>> ^Shepppard:

>> ^silverpoint16:
I am still of two minds about whether I want to anything to do with this site any more. We have been harassed and our characters assaulted. Most of you appear to now believe we are who we say we are. Some of you do not. That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion; however, the harassment and personal character assaults need to stop.
Thank you to all of you who looked at the evidence and drew their own conclusions.

I've been pretty level headed about this entire thread until I read this. For some reason, the way you worded that just set something off in me.
Let me make something clear to you from the start:
You're going to take some flak.
Videosift is a fantastic place full of MANY different opinions on many different things. We come from all over the world and generally are considered a community rather than an outright forum. Since there's less people than youtube, we can basically actually talk TO one another. You'll see the same names leaving comments and upvoting on many different videos, joking around, etc. And as such, you're eventually going to do or say something someone doesn't like.
We have Winstonfield_pennypacker and Quantummushroom as die-hard republicans that on basically any political video you'll see them say something (at least I consider to be) stupid and that'll spark an argument, and then two videos later you'll see QM say something that'll actually make you laugh out loud.
On religious videos we have many heated debates, the sift as a whole is generally considered Atheist, and will argue til they're blue in the face about certain topics.
On police videos there's a few of us (myself included) that don't instantly hop on the "COP IS IN THE WRONG, FUCK DA PO PO" bandwagon, and will generally be caught in a debate or argument about it.
Essentially what i'm trying to say is.. We're not youtube. You're not going to be a blank face in the crowd, you have a personality, you have ideals, you have your own mindset, and here you'll get to express it amongst others. But be prepared to have others not always agree with them.
So, if you want to just blend in, say what you want, and make sure your feelings don't get hurt, go ahead and leave.
If you want to be a part of something that with the bad, also comes a world of good, then stay. Enjoy our little community. Just be prepared for what that entails if you do.


I like much of what you posted here. If I read correctly, you and I seem to have many things in common: Not a Republican? [check] Atheist? [check] Maligning Cops? [my Mom was the very first female police radio dispatcher in this major metropolitan area and my Dad was the booking sergeant in the city jail ... let's just say I agree that *they* aren't all bad and leave it at that] Couldn't wait to move out of the house when I turned 18? [check] though your mileage may vary, I just had to toss that in there.

Regarding your generalized description of YouTube I can only relay to you MY experience with it. I joined in July 2006. It was the only social network I belonged to up until this past year. In January 2011 I submitted two videos for a contest and to my delight, one was selected for the project. It was then that I discovered how much I enjoyed the experience of making videos so started from scratch with a little Kodak PlaySport camera. I eventually bought some software and began to teach myself editing. I may not be one of the big players on the tube, but I did find out that there are some truly wonderful, REAL people there. I was steadily attracting viewers and subscribers worldwide and that morphed into an actual online community for me. I've experienced many gratifying interactions through collaborations, comments and banter and have found a good number of folks that I've come to admire and respect. Some have become very good friends. I never once felt like a blank face in the crowd and found great joy in supporting and encouraging those that impressed me. My goal was and is to tailor my comments to relate to the subject matter at hand and, more often than not, attempt to infuse a bit of humor as well. Rarely will you see anything generic from me [unless I'm really, really tired]. That being said, I certainly would never expect ANYONE to BE like me ... I fully appreciate and embrace diversity. However, I don't engage in bullying, deliberate rudeness or intimidation because, like most folks, I have a lot of stress in my life and the time I get to spend away from it on the interwebs is my coveted escape.

All of the above came crashing down for me personally when Google took over YT and changed everything to the dreaded NewTube. Seemingly overnight my progression of new subscribers simply ceased. Views diminished and everything has basically ground to a halt. I still have and treasure most of my core supporters but much of the community aspect has diminished to the point where Ive found myself searching for something more rewarding on the side. VS was recommended to me and in the first couple of days after signing up I was duly impressed. It is by far the best community site I've experienced yet.

Is it a double standard for me to support the friends who have also joined and are currently the only people I know here? I sure hope not. My goal was and is to earn the respect of others already established in this community through my participation and conduct. Not a one of us intended to take over what you have here ... at first blush it appeared to be an exceptional place to be. Time will tell. I have hope.

This video made me realize how you almost never hear a case for peace with Iran in the US media. You hear one of two things, an American or Israeli giving the case for war, or a neutral political analyst relaying the tough talk of Israeli politicians one one hand and Ahmadinejad on the other.

But Fareed makes a convincing case.

Pause the vid around the :50 mark...look at the expression on their faces...and check this out.

"...He also relayed how Boris Yeltsin's late-night drinking during a visit to Washington in 1995 nearly created an international incident. The Russian president was staying at Blair House, the government guest quarters. Late at night, Clinton told Branch, Secret Service agents found Yeltsin clad only in his underwear, standing alone on Pennsylvania Avenue and trying to hail a cab. He wanted a pizza, he told them, his words slurring.

The next night, Yeltsin eluded security forces again when he climbed down back stairs to the Blair House basement. A building guard took Yeltsin for a drunken intruder until Russian and U.S. agents arrived on the scene and rescued him...."

This story is taken from an interview with Clinton, read more here http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-09-21-clinton-tapes_N.htm

>> ^moodonia:

Is that a fact that Obama put more people on food stamps or is it careful phrasing, rather than saying he gave more people access to food stamps?
Either way I dont see how giving people food is such a bad thing.


The way I'd relay the facts is that the economy started crashing in 2008 (before Obama was elected), and lots of people lost their jobs, and because lots of people lost their jobs there was a sharp increase in the number of people applying for food stamps.

Part of the stimulus bill in 2009 increased the benefits provided by SNAP (aka the "food stamp" program), and made unemployed adults without children eligible for benefits.

So the way I'd put it is "Obama saw more people needing food stamps, and made sure they got them, while also doing his best to fix the mess Wall Street made of the economy."

I think that's missing the forest for the trees though. This comment isn't really about food stamps. It's about floating several racist memes in the birthplace of the Civil War (South Carolina), and then trying to whitewash them as being "truth" or "common sense," even though they're neither true nor sensible.

Negative chronitom particles ejected at high velocity from phased plasma amplifier interact with low entropy bosons crossing the warp manifold event horizon. These bosons, now drained of trigonometric energy, collide with the gravimetric shielding surrounding the fusion relays thereby inducing oscillations in the ship's hull integrity field, thus producing low frequency oscillations in the ship's artificial atmosphere.

edit: Hm, that was supposed to be in response to raverman. Well, that doesn't make any sense now.

>> ^Zyrxil:

It's the Quantum Calmness Generator installed on all Starfleet ships to promote harmony and wellbeing between Borg attacks.

What this was about is that they wanted to be one of the teams on their relay for life program. That's what they were turned down for. Instead of just donating the money without the recogniztion, which they had the option to do, they went to the press. I think that says a lot about their motivations.

>> ^Fletch:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If they were humble, and this really was about helping cancer patients, they would have given the donation anonymously. Clearly for the atheists this was more about having a feather in their cap than helping people.
So everyone who gives to a charity non-anonomously "clearly" just wants a feather in their cap?
You are an imbecile.

The "anonymous" suggestion is a fair point. But that's the way that people donate to charity these days. Are you two prepared to say that about everyone else who donates and wants to see their name on the list? That everyone who doesn't donate anonymously is doing it for political reasons? I could understand how someone who donated, even if they didn't think about their name in print, would be upset if they got a call that said, "Sorry, but because of your beliefs, we can't put you on a pedestal like we do with every single other donor that contributes."

Well, the reason the FBB was donating was to be listed as one of the teams on the "relay for life" program. That's what they were turned down for. Not only that, but they used to whole thing to garner publicity. So I am not feeling too much sympathy for them at this point.

I agree that the reason many people/organizations who donate large amounts of money is specifically to get on those lists. So yes, I am prepared to say that many on those lists are doing so for political reasons. Perhaps not all of them, but I would say probably the majority.

We may live in a society where those with religious beliefs might feel that things are going downhill. But by and large, the majority of America is still very uncomfortable with Atheism. Something like 70% of Americans believe that Christ is the savior in one way or another. And most of the rest are still religious. So I think it's understandable that atheists feel the need to stick up for themselves. Especially in situations like this, where they can show that they still care for their fellow human beings, regardless of anyone's beliefs.

Well, I think the problem that most believers have is that the stated goal of many atheists and atheists organizations is to remove religion from the public sphere or irradicate it entirely. The mouthpieces for the New Atheism say in no uncertain terms that people who have faith are pinheads and that religion is the worst thing to ever happen. It's certainly not a live and let live kind of attitude that is being promoted as representing atheism.

Shiny! What a coincidence that I am just recently becoming acquainted with the first few verses of Matthew!

Ahh, but I don't believe in coincidence.

Someone was passing around a picture of this giant mega-church the other day that was all sparkles and spot-lights and looked like the bridge to the Starship Enterprise. Anyway, I found this reference to Matthew 6:6 and was very surprised by the fact that people don't seem to recognize it in their lives.

Yes, and sadly, that is just scratching the surface. The bible for many seems to be book of allegory, filled with mere suggestions on how to live our lives, rather than the direct commands of God. That's why you'll find Christians in bars, Christians smoking weed, and Christians cheating on their taxes. More than that, false doctrine has invaded the church. A very popular one right now is the "Health, wealth and prosperity" gospel, which teaches that God only wants you to be rich, and people who are poor and suffering just don't have enough faith.

Now, I understand that proselytizing and praying are two different things. So I'm not telling you to shut up. But the idea that praying should be done in secret, according to the bible, is something that I find remarkable given the televangelist America that we live in. And obviously, if people truly cared, they would apply that same idea to charity as well. Unfortunately, as QM said above, everything seems to be political, even praying.

That is the thing, that it is all being done for show. It is not about salvation, or sanctification; it is about sterling and silver. This is what is truly harmful, that the public face of Christianity is so far astray from the true teachings of the bible. Light years away from it in fact. The airwaves are saturated with false teachers, who proclaim that God is the great ATM in the sky, and if you only send in some money He'll give you the pin number. They are wolves in sheeps clothing, preaching a man-centered doctrine, to tickle the itching ears of people who seek out teachers who will tell them what they want to hear. "No, you don't need to change! God loves you the way you are!" The bible is not so kind to such people:

Galatians 1:8

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

Just out of curiosity, do you have a favorite version/translation of the bible? Because even simple things like the verses we're discussing seem to be changed around quite a bit. I especially love the ones that read Matthew 6:6 as: "Go into your closet to pray."

haha, yes..some of these translations are very poor/strange. I prefer the ESV, it is probably the best modern literal translation. The KJV can be a good supplement, because although it used less accurate manuscripts, its archaic language preserved some of the meaning that the more modern translations may have glossed over. bible.cc is a good site for comparing verses. Here's a good sermon on Matthew 6:5-6

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=813081634369


>> ^Ryjkyj:
The "anonymous" suggestion is a fair point. But that's the way that people donate to charity these days. Are you two prepared to say that about everyone else who donates and wants to see their name on the list? That everyone who doesn't donate anonymously is doing it for political reasons? I could understand how someone who donated, even if they didn't think about their name in print, would be upset if they got a call that said, "Sorry, but because of your beliefs, we can't put you on a pedestal like we do with every single other donor that contributes."
We may live in a society where those with religious beliefs might feel that things are going downhill. But by and large, the majority of America is still very uncomfortable with Atheism. Something like 70% of Americans believe that Christ is the savior in one way or another. And most of the rest are still religious. So I think it's understandable that atheists feel the need to stick up for themselves. Especially in situations like this, where they can show that they still care for their fellow human beings, regardless of anyone's beliefs.
>> ^quantumushroom:
I don't pretend to know the atheists' true motives, but everything is political. Everything. This arrangement sucks and I wish it were not so, but it is. An anonymous donation would've been more apropos if the highest goal was really helping the charity versus branding positive atheism.
As we both know, that doesn't hold true online. Why, we may be the only two peeps online now who even admit to not having all the answers!

Shiny! What a coincidence that I am just recently becoming acquainted with the first few verses of Matthew!
Someone was passing around a picture of this giant mega-church the other day that was all sparkles and spot-lights and looked like the bridge to the Starship Enterprise. Anyway, I found this reference to Matthew 6:6 and was very surprised by the fact that people don't seem to recognize it in their lives.
Now, I understand that proselytizing and praying are two different things. So I'm not telling you to shut up. But the idea that praying should be done in secret, according to the bible, is something that I find remarkable given the televangelist America that we live in. And obviously, if people truly cared, they would apply that same idea to charity as well. Unfortunately, as QM said above, everything seems to be political, even praying.
Just out of curiosity, do you have a favorite version/translation of the bible? Because even simple things like the verses we're discussing seem to be changed around quite a bit. I especially love the ones that read Matthew 6:6 as: "Go into your closet to pray." <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smileopen.gif">
>> ^shinyblurry:
If they were humble, and this really was about helping cancer patients, they would have given the donation anonymously. Clearly for the atheists this was more about having a feather in their cap than helping people. Reminds me of this verse:
Matthew 6:2-3
Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

According to the story as it was presented the American Cancer Society turned down the money, they didn't say they would accept it if the group remained anonymous, they just flat out turned them down. And at any given time I bet we could find numerous other organizations, religious or otherwise listed on these ballots and you think that those organizations were acting purely out of the goodness of their own hearts?

The story here is misleading. What this was about is that they wanted to be one of the teams on the "relay for life" program. They were making a large cash donation specifically to be listed as one of those teams. So, they could have donated anonymously if wanted to; this seems to be more about their image. And yes, I agree with you that those listed in the rolls probably had other motives. Charitable giving by organizations and corporations is definitely more political than anything else, as QM was saying.

Granted, charity is at least part of the motivation but the whole reason this system works is because research needs money and there are many groups and individuals looking to brighten their public image by such conspicuous giving. At worst I'd say that the Foundation Beyond Belief is no worse than anyone else who gave and at least expected to be treated with the same respect as everyone else.

I agree with you that public giving is a big part of how these charities are able to operate. It is good in that it gets money to those in need, but bad in my view because it is promoting that we do good works for selfish reasons, for mere appearance. It is a superficial generosity, and I am sure many people after giving a large donation to a charity are patting themselves on the back for it all year, feeling that their good person quota has been filled up.

My two main points are this. One, that their motivations were not purely altruistic, as was being implied. Two, that if by giving you are seeking to get glory from men, you will have received your reward.

I'd be interested in seeing what would happen if we outlawed all public recognition for charitable giving, and while I hope I'm wrong, I'd bet that we would see a drop in giving if it really happened.

Sadly, I think you're right. Probably not from the people at large, but definitely from large organizations and corporations. It's all about image in that world. The reason they make large donations is because it is an investment in their brand. If public recognition were outlawed, I'm sure it would leave many of them saying "Why bother?"

>> ^00Scud00:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If they were humble, and this really was about helping cancer patients, they would have given the donation anonymously. Clearly for the atheists this was more about having a feather in their cap than helping people.
According to the story as it was presented the American Cancer Society turned down the money, they didn't say they would accept it if the group remained anonymous, they just flat out turned them down. And at any given time I bet we could find numerous other organizations, religious or otherwise listed on these ballots and you think that those organizations were acting purely out of the goodness of their own hearts?
Granted, charity is at least part of the motivation but the whole reason this system works is because research needs money and there are many groups and individuals looking to brighten their public image by such conspicuous giving. At worst I'd say that the Foundation Beyond Belief is no worse than anyone else who gave and at least expected to be treated with the same respect as everyone else.
I'd be interested in seeing what would happen if we outlawed all public recognition for charitable giving, and while I hope I'm wrong, I'd bet that we would see a drop in giving if it really happened.

>> ^shinyblurry:

@petpeeved but here you have stated the truth of the matter with absolute certainty that you are right while simultaneously admitting that you are in the dark about the nature of existence, specifically in regards to what happens after you die. Being in the dark, I submit to you that you are unqualified to judge whether my claim is correct. However, even so, I have provided you the means to ascertain the truth of the matter on your own. Rather than take me at my word, which is relayed from the word that God gave to us, you can test my truth claim for its accuracy by following the method prescribed above.


What direct proof do you have that the Bible was created by anyone or anything other than a human being? The answer to this question always seems to rely on circular logic: "I know the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it is the word of God."

Everything you've been told about the Bible and Jesus and Christianity has come from the mouth of a human. Your faith is based on pure hearsay.

@petpeeved but here you have stated the truth of the matter with absolute certainty that you are right while simultaneously admitting that you are in the dark about the nature of existence, specifically in regards to what happens after you die. Being in the dark, I submit to you that you are unqualified to judge whether my claim is correct. However, even so, I have provided you the means to ascertain the truth of the matter on your own. Rather than take me at my word, which is relayed from the word that God gave to us, you can test my truth claim for its accuracy by following the method prescribed above.

>> ^shuac:

>> ^westy:
this is actualy a prity pore way to demonstrait evolutoin , and this tv show is utter shit . Im all for science education and sometimes this show demonstraits things well but for the most part its just dense.
compare this tv show with tomorrows world for example ( which I what I think they are trying to aim for)
Its a shame to me how educational programs for kids on bbc seem to have gotten worse over time with less and less content and facts.
I mean programs like mithbusters are 100x better than this.
with any luck kids will just get information and education of the internet and just abandon tv as it becomes less and less relivent in peoples lives.

Westy, it's one thing to merely say it's pore but you've got to demonstrate why it's pore. Er, poor.


Its pore for the following resoins .

1) creationist morons would take an example like this and say "LOOK IT PROVES AGENCY AS CENTAINT BIENGS HAVE TO TRACE THE LINE AND THIS IS ANALAGOUSE TO GOD"


2) it dosent relay explain or comment on how things change more or less from environmental factors , the core princapel of evaluation is that you have random changes that acour but depending on how beneficial these changers are to contune to exist in an enviroment denotes if something chenges in one way or another or sticks over time.

3) all it deomstraits is "noise" and degradation of something over time , its a grate example for lossy file formats and data curption , but I don't think its a good example for evolution, I am prity sure there are other ways that are as simple or more simple that would describe evolution to sum one in a better way.

>> ^hpqp:

Not to defend el Jeebs, but that's St Paul talking.



But isn't he relaying the preaching of Jebus? If the big JC didn't want any confusion over what he said, why didn't he write this shit down himself?

He revealed Himself to me because I was seeking him out, because I wanted to know the real truth and not just what men thought and believed. If you don't know Him, I can only preumse it's because you have failed to do that and only concern yourself with the wisdom of the world. I don't deride anyone who doesn't believe me, I just happen to know anyone who isn't interested has become self-satisfied with the worldly understanding..which is worthless.

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
However, I know God exists; He is as real to me as my own reflection in a mirror. I have plenty of evidence, directly from God. You may not consider it evidence because it personal testimony, but it is clearly evidence to me.


So god has revealed himself to you and not me? Why? Why did he choose you over me? What makes you a better spokesperson for god than me?
Superiority aside, what evidence did you get directly from god? What evidence did god personally contact you, as an individual, to relay? You're saying your evidence is personal testimony and then deriding other people for not believing it.
Random House College Dictionary
hy-poc-ri-sy: a semblance of having desirable or publicly approved attitudes, beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually possess.

>> ^shinyblurry:

However, I know God exists; He is as real to me as my own reflection in a mirror. I have plenty of evidence, directly from God. You may not consider it evidence because it personal testimony, but it is clearly evidence to me.



So god has revealed himself to you and not me? Why? Why did he choose you over me? What makes you a better spokesperson for god than me?

Superiority aside, what evidence did you get directly from god? What evidence did god personally contact you, as an individual, to relay? You're saying your evidence is personal testimony and then deriding other people for not believing it.

Random House College Dictionary

hy-poc-ri-sy: a semblance of having desirable or publicly approved attitudes, beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually possess.

^gwiz665 Troublesome topic to get into on a forum. But I will make a meager attempt to express myself on this matter.

Firstly, I greatly respect you as a person, and value your opinion. Please excuse any phrasing that seems belittling or disrespectful of your own personal experiences with Christianity; my purpose isn't to discredit your personal experience, but relay mine.

In the interests of full disclosure, I am not a practicing Christian, I am an agnostic atheist. My pursuit of truth and knowledge lead me away from my faith some time ago. However, it is the very pursuits Christianity grew up in me that lead to this second awakening in myself. Christianity saved me, twice. Let me explain.

Low self esteem has been the story of my whole life. I was bullied a lot as a child, and my week personality was unable to cope. I always was pretty good in school in terms of grades. But the scars of my low self esteem means I never tried to live up to my full potential. I sold myself short in everything, I gave up, gave in, quit trying. Always managing slightly above average marks, several shallow friendships, and anything else that wasn't to risky.

That all changed in high school. I met one of the most influential friends I had in my life. He radiated self confidence. He also happened to be a Christian. I formerly mocked Christians via the evangelists I saw on TV, it was my only real experience with Christians till that point. I eventually "converted" to Christianity and my life was forever changed. I felt good about myself. Felt I could actually be something, do something, affect something. I was encouraged not only in personality, but in mind. I read countless books on theology, philosophy, and science. I grew in ways that I couldn't fully appreciate until my second great awakening. I was forever a different person. Gone where the rational bounds I placed on myself. I was no longer constrained by the ordinary. It was light in my darkness. A cure to the miasma of my existence. It instilled in my the responcibility to myself for goodness, purity, kindness, and truth.

The pursuit of truth eventually lead me to realize that if there is a God, it can't be the God of the bible (I won't go into that here), and so ended that phase of my life. But I am forever indebted to Christianity. And while someone might rightly point out it was me saving me, it still wouldn't of happened (I believe) without those people in the place they were doing the things they were with the believe that they were, I wouldn't be where I am now (most likely would of killed myself). All things have their share of evils and goods. For my part, even though I am no longer a Christian, I can't ever call for its eradication, or even that it is a moral bad.

To me, the great evil that works in us is a 2 billion year old tail; that this world is a world of violence. 2 billion years of animals eating other animals can't be laid at the feet of Christianity, or Islam, or any other scapegoat. We are humans, a tragic creature able to understand its own tragic nature. We seek to pass the blame to something we created, but it is what 2 billion years of life has created working in us, through us. We are the result of that, not the result of ourselves...yet. Perhaps in time we will come to terms with ourselves, and deal with ourselves. To this day, we only at best manage ourselves. I can't stop feeling anger at someone for cutting me off in traffic, I can only manage it the best I can. And I guess that is my closing thought. Right now, the best person is just a manager of their human condition, our fate was determined long ago through the course of billions of years of ooze... perhaps; or maybe God did it all, I don't know.

(edit: grammar and spelling, ugh)