide continuum that includes people who aren't sure but practice the religion anyway.

My point about the New Atheists is that they feel the evidence against religion is sufficient. They are entitled to that opinion--but at the end of the day it is only an opinion. They should be free to express that opinion and tell people their reasons why they came to that conclusion. But they shouldn't pretend that their opinion is "fact" or belittle those who haven't come to the same conclusion.

About the "faith improving lives" bit--there is a fair bit of empirical evidence for the benefits of religious faith (in terms of both physical and psychological health: see here and here for more info) so I can't see how you can argue it is "delusional." Unless you meant that religion isn't the only way to obtain the same benefits, in which case I absolutely agree. But I find an interesting parallel in your thinking the New Atheists can tell a religious person that he/she is delusional if that religious person believes religion has a positive effect on their life with Christians who claim that atheists think they are happy but in reality suffering because they aren't one with Christ. Seems like two sides of the same coin to me.

I'm glad I amused you with my reference to Scientology. But this is a very rare case where we have a "smoking gun" so to speak. While I agree with you that there is a some suspicious stuff going on with Mormonism (how some passages in the Book of Mormon are very similar to other books available at the time John Smith lived), I'm unaware of any hard evidence that John Smith actually admitted to making it all up. Again with Mormonism, we're back to people having to personally decide for themselves what to believe (and all the issues that entails).

Just one more thing... since you believe there are times that being rude or insulting can be productive, I'd like to know if you have any examples (personal examples are fine) of that being the case. I'm just curious what brought you to that conclusion.

@SDGundamX

You make a very fair point, and I agree with you to a certain degree. I agree that it is important to respect people, even when one does not respect certain among their beliefs.

When it comes to evidence, however, I disagree that there is no evidence against the beliefs of theists; all the evidence points to those beliefs being the creation of men from a specific timeperiod in history. In a court case you don't necessarily need a "smoking gun" to disprove someone's alibi, if their alibi is so obviously made up, or logically impossible.

As for the New Atheists themselves are the ones demanding special treatment. They are essentially saying that everyone must think the same way that they do, and those who don't are somehow inferior., I would refer you to my Santa Claus comparison above. Sure, Santa Claus may exist, but for a grown person to believe in Santa when all the evidence points to him being the production of the human imagination is - to put it bluntly - dumb... even idiotic.

You say A lot of people believe because they feel their faith improves their life--provides them with social and psychological comfort, gives them a sense of mission and hope, etc. This is exactly the delusion that the so-called "New Atheists" are trying to fight against (amongst other things) because not only is it an empty promise, but it also lends credence (and thus power) to the belief systems it is attached to (X-ity, Islam, etc.) which in turn do far more damage.

It's funny that you exclude Scientology because "Hubbard admitted to making it up". Historical evidence shows that John Smith was a conman and a charlatan, yet try and tell a mormon today that his/her faith is based on a conman's made up religion. The people who believe may or may not be charlatans (look at all the preachers/gurus who make huge profits... heck, check out the golden decked halls of the Vatican), but those who founded such beliefs most probably were, at least to a certain degree.

Finally, as to whether or not being rude is always counterproductive, it would seem that is a matter of divergent opinions (you can tell what mine are in the comments above).