I live with a cat that fetches.

Believe it or not, I can personally relate to how you feel about it. I used to feel mostly the same way as someone who was previously agnostic to the idea of whether there is a supreme being or not, a Creator of the Universe. I also know why you feel you have come to a very sound conclusion about the idea, which is that you see no evidence of God or spirit. If you believe matter is all there is, it makes the existence of a supernatural Creator rather far fetched doesn't it?

Now you talk about logic, but even if you don't believe in the supernatural, there is by default no logical reason why either scenerio is more likely than the other, if you go by the initial premise that everything is equally unlikely. Why should there be something rather than nothing? That is the great question on Stephan Hawkings mind, even though he believes he can get the entire Universe from quantum foam.

These were questions I wrestled with as an agnostic. For one, I knew the limitations of our subjective perceptions. The limitations of human knowledge. It's a big Universe out there and we haven't even left our solar system yet. There are many possibilities even within the traditional secular understanding. What if life emerged on another planet far, far earlier? What would an intelligence evolving over billions of years look like? Was there a power that ruled this entire Universe? Those were just wonderings. But I found the real struggle was to objectively define truth. Any foundational truth, really. What is beauty? What is altruism? What is truth itself? 7 billion subjective perspectives does not equal one objective one. There is no way to get outside the Universe and look into it, and there is no way to go back to before it was created. These are simply the differences between relative and absolute truth.

These questions are much bigger than atheism, which is why I was agnostic. I didn't see any way I could write God off and be objective, but at the time I didn't see much reason to believe in Him either. You apparently feel differently. I'm interested to hear your logical reasons for not believing in God. A revelation that I had when I was thinking about these things was that I had entangled the concept of God with all of the religions of the world. To truly be objective, you have to look past religion, and consider the problem on just a probability basis. What is the likelyhood of any of it? You can explain it away with this and this and this happened, there was this explosion and then rocks came together and then amoebas appeared and then apes and then me, tada. You have to put all of that aside, as well as the size of the Universe, and just consider Stephan Hawkins question. Why is there something rather than nothing?

In any case, you don't see any evidence for a spirit so you are dealing with an entirely different set of parameters. For there to be a spirit you would have to deal with the fact that everything you know is in some way, wrong. You just naturally are not going to look in that direction.

The thing about God is, He isn't going to push Himself into your life. You think it's just a matter of evidence, a matter of discovering something; the truth is that to know God is not a right, it is a priviledge. You could spend 10,000 lifetimes dedicated to searching for God and you would never find Him until that moment when He chose to reveal Himself to you.

Hebrews 11:6

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Sometimes He has mercy on atheists, like this man:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4lgvZ5MCZ4

But biblically, He tells us to seek Him out. If you refuse to do that then you don't have any excuses. You've heard the truth and we are accountable to what we know. You don't feel a need for God right now but that's why we're here. God is patient, but we aren't guaranteed a single day on this planet. If you died today you would face judgement, but His mercy keeps you here that you will repent and turn from sin. So don't take your life for granted because that isn't anything we control. I say this out of love. God gives a lot of grace, and to know Jesus Christ is to know peace, and joy. It is to understand the meaning of truth, to have love, and to be free. It is to be made new. My prayer is that you, and others here, will come to know that for yourselves.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
@shinyblurry said: Fletch, you're even denial about the definition of atheism,which is the denial of any deity according to the dictionary.
Thats not how most atheists define atheism. Atheism is the LACK OF BELIEF in any theistic claim. There is a crucial difference. I dont "deny" any deity, that sentence doesnt even make sense to me as an atheist, any more than the sentence "The denial of any leprechaun".
You (@shinyblurry) believe in God
I dont.
Thats all there is to it.
"Not believing in god" wasnt really a conscious or deliberate decision on my part, its just "the way I am". But when i examine that position rationally and deliberately I find that it does also make more sense than believing there is a god. Can a beliver really, REALLY say the same, I wonder?

happy belated b~day sjb! now fetch meh some toast.

Enough with that witty banter. Fetch me a sandwich!
>> ^hpqp:

>> ^renatojj:
Another movie about empowering women, we just don't have enough of those.

Indeed, we really don't. Especially when it comes to children's movies, which have a long history of sexist and patriarchal representations of women/women's roles. Here's a humorous take on a few of them:
http://videosift.com/video/Advice-From-A-Cartoon-Princess-Belle
http://videosift.com/video/Advice-From-A-Cartoon-Princess-Snow-White http://videosift.com/video/Great-Advice-from-The-Little-Mermaid

@NetRunner

I second longde's reply above. I haven't seen anything from Reverend Wright that sounds racist to me. On the contrary, when I listen to Rev. Wright speak, he seems to be someone deeply interested in bridging racial divides.

Some criticism of "Black Liberation Theology"


I certainly don't think Obama is a racist, which is what you're trying to say as well.

>>> Well, aren't you claiming Dr. Paul is a racist? The man is not a fool, and knows that the libmedia is against him. Yet he continues to run for office and suffer what is assuredly unfair scrutiny.

>>> What's truly in Obama's heart no one knows. I see either a closet racist--more concerned with accruing power than skin color--or a crafty politician--more concerned with accruing power than anything else.

As for my problem really being with libertarianism, it's both. One can be libertarian without being racist, and one can be racist without being libertarian, but the self-identified American white supremacists really adore libertarianism and Ron Paul.

>>> You may very well be making a fair statement about a majority of "self-identified American white supremacists", to which I reply, "So what?" Don't those people have a right to vote for whomever they wish? It's obvious they are not a large or serious base. Those people wear shoes, right? If they favor Keds, is everyone who wears Keds a racist?

Why? Because instituting libertarianism would legalize racial discrimination, religious discrimination, sexual discrimination (both gender and orientation). Depending on the type of libertarianism, they might even get slavery back via indentured servitude.

>>> Rather far-fetched. I can't seriously believe you're worried about this. You think the only thing holding the system together--guiding the economic, religious and moral decisions of 300 million people--are a few recent laws on the books?

So smart racists get really, really solidly behind libertarianism. Even smarter racists pretend not to be racist, they're just libertarians...who just happen to believe the Civil Rights Act is an unconscionable exercise of state power, and oh yeah, used to have this newsletter they published saying all kinds of racist crap.

Ooops.

It's actually Ron Paul who helped me realize that the true lineage of libertarianism can be traced right back to the South's self-serving claims that fighting for slavery was actually a fight for freedom. Basically everything having to do with State's Rights, property rights, right to contract, all that crap was used to justify slavery.

It was used again to defend Jim Crow, separate but equal, opposition to the Civil Rights Act, etc.

IMO, any legal or moral framework which can justify that rogue's gallery of policies should just be discarded, not whitewashed, spun, and resold to people as some bright vision of the future.

>>> The Civil War was far more complex than "slavery". For at least the first 18 months of the war, slavery was not THE issue, and the South had every right to secede.

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement.

Lincoln on the floor of Congress, 13 January 1848
Congressional Globe, Appendix
1st Session 30th Congress, page 94

>>> Lincoln made the war primarily about slavery, but slavery was already on the way out before the War even began. Slavery had been abolished in most of Europe. Only wealthy Southerners owned slaves, and industrialization made plantations less and less able to compete with the North.

>>> I have to take this moment to remind that it was Republicans who ended slavery, and Democrats who donned the white sheets.

>>> The alternative to a proper balance of power between States' Rights and the feds is what we have now: an all-powerful federal mafia, ruling without the rule of law, made all the more dangerous when Democrats are in power due to their mainstream media media lackeys.

>>> There's plenty of valid criticism of Dr. Paul out there without the non-issue of some 20-year-old newsletters. Because our time and interests are finite, I assume this charge of racism is just an easy way for the left to refute the libertarian message, though it be simple, neat and wrong.


>> ^NetRunner:

I second longde's reply above. I haven't seen anything from Reverend Wright that sounds racist to me. On the contrary, when I listen to Rev. Wright speak, he seems to be someone deeply interested in bridging racial divides.
I certainly don't think Obama is a racist, which is what you're trying to say as well.
As for my problem really being with libertarianism, it's both. One can be libertarian without being racist, and one can be racist without being libertarian, but the self-identified American white supremacists really adore libertarianism and Ron Paul.
Why? Because instituting libertarianism would legalize racial discrimination, religious discrimination, sexual discrimination (both gender and orientation). Depending on the type of libertarianism, they might even get slavery back via indentured servitude.
So smart racists get really, really solidly behind libertarianism. Even smarter racists pretend not to be racist, they're just libertarians...who just happen to believe the Civil Rights Act is an unconscionable exercise of state power, and oh yeah, used to have this newsletter they published saying all kinds of racist crap.
Ooops.
It's actually Ron Paul who helped me realize that the true lineage of libertarianism can be traced right back to the South's self-serving claims that fighting for slavery was actually a fight for freedom. Basically everything having to do with State's Rights, property rights, right to contract, all that crap was used to justify slavery.
It was used again to defend Jim Crow, separate but equal, opposition to the Civil Rights Act, etc.
IMO, any legal or moral framework which can justify that rogue's gallery of policies should just be discarded, not whitewashed, spun, and resold to people as some bright vision of the future.
>> ^quantumushroom:


@NetRunner and others, I question your collective "concern" over this non-issue, which is comical considering Dr. Paul has no chance of wining the nomination (or does he)?
I don't know if you voted for Chicago Jesus, but if the facts that he spent 20 years in the Church of Hate Whitey under the tutelage of the deranged Jeremiah Wright, got married in said church and also gave it 20Gs doesn't bother you, then your problem with Dr. Paul isn't "racism", it's libertarianism.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Ok, I'm sorry, I got about halfway before I had to stop otherwise I would have chainsawed my own ear drums.
Sorry, I don't really buy it. CNet wasn't owned by CBS until 2008. And even then the suggestion that it's some sort of conspiracy by disney or whoever to spread the use of file sharing seems really far-fetched.
Whenever I'm confronted by something like this I always ask "What's the profit motive?" I don't really see the end game for the content producers here.
Exec A: hey let's distribute file-sharing software and then people will pirate our stuff without paying for it!
Exec B: errr, ok. How does this make us money?
Exec A: we'll sue a bunch of poor people for millions. They're bound to pay up and the negative publicity won't impact us at all.
Exec B: riiiiight. /backs away slowly
Frankly, I think it's far more likely that cnet, zdnet and so on were tech web sites run by tech guys whose owner hadn't a clue what they were doing. Meanwhile the tech guys were just doing what every other tech guys did and hosted the popular software. I can't actually credit the studios with that much understanding of the technology. "Never attribute to malice what can more easily be attributed to incompetence." Frankly, if anyone in the content industry were even slightly less retarded, they'd have done what valve did ages ago. When we get the movie/tv version of steam, this problem will largely go away.
a good question to ask climate change deniers.


Um, yeah, he did explain the motive:

a) You get heaps of traffic to your sites in the first place to get the file sharing software etc.
but mostly
b) You can then go to the law makers and go 'Look how many people are illegally downloading our content, you MUST allow these hugely heavy handed and insanely over the top punishments to go through'... 'Well, before we thought it was just those 'fringe' elements, but you bring forth a compelling case of this becoming mainstream... yes, let's give you these insane powers'.

It does make sense. They didn't like these people pirating their stuff, but it seemed to be too 'small time' and 'limited'. So, let it slide, and even actively encourage it, until it becomes mainstream enough that you can start jumping up and down and get laws passed that give you far greater powers than you otherwise would have had.

He is annoying to listen to though, I'll give you that.

He also has an over-inflated sense of himself if he thinks that his video will single-handedly bring about a stop to SOPA

Ok, I'm sorry, I got about halfway before I had to stop otherwise I would have chainsawed my own ear drums.

Sorry, I don't really buy it. CNet wasn't owned by CBS until 2008. And even then the suggestion that it's some sort of conspiracy by disney or whoever to spread the use of file sharing seems really far-fetched.

Whenever I'm confronted by something like this I always ask "What's the profit motive?"* I don't really see the end game for the content producers here.

Exec A: hey let's distribute file-sharing software and then people will pirate our stuff without paying for it!
Exec B: errr, ok. How does this make us money?
Exec A: we'll sue a bunch of poor people for millions. They're bound to pay up and the negative publicity won't impact us at all.
Exec B: riiiiight. /backs away slowly

Frankly, I think it's far more likely that cnet, zdnet and so on were tech web sites run by tech guys whose owner hadn't a clue what they were doing. Meanwhile the tech guys were just doing what every other tech guys did and hosted the popular software. I can't actually credit the studios with that much understanding of the technology. "Never attribute to malice what can more easily be attributed to incompetence." Frankly, if anyone in the content industry were even slightly less retarded, they'd have done what valve did ages ago. When we get the movie/tv version of steam, this problem will largely go away.

* a good question to ask climate change deniers.

Awesome! I already knew about waterbears, but it was new that they were trying to link it to the transpermia thing. I'm actually not a real big believer in transpermia, I feel like it is a bit far-fetched, but man tardigrades are a good candidate for it if there ever were any...

>> ^artician:

That's so adorable. It makes me happy to watch this, but as a cat owner/lover, I have to wonder how much of a hassle it is when goes to the bathroom.


Meh, it's probably not pretty, but it's not the end of the world. He looks like he's worth the hassle

>> ^artician:

That's so adorable. It makes me happy to watch this, but as a cat owner/lover, I have to wonder how much of a hassle it is when goes to the bathroom.


Yeah, Slider must have some special needs.
I thought about that one too.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

paralyzed at five weeks.. and no thought to get him one of those animal wheel chairs yet?


Not everyone is a Genius like you seem to be.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Beer-fetching dog!. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Dogs
by Aaron Kramer

Looking foolish next to the tree in a one o'clock rain:
umbrella aloft, the leash in my other hand—
I wanted my late-coming neighbor to understand
that dogs are worth the expense, inconvenience, and pain;

their tails are truthful, no coiled rebellion beneath
a loving look; they are quick to kiss you, and quick
to fetch for you, and —should you raise a stick
threateningly—they are quick to show their teeth;

and better still (but this I never revealed),
when you bring downfall home, the death of a hope,
their nonchalant manner does more for you than a drink;
and best of all, when triumph's to be unsealed,
such lack of respect they show for the envelope,
—your fingers halt, the brain cools, and you think.

Good boy. Now fetch us some glasses.