Well, under this Obama-Nation, free thought will be outlawed anyway, so this is all a moot issue.

Downvote.

This is the social cost of importing such troublesome individuals. Why the hell does Scandinavia need a bunch of Africans and Muslims? What did Norwegians ever do to deserve this?

Europe used to be a haven for free thought, but now you can get attacked in your own country by bands of raving religious immigrants.

"This has nothing to do with the situation in Gaza." Yeah, it has everything to do with the origin of the immigrants you accept.

I'm sick of opinions, free thoughts and individualism.

The auto industry deserves to be burned to the ground and rebuilt on a rocky foundation. Anything else is just a fools distraction.

>> ^Fjnbk:
Yay, goodbye auto industry. Goodbye, Detroit. Goodbye, millions of jobs. I am utterly sick of libertarianism, Ron Paul, Ayn Rand, Republicans, Objectivism, etc.

Everyone I meet says "don't go to California" because it is worse than it used to be. It's pretty much becoming the New "Jersey". This pretty well exemplifies it, since it shouldn't even be an issue. Funny how our founding fathers didn't feel the need for flamers to have special "rights." It is only through the last 50 years of sexual perversion that we are faced with this disgusting and unnatural dilemma. If you "free-thinkers" had grown up before the 60's, you wouldn't have had the "free thought" to develop these ideas yourself. You're all just following the leader...so sad. And oh please, let's hear about I'm homophobic, while you spew hateful and cursing vitriol.

One of my favorite quotes:
Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.
- William Orville Douglas

Sterile liberals, crying for sterile comments, afraid of confrontation and free thought, dragging down a poor soul who has teh originality. Typical. Chogster FTW. In death you will arise!!!!!!

While I applaud this kind of free thought in regards to such a controversial issue, I think his premise is a bit flawed. I'm afraid I CAN'T think of a single movie that would have been worse if it had less explicit content. Even if it is essential to fine works, I certainly don't see why sexuality is important to games just because it is important to other media.

Your points are fair and valid, I was only poking fun at you for the little passive aggressive "p.s." at the end which was essentially saying "you people probably beat your wives because you don't agree with conservative viewpoints".

No, that wasn't my intent or message. Sarcasm noted BTW.

As far as the last bits I left below this comment, replace the word Liberal with Conservative and you have pretty much the same argument.

I can't agree with that assessment because conservatism factors in something liberalism doesn't: facts. For example, it's been fairly well proven that every time the minimum wage is raised, prices go up and businesses hire fewer workers and still fewer inexperienced workers, such as teens entering the job market. But the genius of liberalism is people are emotional animals. What graph or chart is as colorful or loud as one "activist" screaming about hungry children, even if it has nothing to do with the issue at hand? So, the minimum wage goes up, prices go up, and once again, the media can blame higher prices and unemployment on...well...whatever's handy at the moment.

Republicans have failed to properly emotionalize their arguments, and even if they did, they'll always have a harder battle to fight, because there are no solutions, only trade-offs. Liberals don't believe that because they're selling what they believe to be permanent solutions.

Look, I was raised in a Republican household and I am still a registered Republican despite having moved left of center over the past 4 or 5 years. I've learned that someones morals and viewpoints are subjective and vary wildly based on where and how they were raised and by whom. Some peoples emotions and thought processes run differently and they see things differently. Sometimes they evolve over time when they engage in free-thought and tune out what everyone else says or thinks for a while. That's fine.

We are entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts. You're young yet and will have to find your own answers, of course. Being raised in a Republican household might very well have been a handicap, because the family unit is communistic by nature and now you're out there, seeking knowledge for yourself as you make your way through life. Conservatism and other -isms are being cross-examined by you, put through your tests and yes, through the filters of your experience.

Personally, the acts of the Bush administration have left me in utter disbelief and ashamed of what the Republican party has become, but of course a great many Americans disagree and feel the bogeyman is real and we have to assert our might lest our stature in the world degrade any more than it already has. Giving up is for sissies even if staying the course leads to economic and social ruin.

I'm not a fan of Bush myself, and could probably match your laundry list of what's wrong with him. It's all ebb and flow, and there are going to be low points, for the party and the nation. Research what America was like during Jimmy Carter's presidency.

If the R's want to survive, they'll find a way to get back to what matters. Or they'll die out. It may take people like you leaving for greener pastures for them to wake up. Hell, maybe you won't come back. I believe that things balance out, eventually. The Soviet Union, as bad is it was, fell because it was beneath human dignity to live like that. Hopefully China will also lose the Red.

Oh well, what I have ultimately learned is that after a certain age, opinions are pretty firmly cemented not withstanding a severe paradigm shift (like what if irrefutable proof came out that 9/11 was orchestrated a la Crassus and Spartacus or the Reichstag Fire in order to further a political goal; how then would you feel about this country and government? Just a hypothetical of course).

If it could be proven 9-11 was an inside job, my first reaction would be to find out how the conspirators managed to keep the silence and complicity of thousands of people, many of them government workers that can't even deliver the mail (a line from Maher). The problem with conspiracy theories is that when there's no evidence, the theorists say, "That just proves how good the conspirators really are."

For the sake of fun, let's say it was a conspiracy. If so, it backfired in several ways. If Bush was seeking to become a tyrant, his perceived inability to protect New York was not an asset. People like me, already pissed-off at the size and power of pre-9-11 government didn't suddenly relax now that there was going to be more bureaucracy to protect us.

Second, if Bush was seeking the tyrannical power that the left claims he has now, he failed to go far enough. There was no mass censorship or government seizure of media and Homeland Security did not suddenly have thousands of stormtroopers at its disposal. The message was, "Live your life like always, in spite of the attacks."

Lastly, Bush united an opposition that, if they agreed upon nothing else, could blame Bush for everything. He was still in trouble with leftists before the attacks due to the 'stolen' election, and he couldn't placate the left fast enough spending OUR money.

That having been said, going into a place where a majority of folks disagree with you politically and essentially poking the lions is generally a wasteful gesture. Nobody is going to suddenly think Olbermann is wrong and O'Reilly has it all right, or that Obama is the anti-christ and McCain will save this country from the failed policies of the Bush administration.

True on all counts. Thus my new policy. There's enough going on at VS not to bother with it anymore.

Ultimately, history is the best educator and can truly open ones eyes to the way the world works because in all honesty not much has changed in the last 2000 years as far as how men control other men and how power asserts itself. I highly recommend delving into the history of the Roman Empire, particularly the way Crassus used the gladiator revolt and paved the way for the Triumverate and God-Emperors of Rome, and the way the Nazis used the Reichstag Fire, a staged act of 'terrorism', to increase their power and further their agendas. There are many precedents throughout history for governments creating enemies or events in order to tighten their grip on a population, solidify power, engage in wars, and strip away freedoms.

The American form of government is unique in world history and remains one-of-a-kind today. The 3 branches make it extremely difficult for any one individual or group to consolidate too much power, too quickly. It "survived" Bush and if Obama gets in, democracy will hobble his efforts at trying to change things overnight.

The creation of an "Other" for government to consolidate power is a given throughout history. However, when there are not imagined barbarians at the gate, there are real ones.

Our opinions differ on the war. I happen to think history will show taking out Saddam was the right thing to do, but no, I can't "prove" it any more than scientitians now can prove with climate models that global warming is man-made.

I get the subtext of your message.

We all like to believe that the people who disagree with us are unread, inexperienced, missing obvious truths, buying into lies, etc. It's simply not so. There exist people on every side of the issues that are intelligent, well-read, etc. But being human, we will be biased toward one side: ours.

It all goes back to Patrick Moynihan's timeless saying: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.

Ancora Imparo.

"I've spent so much time with spiritual advisors, so much money on crystals and weird drugs. To think Cthulhu had been living in Hollywood Hills this whole time. He's saved my career."
--W. Axl Rose











In reply to this comment by uhohzombies:
Your points are fair and valid, I was only poking fun at you for the little passive aggressive "p.s." at the end which was essentially saying "you people probably beat your wives because you don't agree with conservative viewpoints".

As far as the last bits I left below this comment, replace the word Liberal with Conservative and you have pretty much the same argument. Look, I was raised in a Republican household and I am still a registered Republican despite having moved left of center over the past 4 or 5 years. I've learned that someones morals and viewpoints are subjective and vary wildly based on where and how they were raised and by whom. Some peoples emotions and thought processes run differently and they see things differently. Sometimes they evolve over time when they engage in free-thought and tune out what everyone else says or thinks for a while. That's fine. Personally, the acts of the Bush administration have left me in utter disbelief and ashamed of what the Republican party has become, but of course a great many Americans disagree and feel the bogeyman is real and we have to assert our might lest our stature in the world degrade any more than it already has. Giving up is for sissies even if staying the course leads to economic and social ruin.

Oh well, what I have ultimately learned is that after a certain age, opinions are pretty firmly cemented not withstanding a severe paradigm shift (like what if irrefutable proof came out that 9/11 was orchestrated a la Crassus and Spartacus or the Reichstag Fire in order to further a political goal; how then would you feel about this country and government? Just a hypothetical of course). Most political arguments are just that... heated arguments which lead to nothing. True debate is almost nonexistent because usually one person or both are just completely incapable of objectively examining someone else's viewpoints. That having been said, going into a place where a majority of folks disagree with you politically and essentially poking the lions is generally a wasteful gesture. Nobody is going to suddenly think Olbermann is wrong and O'Reilly has it all right, or that Obama is the anti-christ and McCain will save this country from the failed policies of the Bush administration.

Ultimately, history is the best educator and can truly open ones eyes to the way the world works because in all honesty not much has changed in the last 2000 years as far as how men control other men and how power asserts itself. I highly recommend delving into the history of the Roman Empire, particularly the way Crassus used the gladiator revolt and paved the way for the Triumverate and God-Emperors of Rome, and the way the Nazis used the Reichstag Fire, a staged act of 'terrorism', to increase their power and further their agendas. There are many precedents throughout history for governments creating enemies or events in order to tighten their grip on a population, solidify power, engage in wars, and strip away freedoms.

In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:

I'm thinking about the psychological makeup of the submitter. Let's go inside their head: they've just posted yet another lopsided fake newsman like Colbert or Maher or the despicable Keef Overbite, bashing Bush or criticizing the war in unproductive fashion. The same 5-10 kudos arrive and everyone's in agreement.


Liberals take their worldview very, very seriously, to the point there are no other valid points of view. So, I says to myself, I says, even if you're trying to "educate" among the fun-poking, none of these people signed up to hear from you. And so I says to myself, "Self, you're right."

And that's where we are today. I don't expect anyone after these few comments to even bother. Another month and no one will know I was there. There's enough music and tech and stuff not to bother with election '08 and beyond.

I'm still around and my views remain the same. But just as I wouldn't walk around Target or the (hated) Wal-mart telling strangers what I think of Bush or Colbert, now it has its place. That's all.

"The main villain is "The Wacky Protestor," an evil villain who hates free thinking". Since when is an anti-religious protestor against free thinking? Isn't that the very thing that scares all religions, free thought?

QuadraPixel: Videosift promotes free thought and has an elitist bias towards the truth and what is right, so yeah, in essence it should be Ron Paul sift.

Nice.

My personal answer: Hitler was a Christian, Stalin an Atheist and Travolta a Scientologist. Their atrocities/bad movies are independent actions and should not be used as proof positive that their theological beliefs are evil.

And, to bring us back to do, my original point was only to correct the erroneous notion that Hitler 'was' OR 'considered himself to be' an Atheist.

I guess we have different definitions.

I love a good chat about religion. Hit me up anytime.

In reply to this comment by Thylan:
Triming this for readability.

I dont know enough about Stalin, the reasons for attributing Atheism to him, the interpretation of atheism, and how his actions corelate or diverge, their relivance in praising/condemning his actions, or, his interpretations of communism, comuist dogma, or the "ideals of free thought" whatever they may be...

But, i assume (and .'. make an ass of myself) that you are referring to ideas similar to those referred too here.

My response, as best i can, is that to be Human, is to claim the capacity for both "humanity" (a bloody fuzzy term, but you get what i mean) and inhumanity (equally bloody fuzzy. we come up with ridiculous words to describe things. "that which is good is "our species"" and "that which is bad is our species not being itself" English is ridiculous)

anyway...

any person is capable of any action, be it good bad, boring irrelevant or cool. He/She can claim any dogma/reason/label/ideology for whatever they do. Their claiming it means bugger all. It might be an accurate claim (meaning, a majority would agree that the behavior of theirs, that they claim, is indeed an expression of/in accord with those beliefs, and does indeed match with their own judgment of what those beliefs are defined by), but thats not very relevant either.

A "dogma/reason/label/ideology" is simply what it is, and, what a person does, or does not do, is distinct again.

So.. to your question, as best i misunderstand it.

"does that mean I can take away Stalin's Atheism" -> did HE claim Aethism? is that why it might be there, to be taken away? or did others claim it of him? (my hazy guess would be that he'd claim it but i dont know an exact quote to that effect)

Either way, one can disagree with the attribution/applicability of that label, if it is felt, that what they sought to do, was not in accord with the label. So, if your understanding of atheism, was such, that you felt, that his attempts to express it, did not ring true to the term, as you understand it, you could deny him his atheism for that reason. if i felt it, so could I.

Theres an interesting thread looking at how language evolves over time, and grammar rules. Its relevant, because the term atheism, is a label, the meaning of which is semi fluid, as our culture is semi fluid. We might be able to broadly agree, in the majority, what it means, but some are likely to want to add shades of meaning, and other people, other shades. Whats interesting, is to ask a specific person, what their personal understanding, and interpretation would be, so as to learn about that person (all that can ever be learned).

so, i'd consider it meaningful to ask a specific person, if they would deny, the application of the atheism label to stalin, but for the reasons given at the start, I'm personally unable too, not being sufficiently knowledgeable of him to know if the label (according to my fuzz interpretation of the label) fits or not. The 2 primary variables, are what i know of him. and, how i define the term.

next part...

"because"

the above was my attempt to explain how i'd consider it possible for a person, to give their view, on fi the term applys or not. the because makes what fallows, a potential reason for determining if it applys.

so, what reason are you proposing:

"his communist dogma doesn't stand up to the ideals of free thought"

do YOU consider "the ideals of free thought" to be fundamental to your understanding of the label "atheism"

do YOU consider "his communist dogma" to be sufficiently indicative of his being/actions/personality, that NO label can be applied to him, unless, it can be applied to "his communist dogma" too, as that is so fundamental too him.

so, youve asked of me only a question you can answer for yourself. Does your understanding of atheism, mean, that "the ideals of free thought" are fundamental to it, and, that they conflict with "his communist dogma", which you consider fundamental to him, such that, you feel the label "atheist" as you understand it, cannot be applied to him, to the extend that you know and understand "his communist dogma" and thus, in your view, him.

so... do you?

This gets back tot he first question i asked of you, namely, did you feel Hitler "was" or simply "thought he was"

For me, I'd imagine he might well have "thought he was", truly truly thought that. i dont know if he had "belief in Christ as their personal savior".

I do know he was a jackass, but i dont win points for that.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
(BTW, great conversation.)

So, does that mean I can take away Stalin's Atheism because his communist dogma doesn't stand up to the ideals of free thought?

Triming this for readability.

I dont know enough about Stalin, the reasons for attributing Atheism to him, the interpretation of atheism, and how his actions corelate or diverge, their relivance in praising/condemning his actions, or, his interpretations of communism, comuist dogma, or the "ideals of free thought" whatever they may be...

But, i assume (and .'. make an ass of myself) that you are referring to ideas similar to those referred too here.

My response, as best i can, is that to be Human, is to claim the capacity for both "humanity" (a bloody fuzzy term, but you get what i mean) and inhumanity (equally bloody fuzzy. we come up with ridiculous words to describe things. "that which is good is "our species"" and "that which is bad is our species not being itself" English is ridiculous)

anyway...

any person is capable of any action, be it good bad, boring irrelevant or cool. He/She can claim any dogma/reason/label/ideology for whatever they do. Their claiming it means bugger all. It might be an accurate claim (meaning, a majority would agree that the behavior of theirs, that they claim, is indeed an expression of/in accord with those beliefs, and does indeed match with their own judgment of what those beliefs are defined by), but thats not very relevant either.

A "dogma/reason/label/ideology" is simply what it is, and, what a person does, or does not do, is distinct again.

So.. to your question, as best i misunderstand it.

"does that mean I can take away Stalin's Atheism" -> did HE claim Aethism? is that why it might be there, to be taken away? or did others claim it of him? (my hazy guess would be that he'd claim it but i dont know an exact quote to that effect)

Either way, one can disagree with the attribution/applicability of that label, if it is felt, that what they sought to do, was not in accord with the label. So, if your understanding of atheism, was such, that you felt, that his attempts to express it, did not ring true to the term, as you understand it, you could deny him his atheism for that reason. if i felt it, so could I.

Theres an interesting thread looking at how language evolves over time, and grammar rules. Its relevant, because the term atheism, is a label, the meaning of which is semi fluid, as our culture is semi fluid. We might be able to broadly agree, in the majority, what it means, but some are likely to want to add shades of meaning, and other people, other shades. Whats interesting, is to ask a specific person, what their personal understanding, and interpretation would be, so as to learn about that person (all that can ever be learned).

so, i'd consider it meaningful to ask a specific person, if they would deny, the application of the atheism label to stalin, but for the reasons given at the start, I'm personally unable too, not being sufficiently knowledgeable of him to know if the label (according to my fuzz interpretation of the label) fits or not. The 2 primary variables, are what i know of him. and, how i define the term.

next part...

"because"

the above was my attempt to explain how i'd consider it possible for a person, to give their view, on fi the term applys or not. the because makes what fallows, a potential reason for determining if it applys.

so, what reason are you proposing:

"his communist dogma doesn't stand up to the ideals of free thought"

do YOU consider "the ideals of free thought" to be fundamental to your understanding of the label "atheism"

do YOU consider "his communist dogma" to be sufficiently indicative of his being/actions/personality, that NO label can be applied to him, unless, it can be applied to "his communist dogma" too, as that is so fundamental too him.

so, youve asked of me only a question you can answer for yourself. Does your understanding of atheism, mean, that "the ideals of free thought" are fundamental to it, and, that they conflict with "his communist dogma", which you consider fundamental to him, such that, you feel the label "atheist" as you understand it, cannot be applied to him, to the extend that you know and understand "his communist dogma" and thus, in your view, him.

so... do you?

This gets back tot he first question i asked of you, namely, did you feel Hitler "was" or simply "thought he was"

For me, I'd imagine he might well have "thought he was", truly truly thought that. i dont know if he had "belief in Christ as their personal savior".

I do know he was a jackass, but i dont win points for that.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
(BTW, great conversation.)

So, does that mean I can take away Stalin's Atheism because his communist dogma doesn't stand up to the ideals of free thought?

(BTW, great conversation.)

So, does that mean I can take away Stalin's Atheism because his communist dogma doesn't stand up to the ideals of free thought?

In reply to this comment by Thylan:
Non-hypothetical answer. I dont know enough about the beliefs of Scientology to judge whether anyone is or is not a Scientologist. I truly dont know if belief in Xenu is sufficient to be considered a "Scientologist".

I do believe I know enough about Christianity to have opinions about that.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Hypothetical question: If I believe in Xenu, but ignore the teachings of Scientology, am I a Scientologist?

In reply to this comment by Thylan:
Many Christians would disagree, and state that its not "belief in" but rather "belief in Christ as their personal savior". That distinction is important. They might well say that the Devil believes in God/Christ, but that he/she/it is not a "Christian". Satanists may well believe in the existence of God Christ and the whole Judeo/Christian theology/philosophy to various extents, but i would imagine they would strongly disagree that they considered Christ to be their personal savior. Rather, I'd imagine that that idea was a fundamental part of what they were rejecting in embracing satan.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Believing in Christ is the sole requirement for being a Christian. It's not a value judgment. Satanists are Christians too, albeit very ignorant ones.


In reply to this comment by Thylan:
"Was Christian" ? or, "Thought of himself as Christian" ?

An insane man can think he is sane. It doesn't make him so. This is because sane has a definition that goes beyond a persons individual opinion.

If you do not feel "Christian" has that same kind of independently identifiable quality (and you may not) then you might feel that there is no distinction between "Thought of" and "Was". However, if you do think there is a distinction, do you feel Hitler "Was" or simply "Thought of himself as"?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Hitler was Christian.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Although I espouse most of Dawkin's beliefs. I find him to be a little too shrill, angry and close-minded to be a very good foil to the Fundies. There is a great critique of Dawkin's latest anti-religious book "The God Delusion" in this month's Harper's.


The point in the critique that really struck me is that science has been at least as evil
in the "man's inumanity to man" field as religion. the reviewer brings up the holocaust and the Nazi's scienceof Eugenics as an example.

Granted, it is "bad science" but it's still science in the same sense that bad religion is still religion. The review makes
this point quite nicely.

*blog - I discarded this because it seems that nobody seems to want to talk about it. I find this a bit disturbing and am saddened that many of you don't find this "newsworthy". What do you suggest I do? Should I refrain from posting the type of content I've been posting? Should we suppress the free thought in this country? I am at a loss and am wondering if it's even worth bothering to try and spark conversation and debate on issues such as this on videosift (which I have grown an affection for in the past months). Before you judge him, this hero of 9/11 watch the video.

One of the important things to remember about Pat is that he's a comedian. You shouldn't expect him to maintain a "professional" image in his videos as you might expect from someone like Dawkins.

I happen to think Pat is great. He makes no excuses for himself. I find his material to be funny, occasionally hilarious, and he makes his audience think about some fairly important topics in the process.

I was raised Catholic. I once made the statement, partially in jest, that the good thing about Catholicism is that it creates so many Atheists. The point being that Catholicism is so oppressive and so offensive, that it's hard to imagine someone not rebelling against it. Had I been raised under a less draconian belief system, perhaps I wouldn't have been motivated to seek out my own answers.

I actually believe very much that discouraging free thought was a significant goal in the original formation of organized religion. If you can control the thoughts of a population, then you can control their actions. In the centuries that have past I believe that this control mindset has been lost in some cases, but I still see the reverberations in many religious organizations.

One of the most unfortunate parts of religious belief, in my opinion, is how it affects children before they are really old enough to question what they are being told or to have their own ideas. Even as a young child I felt it was wrong to make the decision for another person. You may say that this is not unique to religious belief and you'd be right, but again we go back to the control aspect. If I have children, I will go out of my way to encourage them to find their own answers and have their own ideas. I realize that it's unavoidable that my own beliefs will influence theirs, but I will do what I can to minimize that. Raising them as freethinkers also means that they will be free to believe whatever makes sense to them, even if it's Catholicism. I do not feel that the inverse is true.

As for the "new, aggressive atheism", yes, it does step over the line sometimes. As serious as I am in my beliefs and as much as I despise religious beliefs, I try to stay reasonable. I do not attack religious individuals, verbally or otherwise, unless they assault me first. Any lashing-out that I do partake in is usually directed towards religion as a whole and not an individual.

But religion, especially Christianity, has been on the offensive for the last 15-20 years. Atheists are "nazis", "communists", "without morals" and, of course, we shouldn't be considered citizens according to George Bush MkI. Christianity has apparently grown tired of simply oppressing its own and now seeks to oppress everyone. Some of us are tired of it.