Your video, Faerie’s Aire and Death Waltz, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 72 Badge!

A very energetic and creative presentation of this (pg 1, pg2) classic pre-internet viral meme (amongst music students at least). There's also this version, which is more faithful. A truly accurate performance would be, I'd wager, very difficult to arrange in the US from a permits perspective. The wildlife in proximity to cannon barrage, by itself, would likely be an insurmountable obstacle.

come away o human child
to the waters and the wild
with a faerie hand in hand
for the world's more full of weeping
than you can understand

Your video, Can't fool the tooth faery, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

http://videosift.com/video/Cant-fool-the-tooth-faery

LOL

I was just working in a field where there was hundreds of them. It was weird, like I was in faery land or something, but they seemed to be all over the place, many of them together embracing in the dragonfly fuck.

I wish I could scrape my eyes like that to clean them.

The water looks exactly like trichromes do on cannabis leaf.

Who cares what Bishops think? If you do, then you should also account for concerns of the leprechauns and forest faeries.

>> ^shinyblurry:

A mind created and designed it, therefore a mind is involved, therefore it is an invalid example..


So, by this argument, if we live in a deist universe, in which the universe was created but the creator pays it no mind, then abiogenesis and evolution by natural selection are completely plausible. That's an interesting position, it does not really help you here.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Abiogenesis is unproven because there is no evidence, it is just metaphysics. It's your faith that it is true. It is not the only coherent explanation, it is just the explanation that you have to believe because you have ruled out an intelligent designer apriori.

You seem to not understand the meaning of apriori. A few hundred years ago everybody in the western world, at least claimed to, believe the creation myth of genesis. We got to here from there, don't pretend your ideology has not had a chance, you were in charge of the game, we called your bluff, you just had nothing in your hand, you still don't.

Evolving molecules exist, they came into being at some point after it was possible for them to exist in this universe. The only non-magic hypotheses we have are based on a naturalistic model where these molecules are generated by a series of non-evolving processes. The gaps in the chemical record are very much like the gaps in the fossil record used to be, we have not filled them all, but neither have we found one that can not be crossed, and no reason to think they will not be filled.

>> ^shinyblurry:
Here is the hypothesis


The ID position is stated there in four parts, the last three follow from common decent, and the first one is either false, like all Behe's examples, or undemonstrated. It is mathematically possible that there is irreducible complexity somewhere, just as with faeries and unicorns, absence of evidence is not evidence of existence.

All the Discovery Institute links were painful in their fail. DI is a propaganda organization, only one of their links discusses any scientific discovery, and it actually makes no ID claims. The rest of the articles either make no claim, or have been shown to be false. If Well's article is going to be your flagship falsifiable ID position, fine, but you should probably know it's already been falsified here .

>> ^shinyblurry:

There is obviously a concrete difference since life doesn't come from non-life, and has never once been observed doing so. You have everything in the world to prove here.

This is your premise, and your conclusion, draw the line, and I will show you something on either side that confounds your "distinction". If you can't define the problem, I can't show it's flaws. Refusing to define your terms may get you by in theology, we are talking chemistry here, chemistry does not "work in mysterious ways".

>> ^shinyblurry:

if our mental processes are just chemical reactions, then there is no reason to believe anything is true. If our mental states have their origin in non-rational causes, rationality can't be trusted. You can't know if the rationality we have from evolutionary processes is discerning the truth of the world or not.

Ontology can't help you here, gods, since the can intervene, make it more difficult to make truth claims, not easier.

>> ^shinyblurry:

The reason it is labeled magic is because there is no proof.

There is no proof of anything. There is evidence of RNA/DNA metabolism, there is evidence of general chemical probability, there is no evidence for irreducible complexity, or anticipatory design in any non lab built genome. You can scream about nonexistent, and unneeded proof all day, science follows the evidence.

I think there are some people here misinterpreting what she is saying.

Inspiration, or whatever you want to call the peak of the creative mind, is not under conscious control. A person can't just *decide* to write (or paint, or dance, or sculpt) their best piece ever on a particular day. She is saying that artists are going crazy trying to pin down something that cannot be held. However you want to make peace with that fact, with metaphors like external supernatural beings or whatever else may work for you, to continue being a mentally healthy person that peace must be made. This is not to say that the artist should actually believe in faeries or geniuses or muses in the literal sense, merely as a metaphor for the subconscious realm from which inspiration springs. One might even choose to simply address the subconscious mind directly. ("Ok, subconscious, today would be a really great day to write a new song!") The important part is acknowledging that it is not under direct control, and that we shouldn't think of uninspired work as failure. Merely as practice.

The best an artist can do consciously is lay the groundwork for that creative inspiration to appear, and translate from idea to some realized form. What she calls "showing up" is laying that groundwork. Training, introspection, research, anything else that you can *choose* to do in your chosen art will make it easier to act on inspiration. Since nothing can force it to happen, the artist must accept that their only true job is to prepare and encourage creativity, but never expect it or rely on it.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
>> ^Darkhand:
"Finally a hero in a sandbox game who can justify why he can't swim"
HUGE UPVOTE!

Which still makes no sense. He lives with electricity flowing through him. Why would water hurt? Sure, it might deplete his reserve, but if he can control whether or not it's being discharged on land, why couldn't he do the same in water?


The water faeries works in mysterious ways.

He could say that ajkido, but he won't and neither would anyone with any amount of diplomatic experience.

Easter Bunny : Fake. Santa Clause : Fake. Faeries : Fake. Magic : Fake. Genies : Fake. Magical Wish Granting All Knowing Sky Man of the Force? Maybe?!!?

Down to the quick, religion is all about opinions. Strongly held opinions, but still none of it being verifiable fact. Anything spiritual by its very nature cannot be verifiable fact. And to Govern over a people with Opinions guiding you is the height of inanity. The more we lean towards being governed by religion the faster we'll end up like the muslim nations of old. What used to be the most powerful and the most *advanced* society in the world suddenly became one of the least advanced in a matter of decades.

>> ^Psychologic:
I grew up around religion, so I guess I've seen more positives with it than what you see on TV. Kind, supportive people don't make the news.

Kind and supportive of their own clique does not make for decent human beings.

Decent people do not need faerie tale laws and threats of eternal retribution to be kind and supportive of others.


I think intolerance is one of the things you dislike, and that is not a religious principle. Hate the behavior, not the belief. Intolerance is a part of specific denominations, not all religions. I've seen plenty of intolerance from atheists as well.

Intolerance is only part of what I don't like. My primary fault with religion is ignorance. Anytime I see someone like the people in this video, spewing stupidity, I fill with unbridled rage. These people and their kind are idiots yet they choose the people that control how our society is run. They continue to grow in power, and each year they infect our communities with more and more ignorance and hate.


Because we're better than that.

You hang on to your principles, when you've lost the right to vote, work, own a home, marry, or raise children because you're not one of them, living in a 4'x8' cell enduring force "reeducation", I'm sure knowing that you're better than they are will be a great consolation.

>> ^osama1234:
I realize the videosift teritory is fairly areligious, but please read this comment with an open mind.
I dont know so much about the christian parts of that clips, but from the muslim bits he used, to me it seemed to show that he didn't have a proper understanding of the religion. This fact really struck me when he was making the leap of logic that just because a religion believes in the final day, that somehow its OK to pillage the earth (environmentally), according to the religion.
I haven't seem the whole movie, perhaps its better, but this clip was simply a series of picking and choosing one liners to prove a point, instead of an actual understanding of the overall picture.
The last thing that i found strange was his claim that moderates should free themselves of these chains because the entity of religion has been used for so much hate, killing, etc. I really think that's absurd. What if I worded the exact same thing, except put in a country.
'Moderate Americans should emancipate themselves from America because the USA has commited crimes such as starting wars, killing thousands, napalming thousands.... etc, all in the name of USA.'
You probably realize how absurd his reasoning is. Clearly Americans SHOULDN't emancipate themselves just because there are some people committing crimes in its name, so why is this train of logic appropriate for religions?


The discussion about the End of Days is just to illustrate how people hoping for the world to end have no reason to better the world.

"Faith [Religion] means making a virtue of not thinking. It's nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith and enable and elevate it, are our intellectual slave holders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense."

That is the heart of the entire film, that if people live their lives and make their decisions based on millennia old superstition and faerie tales they become a detriment to society and a danger to the future of all mankind.

"Scientific method requires that you approach the world without unproven preconceptions -- and saying there's no God is definitely an unproven preconception."

It's all about probabilities. Very few things, many of which are very reliable in all of their relevant applications, outside of mathematical proofs can we ever be 100% sure about and are truly knowable. Saying god cannot be 100% disproved is a non-argument. There is zero proof-positive of it, just like there is for faeries, cyclops, and chimeras. People are not supposed to imagine things and then go find the evidence for it. It works the other way around. He/she/it is a psychological construct. You do have a pretty good point though and I agree about trying to defend indefensible positions or trying to address an argument which is already rigged to the opposing side's favor, because of it's seemingly intentional, hazy, and nebulous nature which is by default auto-immune to scientific scrutiny and protocols. It's like trying to not get wet from the rain by jumping into a pool.

I do not say, "There is no god." I say, "There is no known evidence for god, therefore I choose to live my life not wasting the very little time I have thinking there is." If anyone has something, anything ...I'm all ears.

I don't understand how some could call Dawkins "arrogant". Perhaps a misinterpretation on the part of the persecutees? When Dawkins is anything resembling "arrogant" it's usually very tongue-in-cheek, highbrow, sometimes lowbrow banter on the order of Monty Python's Life of Brian. It's hard to be constantly serious when you're dealing with people whose beliefs resemble other less savory beliefs in faeries, boogie monsters, and mogwai.

Of course, this flies right over most of their heads and thus Dawkins gets deemed to be this inhumane, fire-breathing-atheist-dickhead. Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuse me (one of them damn, dirty atheists) for pointing out the truth, Princess!

Edit: And wouldn't being merely one of God's omnipotent farts be pretty good in their book?