Student Teacher Ratio 5 to 1
Yearly Tuition (Boarding Students): $56,600
Yearly Tuition (Day Students): $43,580

Except that we've been using the word "milk" in English to refer to the whitish watery drinkable extract of plants for centuries, with written examples dating back over 600 years. So yeah, no.

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/118437?rskey=oiLhN2&result=1#eid

Congratulations! Your video, The 600-Year-Old Sword Found in Texas, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 118 Badge!

Your video, The 600-Year-Old Sword Found in Texas, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 165 Badge!

Its much simpler actually: The circle of violence. It started when the west thought it could bring their ideology to those countries. But Sunnis didnt want to live together with Shiites (the forming of Iraq and others). They didnt want to have foreign soldiers on their soil and adapt western lifestyle (especially Saudi Arabia). They didnt want Jews to get Israel, they didnt like to get invaded (Iraq and others), they didnt like the western coup detats (Iran and others), they didnt like to be afraid of being struck by a drone or cruise missile strike any minute (pretty much the whole region), and they didnt have the means to defend against their corrupt governments established or supported by the west or the attacks by the west.
Before this they were living at relative peace. Much more peaceful than we did live together in Europe in the last 600 years for sure.
Its pretty much desperation and has turned into normality now. They are also filled with hate due to their way of life, which puts honor very high and which the west doesnt understand. But you would be too if you have seen your culture get destroyed by other completely different cultures and seen your family and friends die by their hands for hundreds of years.
ISIS only struck that nerve better than any before. And thats why so many people are leaving to join them who are even living in Europe. Yet the west created them with their despicable foreign policy. And instead of learning from it, they are only making it worse by using these people for their own goals in Syria (that includes Turkey) and not changing their foreign policy.

A smart man once said: We shouldnt be wondering why they bomb us, we should be wondering why they dont bomb us much more.

When an atheist/agnostic is wrong, they learn.

When a creationist is wrong, they declare a jihad, they have a crusade, they excommunicate.

and they may take up to 600 years to issue an apology when they are wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apologies_made_by_Pope_John_Paul_II

Science is just a tad bit quicker to admit when they're incorrect.

And +1 to the idea that agnosticism or non-theist is a more accurate stance to take than atheism. But yeah, it's hard to dismiss that a term that was once considered negative often gets turned around into a positive one and that's the term that gets used due to the fluidity of language.

Nerd is hardly an accurate term to describe someone, but Nerd is a previously derogatory term that has been turned around into a positive one.

I disagree with Dawkins though. Atheists/agnostics have to be the better people, that's why I've never appealed to the idea of militant atheism. Certain people, IMO, merely want revenge against religion because of the atrocities inflicted by religion and there is a fine line between justice and revenge.

I don't want revenge. Freedom of religion is a good thing, but then again, so is separation of church and state. People can believe whatever they want to, but when it comes to governance, we *have* to govern based on reproduce-able facts, not faith.

Nice job moving the goalpost there. First it was the KGB, now it's Islam itself.

The only meaningful difference between Islam and Christianity is that Christianity had a ~600 year headstart. Talk to me again in 6 centuries...or compare Islam to Christianity of the 1400s, when the difference is tremendously less obvious.

The irony of a Christian complaining about another religion's violence is simply mind-boggling.

China's selective pregnancy policy and the Holocaust are why people tend to want to dispel hype about overpopulation.

You either have to force 7 billion people to stop fucking.. [good luck]
Or murder like 6 billion people.. every 300 years.

Notice how I said carrying capacity is "at least" 10 billion.
Its maximum is probably closer to 16-20 billion. Maybe even 40 billion.

This last billion took a year long to reach than the billion before which means population is leveling off as we discuss this. It may even decline below 7 billion in another 300 - 600 years.

TL;DR

Overpopulation hype = Dec 21 2012 hype. Humans well within carrying capacity.

Stop driving Hummers, watering golf courses, and eating fast food and everyone will be healthy and happy.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

Fuck, as a matter of fact Genji, you're right. We could probably get that number up to a hundred-billion if we just covered the entire surface of the Earth with vertical farms and thorium reactors.

I appreciate the entire post, however i understand what faith is entirely. I am unable to make that choice. I merely wanted to assure you that there is no faith in not accepting god. Faith is something you need to believe something you can't prove, and i will elaborate on proof below;

I accept that proof to you is a feeling, or your emotional response to what you percieve as god; whether god exists or not, i know that you have no doubts. But you must accept that to anyone else, your proof is equivalent to someone proving 2+2=10 based on their feeling or emotional response to what they percieve as REAL maths.

Faith isn't based on feelings. Some people may serve God because it makes them feel good, but they are the people who fall away in times of trouble. I serve God because He is God, and He has let me know that in an undeniable way. Believe me, God can give you revelation to the extent that you would say "Lord, it is enough".

As i'm sure you're aware, there are many "gods" (many religions) and many people who would say to you "i hope allah touches you one day and you realise the truth" and you reply to them "no no my friend, it is you who needs to be touched and shown the truth; i pray for you". The real crux of the problem is that both of you use exactly the same arguments to justify the existence of different things, and anyone can use the same arguments to justify the existence of anything.

Do you know why there are similarities between Christianity and Islam? Most people don't seem to know this but Islam is exactly the same as Mormonism. There is no difference between Muhammed and Joseph Smith. The only difference is, one came 600 years after Christianity and the other 1800 years. They are both men who spoke with angels and received "new" revelation, which totally contradicts everything in the bible, then wrote new books and claimed it was authoratative over the Old and New Testaments. They're both counterfeit, cultist religions based on Christianity. This is what the bible says about receiving new revelations from angels:

Galatians 1:8

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

2 Corinthians 11:14

And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light

So, when it comes down to it, it is all revolving around the central claim of Christianity, which is that Jesus is God.

Anything at all may be proven true if you accept someone else's "i feel it/i know it" argument, and when presented with this, i must reject it because it can make anything and everything true at once - it can prove that my hair is really green and so i can't trust the evidence of my own eyes. If i can't trust any of my senses, how can i also trust my senses telling me god is real?

It isn't a matter of convincing yourself of anything, it is matter of God giving you revelation that He exists. He gives this revelation to those who dilligently seek Him. Neither is empiricism the measure of reality because there are many things that empiricism cannot prove.

The alternative is to build a logical set of steps and rules (like maths, physics) of undeniable truth; if i have one of something, and one more of that something, i have two of that something. Using this concept i can follow logically to the scientific conclusion; i love truth, and as you can see it requires no faith for me to follow. If the most diverse creature in the universe appeared next to me right now, he would be ONE of those diverse creatures, and even in his language and reference frame he would know that he is ONE, and another of him would make TWO; there is absolutely no faith in this as i'm sure you'll agree. Even god says there is only ONE god. There cannot be TWO or more. Even "god" accepts maths to be universally true. The bible's pages are numbered. The animals went in TWO by TWO. There is no faith involved.

There are things that even science must assume is true, such as the uniformity in nature. Science can't be done without that fundemental assumption. The same goes for the laws of logic. Where do they come from? Where do you get absolute laws from in this ever changing material reality? Where Why is nature uniform? If you are interested in logic you should investigate these questions.

But we could back and forth on this all day. We both know these things to be true, and we both agree on them. But you will say that "when you know, you know". And that is fine by me, i accept that as something that might happen, as we've said before, but i can't let a falsehood be told without challenging it (to my detriment)

What I am saying is that isn't a matter of just knowing, it is a matter of revelation. There are two ways to know something about God. To either be omnipotent yourself, or receive revelation from an omnipotent being. God gives a general revelation in the Creation of His eternal power and Godhead, so that everyone is facing the evidence that God exists, and He also gives a special revelation of His Son Jesus Christ. This is something He would give to you if you sought it out.

>> ^dannym3141:

You can't call God immutable, then show that he can obviously change (have fulfilling relationships, have changing feelings, make decisions to do things), and say we can't understand how he's immutable. You claimed immutability. I didn't. I'm just showing you the logical consequences of the words you're using. After you say words, you can't go back and say you don't know what the words mean, or that they don't mean the same thing when we're talking about God. Again, words have meaning.

There are massive internal inconsistencies in your bible story. "God is immutable" is not a compatible statement with "God has emotional reactions to things people do", or "God has ongoing interactive relationships with people". Yes, taken to it's logical conclusion, God is a frozen thing, which is clearly incompatible with omnipotence, as you pointed out yourself. Either God is not immutable, or significant portions of the bible story are false, including every part where God does anything, feels anything, and especially claims of omni-anything.

I am applying immutability to His essential nature, I am not saying God never changes. To say God cannot change is to say that God cannot do anything or be anything. The thought that total changelessness is a prerequisite of perfection is a platonian ideal, not a Christian one. How can perfection be actualized if it is not manifest? Who God is is what always stays the same. He is perfectly good. What God does can change. He manifests that good in many different ways.

About God's supposed immutability. Why would he have two covenants with us if his basic nature never changes? Why would he have one set of rules before Christ, and another set after? Why was he such a warring murderous genocidal badass in the OT, but relatively passive in the NT, and totally absent in daily affairs since then? It seems to me he has changed plenty over the years.

His first covenant was exclusively with the Israelities to create the conditions for the coming of the Messiah. The second covenant was established for the entire world. It takes a student of the bible to understand that the entire OT is about Jesus Christ. Everything that is going on there is preparing the way for the Messiah, and is a picture of His coming. For instance, the story of Abraham and Issac is a picture of the sacrifice the Father made. Consider this video:



Not only a picture, but containing numerous prophecies. When Jesus said "My God My God why have you forsaken Me?".. He wasn't crying out to the Father because He felt abandoned, He was quoting Psalm 22, to let everyone there know He was fulfilling it. If you read it take note that when it was written (600 years before Christ) that crucifixion hadn't been invented yet.

Regarding the Old Testament, you should consider the other side of the coin. You may consider the actions of God the Father harsh, but then you should also consider the actions of the people He was dealing with. Consider the fact that after He brought the jews out of egypt, delivering them from hundreds of years of slavery, and doing non stop miracles in front of them, even personally leading them through the desert, that as soon as Moses disappeared for a few days, they all descended into barbarism and paganism and made golden calfs to worship saying "this is the God that brought us out of Egypt". Even after all that God had done for them, they were ready to betray Him at the drop of a hat. This is why God dealt harshly with them, because it was the only thing they understood, and that even just barely. The people whom you claim genocide (which wasn't genocide, btw..they drove them out, they didn't exterminate them) were given 400 years to repent, and the reason they were being judged because they were so corrupt that they ritually sacrificed their children to demons. We know from history that people who did this kind of thing also engaged in things like cannibalism. They weren't nice people, and even then God gave them 400 years to change.

How can God get angry when something happens if he always knew it would happen? Jesus seems to be a completely different dude from God of the OT. I like Jesus. God the father I don't

Foreknowledge doesn't rule out an emotional response when it happens. It's not easy to watch your children betraying you I am sure.

I'm glad to hear you like Jesus. And He loves you. The thing to understand is that Jesus is the Fathers heart; they are one. You have a negative impression of the Father because you disagree with how He dealt with the israelities, but you should see the other side of it and understand what He did for us through His Son. Christs very words came from Him:

John 12:50

I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."

John 8:28

So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am [the one I claim to be] and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.

John 5:19

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.

Christ did not come of His own accord, He came because the Father sent Him. He died on the cross to give us forgiveness for sins and eternal life, which was the Fathers plan all along. God doesn't want to destroy us, He wants to save us, and He was even willing to give His only Son to do it. So if you can understand the OT in that light, maybe you can understand God the Father a little better.

As far as not being active today, God is always working all the time. I see it clearly, but it takes spiritual discernment to notice it. You need the Holy Spirit for that. God is really hiding in plain sight.

>> ^messenger:
@shinyblurry
Words have meaning.
You can't call God immutable, then show that he can obviously change (have fulfilling relationships, have changing feelings, make decisions to do things), and say we can't understand how he's immutable. You claimed immutability. I didn't. I'm just showing you the logical consequences of the words you're using. After you say words, you can't go back and say you don't know what the words mean, or that they don't mean the same thing when we're talking about God. Again, words have meaning.
There are massive internal inconsistencies in your bible story. "God is immutable" is not a compatible statement with "God has emotional reactions to things people do", or "God has ongoing interactive relationships with people". Yes, taken to it's logical conclusion, God is a frozen thing, which is clearly incompatible with omnipotence, as you pointed out yourself. Either God is not immutable, or significant portions of the bible story are false, including every part where God does anything, feels anything, and especially claims of omni-anything.
About God's supposed immutability. Why would he have two covenants with us if his basic nature never changes? Why would he have one set of rules before Christ, and another set after? Why was he such a warring murderous genocidal badass in the OT, but relatively passive in the NT, and totally absent in daily affairs since then? It seems to me he has changed plenty over the years.
How can God get angry when something happens if he always knew it would happen? Jesus seems to be a completely different dude from God of the OT. I like Jesus. God the father I don't.

Did you speak to God yourself shiny? Or did you read the re-re-re-translation of a book written by agenda driven nutters like you 600 years after a bunch of backward uneducated nomads in the desert wrote it?
(No offense to early mid-east culture but the Chinese at least could read and write by then, shame God gave them a miss).

You don't sound like a bad person but you HAVE to understand that to those of us who are not indoctrinated into believing in ancient peasant stories of magic tricks you sound like a NUTTER. And a nutter who claims to know the inner thoughts of a supreme being! If I was God I'd kick your ass for presumtion.

Come on, you must know you're crazy. If you lament the state of civilization then understand that tribal superstitions and fearfulness are FAR from part of the solution. Let's face it if you'd been born in a different country you'd be just as fervent about a whole different story.


>> ^shinyblurry:

I wouldn't want anyone to go to hell, and neither does God..

God has made it very clear He isn't letting any sin into Heaven and everyone knows that..

I don't mind it for the Lords sake but the worst part of it for me is knowing that the ones doing this will be judged for it if they don't repent.

>> ^Matthu:

Olbermann is a very smart and rational guy. His points are all spot on. I'm not as smart, educated or politically informed as him but...
In regards to his pointing to the goals of the founding fathers, that shit is just about out the fucking window. It went out the window when we circumvented, misrepresented and distorted the views of the founding fathers countless times to get where we are now.(@darkrowan's argument summed it up pretty nicely)
As far as religious tolerance. I donno... it sounds good and righteous... but maybe it's fucking not.('What if?' arguments are never strong, and only used to scare people into agreeing with you)
Though it's pretty darn close to ground zero, that's barely the point. One thing worth considering, is that we don't know what they're preaching and praying for in these places.(Sounds like you should do some research and find out) Doesn't their official doctrine, the Koran call for the abolishment of all other forms of worship?(Ask any moderate Muslim if this is true) Sure, we don't know what they're preaching and therefore ought not act upon information we can't know. But it worries me a little.(You just contradicted your own argument in the same paragraph. Islam has been around a relatively long time, it's the second largest religion. Under your assumptions we would be facing one hell of a holy war, but we're not! Also, using the "worries me" argument is another form of fear mongering to try and get people to agree with you. People usually fear what they do not know/understand.)
Lastly, I wish there was this level of outrage against damned churches being built anywhere. I'm fucking sick of the church wasting our resources. The average salary of a priest is 'bout 30k a year. That's as much as a teacher. (Religion can be considered the world's oldest Corporation. They get great perks, have great real estate, and even have their own banks! I don't necessarily disagree with you on this one.)
Also, muslim people reproduce like crazy. A lot of these women are fucking baby factories. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 kids easy. That's nothing. I mean, haven't/aren't they pretty much taking over europe? And then demanding seperate legal systems to settle their crimes?(@volumptuous pretty much tore you up on this one)
Where will humanity be in 50 years when 80% of the population belongs to a fundamentalist anti science cult.
And aren't most muslims fundamentalists? [citation needed] I could be wrong here.(And you might well be without doing any research and just playing off assumptions) I know the extremists are the minority, but as far as those who try and follow the Koran's teachings to the T, they are the majority, no?[citation needed] I'm saying a greater percentage of muslims are fundamentalists compared to the percentage of christians who are fundamentalists, no?[citation needed]
How long after they are 50% of the pop. will they be 100% of the pop?(More fear mongering)
Make no mistake about it, christianity might be just as much of a cult, but it's entered the modern era. Islam is a dark ages cult.(Christianity is only 600 years older than Islam)
No rights for women like that... we cannot tolerate that.(We shouldn't tolerate it anywhere) As much as I sometimes wish I lived in the 1850's and could command my gf around, that's not right.
So ya. No rights for women, no rights for mosques?(Maybe you should ask a moderate who believes in Islam his thoughts on this? His views on the matter might surprise you.)
I donno. You decide.
Arguments made are always better when research is done and you can source them. You might even answer a lot of your own questions while looking up this information. Just to clarify, I'm not a Muslim. I don't consider myself a follower of any religion, but I'm not "worried" about what might happen if they "have lots of terrorist babies and breed everywhere".

*quality post by Olbermann. Below is a slight critique of your arguments (in bold), @Matthu.

>> ^shuac:
Not for nothin' but...does James Randi have anyone he can pass the torch to? Yikes.


he already has for the most part , there are a good number of people in his organization and also multiple ogrinisatoins that opere on similar stuff now.

James Randi is just the face and the name and dose bits and bobs to help promote things still but no longer fully manges things , because of his fame and the fact he is like 600 years old , i cannot remember the name of the guy that esentualy took over his job.

Religious freedom in most of the middle east is slightly ahead of what Europe had 600 years ago... maybe in a few centuries they'll get on board with the disestablishment of state religion.

>> ^ShakaUVM:
Epic explanatory fail. Care to cite chapter and verse, or are you simply wrongly crediting the bible for the very moral evolution I am talking about
Jesus's core social message was that of Universal Charity. It seems passe to us now (since we're both presumably living in a country that has adopted Christian values, so you don't see it, like a fish in the ocean), but was quite revolutionary for the time. The doctrine of Universal Charity resulted in people's conception of how to act toward each other over time, resulting in the establishment of many of the things secular humanists call "social justice organizations" these days, not understanding that their beliefs stem from a two thousand year old Christian tradition.
I fully expect you to not believe this, since most people have never studied history, and to base their beliefs on what they've absorbed from their culture ("of course I know that"), in your case it seems a militant and atheistic ignorance and dislike toward religion, mixed with a healthy dose of moral relativism and social darwinism.
The emancipation of slavery was the result of Universal Charity being applied to the human condition of slaves. (Do you fail to understand that absolute morality and change over time in its application are perfectly compatible, I wonder?) But it's no wonder that it took so long - slavery has a long tradition in humanity, and it's hard for people to buck the status quo - most people follow the crowd and resist change. If, for example, it became, say, trendy to mock Christianity and embrace moral relativism, then you'd see, for example, such posts making up the majority of those on, say, Videosift.
It's no coincidence that it was the 1800s equivalent of fundamentalist Christians who led the emancipation movement - it was the flowering of a realization that Universal Charity should be applied in a new way.


Talk about fish in water.. You have obviously not read or understood anything about the evolution of morality. As others here have pointed out, he wasnt really a first in anything, which is fine, as he was pretty good for his time. But please dont flatter him as the inventor of "universal charity" It is bullshit, and I think you know it. Take a look a the teachings of Jainism, invented some 600 years before Jesus came along:

"Do not abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture or kill any creature or human being"

How's that for "Universal Charity", huh? in a single "commandment" the Jains outlawed slavery, torture, killing and oppression of all humans AND animals. Now, I'm not a Jain follower either, their extreme non-violence alone is too much for me (word is that its so "bad" that some of them wear masks to avoid accidentally swallowing innocent insects) But I refer to them simply to make a point: Jesus worshippers like you are suffering from a bad case of tunnel-vision. Morality, as I pointed out, evolves and changes over time, and yes, thinkers like Jesus have influenced and driven these changes all throughout history, but this before-and-after jesus view of morality is bullshit, and we all know how slave-holders used their bibles to justify their actions, and if Jesus had said something like the above Jain-quote, we could perhaps have avoided a few hundred years of slavery, by using scripture as leverage. But the fact is, there really is no such leverage in there.