I think you missed the primary argument of the video entirely. This video doesn't say God is nonexistent, it argues against the petty squabbles of religions all laying claim to scientific evidence as evidence for their particular god. It sounds like you're attacking the title (and creator of the video, as well as the practitioners) and not the content. The content as I heard it said nothing about the nonexistence of a God or gods.

I'm not saying you have an agenda, but a lot of what you say around here appears to attack the superficiality of anything liberal, and not really the meat of... well, anything, except that which you subscribe to. Granted you must have a reason for believing what you believe, but, myself, well, I subscribe to very little (including atheism) and haven't yet found a reason to believe anyone about anything. Just my observation, I may be wrong about you but am willing to hear your side of the fence.

In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
M'eh - nothing new here. This is just another in a long line of athesistic oriented strawman arguments. Personally cherry picking your opponent's point of view for them so you can knock them down is the laziest, most simplistic of methods. Yawn.

The reality is that atheists really kind of miss the whole point in the argument. I'm going to help all you atheists out for a second here. Accept or reject the assistance as you will...

The main problem with the atheistic argument is that they misplace their conclusions. The many 'problems' that atheists cite tend to be the foibles, mistakes, and misapplications of PEOPLE. And yet, athiests say that these problems mean that GOD does not exist. This is misplaced blame. Merely because followers make mistakes, misunderstand things, or are imperfect practicioners of their religions does not logically conclude that God does not exist, or that he is 'making' these people so screwy.

Most religions are more than willing to conceed that they are not perfect. The central tenant of many religions is that men are flawed and must follow after the higher ideals that 'God' represents (however clumsy the attempt).

So ultimately, videos like this are silly. They take the mistakes, weaknesses, and extreme examples of error that are inherent to 'people' and try to make the case that 'God' is wrong/bad/non-existent. They knock at religion in general, but offer no superior moral system to replace it. Real religion is the effort to improve the self. No atheist argument is going to be able to halt that effort.

Yeah but that doesn't change the fact that Hitler killed 9 million jewish people. See the gap now? Comparing someone who wants to reform healthcare to help people in the US with someone who executed 9 million people is demeaning to those who actually died in the Holocaust.

In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I can quote wiki and dictionary.com too if I wanted. Look up 'Nazi party' and 'Socialist'. That's who Hitler was. A socialist - like Obama. This fact is indisputable.

Regardless, I note the myriad instance of qualified language in your defintions. They're there for a reason. 'In theory'? 'Usually'? Your source acknowledges that the definition the term 'facist' is somewhat fluid depending on who you talk to. Besides, you're using different terminology than what I was discuss. This in an odious practice typical of neolibs. When losing a discussion on substance, change the terminology to give the illusion that you aren't. I was discussing the political comparison of Obama vs Bush vs Hitler. Politically speaking, there is no question that Obama and Hitler were soulmates on a far deeper level than Bush and Hitler were.

And I had to laugh at the “cult of personality is the cornerstone of fascism" bit. Between Obama and Bush, which one is the one that built his entire political career on the cult of personality? Say what you like, but Bush rarely (if ever) went on about "me me me ME!" But every time Obama opens his socialist (and now I guess facist) piehole, it's always "MY plan", "MY agenda", "MY this", "MY that". The guy is a total narcicisst. America's in far more danger from Obama and his cult of personality zombies than it ever was under Bush.

well put sir

In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Well put, Gee. That really is the core of a lot of arguments between neoliberals & conservatives.

Conservatives understand some basic realities. (1) People sometimes do stupid things. (2) Nothing on Earth can EVER prevent #1. (3) #1 is a very small price to pay in exchange for FREEDOM. Conservatives accept this reality and try to minimize #1 as much as possible through personal accountability, responsibility, industry, and enlightened self-interest.

Neolibs do not accept this. To neolibs, life is about fairness. So when something bad happens, the neolib emotive reaction is that 'we' need to do 'something' to make sure it never happens again. But of course to neolibs, "we" means "you" and "something" means "massive, unaccountable, inefficient, ineffective government boondoggle". In the process they strip away personal and financial freedoms to try and assuage their sense of fairness.

Conservatives don't try to stop "#1". They do their best to make #1 as tiny an issue as possible by thier own personal decisions. Neolibs try to stop #1, and they do it by making it so people can't decide anything at all.

Pennypacker, Bush and Hitler were both fixtures of the far right, so although the comparison is unproductive and overreaching, it is at least born out of some basic logic. Bush did also rack up a respectable body count of innocent people, made major cutbacks on civil liberties, tortured people, and vilified his opposition as traitors to name a few things. If you want to make an overreaching comment about the current President, take a cue from our very own qm and blankfist, and go with either Stalin or Marx.

In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Uh oh Psychologic... You're daring to bring the taboos of logic, common sense, and reason into this discussion. That's going to get you labeled as a neocon. Get ready for it - because the neolibs won't stand for your simple, correct assessment of the world's capacity to generate resources.

One of the fundamentaal premises of the kook neolib left fringe is that the world is hovering on the brink of resource exhaustion. Look at this thread. It is filled to the brim with literal idiots who are talking all kinds of bull about stuff they know absolutely nothing about except what has been spoon-fed them by equally ignorant professors and media hacks. Check out this glittering example...

"Ideal population growth is as close to 0% as you can get..."

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Not only does this dingus believe that he knows what number of humams should/shouldn't be born, he also believes he knows what the Earth's 'ideal' population should be. Based on what math? None of course. It's just his opinion.

The neolib left is chock full of these kinds of psuedo-intellectual dipsticks. They go around spouting complete nonsense on topics they know sod-all about and perpetuate fallacies that any person with two gangelon to rub together can see are patently false at face value. But they LOVE this particular left-wing piece of idiocy (overpopulation) because it lets them engage in their favorite pasttime... Making stupid laws to take away freedom, control people, and limit happiness & prosperity based on junk science treated as 'fact' through no other virtue than faith and the psychological makeup of a lemming.

Late to the party but oh well.

Lets see: You bash "the kook neolib left fringe" for their baseless assumptions that the world is hovering on the brink of resource exhaustion, yet you take Psychologic's statement that "we could multiply the Earth's population many times over and still have enough resources for everyone" as gospel. Hmmm. Hypocrisy says hi!

Also, I love how you take Psychologic's assessment that "Infrastructure is the problem" and "The number of people involved isn't the major limiting factor." as "logic, common sense, and reason". Funny. I don't see any logic there considering the fact that "Wars, inept governments, and transportation costs" doesn't automatically exclude population as a significant contributor to famine. War = famine, therefore high population not = famine. Amazing logical inference there.

Hmmm. Perhaps when you say "logic, common sense, and reason", you're talking about Psychologic's claim that "Newer techs will help though. As cheap solar power matures there will be less dependence on power grids (eventually none), and manufacturing processes involving nanotech will reduce the cost of producing necessary items (eventually food too)."

What a prediction! The man must be a psychic or something! He knows in his heart that this "nanotech" thingy will be our salvation! What a brilliant scientific conclusion.

Seriously though, Psychologic's post is as full of bullshit as the posts that preceded it. It just happens to be your preferred flavor of bullshit. But hey, lets stick to the topic at hand here. I wouldn't want to bring something irrelevant such as politics into a discussion about population growth. Oh wait, you beat me to it.

And may I commend you on that wonderfully written diatribe against neolibs. It was definitely not full of your own opinion, and was instead nicely supported by facts, statistics, and science. I especially like the part where you called varietube a "dingus". I'd say something like "childish insults score no points here", but you already mentioned that yourself in your post to varietube below this.

Let me remind you of a quote of yours: "I simply find that I am - sadly - the only person on the sift who is able to provide this much-needed counterbalance in a way that is not inflammatory at its face value."

If your vitriolic rhetoric against neolibs wasn't inflammatory, then I don't know what is. You might want to start practicing what you preach. Unless of course, you feel like it's your duty to counterbalance all the "liberal idiots" on videosift with your own brand of shit.

An Ideal Growth Rate would only exist if population had reached adefined known limit in Carrying Capacity and had a sustainable sourceof resources at just that limit. Obviously not going to happen anytimesoon. Even if it did, the balance would be disrupted. It washypothetical in the first place, and still true.]

Carrying capacity limits as a study have only held validity when applied to florae and faunae. Attempts to apply such mathematicaly models to human populations have not held up. The only thing that can be said is that there is currently 'debate' on the matter of applying the principle of carrying capacity to human populations. Therefore the assertion that ideal growth rates exist when populations reach a 'defined known limit' is currently speculation, not proof. Without actual mathematics to support the speculation, the debate becomes nothing more than balderdash.

I'm perfectly willing to entertain a discussion on the matter, but such a discussion can only be pursuant on the grounds of actual evidenciary proofs. So far I have seen no such proofs. I've seen only appeals to false authority ('everyone knows this...'), hasty generalizations, and ad hominem attacks. If you wish to discuss the matter further then I once again call on you to supply the math. If you cannot supply real, proven, peer-reviewed data then the matter is purely hypothetical on your part and subsequently holds no interest for me.

I'll give you another shot. It's up to you to accomplish something with it, or be dismissed. Keep in mind that childish insults score no points here. Such tactics say more about the caliber of the person using them than they do about the person they address.

It's perfectly simple, that's why you don't understand.

An Ideal Growth Rate would only exist if population had reached a defined known limit in Carrying Capacity and had a sustainable source of resources at just that limit. Obviously not going to happen anytime soon. Even if it did, the balance would be disrupted. It was hypothetical in the first place, and still true.]

As a professional, you'd be better off figuring out why you haven't been able to contribute anything of value to the world even with a "career".

In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I'm a statistician by trade. I've done a few projects involving growth rates & economic trends related to them. As a professional, I would be very interested in hearing the precise, specific mathematical explanation as to why a country's growth rate should be zero when almost every economic model depends on a positive growth rate. Real statistics from real statisticans or economists please - no IPAT garbage from Erlich, Holdren, left wing blogs, websites, or opinion think pieces.

In reply to this comment by vairetube:
Congratulations! You have no idea what Growth Rate means related to the concept of Carrying Capacity.

Massive, massive fail. Moron.

Congratulations! You have no idea what Growth Rate means related to the concept of Carrying Capacity.

Massive, massive fail. Moron.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

I just wanted to drop a note thanking you for rational discussion. It was pleasant. We don't agree on everything and that's just fine. Glad to have you here.

I have a tendency to leave snarky and smartass responses. I use my navy time as the scapegoat. I'd like to apologize for my past responses and will keep my responses to you civil from now on.

Have a good day!

In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
You obviously feel a connection to the discourse on videosift... in a way that makes me think you are an alt of someone on here, or perhaps even the new BillO.

I am no one's alt. I enjoy watching videos. I like funny ones, old "Whose Line" clips, and other stuff. However, to my dismay, Videosift (and others) have been co-opted by far-left neolibs who use sites as an increasingly private sounding board for negativity towards anything they don't like.

Case in point. A solid 30% of the vids here today are liberally slanted garbage. Between Bill Maher, Olberman, Madcow, atheism/creationism threads, and so forth there are at least 5+ 'neolib' threads on the top 15 at any given time. A strange trait for a 'fair, tolerant, and balanced' population, eh?

These neolib threads are typically far-left screeds. They are vapid in content. They eggregiously violate logic. They are blatantly baised. Intellectually, they aren't fit for the dung heap, let alone the 'top 15' list. And yet there they are. Every day. And the comments are universally filled to the brim of what can only be described as neolib cheerleaders bleating about how great they are, and trampling any different perspective.

I lean conservative on many issue, but liberal on others. Above all I detest the practice of presenting only one very biased side of an argument and then acting as if it one has made a valid point. It is an odious tendency, that results only in stroking the egos of its participants.

Therefore I feel (occasionally) that there is intellectual value to injecting a reasoned, logical, non-profane perspective into a topic that would otherwise be the metaphysical equivalent of a neolib circle-jerk.

I simply find that I am - sadly - the only person on the sift who is able to provide this much-needed counterbalance in a way that is not inflammatory at its face value. QM is too profane and 'angry'. I prefer the cool balm of reason, logic, and common sense.

http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/%7Be6a31e70-7fd2-4cd9-89e1-cac324da78c9%7D.gif

Seriously, go away.

In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Atheists are the largest minority and the only one that it's socially acceptable to discriminate against.

I think you just described 'Christianity' rather than atheism.


The majority of whites, blacks and Hispanics in America are Christian. Why would you say Christians are a minority?

Did you see this reply to your comment? Why is this idiot holding you accountable for Nuremberg?

You ask the question "Why are we shouting about it now? And why are we only shouting about this particular torture?"

He answers "But we found the nazis guilty of torture!"

>> ^Stormsinger:
No one had a problem with prisoner treatment under Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, FDR, et al.
And yet, we prosecuted Germans for torture, and waterboarding was a prime example. They also had plenty of documented legal opinions explaining why it was legal to do so, but we clearly judged the acts indefensible. Remember the Nuremberg trials, and the famous statement that "following orders is no excuse"?
Selective outrage makes me suspicious. When a person really believe in something then they believe it at all times for ALL people - not just when they have a political axe to grind. I don't see 'thinking' when it comes to this issue. I see people reactionism, groupspeak, talking points, and a LOT of people who are rather too willing to let someone else do thier thinking for them.
Taking you at your word, unless you're also going to object to the Nuremberg trials, I suggest you should be pushing -for- investigation and prosecution.

But..his approval ratings are NOT down, they are up http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=89563§ionid=3510203

In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Title should be... "Obama, noting that his approval ratings are dropping needs an issue to distract from his incompetence... Compliant fanboi news whore summons "Dead Horse no Jutsu", hoping that stupid people will focus on it instead of current administration failures and corruption." Some people are pretty easily distracted by irrelevance. Iraq = old news. Get over it. I'm far more concerned with Obama spending 4+ trillion dollars that the US doesn't have. What happened to liberal outrage at deficits? You guys correctly lambasted Bush for overspending during his term. Iraq was terribly handled, but Bush also sucked with the economy. Obama is octupling-down Bush's debt in only 2 months. Quit focusing on this irrelevant strawman and start focusing on the CURRENT administration's outrages. Focus Daniel-san... In a year we're going to start having double-digit inflation to match our double-digit unemployment with the rate Obama is printing monopoly money. Couple it with his baffling attempts to punish the wealth-generating companies that are going to get out out of this recession and it is looking like he's deliberately trying to move us from 'recession' to 'depression'.

You sure like the word Pernicious.

"I don't mind people praising or criticizing substance. I hate it when they fixate on idiotic non-issues and use them to paint persons or issues with a broad, brainless brush."

Take your own advice.