This is so awesome. The tubes may be full of idiotic and egocentric douchebags, videos of death and suffering, and numberless cute fuzzy animals, but then you also get the occasional video of genuine, life-changing moments that reconcile you with humanity. Thank you so much for this find @eric3579, I will be smiling large and wide all day!

>> ^criticalthud:

@DerHassittot
totally, the puritan ethos is insidious
i like to think the linchpin in the puritan ethos is "specialness" - endow everyone as god's chosen, or god's little lamb and you can start demanding through expectation and guilt. We end up with a bunch of selfish, self-centered, self-absorbed jerks who are out to prove and maintain their own egocentricity, to the exclusion of everyone and everything around them. it's what consumerism sells to. on an individual basis it ain't a big deal, but on a collective basis it's eating the planet.


Hey @DerHasisttot, criticalthud is trying to communicate with you ^

@DerHassittot
totally, the puritan ethos is insidious

i like to think the linchpin in the puritan ethos is "specialness" - endow everyone as god's chosen, or god's little lamb and you can start demanding through expectation and guilt. We end up with a bunch of selfish, self-centered, self-absorbed jerks who are out to prove and maintain their own egocentricity, to the exclusion of everyone and everything around them. it's what consumerism sells to. on an individual basis it ain't a big deal, but on a collective basis it's eating the planet.

>> ^Seric:

Surely for Stephen it should be iMode


>> ^gargoyle:

He's got an i-apple on his shirt.


Guess he needs to throw out his egocentric i-pad and i-phone. I wish it were true, but sadly the world seems to be full of successful egocentrics. Just look at any politician, they probably can't start a sentence without the word I, unless its to sling mud.

But I get the gist of what he's saying, and the world would probably be a better place if people were less self-serving.

>> ^bareboards2:

My favorite Koko story....
"They" say that gorillas don't actually use language, they are mimics and learn "make this sign, get this".
The scientists were concerned about Koko's mental health, so they put a rhesus monkey in with her, for company. Koko did NOT like the monkey -- loud, stole her food, etc. She would sign "feces monkey" when she saw it -- in other words, called the monkey a "shit." She made that up to describe her feelings.
We are an egocentric species, thinking we are so different....


It's also a compound term. Gorillas are now well-known to create their own compound term from two previously unrelated concepts, which is fairly definitive example of linguistic cognition. Funnily enough the compound terms created for things the gorillas dislike usually involve feces.

My favorite Koko story....

"They" say that gorillas don't actually use language, they are mimics and learn "make this sign, get this".

The scientists were concerned about Koko's mental health, so they put a rhesus monkey in with her, for company. Koko did NOT like the monkey -- loud, stole her food, etc. She would sign "feces monkey" when she saw it -- in other words, called the monkey a "shit." She made that up to describe her feelings.

We are an egocentric species, thinking we are so different....

>> ^conan:

woah. what was that on the map? "UK", "France" right NEXT to "Europe"? Argh, even educated and intelligent guys like him fall for the US egocentric view of the world, where everything else is just continents instead of countries. And he even got that wrong.


It was also drawn in MS Paint. Count yourself lucky that it wasn't labeled "Pussies and Communists".

woah. what was that on the map? "UK", "France" right NEXT to "Europe"? Argh, even educated and intelligent guys like him fall for the US egocentric view of the world, where everything else is just continents instead of countries. And he even got that wrong.

You're a law onto yourself, huh.. So, how do you tell right from wrong? If everyone is their own law, then isn't a murderer jusified in his murdering if he thinks he is right? If not, why not?

>> ^KnivesOut:
I'm not forced to do anything. There is no mention of outside influence in the definition of subjectivity. Did you read it?
I don't even know why I bother engaging you.>> ^shinyblurry:
You're not getting off that easily. I know very well what it means so lets refresh your memory.
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).
2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
IE, human opinion. So therefore, if everyone thought the holocaust was right, it would be. Unless it is objectively wrong, if everyone agreed about it the holocaust would be subjectively right. Which means you are forced to admit the holocaust could be right under your system of morality.
I'm commanded by God to preach the gospel and it's a joy for me to do so. I also enjoy a lively debate. That's why I am here.
>> ^KnivesOut:
You clearly don't understand what the word "subjective" means.
Let me ask you this: Why are you (and WLC for that matter) so keen on "proving" the existence of god? Isn't that a sin? The entire point of faith is to believe without proof.
Maybe you're trying to prove it to yourself, as much as to the rest of us.>> ^shinyblurry:
It is necessarily so. If everyone agreed the holocaust was right, then under a subjective morality it would be. The only way it could be wrong if everyone thought it was right is if it were objectively wrong..IE, it was wrong regardless of human opinion.
>> ^KnivesOut:
No, that isn't necessarily so. A society could be evil, in the eyes of the individual. That is subjectivity.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Try following your own conclusions. If morality is subjective, then if everyone agrees that something is right or wrong, it is. Therefore, if the nazis had won and everyone agreed that the holocaust was right, it would be. The only way it would be wrong even if everyone agreed it wasnt is if it were objectively wrong.

I'm not forced to do anything. There is no mention of outside influence in the definition of subjectivity. Did you read it?

I don't even know why I bother engaging you.>> ^shinyblurry:

You're not getting off that easily. I know very well what it means so lets refresh your memory.
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).
2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
IE, human opinion. So therefore, if everyone thought the holocaust was right, it would be. Unless it is objectively wrong, if everyone agreed about it the holocaust would be subjectively right. Which means you are forced to admit the holocaust could be right under your system of morality.
I'm commanded by God to preach the gospel and it's a joy for me to do so. I also enjoy a lively debate. That's why I am here.


>> ^KnivesOut:
You clearly don't understand what the word "subjective" means.
Let me ask you this: Why are you (and WLC for that matter) so keen on "proving" the existence of god? Isn't that a sin? The entire point of faith is to believe without proof.
Maybe you're trying to prove it to yourself, as much as to the rest of us.>> ^shinyblurry:
It is necessarily so. If everyone agreed the holocaust was right, then under a subjective morality it would be. The only way it could be wrong if everyone thought it was right is if it were objectively wrong..IE, it was wrong regardless of human opinion.
>> ^KnivesOut:
No, that isn't necessarily so. A society could be evil, in the eyes of the individual. That is subjectivity.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Try following your own conclusions. If morality is subjective, then if everyone agrees that something is right or wrong, it is. Therefore, if the nazis had won and everyone agreed that the holocaust was right, it would be. The only way it would be wrong even if everyone agreed it wasnt is if it were objectively wrong.

You're not getting off that easily. I know very well what it means so lets refresh *your* memory.

1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).
2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.

IE, human opinion. So therefore, if everyone thought the holocaust was right, it would be. Unless it is objectively wrong, if everyone agreed about it the holocaust would be subjectively right. Which means you are forced to admit the holocaust could be right under your system of morality.

I'm commanded by God to preach the gospel and it's a joy for me to do so. I also enjoy a lively debate. That's why I am here.




>> ^KnivesOut:
You clearly don't understand what the word "subjective" means.
Let me ask you this: Why are you (and WLC for that matter) so keen on "proving" the existence of god? Isn't that a sin? The entire point of faith is to believe without proof.
Maybe you're trying to prove it to yourself, as much as to the rest of us.>> ^shinyblurry:
It is necessarily so. If everyone agreed the holocaust was right, then under a subjective morality it would be. The only way it could be wrong if everyone thought it was right is if it were objectively wrong..IE, it was wrong regardless of human opinion.
>> ^KnivesOut:
No, that isn't necessarily so. A society could be evil, in the eyes of the individual. That is subjectivity.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Try following your own conclusions. If morality is subjective, then if everyone agrees that something is right or wrong, it is. Therefore, if the nazis had won and everyone agreed that the holocaust was right, it would be. The only way it would be wrong even if everyone agreed it wasnt is if it were objectively wrong.

>> ^shinyblurry:

<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/God-does-exist-Testimony-from-an-ex-atheist?loadcomm=1#comment-1200441'>^criticalthud</a>:<br />@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry</A><BR>probability, and a study of history indicates that it is much more likely that we create gods in our image, rather than gods creating us in theirs. The is natural result of an egocentric species, which creates projections of the self and imbues those projections with it's own valued qualities. Notice how, throughout history, our gods mirror ourselves, even changing in quality as society dictates.<BR>Or we can go with the notion that we "know" the all-powerful and omnipitent...which is a mastabatory exercise in extreme arrogance.<BR>my friend, there is a rather important disconnect between those who profess to "know" and those that profess to have no knowledge about what cannot be known. Atheism is not a belief that you are wrong and that your holy book is trash, it is instead a lack of belief, or lack of certainty in what is unknown and cannot be experienced except through death. <BR>i was raised catholic. leaving was not a choice in what i believed, it was an acceptance of the unknown.<BR></em>
Actually, atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist. Look it up in a dictionary sometime. A lack of belief, ie, you don't know, would be agnosticism. An atheist is saying he does know there isn't a God, which is a leap of faith, considering there is no evidence to the contrary.
Personally, I think it takes more faith to be an atheist. If you ever feel like challenging your beliefs, which is what anyone who is seeking the truth should do, check out:
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615">http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615</a&
gt;


No no no. a lack of belief is not a denial. there is a HUGE difference. "Theism" is a belief in a god or gods. "A" theism is the absence of belief. Get it right.

>> ^criticalthud:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry" title="member since January 21st, 2011" class="profilelink">shinyblurry
probability, and a study of history indicates that it is much more likely that we create gods in our image, rather than gods creating us in theirs. The is natural result of an egocentric species, which creates projections of the self and imbues those projections with it's own valued qualities. Notice how, throughout history, our gods mirror ourselves, even changing in quality as society dictates.
Or we can go with the notion that we "know" the all-powerful and omnipitent...which is a mastabatory exercise in extreme arrogance.
my friend, there is a rather important disconnect between those who profess to "know" and those that profess to have no knowledge about what cannot be known. Atheism is not a belief that you are wrong and that your holy book is trash, it is instead a lack of belief, or lack of certainty in what is unknown and cannot be experienced except through death.
i was raised catholic. leaving was not a choice in what i believed, it was an acceptance of the unknown.


that was..
well..
AWESOME.
people basing their experiences on their own subjective reality and limited understanding and then conflating this experience into a known variable.
in this mans case being "born again" into a judau-christian theosophy.
good for him.seems it has given him a new way to not only perceive his surroundings but to experience life in a new paradigm.
but his experience does not translate to actual wisdom nor understanding.
it just means he had a pivotal,life changing experience and one he is attempting to marry the unknown into something more tangible...and human.

what a powerful experience that must have been for him.
who are we to question how he manifests an out-of-body experience?
seems to me it has fundamentally changed who he is on a most base level and that is not a bad thing.
so what if he conflates that experience with chrstianity?
he is still better for it in the long run.
so..
good for him.

>> ^criticalthud:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry
probability, and a study of history indicates that it is much more likely that we create gods in our image, rather than gods creating us in theirs. The is natural result of an egocentric species, which creates projections of the self and imbues those projections with it's own valued qualities. Notice how, throughout history, our gods mirror ourselves, even changing in quality as society dictates.
Or we can go with the notion that we "know" the all-powerful and omnipitent...which is a mastabatory exercise in extreme arrogance.
my friend, there is a rather important disconnect between those who profess to "know" and those that profess to have no knowledge about what cannot be known. Atheism is not a belief that you are wrong and that your holy book is trash, it is instead a lack of belief, or lack of certainty in what is unknown and cannot be experienced except through death.
i was raised catholic. leaving was not a choice in what i believed, it was an acceptance of the unknown.


Actually, atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist. Look it up in a dictionary sometime. A lack of belief, ie, you don't know, would be agnosticism. An atheist is saying he does know there isn't a God, which is a leap of faith, considering there is no evidence to the contrary.

Personally, I think it takes more faith to be an atheist. If you ever feel like challenging your beliefs, which is what anyone who is seeking the truth should do, check out:

http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615

@shinyblurry
probability, and a study of history indicates that it is much more likely that we create gods in our image, rather than gods creating us in theirs. The is natural result of an egocentric species, which creates projections of the self and imbues those projections with it's own valued qualities. Notice how, throughout history, our gods mirror ourselves, even changing in quality as society dictates.
Or we can go with the notion that we "know" the all-powerful and omnipitent...which is a mastabatory exercise in extreme arrogance.
my friend, there is a rather important disconnect between those who profess to "know" and those that profess to have no knowledge about what cannot be known. Atheism is not a belief that you are wrong and that your holy book is trash, it is instead a lack of belief, or lack of certainty in what is unknown and cannot be experienced except through death.
i was raised catholic. leaving was not a choice in what i believed, it was an acceptance of the unknown.