Dew Berries.

years of wondering have come to a close with a little work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewberry

>> ^Sagemind:

... the kind of stupid pass that gets the ball into the net - That's what kind of stupid pass that is.
Now go back to your armchair and eat some more nachos and Mountain Dew.


It's shocking but a lot of Americans (even those that play the sport) don't really get football, or soccer. I know because I ref here, and have to deal with them.

... the kind of stupid pass that gets the ball into the net - That's what kind of stupid pass that is.

Now go back to your armchair and eat some more nachos and Mountain Dew.

>> ^PlayhousePals:

But I'm a Pepper =o/


I was a Coca Cola, Mountain/Mt. Dew, Dr. Pepper, etc. No diet. Now my old body hates sodas and gets aches.

The horror of war, brought to you by Mountain Dew.

damn it is a *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Sinead-O-Connor-the-Chieftains-The-Foggy-Dew

1 more comment have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by jonny.

*promote a better use for mountain dew than hydration!

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

this song is the era of commodore 64 and mountain dew, well, when i heard it

fucking disgusting, in every sense of the word!

Also, I'm assuming that's Mountain Dew?!?!

Well, let's talk about rationality for a minute, since you seem to be a logical person. I just don't think there is any basis in a secular worldview for rationality. For instance, if you believe in evolution then you believe that life came from non-life, which means that your rationality came from irrational forces. How can you trust it? If you have inherited your reasoning capability from rocks and primates, how is it trustworthy?

Another question is, how do you have any free will in a secular worldview? If the way things are at this moment is due to the arrangement of atoms at the beginning of the Universe, then there is no such thing as free will. Those atoms have you locked in from birth to death and no one has any meaningful awareness. There is no way to get outside this box that materialism puts you in. How do you respond to this quote:

If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions… … Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else.

Douglas Wilson

Since you mentioned that you work with math, where do you find the laws of logic in nature? How do you presuppose something which is unchanging and immaterial in a Universe which is material and always changing? I can account for these things in a theistic worldview, so how do you account for them?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I can relate to tyson, as I felt the same feelings when i was a kid..started reading cosmos at age 4, went to planetariums, got a telescope, devoured any and all information i could get my hands on about astronomy. I can relate to his sheer sense of wonderment about it. What I find interesting though is how he talks about having a personal relationship with the Universe, that it talks to him, that it was "calling" him, and how the Universe (as starstuff) is within him. That is unmistakably worship.

Indeed, this video talks much about the irrational kinds of religious orders secular people still hold to, like love or living forever. People, even those who claim to be rational, still deal with our monkey nature more oft then they would like to admit to themselves <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/teeth.gif">

When atheists argue that "God" does not exist, they are usually arguing against a specific idea of god as defined by one or another religion, which is possible to do, both with logic and physical/scientific evidence (example: the Abrahamic God that apparently made all of humanity from the incestuous offspring of two people is easily disproven, while his omnipotence is logically incompatible with his omni-benevolence).

If He is so easily disproven, it's interesting how no one in history has ever done so. What you're detailing in the supposed conflict between Gods omnipotence and omni-benevolence is the logical problem of evil. Plantigas free will defense proves that they are in fact logically compatible, so you don't have an argument here.

Let's put it this way: do you believe fairies exist? If no, prove it! You can't explain why dew drops are so neatly arranged on spider webs, or how the beautiful designs in the frost of windowpanes are made, so fairies make them. Tada!! Sure, you can be agnostic about fairies, arguing that they're manmade fiction, and explain scientifically how dew drops and frost patterns work, but that's just eliminating one definition of "fairy", there are infinitely more! A-fairyists, meanwhile, live with the evidence-based assumption that the probability of fairies existing is null, and the burden of proof lies on those who insist that some sort of fairies exist.

See where this is getting?

Yes, I see where you're conflating the issue. Anyone can make a claim, but that doesn't make every claim equally valid. Yes, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, and you can't disprove a universal negative. Yet just because you cannot disprove the existence of God does not make the God hypothesis equal to cosmic teapots. There is no good reason to believe there are cosmic teapots, but plenty of good reasons to believe there is a God. The difference lies in the explanatory power of the claim, which is the basis for believing any theory.

You believe in the theory of abiogenesis, presumably, even though there is no actual evidence for life from non-life. So by your logic, a magic teapot could be an equally valid explanation for the origin of life. But since Abiogenesis has more explanatory power (barely) for the origin of life than a magic teapot, that makes it more probable and gives you justification for believing it.

The burden of proof lies with whomever is making a claim, for or against. Your epistemological position about uncertainty is countered by the fact that certain claims have more explanatory power than others. I cannot absolutely prove magic teapots don't exist, but that doesn't mean I don't have good reasons to believe they don't exist; since they explain precisely nothing they can safely be discarded as a valid claim.

>> ^hpqp:
@GeeSussFreeK: I do agree, however, that many atheists like to posit the position that God, indeed, does not exist. That would require some evidence as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
@shinyblurry: Yes, they do like to posit that. When asked for that evidence however, they like to say they merely "lack belief", which is meaningless. Basically, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to say no to the question of whether God exists but escape the burden of proof. That is what this "lack of belief" is all about. It's not an "i don't know", it's a "no, but i dont have to provide any evidence for that".
When atheists argue that "God" does not exist, they are usually arguing against a specific idea of god as defined by one or another religion, which is possible to do, both with logic and physical/scientific evidence (example: the Abrahamic God that apparently made all of humanity from the incestuous offspring of two people is easily disproven, while his omnipotence is logically incompatible with his omni-benevolence).
I love how shiny uses the expression "want to have our cake and eat it to", which is a very rational and feasible desire (I'm a greedy atheist, I don't share my babby-cake with anyone. Mmmm, fetus fudge! <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smileevil.gif">).
Let's put it this way: do you believe fairies exist? If no, prove it! You can't explain why dew drops are so neatly arranged on spider webs, or how the beautiful designs in the frost of windowpanes are made, so fairies make them. Tada!! Sure, you can be agnostic about fairies, arguing that they're manmade fiction, and explain scientifically how dew drops and frost patterns work, but that's just eliminating one definition of "fairy", there are infinitely more! A-fairyists, meanwhile, live with the evidence-based assumption that the probability of fairies existing is null, and the burden of proof lies on those who insist that some sort of fairies exist.
See where this is getting?