Borat, your tea is ready.
*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, November 16th, 2011 10:31am PST - promote requested by Boise_Lib.

Anybody else think this might need a nsfw?

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Anybody else think this might need a nsfw?


Sorted dude

I didn't catch why this is hilarious until I switched the annotations on. Make sure you turn them on.

If he defines what "God" is, then I'll happily disprove it. If I have to define it as well, then I'll just do an easy one: Creationism. False. There, disproved.

>> ^gwiz665:

If he defines what "God" is, then I'll happily disprove it. If I have to define it as well, then I'll just do an easy one: Creationism. False. There, disproved.


What about a being of multidimensional time considering the platonic relationship of transfinite ideas, and thus, summoning all existence? That the ordinals and cardinals of it's maths are the thing we call existence?

O wait, this is a funny video. I farted, hehehehe.

yeah, what if i use the word transfinite?

You're just saying big words to sound smart now, obfuscating the transreal statements with vagueries and doubletalk like a true soothsayer.

You are essentially saying we are dreamed up by the being that exists outside of existence. That sorta disproves itself, doesn't it?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^gwiz665:
If he defines what "God" is, then I'll happily disprove it. If I have to define it as well, then I'll just do an easy one: Creationism. False. There, disproved.

What about a being of multidimensional time considering the platonic relationship of transfinite ideas, and thus, summoning all existence? That the ordinals and cardinals of it's maths are the thing we call existence?
O wait, this is a funny video. I farted, hehehehe.

Big words to shrink down my overly verbose explanations, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Existing outside existence wouldn't make sense, but existing in a different way does. I don't exist in the same way a computer program exists, without running a program I can construct its logical here's and there's. I suggest a "computer programmer" sort of metaphysical explanation as one of a near infinite number of non-contradictory ways a "god" could exist. It is also likely he not exist. For me, the jury is out, but I like to not rule things out or mock them when they are still on the table, even if I can't show one way or they other...perhaps even especially then. Many of Einstein's great ideas can be traced back to the "wacky" metaphysics of Schopenhauer, but who knows what even greater "wackiness" awaits us behind discoveries next great door...the imagination tingles with anticipation. Like Popper suggests, great theories are born from great imaginations, the once impossible becomes possible with the changing of the guard of certain theories of physics or the like. I would suggest that dreamers have made the bold leaps in science more than the lab tech. Strick adherence to testing and retesting still leaves us lacking in the truly creative ways to construct them and bind them together.

O wait, hijacked again. I liked the part in the video where people posted annotations in a very cruel way to mock a person who had the best of intentions, it reminds me of something I have seen somewhere else before?!

>> ^gwiz665:

You're just saying big words to sound smart now, obfuscating the transreal statements with vagueries and doubletalk like a true soothsayer.
You are essentially saying we are dreamed up by the being that exists outside of existence. That sorta disproves itself, doesn't it?
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^gwiz665:
If he defines what "God" is, then I'll happily disprove it. If I have to define it as well, then I'll just do an easy one: Creationism. False. There, disproved.

What about a being of multidimensional time considering the platonic relationship of transfinite ideas, and thus, summoning all existence? That the ordinals and cardinals of it's maths are the thing we call existence?
O wait, this is a funny video. I farted, hehehehe.

if you obtuse definition of god doesn't account for hearing our thoughts and damning our souls, its worth fuck all in a religous sense and we can all go back to worshiping the sun, which is the real entity responsible for our existance

I think the only thing this video proves is that dickish people will be dicks. Hijacking someone's video by covering it in annotations is a very petty thing to do, and the content of those annotations often illustrates the pettiness (and effin' stupidity, re: "faggot" and "anal" comments for example) of those doing it. The guy makes no valid point, fine: tell him in the comments. As we do here on the sift, right @GeeSussFreeK and @SDGundamX?

Frankly, I'm shocked.>> ^hpqp:

I think the only thing this anal video proves is that anal people will be dicks. Hijacking someone's anal by covering it in dicks is a very anal thing to do, and the content of those balls often illustrates the analness (and effin' stupidity, re: "cake" and "flower" comments for example) of those doing it. The fag makes no dicks anal, fine: tell him in the comments. As we do here on the toilet, right @GeeSussFreeK and @SDGundamX?

I will put this forth:
A God is the absence of imagination.

The universe is queerer that we can imagine, putting the label "God" on something as mysterious as Origin or Meaning, even, dumbs it down and again obfuscates the term with the straight forward crazies.

What kind of non-contradictory way of existence are you imagining? I have yet to see any implication of any form of God really, the world explains itself quite fine without one, so why try to invent one?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Big words to shrink down my overly verbose explanations, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Existing outside existence wouldn't make sense, but existing in a different way does. I don't exist in the same way a computer program exists, without running a program I can construct its logical here's and there's. I suggest a "computer programmer" sort of metaphysical explanation as one of a near infinite number of non-contradictory ways a "god" could exist. It is also likely he not exist. For me, the jury is out, but I like to not rule things out or mock them when they are still on the table, even if I can't show one way or they other...perhaps even especially then. Many of Einstein's great ideas can be traced back to the "wacky" metaphysics of Schopenhauer, but who knows what even greater "wackiness" awaits us behind discoveries next great door...the imagination tingles with anticipation. Like Popper suggests, great theories are born from great imaginations, the once impossible becomes possible with the changing of the guard of certain theories of physics or the like. I would suggest that dreamers have made the bold leaps in science more than the lab tech. Strick adherence to testing and retesting still leaves us lacking in the truly creative ways to construct them and bind them together.
O wait, hijacked again. I liked the part in the video where people posted annotations in a very cruel way to mock a person who had the best of intentions, it reminds me of something I have seen somewhere else before?!
>> ^gwiz665:
You're just saying big words to sound smart now, obfuscating the transreal statements with vagueries and doubletalk like a true soothsayer.
You are essentially saying we are dreamed up by the being that exists outside of existence. That sorta disproves itself, doesn't it?
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^gwiz665:
If he defines what "God" is, then I'll happily disprove it. If I have to define it as well, then I'll just do an easy one: Creationism. False. There, disproved.

What about a being of multidimensional time considering the platonic relationship of transfinite ideas, and thus, summoning all existence? That the ordinals and cardinals of it's maths are the thing we call existence?
O wait, this is a funny video. I farted, hehehehe.

>> ^hpqp:

I think the only thing this video proves is that dickish people will be dicks.

Quoted for truth.

>> ^hpqp:

The guy makes no valid point, fine: tell him in the comments. As we do here on the sift, right @GeeSussFreeK and @SDGundamX?

I don't understand your point in referencing @GeeSussFreeK and I. I'm not dickish or condescendingly arrogant enough to claim you make no valid point just because I don't fully understand it.

EDIT: Reading that back now, it sounds like I'm accusing @hpqp of being dickish or condescendingly arrogant, which isn't what I was trying to say. I was trying to say literally I don't understand why @hpqp mentioned me, and that I do my best not to be dickish or condescending to other people on the Sift just because I don't understand (or agree) with their opinions. I certainly can be dickish and condescending but I find it unhelpful in furthering discussion and that's why I personally try to avoid it.

But I think there has been a tendency on the Sift lately to in fact act dickishly or condescendingly towards others just because they don't understand or don't agree with what a poster has to say. I won't speak for @GeeSussFreeK, but when I read his comment I thought that's what he was getting at too with his rhetorical question (which is why I upvoted his comment).


Hope that clarifies.

I did not mean to suggest that you or @GeeSussFreeK were dicks here on the Sift, at all. I mentioned you two because of GeeSuss' rhetorical question and your complaint that discussion on the Sift was "O'Reillyfied" (O'Reilly being, imo, a right dick). That being said, if it is not clear why I can so simply claim why the speaker in the above video makes no valid point, ask and you shall receive an explanation.

Also, there's dickishness and dickishness. Calling out someone's (e.g. shiny's) hypocrisy or hateful ideology with a thick dose of sarcasm (and even condescension) has nothing to do with copy-pasting "ur a faggot" all over someone's video (or in the comments).

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^hpqp:
I think the only thing this video proves is that dickish people will be dicks.
Quoted for truth.
>> ^hpqp:
The guy makes no valid point, fine: tell him in the comments. As we do here on the sift, right @GeeSussFreeK and @SDGundamX?
I don't understand your point in referencing @GeeSussFreeK and I. I'm not dickish or condescendingly arrogant enough to claim you make no valid point just because I don't fully understand it.
EDIT: Reading that back now, it sounds like I'm accusing @hpqp of being dickish or condescendingly arrogant, which isn't what I was trying to say. I was trying to say literally I don't understand why @hpqp mentioned me, and that I do my best not to be dickish or condescending to other people on the Sift just because I don't understand (or agree) with their opinions. I certainly can be dickish and condescending but I find it unhelpful in furthering discussion and that's why I personally try to avoid it.
But I think there has been a tendency on the Sift lately to in fact act dickishly or condescendingly towards others just because they don't understand or don't agree with what a poster has to say. I won't speak for @GeeSussFreeK, but when I read his comment I thought that's what he was getting at too with his rhetorical question (which is why I upvoted his comment).

Hope that clarifies.

@hpqp

Thanks for explaining why you @GeeSussFreeK and I.

I'd like to explain my position more clearly. I'm not saying sarcasm is bad or should be banned or anything. I'm not saying "don't be mean to Shiny." I know you can't regulate people's behavior on the Net and I'm not about to try.

If I understand what you wrote correctly, you're saying using sarcasm is still "being a dick," it's just not nearly as much of being one as replying "you're a fag" to someone's argument. If that's what you're saying I agree with you on both counts (i.e. that using sarcasm is rather boorish behavior but it's not nearly so bad as resorting to direct insults).

Sarcasm can indeed be useful depending on what you intend to use it for. If you're looking to boost your own ego at another's expense and look intelligent while doing so, then really sarcasm is exactly what you're looking for. So too if you're hoping to get comment upvotes on the Sift--it seems like many of us Sifters appreciate a good burn.

But sarcasm also has a number of drawbacks and I personally find these to outweigh the benefits. The first drawback is adding unnecessary confrontation to a discussion. Sarcasm is an in-your-face ploy. It's personal. It might not be a punch in the face like "you're a fag" is, but it's at the least an back-handed bitch slap. Its goal is to belittle. If the target of the sarcasm wasn't aggressive before, they most likely will be when they reply because--let's face it--who wants to sit around and be insulted? Sarcasm exponentially increases the odds that a thread is going to devolve into a verbal brawl and that the original points being debated will get lost. Why introduce that risk into the argument? Why not just rationally argue your points?

Which brings me to the second drawback--sarcasm stifles debate. Sometimes this is intentional--rather than argue the points under discussion, the poster is looking to score ego points (or upvotes or whatever) because they really don't have anything substantial to contribute. I think, though, more often here on the Sift the debate gets lost unintentionally. People are so busy grandstanding and showing everyone how witty and sarcastic they can be that they forget to address or flat-out ignore valid points made by the opposition.

This is what I was trying to point out in the other thread. People dog-piled on Shiny not because of his main point (about the irony of toasting what he perceived to be an alcoholic/excessive drinker) but because he suggested praying for Hitchens (which, as far as Shiny goes is pretty mild in terms of the evangelical department). As I've said before, you actually were the only person to respond to the content of Shiny's comment rather than attack Shiny himself--your quotation implied that Hitchens would be pleased with the idea since he felt his drinking to be more of a benefit than a hindrance. It moved the conversation forward, if only for a moment. Things went rapidly downhill from there.

I know that sarcasm is all the rage these days--the fact that we now have a 'sarcasm' button for our comments on the Sift is telling. But reading the threads here on the Sift I can't help feeling it is detracting more than it is contributing. If the goal of posting is to feel good by belittling others, well I guess that's fine and dandy then. But if our goal of posting here is to approach the truth through dialogue, then I think the sarcasm is getting in the way of that.

Ultimately, of course, everyone is free to choose how they act on the Sift. My hope is that people who read this post who may be considering being sarcastic in a reply to another poster will think a bit more about what their goal is before posting. Looking to feel superior to another person? Flame away! But if you're looking to make a valid point and further the discussion, maybe sarcasm isn't way to go.

God created the big bang. I'll prove it at the end of this universe before the next one occurs. Take my immortality potion and join me in hale-bopp. I win!

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, and to quote Cassandra Clare:

“Sarcasm is the last refuge of the imaginatively bankrupt.”

It's a tool passive aggressive people use to make the point about you, to delegitimize your point of view. It is just thinly veiled mockery. For a theist, ridicule from atheists, or more commonly, militant antitheists, is a daily event. It's just something that you get used to. It is rare to find rational discourse on this subject, although a few people on this board have stepped up to the plate.

It is about ego, and prejudice. Since he has decided to bash me in this thread, let's take HPQP as a good example of this. You only have to look at his videos to see that he has quite a lot of hatred stored up in his heart for Christianity. Thoughtful people aren't going to dedicate their time to trashing something they disagree with. This is clearly obsessive behavior fueled by anger and resentment, and most likely an underlying inferiority complex.

But, this is the way of the culture. Rudeness and intolerance is becoming the norm, especially in these United States. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705331806/Poll-Americans-are-becoming-more-rude.html

I appreciate you advocating for more decorum on here. On this subject particularly, if you watch some of the debates, like say dawkins vs lennox, you can see it is possible to discuss these issues in a respectful and civilized way, that is even intellectually satisfying. Even Hitchens said that the question of God was the greatest conversation you could have because it was a subject that led to every other important subject. It's sad that many people here don't seem to realize that and go out of their way to stifle discussion.




>> ^SDGundamX:

@hpqp
Thanks for explaining why you @GeeSussFreeK and I.
I'd like to explain my position more clearly. I'm not saying sarcasm is bad or should be banned or anything. I'm not saying "don't be mean to Shiny." I know you can't regulate people's behavior on the Net and I'm not about to try.
If I understand what you wrote correctly, you're saying using sarcasm is still "being a dick," it's just not nearly as much of being one as replying "you're a fag" to someone's argument. If that's what you're saying I agree with you on both counts (i.e. that using sarcasm is rather boorish behavior but it's not nearly so bad as resorting to direct insults).
Sarcasm can indeed be useful depending on what you intend to use it for. If you're looking to boost your own ego at another's expense and look intelligent while doing so, then really sarcasm is exactly what you're looking for. So too if you're hoping to get comment upvotes on the Sift--it seems like many of us Sifters appreciate a good burn.
But sarcasm also has a number of drawbacks and I personally find these to outweigh the benefits. The first drawback is adding unnecessary confrontation to a discussion. Sarcasm is an in-your-face ploy. It's personal. It might not be a punch in the face like "you're a fag" is, but it's at the least an back-handed bitch slap. Its goal is to belittle. If the target of the sarcasm wasn't aggressive before, they most likely will be when they reply because--let's face it--who wants to sit around and be insulted? Sarcasm exponentially increases the odds that a thread is going to devolve into a verbal brawl and that the original points being debated will get lost. Why introduce that risk into the argument? Why not just rationally argue your points?
Which brings me to the second drawback--sarcasm stifles debate. Sometimes this is intentional--rather than argue the points under discussion, the poster is looking to score ego points (or upvotes or whatever) because they really don't have anything substantial to contribute. I think, though, more often here on the Sift the debate gets lost unintentionally. People are so busy grandstanding and showing everyone how witty and sarcastic they can be that they forget to address or flat-out ignore valid points made by the opposition.
This is what I was trying to point out in the other thread. People dog-piled on Shiny not because of his main point (about the irony of toasting what he perceived to be an alcoholic/excessive drinker) but because he suggested praying for Hitchens (which, as far as Shiny goes is pretty mild in terms of the evangelical department). As I've said before, you actually were the only person to respond to the content of Shiny's comment rather than attack Shiny himself--your quotation implied that Hitchens would be pleased with the idea since he felt his drinking to be more of a benefit than a hindrance. It moved the conversation forward, if only for a moment. Things went rapidly downhill from there.
I know that sarcasm is all the rage these days--the fact that we now have a 'sarcasm' button for our comments on the Sift is telling. But reading the threads here on the Sift I can't help feeling it is detracting more than it is contributing. If the goal of posting is to feel good by belittling others, well I guess that's fine and dandy then. But if our goal of posting here is to approach the truth through dialogue, then I think the sarcasm is getting in the way of that.
Ultimately, of course, everyone is free to choose how they act on the Sift. My hope is that people who read this post who may be considering being sarcastic in a reply to another poster will think a bit more about what their goal is before posting. Looking to feel superior to another person? Flame away! But if you're looking to make a valid point and further the discussion, maybe sarcasm isn't way to go.

NSFW? I don't get it.

What? The red button? Ohhh. Ohh. Ohhhhh.

OK. I see now.

There were a few good comments popping up. Such as those concerning the fact that the person making the claim must supply the proof, not the other way around. We start in a state of pure ignorance, and then somebody (like a parent) starts teaching about the world, and often a supernatural entity. Many of the claims that are made about the world can have evidence supporting them, but claims about a supernatural being by definition cannot. Otherwise it would be known as a natural being.

This is the part that every theist will either ignore or begin to expound on topics that do not count as evidence to any rational person (such as ancient texts and feeling the "presence" of a supernatural being).

>> ^brycewi19:

NSFW? I don't get it.
What? The red button? Ohhh. Ohh. Ohhhhh.
OK. I see now.


haha yea I seriously watched the entire video waiting for the annotations to appear, then realised I had to click the button