Ah, well that's good to know Blankfist, thanks for the link.

Again, I think GB's Weinberg clip ads value to the sift.

The Original Atheism clip is 30 minutes long, GBs clip was a 2 minute snip from the 30 minute clip. The snip is titled to answer a specific question.

It is a question of what benefits the sift. Deleting the short clip, Was it necessary? Did it spoil the sift environment? Did it make the users experience less enjoyable? Where those Seven voters Wrong to vote on this? Was that bookmarker wrong to bookmark this?

IMHO no, I think this smaller clip enhances the users experience because they have the opportunity to see a small clip from something that is much longer, call it, a preview, or a trailer will you. Adding to the users experience, There is a link available right there for that users to view the longer clip...If they have the time.

I see the value in Fedquip's position. This whole SiftTalk post was spawned because I discarded one of GreatBird's posts. To me, it's a dupe, although some would and could argue it serves to better make this site a kind of catalog of video content. I think if it lives on the site somewhere else in some capacity then it's a dupe.

Of course, to be honest, I really don't care one way or the other. I'm not gonna sit here and pretend my heart will be broken if the rule changes one way or the other, because it's kind of a trite thing to get my blood boiled over, so I won't. I still think they're dupes, and whenever I post something that is part of another video, and it's brought to my attention, I discard it. Period.

I think the rule should be: if the video you posted is adding more as opposed to showing less of an already existing video, I think the consensus is that you can safely post it. Though, who gives a shit?

--Signed, the apathetic blankfist

Don't worry about it. I'm moving on already. Looking for new videos to sift. I'm just learning my way through the subtle nuances that are the sift guidelines. And don't worry, I don't take it too seriously either. This is all just fun.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
It was a dupe. Whether that means duplicated in whole or in part, it was a dupe. Don't take it personally, GB. It's just the internets.

[edit] Actually, if the video you posted is adding more as opposed to showing less of an already existing video, I think the consensus is that you can safely post it. Either way, I don't really care one way or another, because how can we take ourselves too seriously on a website? I could've just as easily not discarded your dupe and I'm sure the world would still be in one piece, right?

In reply to this comment by GreatBird:
I have a question about the discarded video of Steven Weinberg. I was well aware of the rule about not posting duplicate videos. However the reason I liked this video was that it was a short 2:52 video that comes near the end of the 30 min full version. I picked this because it sums up so succinctly Weinberg's position. I'm sure a lot of viewers might not have the patience to watch the entire 30 minute clip just to get to this one part. Thats all I was trying to do there.

It was a dupe. Whether that means duplicated in whole or in part, it was a dupe. Don't take it personally, GB. It's just the internets.

[edit] Actually, if the video you posted is adding more as opposed to showing less of an already existing video, I think the consensus is that you can safely post it. Either way, I don't really care one way or another, because how can we take ourselves too seriously on a website? I could've just as easily not discarded your dupe and I'm sure the world would still be in one piece, right?

In reply to this comment by GreatBird:
I have a question about the discarded video of Steven Weinberg. I was well aware of the rule about not posting duplicate videos. However the reason I liked this video was that it was a short 2:52 video that comes near the end of the 30 min full version. I picked this because it sums up so succinctly Weinberg's position. I'm sure a lot of viewers might not have the patience to watch the entire 30 minute clip just to get to this one part. Thats all I was trying to do there.

I have a question about the discarded video of Steven Weinberg. I was well aware of the rule about not posting duplicate videos. However the reason I liked this video was that it was a short 2:52 video that comes near the end of the 30 min full version. I picked this because it sums up so succinctly Weinberg's position. I'm sure a lot of viewers might not have the patience to watch the entire 30 minute clip just to get to this one part. Thats all I was trying to do there.

Dupe. http://www.videosift.com/video/Atheism-Tapes-Steven-Weinberg

*discard.

I think this is a fantastic clip that deserves some special attention, so I'll leave it alone, and if it gets published, the powers that be can decide, but, in a doubt case like this, I'd recommend you link to the full version cheers.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Atheism-Tapes-Steven-Weinberg

I've commented on this:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Steven-Weinbergs-Athiesm

Btw, I don't think we're supposed to put commas between first and last names in tags anymore. But you might check with lucky.

If a friend would choose Jesus over you, they shouldn't be your friend anymore.

I am not from the US, so I have never really been in an environment, which is so heavy with religious belief (I'm from Denmark), but I think the sheer absurdity of religion in all its forms scares me.

I would have loved to have the same opinion as Steven Weinberg and just "not really care" about religion, because it's irrelevant to everything - except its historical and cultural impact. But lately it has become apparent that the biggest religions have gotten sharper edges (Christianity and Islam), and I think it is time for reasonable people to say, "enough is enough!" I really, really don't want creationism even mantioned in a proper school, I really don't want people to think and actually believe that they can speak to a God or angels or whatnot.

I do share the concern that Daniel Dennett has: "what could replace religion", given that there are many cooks that NEED religion to not break the law. All the people that argue "you wouldn't be moral if it wasn't for the bible" are those cooks. If we somehow stripped religion away from them, then, and I use the expression advisedly, all hell would break loose.

If you, like me, look at religion as a form of virus; and not a biological one, you silly person, an "idea-virus", a virtual virus, if you will; then the weaker versions - all the moderates - like a common cold, are not dangerous. However fanaticism, like, say, Ebola, is highly toxic to us. Atheism is decidedly NOT a religion no matter how much the religious want it to be. It is precisely non-religion. Atheism's primary "tool" is knowledge (science), where Theism's "tool" is faith. If you think you are inherently superior because you have faith, you are deluded. If you say it to my face, I'm going to respond.

This is how religion spreads: you want to spread the word of jesus (or whichever deity) and no one protests. This word (or idea) spreads to all those incapable to know what's true and false, primarily children. If someone keeps their religion in their own home, and prays silently (like Jesus actually told you to do - score 1 for the bible) the virus wouldn't spread and silently die out. But when evangelicals and other fanatics spread their toxic dribble it must fall on those who can call them on their shenanigans to protest and say, "Enough is enough!"

Dennett proposed a way to avoid this peacefully: teach all religions equally. I dare say that it would be impossible, but teaching even a number of world religions would immunize people towards the blind faith that most religions require and slowly expunge the idea of a religion completely.

This is emphatically NOT how biological evolution works, nor is it proof. However, it is an excellent model and demonstration of certain evolutionary mechanisms, for example natural selection and adaptation as a result of selective pressure and genetic variation.

A great example of modeling used in evolutionary science is the use of the Hardy-Weinberg principle to demonstrate that a population is undergoing selection.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. -- Seneca the Younger 4 bc- 65 ad

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. -- Steven Weinberg

Men never commit evil so fully and joyfuly as when they do it for religious convictions -- Blaise Pascal

Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet -- Napoleon Bonaparte

I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence -- Doug McLeod

The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself. -- Richard Francis Burton (1821-1890)

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason -- Benjamin Franklin