*quality *doublepromote

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

Double-Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Sunday, September 4th, 2011 12:20am PDT - doublepromote requested by gwiz665.

*talks

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by gwiz665.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^hpqp:
I don't believe in Dog.

The evidence for Dog is clear--just look for piles of poop behind the couch.


Uh, that was me. Sorry. I really had to go.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

I can't even prove that the color blue I am seeing is the same for you as it is me, proof is hard

This is like my agnostic, insomniac, dyslexic friend who always lay awake late at night wondering if there really was a dog.

I do like that this does touch (although very briefly) on the fact that frequently (in fact, for almost all things) our conviction is based on "reasonable doubt" rather than "unequivocal proof" - as in, he did not try to skirt the importance of circumstantial evidence, which is significantly more enlightened than the usual "NO PROOF NO PROOF NO PROOF" behavior which, while possibly reasonable, does not really engender positive sentiment.

HOLY SHIT! DARTH VADER IS REAL! HE'S GOING TO CLAIM THE EARTH FOR THE GALACTIC EMPIRE!

EVERYONE RUN FOR THE HILLS!

I've never believed in @dag 's existence. I think it's some siftbot scripting spouting out "nice sift!" and caustic one liners...wait sorry.. dog's exis.. nevemind.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Good point!>> ^ZappaDanMan:

I've never believed in @dag 's existence. I think it's some siftbot scripting spouting out "nice sift!" and caustic one liners...wait sorry.. dog's exis.. nevemind.

I can't even prove that the color blue I am seeing is the same for you as it is me, proof is hard


It's very possible it isn't the same for me, at least at some level. There's quite a range in terms of color perception (with outliers like color blind people or those who experience synaesthesia) and it's clear that to a certain extent color discrimination varies between cultures and sexes.

Disregarding those differences, it's likely there is at least some commonality between our perceptions. Assuming you believe our experiences are rooted in our brains, it seems likely that the structures for perceiving color would be generally similar. As our understanding of the brain grows, we'll be able to nail this question down much better.

In any case, though, just because one thing (which may not even be a true thing) that sounds simple (our experience of seeing color) is hard to prove a point about, that doesn't mean that in general proof is hard. We evaluate evidence a million times a day in order to guide decisions and actions, and over time science has come up with a tremendous amount of evidence for very complicated and sometimes unintuitive propositions. Now clearly "absolute proof" is usually hard, and probably impossible for most useful subjects - but proof (in the looser sense of sufficient evidence to believe) is all around us, and the basis for almost everything we do.

This video actually frustrates me. It is simplistic viewpoints & ideology expressed in videos like the "banana" and "tides" that causes a person to feel as though there is a need to make this video. He is forced to slow down, dumb down, and explain his topic as though he is speaking to a child. Just a few days ago my 8 y/o daughter asked me "Daddy, where do people come from?" "There had to be some first people right?" I asked her, "Do you want the scientific answer or do you want me to tell you what it says in the bible?" She just smiled at me and said "I want to know where we really came from. I like science!" I was happy to have my 8 y/o ask me that question, but I was also very pleased at the level of insight she showed with her answer to MY question.

(Hopefully not derailing the thread..)

Use light at a known wavelength, let's say 475nm (blue), then record your response and my response. If we both say "blue" then it would indicate we're both seeing the same blue.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I can't even prove that the color blue I am seeing is the same for you as it is me, proof is hard

>> ^Maze:

(Hopefully not derailing the thread..)
Use light at a known wavelength, let's say 475nm (blue), then record your response and my response. If we both say "blue" then it would indicate we're both seeing the same blue.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I can't even prove that the color blue I am seeing is the same for you as it is me, proof is hard



I think you're wrong so i'll try and help out.. The point is that the blue that you know may not be the blue i know. Although the wavelength of light is the same, our perception of that wavelength of light as it is translated by our brains may not be the same. We will always agree that blue is blue if all other things are equal, however blue to you may look like what i think red is.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^Maze:
(Hopefully not derailing the thread..)
Use light at a known wavelength, let's say 475nm (blue), then record your response and my response. If we both say "blue" then it would indicate we're both seeing the same blue.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I can't even prove that the color blue I am seeing is the same for you as it is me, proof is hard


I think you're wrong so i'll try and help out.. The point is that the blue that you know may not be the blue i know. Although the wavelength of light is the same, our perception of that wavelength of light as it is translated by our brains may not be the same. We will always agree that blue is blue if all other things are equal, however blue to you may look like what i think red is.


Indeed, there is a difference between collaborative subjective experience, and objective distinction. David Hume has wreaked my world, and I find myself unable to put it back together in any meaningful shape. Proof, to me, seems to be something our minds weren't meant to do.

buy a bandpass filter for some region of blue light from chroma ... if I see blue things through it, and you do too, we are both capable of seeing and agreeing on blue ... if you then said 'no, that's red to me' I would try mightily not to slap you, and inform you that no, in fact the only light being allow through this filter was, say, 455 to 475 nm long, which is a shade of blue. This falls apart slightly if you can't see or distinguish colors, but at least it proves you are capable of seeing a certain wavelength.


>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I can't even prove that the color blue I am seeing is the same for you as it is me, proof is hard

But what does it look like? Is blue even a real thing, or is the wavelength? Are they both real things? How are 2 different things called the same, this fails the property of identity. Could blue be translated as spicy given different sets of brains? What would the spiciness level of blue be compared to red? What does spiciness have to do with wavelengths of light, and for that matter, what does blueness? *brain assplodes*

>> ^bamdrew:

buy a bandpass filter for some region of blue light from chroma ... if I see blue things through it, and you do too, we are both capable of seeing and agreeing on blue ... if you then said 'no, that's red to me' I would try mightily not to slap you, and inform you that no, in fact the only light being allow through this filter was, say, 455 to 475 nm long, which is a shade of blue. This falls apart slightly if you can't see or distinguish colors, but at least it proves you are capable of seeing a certain wavelength.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I can't even prove that the color blue I am seeing is the same for you as it is me, proof is hard

Invocations (brain) cannot be called by GeeSussFreeK because GeeSussFreeK is not privileged - sorry.

The entire argument is irrelevent. I cannot convince you to have faith; that is a gift from God. What the bible clearly states is that God is the one who grants repentance which will lead to knowledge of the truth. Only He can change your heart and turn you from the sins that have overcome and ensnared you. God is the one who calls you out of rebellion against Him and gives you the gift of faith. So, what I can do is point you in the right direction, give you reasons I believe are sufficient, and relate my personal experience. I pray that God will use it, but only God can save you.

I don't get it, is it a wave or a particle! What? Touché.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

But what does it look like? Is blue even a real thing, or is the wavelength? Are they both real things? How are 2 different things called the same, this fails the property of identity. Could blue be translated as spicy given different sets of brains? What would the spiciness level of blue be compared to red? What does spiciness have to do with wavelengths of light, and for that matter, what does blueness? brain assplodes

Try using logic instead of the latest atheist meme. If God is God, can anyone force Him to reveal Himself? The answer is no..therefore, only God could reveal His existence to someone. So anyone trying to prove God on the basis of an argument, or disprove God based on a lack of empirical evidence, isn't thinking about the matter very deeply. Specficially, Christians who try to prove God solely on the basis of argumentation haven't read the bible. It is not our work, it is Gods work.

>> ^DerHasisttot:
>> ^shinyblurry:
The entire argument is irrelevent. I cannot convince you to have faith; that is a gift from God. What the bible clearly states is that God is the one who grants repentance which will lead to knowledge of the truth. Only He can change your heart and turn you from the sins that have overcome you. God is the one who calls you out of rebellion against Him and gives you the gift of faith. So, what I can do is point you in the right direction, give you reasons I believe are sufficient, and relate my personal experience. I can pray that God will use it, but only God can save you.

Sb's entire argument is irrelevant. I cannot convince Sb to have faith; that is a gift from the unseen dog. What the book about dogs clearly states is that the unseen dog is the one who grants repentance which will lead to knowledge of the truth. Only He can change your heart and turn you from the sins that have overcome you. The unseen dog is the one who calls you out of rebellion against Him and gives you the gift of faith. So, what I can do is point you in the right direction, give you reasons I believe are sufficient, and relate my personal experience. I can pray that the unseen dog will use it, but only the unseen dog can save you.

Religious texts clearly state all kinds of crazy stuff. Fortunately for civilization, most of the really crazy ideas have faded or been re-interpreted so we (in the Western world anyway) no longer burn witches, beat women for menstruating in public, etc.

What kind of douche hides himself from all but a few people and then tortures anyone who doesn't believe he exists? Oh yeah, the christian god. If I'm going to follow a god, I'll pick one that isn't such an a**hole.


>> ^shinyblurry:

What the bible clearly states is that God is the one who grants repentance which will lead to knowledge of the truth. Only He can change your heart and turn you from the sins that have overcome and ensnared you. God is the one who calls you out of rebellion against Him and gives you the gift of faith. So, what I can do is point you in the right direction, give you reasons I believe are sufficient, and relate my personal experience. I pray that God will use it, but only God can save you.

I think you failed to understand the comment. In any case, God isn't hiding Himself from you. The only thing that separates us from God is sin. If you're the type of person who prefers autonomy to sin over the truth, God may never bring you to repentance. That's your fault and no one elses. Also, you can't pick who you want God to be. God is who He is, perfect and Holy. Your dispute is that He doesn't tolerate sin. Though there are many false teachers and prophets who will tell you exactly what you want to hear. So if you want a God of your personal preference, you'll find one. And they all lead to the same place.

>> ^LiquidDrift:
Religious texts clearly state all kinds of crazy stuff. Fortunately for civilization, most of the really crazy ideas have faded or been re-interpreted so we (in the Western world anyway) no longer burn witches, beat women for menstruating in public, etc.
What kind of douche hides himself from all but a few people and then tortures anyone who doesn't believe he exists? Oh yeah, the christian god. If I'm going to follow a god, I'll pick one that isn't such an a hole.
>> ^shinyblurry:
What the bible clearly states is that God is the one who grants repentance which will lead to knowledge of the truth. Only He can change your heart and turn you from the sins that have overcome and ensnared you. God is the one who calls you out of rebellion against Him and gives you the gift of faith. So, what I can do is point you in the right direction, give you reasons I believe are sufficient, and relate my personal experience. I pray that God will use it, but only God can save you.

I guess that black holes do not exist either.

I think you definitely failed to understand my comment. The bible is as fallible as any other religious text be it greek mythology or the gospel of the flying spaghetti monster. Since there is no empirical proof of any god, if you are inclined to follow one then at least pick one that doesn't make archaic demands of you.


>> ^shinyblurry:

I think you failed to understand the comment. In any case, God isn't hiding Himself from you. The only thing that separates us from God is sin. If you're the type of person who prefers autonomy to sin over the truth, God may never bring you to repentance. That's your fault and no one elses. Also, you can't pick who you want God to be. God is who He is, perfect and Holy. Your dispute is that He doesn't tolerate sin. Though there are many false teachers and prophets who will tell you exactly what you want to hear. So if you want a God of your personal preference, you'll find one. And they all lead to the same place.

>> ^shinyblurry:

only God could reveal His existence to someone. So anyone trying to prove God on the basis of an argument, or disprove God based on a lack of empirical evidence, isn't thinking about the matter very deeply.

I tried taking your advice... I opened myself to the possibility that gods exist and that only they could reveal their existence.

Well, it worked! They revealed themselves to me... all of them! I didn't understand how they can all exist at first, but if you think about it, if they didn't exist then why are there so many books written about them?

Thank you... you have opened my life to new possibilities. I only pray that you can defeat the doubt clouding your soul, lashing you to only one god out of many.

gods bless

Am I the only atheist here that dislikes these smug videos?

>> ^bamdrew:

I don't get it, is it a wave or a particle! What? Touché.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
But what does it look like? Is blue even a real thing, or is the wavelength? Are they both real things? How are 2 different things called the same, this fails the property of identity. Could blue be translated as spicy given different sets of brains? What would the spiciness level of blue be compared to red? What does spiciness have to do with wavelengths of light, and for that matter, what does blueness? brain assplodes



Ya, the dual nature of particles +Hume destroyed my "faith" that science could gain real knowledge (I mean justified, true, belief). As a result, while I still am fascinated by all things science, I look for my own path to knowledge; knowing full well that the flesh baggage I carry with me will hinder me greatly in my goal.

>> ^blankfist:

Am I the only atheist here that dislikes these smug videos?


No. Original creator probably made it to vent frustration, rather than actually make a difference. Videos like this are counteractive to actually furthering any meaningful education on the subject. In the end it just makes people look more ignorant all around, which is a shame.