I apologize for a double post, but what I wanted to say seemed to beig to be processed in one post.

written by joedirt

"As for any hidden agenda, I have none. I admit, I do hope I can tell others about Christ while I am here, but I will not be sneaky about it. "


"ZOMG!! We really are not in need of saving around here. I realize some people have a calling, and those people should go watch the evangelical bowling girl video.

If you want to peddle God to us, fine, just don't demand we be civil. If you want to have a civil discussion about religion, fine, just don't go around pushing your beliefs and Christian whatever as more correct, or needing to be given equal weight of sensititivity whatever. Once you used the term 'believer' you showed your hand as a concern troll trying to improve some level of discourse.

Look, this site has tons of debate, politics, religion, islam, asian, GodTube videos. Just because it is not 90% Team Jesus is probably more a reflection that the world is in fact a world where Christians are a minority, and you can take your one correct answer and spread the word somewhere where people have time to care."
What have I pushed so far? Nothing so much as that we should try to be civil to each other and that neither theists nor atheists can prove their beliefs to be truth through logic. No as for whether or not my beliefs desrve equal respect, that is up to you to decide. All I asked however is that we not attack each other. That we be civil. I really don't see why I am getting all this flak for just hoping that we can get along.

As for telling others about Christ while I am here, I refuse to just act like I don't care whether or not people know Christ, but I will force nothing on anybody. If someone wants to hear it I will be here. Other than that, no, I won't be hitting everyone over the head with a Bible. Come on, give me a little credit here!

Look, I have lurked here for a while. I know there are tons of videos on religion. I noticed that any dealing with Christianity were either there to be made fun of or when someone actually tried to be civil about anything, some lets say less than civil comments where left about anyone who believed. I don't think that has to be the case. I want to help people try to understand Christianity a little better. Maybe then they won't be so quick to bash it believers.

On a side note that video you spoke of here, this is just sad. The girl in this video is simply to young to even begin to fanthom God. This is just plain brainwashing. They have instilled in her some of the rethoric, quotes, and bible verses, but she has no clue what any of it means. She just wants to try...something. She is still too young to make that kind of decision for herself and I really think that someone forced her into this thing and just brainwashed her. Unless a child that age has experienced the death of someone close to them, they really won't think about God or the Bible. I think she is really got in emotion more than the Holy Spirit. This troubles me...
Does anyone have any more information on this?

written by swampgirl
"silentpoet said: "Yes, I am new around here."

No kidding! Just coming back here after a day since you posted. I noticed the "P" still here. I have to take issue with that. The folks here normally never discourage a new member, but this time I have to.

It doesn't matter what your mission is whether it's saving the world or making sure everyone's wearing matching socks. You're not even a member yet..you just look like a glorified troll right now.

So.... (in "Christ" of course ) please... shut up, put up ...and gather a few ears that wants to hear before you wear you welcome out before you even get started."
Geez, I already stated above I would post some toher videos. Just give me some time. I have been busy. Besides, I cannot post another video til my first one gets through.

written by joedirt
"For silentpoet: Look in a irony mirror dude...


http://www.videosift.com/video/8-Reasons-Why-I-Dont-Share-My-Faith"
See? That is what I am talking about. I have yet to preach anything from the Bible. All I asked is that we try to be civil, and it is like I did something horrible. I didn't throw anything in your face. I didn't tell anyone they're going to Hell. I never even talked about Jesus! Why am I receiving so much fuss over something I haven't even done as of yet?!

written by karaidl
"I do hope I can tell others about Christ while I am here"

That's exactly what I'm refering to. People liked Marr because he wasn't trying to push his religion. To you, you're doing a service, but on our end it seems like you're trying to force it on us. Yes, I know that's not your intention, and that will probably be your first response. I just want you to know that's how it's received, regardless of intention. Gwaan gets along very well with everyone here because he does not try to spread the word of Islam, but clears up misconceptions that people have on it. He doesn't preach, he doesn't try to get anyone to change, he just wants them to understand.

who was I critizing in my video?

Nobody, I'm refering to this post."
Listen, sharing my faith isn't the only reason why I am here. And do not assume you know why I do what I do. What have I preached so far? That we should try to be civil when we discuss God and perhaps that logic cannot be used to dsiprove or prove God. I see no wrong in that and really feel that all this negativity is undeserved. I have not pushed my religion whatsoever. I haven't said one word of the Bible. Heck, I haven't even mentioned Jesus. I try to help both Atheists and Theists with my video and now I am being told that I am pushing my beliefs on others. Please explain to me exactly how I have pushed my beliefs on others.

As fot the criticism, my bad. I just really don't want that sort of thing to happen. I guess I am am just weird for thinking someone shouldn't be called mentally disabled for belief in God.

written by bluecliff
"this video is not aboout puting science on par wit faith -
perhaps that was SilentPoets intent, but that's his problem. The video is about logic, how people use it etc."

That was not my intent. Look in my above post. It is unreasonable for any side of the God debate to claim to prove their side to be true through logic, since both sides can of the debate can be logically proven and disproven.

My point is that nobody can win the God debate through logic since all known premises as of yet are unverifiable, and thus cannot be proven as truth.

written by jwray
"Obviously, if you don't accept any axioms you can't get anywhere. Logic shows that axioms imply conclusions. Since I suspect this video is an attempt to put science on a par with faith, I offer the following quotation by Stephen Hawking:

“Any sound scientific theory, whether of time or of any other concept, should in my opinion be based on the most workable philosophy of science: the positivist approach put forward by Karl Popper and others. According to this way of thinking, a scientific theory is a mathematical model that describes and codifies the observations we make. A good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested… If one takes the positivist position, as I do, one cannot say what time actually is. All one can do is describe what has been found to be a very good mathematical model for time and say what predictions it makes.” (The Universe In a Nutshell , p31)

So far, every prediction I can make on the basis of the theory that there is no God is consistent with what I observe.

Since there are infinitely many things that can't be disproven without making some assumptions, such as Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and Russel's Teapot, in the absence of any evidence for something it is reasonable to act as though it doesn't exist.

And who is to discern what axioms to accept and to not accept? Even if we accepted those axioms, we end up with two answers to the same question.

Yes, I suppose it can reasonable to an extent, but to say that for sure it doesn't or does exists seems unreasonable, no? That is the point I have been trying to get across.

written by thesnipe
"It's not about equal opinion, it's the internet, you're going to run into morons on both ends of the spectrum. We can't censor comments that may be insensitive to others. There is a line but noone's crossed it so far. Like I said before it's a democratic community, if enough people like what you post and you spend enough time in the queue it'll get published."

Very well, I suppose. I just really wanted to know if anyone was interested in discussing God in civil manner. By the way, I do not remeber asking for eaqual opinion. Nor do I remember asking for any kind of censorship. I do, however, remember asking that we treat each other fairly.

written by karaidl
"And SP, like James said, don't take Westy seriously, because none of the rest of us do. I suppose that might be part of why you're running into hostility here. You have to realize Westy is our village idiot.

And to clarify what I wrote before, I actually read JD's comment wrong. What I meant was, "I suppose all the other videos that respect religion (like the ones out of Islamica) counted for nothing." Take for example, the video I linked in the last paragraph, where you'll find the comments to be very civil.

Lastly, another reason you're hitting so much resistance here is because it appears that you have an agenda on the site. You avatar has a cross in it, your video challenges logic and basically says it can't be used to disprove God, and your first SiftTalk post is about religion. I'm noticing a pattern here, and I think the some of the other sifters are, too.

There was another user such as yourself, his screenname was Marr. He was only around for a few days to debate with us over a video I posted called "The Atheist Delusion." The reason he was so received was because he provided a level headed discourse with the atheists on the site. But what you're doing sounds more like censorship, or at the very least, trying to get people to change. You'll never get a good welcoming from people if your first impression is criticism. Instead, I would encourage you to help atheists understand Christianity better, just like Marr did, but above all, do not try to change them."

Yes, well, thank you for the info.

As for your JD comment, the link you posted shows what seems to be a minority on this site, that is open and civil discussion.

As for any hidden agenda, I have none. I admit, I do hope I can tell others about Christ while I am here, but I will not be sneaky about it. As for the video I posted on logic, it simply says logic shouldn't and really can't be used to disprove or prove God. You end up with two answers to the same question.

So what if my first post dealt with God? I myself found to video to be funny. I can add other videos if you think I have no other intrests, but I will not just act like I do not believe. I tend to enjoy video games, various forms of trip-hop, and like most toher people, stupidity amuses me. Trust me, I have more videos to offer.

As for Marr, it sounds like he had a good plan. I wish to do something similar. I never asked for censorship, I just ask that we treat each other with respect if we are to discuss God in a civil manner. I am open to any and all questions. Besides, who was I critizing in my video? I showed both believers and non-believers that they cannot use logic to prove their point. As for trying to change people, I know full well it is not my place to do that.

Hmm, I think this may be a good time to state that I was a former atheist, so, yeah, I know where many of them are coming from. I had the same questions they have, and like them, I tried to find my own answers.

written by joedirt
"LOL (that means "laugh out loud" since you are new to the intertubes)...

Look, do you realize what Westy's avatar (the picture by his name) is?? And the whole typing to be illegible thing?? FFS it is humorous banter just to get a reaction out of people or just to spout off whatever the hell he feels like saying.

This is the internet and mixing in religion... and you are going to be offended by *that*??

"the Bible already told us this would happen"
No, God's words somehow divinely ended up in the Bible. Poor, "believers" have it so rough. What about believers who think rote learned dogma is stupid? That's a believer.

What I think is that a rash of GodTube submissions showed some folks over there the power of the VS traffic, and all of the sudden videosift heathens need saved. That's what I think is happening with all the recent sensitive folks.

There are like 100 better examples on the sift of insensitive, pagan blashpheming and general ranting but all anyone cares about is one toe torso guy.

I am new to this site, however I am not new to the internet. The language in internet lingo is appcreciated, but not needed.
As for Westy, I don't care if he is just doing what he does to get a thrill, it is simply wrong.

I think it is possible to openly discuss God in a civil manner. I at least will try.

As for the rest of Christianity, I never said we were perfect. I will try to be civil and open in the discussion and I ask that others do the same, believer or not.

Question: do you think that I came from GodTube? If so, that is not the case. I used StumbleUpon to find this site and thought it was pretty cool. I mostly lurked here for several weeks, and today (or tonight) was the first day of my contribution.

You are right. They are better examples out there. In fact, I gathered all the ad hominem posts out ther concering belief and unbelief, I would have a very, very, very long post, no?

written by karaidl
"JD has a point - This is the second time someone wrote in about Westy's and Gluonium's comments on just one video. I suppose all the others counted for nothing."

I suppose. Sorry, but I just didn't have enough time to post every single ad hominem. I will try to post that in a seperate thread later. Anyhow, I used or tried to use Westy's post as an example of what not to do. The link to the video was posted in a thread whose link was posted here. I figured everyone would have seen it and knew what I was talking about.

In conclusion, I really don't think it is too much to ask that we treat each other with respect. So why am I getting some heat for pointing out what shouldn't be done? Yeah, the is bad coming from both sides, and, yes, I did post an example from only one side, but I never said one side or the other was blameless.

written by HaricotVert
"Yes, absolutely. This is exactly the point. It is the job of the listener to figure out for themselves whether or not an argument is flawed or fallacious. Logic is merely a set of rules used to prove and argument's correctness based on a set of premises. Sure, if you break the rules of logic then your argument is invalid, but the author of this video does not here. The use of logic is in no way related to the verifiability of an argument's premises or conclusion. The videomaker's argument is flawed, though he uses logic just fine. You must be able to discern between the two. If you've ever taken a rhetoric class, participated in speech & debate teams, or even taken an introductory Logic course, this is one of the first concepts taught: knowing where your opponent's argument or premises are flawed, because their logic is more than likely to be perfectly valid."

The logic is fine, but the premises are unveriable, so the logic cannot be proven. So using logic to prove God existence or non-existence is utterly futile. It simply conflicts with itself too much. So, again, I say logic cannot prove or disprove God. God is simply just too big for us to wrap our minds around entirely and thus, no matter what premises or arguements we use we cannot be sure of them. That is my point. The rest of what logic deals with is fine, but when it comes to God, logic simply fails.

As shown in this video logic can disprove and prove God, but not disprove or prove his existence.

Man does not yearn for two answers to the same question. Man asks for truth. Logic as it is, cannot give that to us when it comes to God.

On a side note, I would like to point out why that is why we would never fully understand God.

heh, you must be new around here... Westy, when comprehensible is taken with a LARGE grain of salt.

At any rate we don't believe in censorship so how would you suggest mediating this. To me it seems like the correct response is to engage in dialog and call people out for ad-hominem when it happens.

Yes, I am new around here. Thanks for the advice.

written by karaidl

"But on a side note, the Bible already told us this would happen"

"Ugh, I hate when people say that. That's how the Phelps justify their actions. I dunno what it is, but something about that statement has always rubbed me the wrong way. Maybe it's because I feel it's a way of dodging skepticism."

If you haven't noticed yet, I am not dodging skepticism.

Look here.
"I was wondering if any would be interested in starting a collective of videos that actually doesn't bash belief in God but openly discusses it with, well, some respect."
If I were dodging skepticism, I wouldn't discussing God with skeptics, would I?

Anyhow, I left that as a side note just to show that believers would be treated harshly, no matter what precautions are taken. People tend to not get along with Truth. FYI, I don't care much for WBC either. I think they are very mislead.

[Edit- fixed a grammatical error on my part.]

written by HaricotVert
"No, you still don't get it. The logic is perfectly acceptable in its correctness. There is nothing wrong with the logic used. Even with unverifiable premises, the logic is being used entirely in the way it was meant to be."

Are you saying it is perfectly okay to use logic based off of unverifiable premises to reach a conclusion to an answer?

"Look, if I change the premises that the video's author uses while using the exact same logical principles, I arrive at a sound argument:

1. If I have an orange, it must have grown from an orange tree.
2. If an orange tree grew the orange, an orange tree must exist.
3. I have an orange.
4. Therefore, an orange tree exists.
QED.

See what I did there? I used the exact same LOGIC to arrive at a SOUND argument (a proof of existence) because I used true premises. It's a simple double application of Modus Ponens. You cannot say that Modus Ponens is "ineffectively used" because it arrives at a faulty conclusion.

Granted, you could disagree with my conclusion, suggesting that the orange was taken from a tree that no longer exists (in which case semantics matter), or that the orange was genetically engineered and created in a lab artificially, or that we all live in a dream state where nothing is real. But that is not the job of logic. That is the job of argumentation."


Hmm. Look in my above comment. I stated when used with unverifiable premises, logic cannot be used effectively. Or that is to say it cannot prove or disprove squat. I don't mind logic. I just don't think logic is the mandatory factor in what is real and what isn't. The point of this video is to show that when it comes to God all known premises are as of yet unveriable, and thus, we cannot use logic to prove or disprove God.

But thanks again for explaining this. Most people would have simply become frustated by now.

written by HaricotVert
"The video is not abusing logic at all. The logic is actually the most correct part of the video. The video *is* however abusing incorrect premises.

Comprende?"

Allow me to reiterate. By using premises that are unverifiable, logic is used in a way that is was never meant for and cannot be effectively used.
But thanks anyway for explaing this.

written by Farhad2000
"I have yet to meet a person who ever tried to prove something to me using logic."

Really? I have seen tons of videos on youtube and similar sites trying to use logic to prove or disprove God. Just type in "god and proof" and you should find videos using arguements similar to the ones used in this video.

written by dag
"Upvote for mostly civil discussion on religion!"

Gee, thanks. Hopefully this will be the first and not the last.

written by jmzero
"If logic (and by extension, math) has nothing to say about God, then by the same argument it has nothing to say about the rest of reality. And yet every time I put two sticks on top of two sticks I end up with a pile of 4 sticks. I'm just lucky I guess.


Whoever did this video completely missed the point of freshman logic."

Well, logic doesn't have much to do with reality. It does however have to do with our understanding of reality. Reality or truth is often different of what we understand of it.

written by HaricotVert
"For information on how to argue logically and without fallacies, go here.

I think both SilentPoet and the video itself are missing the purpose of logic in argumentation.

Logic is a very critical (and necessary!) part of argumentation and constructive debate - if one point does not logically follow from another, then the argument is invalid, and thus fallacious.

What this video is presenting are VALID arguments, but they are not logically SOUND arguments (yes, there is a difference). Since an argument is a dialogue of sorts, there must be another person to agree on the PREMISES of the argument.

If an argument is valid, and in addition it started from TRUE premises, then it is called a SOUND argument. A sound argument must arrive at a true conclusion.

It is the premises of the arguments here that I (and many others) cannot verify as true ("If Man is Complex, then God created him" is an entirely unverifiable/untrue conditional premise), and thus I cannot accept the argument, though the conclusion follows logically from its stated premises.

Logic is just a formalization of a series of connected statements in order to establish a definite conclusion. It is a tool. It is not the argument itself. You are putting too much weight on the tool when it should be placed on the arguments. The premises of both of the arguments are the problems here, and thus making them UNSOUND arguments, despite their logical VALIDITY.

EDIT: Also, why the "lol" tag? This is hardly comedy, the way it misrepresents logic."

Again, the point of this video is to show how logic can be abused. Yes, the premises in the video cannot be proven true or false, but the premises are given to show that using them is an abuse of logic. However, thank you for the info. I found it very useful.

On a side note, I added to "lol" tag since I did infact laugh out loud after watching this.

written by bluecliff
"yup, this is great, man, just great!
to anyone who's out here this video is all about hte truth man!

ok. I'l get to grips with myself -

the point of the video is to show that logic is just a formal set of rules, it has actualy little to do with the object we are using. Be it God, paper, rock, scissors.It's absolutely abstract - you cano't use logic to disprove the "flying spaghetti monster" (shudders), logic simply doesn't do that. it's not a tool for truth exclusively, but it is a tool for thought an for evaluating mistakes in thought.
The point wasn't that God created man or anything, it's that the argument isn't logically flawed.


grspec said
The statement "if man is complex then god created him" is completely illogical.

No it isn't! it's just not TRUE. But it is logical.
an ilogical statement would be - this metal is made out of wood. Because the term metal automatically excludes the possibility of it being wood. Or a better example - "this triangle is round.""

Thank you. Logic has little to do with truth, but a lot to do with what we understand of it.

written by Farhad2000
"If man is complex, then God created him.

Isn't that a assumption? How can one prove an assumption logically?

It's like saying "If someone is a president, that man is obviously smart""
I think you misunderstood the intent of this video. Did you watch it all the way through? "How can one prove an assumption logically?"
That was the point the author of this video was trying to make. We (Atheists and Christians) cannot prove our belief logically. This applies to me just as much as it does you.

written by grspec
"hmm well that video didn't prove god exists with logic. The statement "if man is complex then god created him" is completely illogical. Just because something is complex doesn't prove your point anymore than the fact that I hear ringing in my ears, means there is a bell nearby. Logic is only as good as the facts you base it upon."
Same response as above. The point trying to be conveyed is that logic cannot prove os disprove the existence of God.

After reading these two comments I must ask myself why is it that the assumption "All things that exists are measurable. God is immeasurable. Therefore, there is no such as God." has not been challenged? Is it logical? Obviously not. So why not include it in your comments as well?

written by jwray
"This starts both proofs with some laughable assumptions. False assumptions can be used to prove anything. Garbage in, garbage out. That's not a problem with logic, that's a problem with the way one uses it. Logic is very far from useless. The given arguments are also in poor style and unparsimonious. I downvote it.
Again the intent of this video is to show that logic shouldn't mandate God's existence or non-existence since as you just said that is an abuse of logic. This is to show how logic can be abused.

Here is an example of an uncalled attack on a person in this thread: http://www.videosift.com/video/No-arms-No-legs-Nick-Vujicic

Remember attack the belief, not the believers.
(But on a side note, the Bible already told us this would happen...)

written by westy
"lol not only did het get saverly phisicly disabled at birth but mentaly disabled by whoever tought him religoin. harsh"

This suggests that Nick Vujicic is mentaly disabled since he believes in Christ.

I loved it. This is too true for too many people.