Such a magnificent engine... a work of art really... wasted because it's installed in such an ugly car.

Please don't misunderstand me. I would never turn down the opportunity to test drive that machine, I'd just put a paper bag on it first.

I don't know why people hate Kristen Stewart soo much. If you were an actor would you turn down a multi-billion dollar trilogy movie even if it sucked? Probably not, and she's actually a pretty good actress when she means to be. No one ever watches those movies though, judging is easier.

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:

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.

Netrunner said: "High unemployment represents a huge chunk of useful labor potential going to waste."

The 'jobless economic recovery' we've experienced means all those people who don't like to read weren't contributing much to the economy. Last-century jobs are increasingly better done by automation or by overseas outsourcing. There are never enough talented 21st century workers.

There are always some people who are 21st century thinkers who are unemployed, but the only reason 'unemployment is high' is because we imported 80 million unskilled workers over the last 40 years. Agreeing to put in place rational border control would be a good start.


Netrunner said: "Also, it's not really healthy to define your self-worth and the worthiness of others solely on the basis of their salary. I doubt your "friends" would care much for you referring to them as mediocre or lazy, either."

1. Salary is a reasonable measure of how much we're contributing to humankind. If society values something, it will be willing to pay for it.

2. Advocating careerism is humanistic and good for the world.
>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^chilaxe:
We should be clear what we're talking about when we say there are problems with unemployment: people don't want to work hard at jobs that the economy actually needs.

Seriously? You think everyone who's unemployed is just being lazy?

The reason my mediocre friend vastly outperformed most of the people I know was because he was doing work that was valued by the economy.
That often involves hard work, but the more people invest themselves into their career, the more rewarding and fun it becomes, and the more they grow as people.

But that's not the cause of unemployment. People should be free to pursue whatever kind of career they want to. Some people may just chase whatever has the highest salary, but most will probably go for something they enjoy working on, so long as the pay is decent. In a bad labor market with high unemployment, you don't have those options. You get PhD's applying to work at McDonald's to pay the bills, and getting turned down because they're overqualified (or they're just not hiring!).
High unemployment represents a huge chunk of useful labor potential going to waste, not some mass outbreak of people deciding to take a break from working.
Also, it's not really healthy to define your self-worth and the worthiness of others solely on the basis of their salary. I doubt your "friends" would care much for you referring to them as mediocre or lazy, either.

>> ^chilaxe:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^chilaxe:
We should be clear what we're talking about when we say there are problems with unemployment: people don't want to work hard at jobs that the economy actually needs.

Seriously? You think everyone who's unemployed is just being lazy?

The reason my mediocre friend vastly outperformed most of the people I know was because he was doing work that was valued by the economy.
That often involves hard work, but the more people invest themselves into their career, the more rewarding and fun it becomes, and the more they grow as people.


But that's not the cause of unemployment. People should be free to pursue whatever kind of career they want to. Some people may just chase whatever has the highest salary, but most will probably go for something they enjoy working on, so long as the pay is decent. In a bad labor market with high unemployment, you don't have those options. You get PhD's applying to work at McDonald's to pay the bills, and getting turned down because they're overqualified (or they're just not hiring!).

High unemployment represents a huge chunk of useful labor potential going to waste, not some mass outbreak of people deciding to take a break from working.

Also, it's not really healthy to define your self-worth and the worthiness of others solely on the basis of their salary. I doubt your "friends" would care much for you referring to them as mediocre or lazy, either.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'star trek, kirk, spock, madonna, volume on this video is loud' to 'WARNING turn down your volume, star trek, kirk, spock, madonna' - edited by chilaxe

Is this for real? Looks shit enough to be a fake trailer. I mean jesus, I wouldn't watch that shit if they paid me anything under 100€.

Okay, 50€.

Okay I'm too poor to turn down a 20€+popcorn and soda offer, but anything under that, NO way.

I was just about to post this. Here's the description from the Wonkette story:


"Rick Perry Will Freak The Crap Out of You With Zombie Movie Campaign Ad"

Here is the new trailer for the nightmare horror film about Rick Perry becoming President! It is difficult to tell what is happening, because there are no shots in this trailer longer than .024 seconds and there is A LOT OF NOISE (seriously, turn down the volume if you are watching at work), but the takeaway plot synopsis we have gleaned has Perry removing the last few shards of humanity from America’s depressed masses with the sharp edge of his boot heel only to replace them with zombie droids he shouts at while they anxiously carve chalk drawings of American flags into sidewalks between bouts of disease and slave labor, without complaining.

Thanks for the turn-down-the-sound tip.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann

Here is a man that Perry allowed to be killed on his watch, who is almost certainly innocent. Turned down a plea deal and went to court, because he knew he was innocent.

It's a long article, and well worth the read.

You know Perry knows about him, too. He mentions "killer of children" in his reasoning of who should die.

Stupid Bible Belt Old Testament wrath. Give me New Testament any day. At least it is moral -- love thy neighbor as thyself, or whatever the heck the actual words are.

Oh @netruner, how I love thee.(seriously, no sarcasm. I think you're one of the most valuable members of the sift.) Yes, I realize that both parties are to blame. Some more than others. I made my earlier comment based on an article I read the other day that discussed the dems turning down a bill that would amount to a balanced budget by 2050 (and even be pulling in several billion more than we'd be spending, from what I remember) because republicans didn't want to raise taxes, though now that I think about it, those taxes were probably on large businesses and loopholes.



What we really need is a law that says no member of congress shall be allowed to receive any money from any lobbying firm, business or individual who is a high-level employee (board member type guys) of any large company worth over "x" amount of dollars. Loopholes need to be closed, but social programs also need to be cut or seriously re-vamped. What REALLY needs to happen is to close behemoth and redundant federal offices that are better left to states or that sates already have.

TURN DOWN YOUR TV!
I like loud things as much as the next person (I play the guitar), but the amount of noise pollution in that house annoys me.