Agreed. I find TYT entertaining at times, but its in now way the cream of the crop that I expect from VideoSift.


>> ^chingalera:
If we are supposed to "sift" through the video offerings on the internet and embed the best here, why are ALL of the segments ever cranked-out by these wanna-be hacks embedded on this site??

>> ^chingalera:

These editorials from TYT...Still reek of the worst form of journalistic tripe. C & A use the same basic formula that keeps Murdoch's crap-riddled "media" empire afloat;
Sensationalism, inane editorial on current events, and smug gibbering about celebrities and volatile subject matter. That they are so popular here on Videosift is not surprising-Neither is Rupert's net worth considering the herd-mentality that keeps it afloat.
Question: If we are supposed to "sift" through the video offerings on the internet and embed the best here, why are ALL of the segments ever cranked-out by these wanna-be hacks embedded on this site??
Answer: "MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"


Nah, not all

>> ^Jinx:

was watching this with close captions on for some reason, and man do they murder everything Cenk says.
At about 1:50 it comes up with "was a little swallowing dat homes" and it made me spit drink on my keyboard. Just had to share.
edit: "sprinkled bus stop" Oh man, I gotta watch more youtube videos with this on.


Oh my god yeah, especially TYT, I can't even remember what vid it was now, but I posted one from TYT for the very purpose of watching with cc, hilarious!

He had to pick on something we all hate more than him, so it had to be scientology cos hitler's dead.

Thanks!
In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
alien_concept: Rupert Murdoch - "A Cunt"

*promote

Similarly, we can instantiate in enough physical rules to get the "chance" universe you describe going, and its rules could get it to the current state either determinalistically or with some element of randomness. I guess I understand how you're using "chance" here... but I don't know that it's terribly useful. Why should "what humans can predict" be of any relevance philosophically? And if we're using it that way, couldn't we similarly describe God's actions as chance? I mean, surely humans (or angels) can't predict everything he's going to do. Chance seems like a pejorative when applied to God.. and to me it seems like a pejorative when applied to the operations of the universe (except where, again, that operation is actually random).

However, again, I don't think this difference is terribly important. I think I understand what you're getting at, I just see things very differently.

The difference between chance and design is the most important distinction there is. If you don't like the word chance, I will use the word "unplanned", or "mindless". An unplanned Universe has no actual purpose; it is just happenstance. Meaning, your life is just a product of mindless processes, and concepts like morality, justice, and truth have no essential meaning. It means you are just some blip on a grid and there is no rhyme or reason to anything. It also means you will never find out what happened or why it happened because no one knows what is going on or ever will. This will *always* lead you to nihilism.

A designed Universe, on the other hand, does have a purpose. A purposeful Universe means that life was created for a reason. It means that there is a truth, a truth that only the Creator knows. Which means that all lines of inquiry will lead to the Creators doorstep, and that trying to understand the Universe without the Creator is completely futile. It is like looking at a painting with three marks on it..you could endlessly speculate on what the painter was thinking when he painted it. However, no matter how clever you were, you don't have enough information to be sure about anything. To refuse to seek the Creator would be to stare at that painting your whole life trying to figure it out when you have the painters business card with his phone number on it in your pocket.

I don't think you're phrasing this in a terribly fair way. Yes, many people assume there's a natural explanation for abiogenesis. This is partly because having another explanation introduces arbitrariness into the system. Say I'm a geologist and I discover Devil's Tower. It's really weird, but my inclination from the very start is that it was formed by similar processes to ones that have explained weird things in the past. Even if I can't postulate even a guess as to why it has those weird columns, I'm not crazy to guess that eventually we'll figure out an explanation that doesn't involve, say, new physical laws or aliens. (And it's certainly not helpful to say "maybe it was made in the flood").

The whole thing is arbitrary to begin with. Naturalistic explanations are assumed apriori, and then the evidence is interpreted through the conclusion. That isn't how science works. You come to the conclusion because of the evidence, not the other way around. I would also note that you would never accept this kind of reasoning from a creationist. Neither does a mountain of circumstantial evidence prove anything.

Abiogenesis is a bigger problem and it's also one that's "lost to time" a bit. It almost certainly requires a mechanism we have yet to identify (or a mechanism someone has guessed at, but hasn't provided good details or evidence for). But, like Devil's Tower, there's no reason to expect that mechanism won't be identified - or that it will require significant changes to our understanding of the rest of science. Again, there's plausible ideas already floating around, and I think we'll probably recreate the process (though likely not with the same actual process) within the next 30 years or so.

Anything sounds plausible, apparently, when you have billions of years to play with. As the earlier quote said, time itself performs the miracles for you. How do you know that the mechanism hasn't already been identified but you have rejected it?

http://creation.com/devils-tower-explained

No... that, I think, is probably our strongest point of disagreement. I'm very much OK with "I don't know", and literally everything I believe has a bit of "I don't know" attached (kind of similar to how everything you believe in has a bit of God attached).

I'm not worshipping ignorance or something - knowing IS better than not knowing. But I'm also not scared of not knowing things - and I'm certainly not just going to pick something and believe in it because I don't like having some of my answer pages blank.

For you, is Scientology better than "I don't know"?

The point I'm trying to make is, I don't know isn't a theory. What most atheists mean when they say "I don't know" is "I know it isn't the Christian God, but otherwise I don't know". The next thing they say is, you believe in God because you're afraid. That I "chose" God because I am scared of death, or because the Universe is too big and scary for my mind to handle the uncertainty of not knowing.

I have to say that this idea of a bunch of hokey. The Christians I know believe in God because they have a personal relationship with Him. It has nothing to do with making a choice..God chose us. He would chose you too, if you were open to Him.

Neither was I afraid of death when I was an agnostic, and I wasn't afraid of saying I don't know (that's why I was an agnostic, because I didn't know). I believe in God because He revealed Himself to me, and that is the only reason. If He hadn't, I would still be an agnostic.

It is credible to believe that the Universe was designed and created by God. We can see that whomever made the Universe is unimaginably powerful, intelligent, exists outside of space and time, etc. Scientology isn't credible and explains nothing. God can explain everything.

Also, thanks for using the big boy version of the Bible. I quite like the Bible artistically, but I can't stand some of the new translations (despite whatever benefits some parts may have in terms of clarity).

Most of the new translations butcher the scriptures. They remove entire verses, words, water down meanings, or just flat out mislead. I can't stand them either. The KJV is the best word for word translation that we have, and although the language is archaic, it is comprehensible with a little research.

>> ^jmzero

If we can boil all of the possibilities down to design and chance, how could you tell which Universe you were in?


I kind of abandoned this part because I don't think our differences on this matter are terribly interesting. But I'll come back to it for a second to clarify. To me, there is no important difference between these two things you're talking about.

I don't see myself as terribly different than a falling rock. While it's useful in many situations to think of myself as designing something, in absolute terms me building a house is no different than water eroding through a rock - they're just things that happen following from the state and rules of the universe. What you're calling "design" and "chance" are both, to me, just parts of "the rules for moving from one state to another" and I don't see a big philosophical difference between them (I also don't think there's any important philosophical reality to "free will", if that helps you understand my position).

If we have a start state with a certain kind of benevolent God, the rest of the stuff flows from that through state change rules of some sort - and I don't find it terribly interesting what sorts of rules and processes are involved to get from that start state to the current one (or, at least, only to the extent that those rules and processes may imply more or less arbitrariness in the start state).

Similarly, we can instantiate in enough physical rules to get the "chance" universe you describe going, and its rules could get it to the current state either determinalistically or with some element of randomness. I guess I understand how you're using "chance" here... but I don't know that it's terribly useful. Why should "what humans can predict" be of any relevance philosophically? And if we're using it that way, couldn't we similarly describe God's actions as chance? I mean, surely humans (or angels) can't predict everything he's going to do. Chance seems like a pejorative when applied to God.. and to me it seems like a pejorative when applied to the operations of the universe (except where, again, that operation is actually random).

However, again, I don't think this difference is terribly important. I think I understand what you're getting at, I just see things very differently.

Yet, it is assumed to be true because "there must be a naturalistic origin to life".


I don't think you're phrasing this in a terribly fair way. Yes, many people assume there's a natural explanation for abiogenesis. This is partly because having another explanation introduces arbitrariness into the system. Say I'm a geologist and I discover Devil's Tower. It's really weird, but my inclination from the very start is that it was formed by similar processes to ones that have explained weird things in the past. Even if I can't postulate even a guess as to why it has those weird columns, I'm not crazy to guess that eventually we'll figure out an explanation that doesn't involve, say, new physical laws or aliens. (And it's certainly not helpful to say "maybe it was made in the flood").

Abiogenesis is a bigger problem and it's also one that's "lost to time" a bit. It almost certainly requires a mechanism we have yet to identify (or a mechanism someone has guessed at, but hasn't provided good details or evidence for). But, like Devil's Tower, there's no reason to expect that mechanism won't be identified - or that it will require significant changes to our understanding of the rest of science. Again, there's plausible ideas already floating around, and I think we'll probably recreate the process (though likely not with the same actual process) within the next 30 years or so.

I think you'll have to admit that God is a much better theory than "I don't know".


No... that, I think, is probably our strongest point of disagreement. I'm very much OK with "I don't know", and literally everything I believe has a bit of "I don't know" attached (kind of similar to how everything you believe in has a bit of God attached).

I'm not worshipping ignorance or something - knowing IS better than not knowing. But I'm also not scared of not knowing things - and I'm certainly not just going to pick something and believe in it because I don't like having some of my answer pages blank.

For you, is Scientology better than "I don't know"?

Edit:
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.


Also, thanks for using the big boy version of the Bible. I quite like the Bible artistically, but I can't stand some of the new translations (despite whatever benefits some parts may have in terms of clarity).

No but he did screen it for him and apparently he didn't like it heh.

http://www.movies.com/movie-news/paul-thomas-anderson-has-shown-his-scientology-movie-to-tom-cruise-and-/8060?wssac=164&wssaffid=news

>> ^shuac:

It's about time L. Ron Hubbard got some scrutiny from Hollywood. I wonder if Tom Cruise was approached for this role? <snicker, snicker>

Actually, you're not too far off the mark


Lol - thanks for linking that. The video is still crazy, but its existence makes sense now.

I'm slightly curious now as to why he'd leave Scientology (it seems like a pretty good fit), but not curious enough to do any real work and find out. Oddly enough, the first link I found when Googling why he left was titled: "Scientology, anti-psychiatry quackery, and Mike Adams: It all becomes clear now".

Yes, it does.

>> ^jmzero:

Holy wow. I mean, I think it's clear that child psychiatric drugs are overprescribed (largely because parents press for "something", I think)... but this video is painfully embarrassing.
I kept looking for some hint that it was tongue-in-cheek or something, but I don't think it is. I think this guy thinks a rap, and a comically bad video is the best way to reach people with his message.
It'd be hilarious if it turned out Scientology was behind this (it seems about their level of video production, social awareness, and about the right level of anti-psychiatry hysteria).


Actually, you're not too far off the mark.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NaturalNews

Holy wow. I mean, I think it's clear that child psychiatric drugs are overprescribed (largely because parents press for "something", I think)... but this video is painfully embarrassing.

I kept looking for some hint that it was tongue-in-cheek or something, but I don't think it is. I think this guy thinks a rap, and a comically bad video is the best way to reach people with his message.

It'd be hilarious if it turned out Scientology was behind this (it seems about their level of video production, social awareness, and about the right level of anti-psychiatry hysteria).

>> ^messenger:

@Deano
A thought experiment should have valid parameters. To me, it fails the moment it makes all those dubious assumptions about DNA differences.
I did love his point about Mars though. That's spot on. What scares me is that if true, it would Scientology look more reputable.


Well except for the Overlord, his large economy flier airplanes, and bombing volcanoes (plus there are only a few volcanoes that he can actually bomb in the first place; they just are not built ALL like the Hawaiian chain open caldera type of volcano). Plus I have to wonder, how did our primitive species as we were slowly migrating upwards in the DNA chain deal with all the bad juju stuff that was injected into the DNA sequencing line--and then eventually ended up in ours...?

I really don't think you have to worry at all. Except for the stupid people, they amazingly will believe ANYTHING and often do; like Obama's birth certificate not really being one.

/I actually know a birther here in Utah and I can tell you that I can give them ALL THE PROOF on why their belief is incorrect, including evidence. Yet they will not believe me; BUT if I change my STANCE in the middle of my proof and make something up ON THE SPOT instead supporting them--they believe me!!! So I know what you believe is far more important than the truth and this is true EVEN for smart people. It's rare to find people that will switch positions on the spot--I think due to a lot of pride.

@Deano

A thought experiment should have valid parameters. To me, it fails the moment it makes all those dubious assumptions about DNA differences.

I did love his point about Mars though. That's spot on. What scares me is that if true, it would Scientology look more reputable.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Scientology, Tom Cruise, movie, naughty sause' to 'Scientology, Tom Cruise, movie, naughty sause, magnolia' - edited by Trancecoach

The Church of Scientology runs Al Anon cause they do want to brainwash people ... but not all support groups are run like this

Also, Dr Drew is a good guy. I enjoy his new show because its so cute how he really tries to help people, then realizes he is supposed to be eating their souls for ratings. Its quite a format change from his usual take-it-or-leave-it consultations.