What pontificating nonsense. Religion IS hostile to Science and, indeed, anything which brings its myths into question;
1) The inquisition was in direct opposition to Galileo. They banned any of his books which referred to the Copernican theory, sentenced him to life imprisonment - later changed to house arrest after he recanted. The church in 2008, once again, having done so previously, recanted and "forgave" Galileo.
2) They prefer the tenets of a 2000yr old man made book to the applied logic of Science. One only has to look at religions ludicrous position on creationism, fossils, the big bang etc. Get into a discussion about these things (pointless) and all they can offer is; "the bible says so."
3) Finally, and importantly, If their god is omniscient one might of expected a better book than the bible, which even biblical scholars find ambiguous, contradictory, and obtuse. His report card would surely have said; "could do better."

I think it's more likely a displaced population of some foreign crustacean (made even more ambiguous by being larval), either deep-sea or swept (maybe even migrated due to environmental change) from somewhere else.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

It does not "confirm" it exactly, but the Scout referred to the Pyro as a male. "Is HE here?" Again - that is not a 100% lock, but it is pretty close. The tone of the voice, the structure of the body, and the Scout's reference. The Pyro is a dude.


Actually, check the closed captioning. The Scout says "He's not here, is she?" The gender is still ambiguous.

Gotta love Valve.

Are you trying to get me to self link? All right. I'll try to recreate this, but it will have to wait until I go to the grocery store again. We had pork chops last night, even, but they were the frozen variety.

I want fresh off the shelf pork chops for this. And I'll have to buy some Coke! Glorious excuse for it.

And why the fuck are you talking to me in third person? It's freaking me out.
>> ^legacy0100:

>> ^UsesProzac:
>>
I stated earlier that I had seen that, and they couldn't recreate it. No little white dots appeared and rose up. I've done this on my own with chops.
So to say that's a proven false is ambiguous at best.
Edit: Everyone should try it on their own. Each of the times I did at Sunflower Market, it happened. This was with organic, free range pork chops. I really don't know if they're worms, but we called them worms then and it was definitely yucky looking and worth a laugh in the back rooms.

You have it all backwards Prozac. The video is proven false because many others failed to recreate the same result the video claimed under the same presented condition. There are numerous articles and videos pointing out that they could not duplicate the claimed results (http://youtu.be/B-oapHo-gdU). The fact that others cannot duplicate the same results makes the original video's claim inaccurate. It's Scientific Method 101 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility)
If you are to argue that the duplicators have failed to carry the experiment properly, then you must provide evidence where the duplicated experiments have done wrong. It's a pretty darn simple experiment and it's rather hard to screw up. If there were other important preexisting conditions that had to be met prior to executing the experiment, then the original video should have stated these conditions. The video claims 'pour coke', 'over the pork' and '2 minutes'. People have followed the instructions, didn't see same result. Therefore the suggested hypothesis claimed by the video cannot be proven.
Also, Trichinella spiralis is quasi-microscopic. It is TINY and barely visible to the naked human eye. Try to Googling a photo of it and you'll only find microscopic images. Therefore, the so-called 'worms' visible in video cannot be Trichinella spiralis.
UsesProzac claims she's done the experiment and have seen 'something yucky'. Chances are that it wasn't Trichinella spiralis since they can't be seen by the naked eye. Perhaps she did see 'something yucky', but as to what that is, remains a mystery. No one has seen it but her, and it's her objective opinion claiming that it looked like a worm. I suggest UsesProzac upload a video of her experiment. Shot continuously without break in between, and in high quality so that the results are visible. Otherwise the existing evidence all over the net are stacked against you.

>> ^UsesProzac:

>>
I stated earlier that I had seen that, and they couldn't recreate it. No little white dots appeared and rose up. I've done this on my own with chops.
So to say that's a proven false is ambiguous at best.
Edit: Everyone should try it on their own. Each of the times I did at Sunflower Market, it happened. This was with organic, free range pork chops. I really don't know if they're worms, but we called them worms then and it was definitely yucky looking and worth a laugh in the back rooms.


You have it all backwards Prozac. The video is proven false because many others failed to recreate the same result the video claimed under the same presented condition. There are numerous articles and videos pointing out that they could not duplicate the claimed results (http://youtu.be/B-oapHo-gdU). The fact that others cannot duplicate the same results makes the original video's claim inaccurate. It's Scientific Method 101 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility)

If you are to argue that the duplicators have failed to carry the experiment properly, then you must provide evidence where the duplicated experiments have done wrong. It's a pretty darn simple experiment and it's rather hard to screw up. If there were other important preexisting conditions that had to be met prior to executing the experiment, then the original video should have stated these conditions. The video claims 'pour coke', 'over the pork' and '2 minutes'. People have followed the instructions, didn't see same result. Therefore the suggested hypothesis claimed by the video cannot be proven.

Also, Trichinella spiralis is quasi-microscopic. It is TINY and barely visible to the naked human eye. Try to Googling a photo of it and you'll only find microscopic images. Therefore, the so-called 'worms' visible in video cannot be Trichinella spiralis.

UsesProzac claims she's done the experiment and have seen 'something yucky'. Chances are that it wasn't Trichinella spiralis since they can't be seen by the naked eye. Perhaps she did see 'something yucky', but as to what that is, remains a mystery. No one has seen it but her, and it's her objective opinion claiming that it looked like a worm. I suggest UsesProzac upload a video of her experiment. Shot continuously without break in between, and in high quality so that the results are visible. Otherwise the existing evidence all over the net are stacked against you.

>> ^curiousity:

False. This exact video is called out as a spoof video based on this untruth.
http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/porkworm.asp


I stated earlier that I had seen that, and they couldn't recreate it. No little white dots appeared and rose up. I've done this on my own with chops.

So to say that's a proven false is ambiguous at best.

Edit: Everyone should try it on their own. Each of the times I did at Sunflower Market, it happened. This was with organic, free range pork chops. I really don't know if they're worms, but we called them worms then and it was definitely yucky looking and worth a laugh in the back rooms.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Skillful? I am not sure with this newfangled ambiguous channel...


Check out the channel description if you're not sure.

Basically the best of the best can go into skillful.

Yes there's some beat-boxing here but any particular reason as to why she's exceptional? Else this might be one I pull.

@shveddy

""Oh yea, and I'm sick and tired of Christians always excusing themselves from the need for behavioral and moral superiority by saying that only Jesus is perfect, thinking that it will alleviate all of my complaints about Christianity.

I have no more problem with the hypocracy of Christians than I do with anyone else who makes mistakes and does bad things while generally saying that he or she is a good person. Which is to say that I don't stress over it very much because we all do it.""

Christians, in general, should stand out from the rest of the world if they are living according to what Christ taught. If they are indistinguishable from everyone else, they are definitely not following His teachings. I wasn't excusing anyone however, I was simply stating that Christians are still human and will make mistakes.

""What drew me away from religion is that the Father, Jesus and particularly the Holy Spirit are especially vile concepts that are in no way deserving of my respect. So stop trying to defend Christians when I don't care to condemn their behavior very much.

Explain to me how a just god can create a world that, upon close examination of its workings, clearly disagrees with nearly all of the specifics claimed by that god's supposed divine revelation.""

When God created the world, it was "very good". It had no death, and no pain. It was a paradise and humans enjoyed direct fellowship with God. The reason that the world is embroiled in evil today is because God gave human beings free will, to obey or disobey His commands. It is because of our disobedience towards God that sin and death entered the world. Creation fell because of the sin of man, and we became spiritually separated from God.

""Tell me then, how a good god can come up with a rather ambiguous way to save his sinning inhabitants (that he created) that can be summarized in an arbitrary phrase that does nothing but allow people to shirk responsibility for actions. And then, despite having the power to move everyone to accept this gift, decides to give it only to a select few based mostly on geography.""

God hasn't chosen a select few to be saved. He desires all to come to repentence and receive eternal life. God gives everyone the opportunity to be saved, but people choose to suppress the truth God has revealed to them because of wickedness. When you look at someone across the world, locked into false religion, what you don't see are all the choices that God has offered that person to draw near to His Son. You don't see what could have been, you only see what is. The gospel is preached in every country in the world, and where it hasn't reached, people receive dreams and visions. God can reach anyone.

Neither is salvation based on an "arbitrary phrase". You say you left religion..so were you a Christian? If so, how is it that you don't know how people are saved? Do you understand the gospel?

You are saved when you accept Jesus Christ into your life as Lord and Savior, when you believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, and confess Him as Lord. It has nothing to do with words, it has to do with the sincere intent of your heart.

Neither is an effort to shirk personal responsibility. On the contrary, we are personally responsible to God for all of the sins we have committed. God has commanded that all people everywhere *repent* of their sins, and trust in His Son. That is a total fulfillment of personal responsibility, as we are accountable to God and not men.

God does not force anyone to come to Him; He gives you a choice. Neither is it a bunch of words, where you simply believe what the bible says. The gospel comes by the *power* of the Holy Spirit. When you believe, you are born again as a new person, and you receive the Holy Spirit, who lives within you. It is a supernatural transformation of your entire being.

""Oh, and by the way. Christianity is a religion by definition. According to the Oxford dictionary, a religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

For you to claim that Christianity is not a religion than in order to not qualify under the accepted definition, you would have to deny the following:

1. That you believe in God and Jesus
2. That you worship God and Jesus
3. That God is superhuman and capable of controlling
4. and that God or Jesus are personal to you

Somehow I doubt that you deny those. If you feel like denying the authority of the oxford dictionary, then feel free to look ridiculous.""

Under that definition, it is technically a religion, but not as you understand it. When you think of religion, you think of dogma and rituals. That isn't what Christianity is; at its foundation, it is nothing more or less than a personal relationship with the Creator of the Universe. That is not religion as how an atheist understands the word.

Oh yea, and I'm sick and tired of Christians always excusing themselves from the need for behavioral and moral superiority by saying that only Jesus is perfect, thinking that it will alleviate all of my complaints about Christianity.

I have no more problem with the hypocracy of Christians than I do with anyone else who makes mistakes and does bad things while generally saying that he or she is a good person. Which is to say that I don't stress over it very much because we all do it.

What drew me away from religion is that the Father, Jesus and particularly the Holy Spirit are especially vile concepts that are in no way deserving of my respect. So stop trying to defend Christians when I don't care to condemn their behavior very much.

Explain to me how a just god can create a world that, upon close examination of its workings, clearly disagrees with nearly all of the specifics claimed by that god's supposed divine revelation. Tell me then, how a good god can come up with a rather ambiguous way to save his sinning inhabitants (that he created) that can be summarized in an arbitrary phrase that does nothing but allow people to shirk responsibility for actions. And then, despite having the power to move everyone to accept this gift, decides to give it only to a select few based mostly on geography.

Oh, and by the way. Christianity is a religion by definition. According to the Oxford dictionary, a religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

For you to claim that Christianity is not a religion than in order to not qualify under the accepted definition, you would have to deny the following:

1. That you believe in God and Jesus
2. That you worship God and Jesus
3. That God is superhuman and capable of controlling
4. and that God or Jesus are personal to you

Somehow I doubt that you deny those. If you feel like denying the authority of the oxford dictionary, then feel free to look ridiculous.

I think that our disagreement centers around our differing opinion of the utility of religion. In my opinion, these transcendental states you speak of are not in any way dependent on a religious belief. It is true that many beautiful things have been created within the confines of religious experience. But almost all of the most profound thoughts, intricately beautiful music and profound works of literature I can think of are all written or composed in absence of religious inspiration. Sure, this is certainly a matter of opinion, but I do not think there is any denying that atheists can create beauty in their lives just as I don't deny that the religious can. Which begs the question, is it necessary? Sure many people have found inspiration in religion, however the ecstasies you speak of can just as easily be created by the biochemical effects of substances or - perhaps more healthily - the close ties of relationships or the beauty of nature.

So seeing as how beauty is not exclusively inspired by religion, I prefer my art to be entirely reality-based. And I think it's better that way. To me, knowing that that painting I am looking at, the music I am hearing or the book that I am reading has a long lineage of innovation and creativity traceable through the efforts of countless individual minds throughout time is far more interesting to me than the simple notion that someone contemplated an extremely ambiguous and enigmatic all powerful being and decided to write something about it.

Again, this is all a matter of opinion, but my point is that religion is not necessary for this transcendentalist beauty.

Which brings me to the video. I agree with you that religion is diverse and individuals typically lie along a continuum of adherence levels within each religious tradition. I also agree with you that it is far nicer when a Christian chooses to take most of the bible metaphorically, and as such has no reason to oppress homosexuals, shun scientific understanding and so on. What I do think, however, is that the step between calling yourself religious and taking most of the bible as metaphorical teachings with moral value and calling yourself an atheist and taking the entire bible as metaphorical teachings with moral value is a small and painless one.

Which is the whole point of this video.

This video is not directed at the fundamentalist Christians who hold to the literal teachings of the Bible. It is far too great a leap for them. It is directed towards people who have thought about their faith and concluded that they can not take certain parts of the bible as literal and authoritative, but still give biblical teachings some sort of privileged authority over other ideas put forth. There are many, but one of the main problems I see with this type of religion is that the privileged authority given to the bible tends to cause ignorance of other those other ideas that in reality have an equal opportunity at validity.

Which is why I posted the video.

Because it points out that applying a logical, reality-based analysis of the bible's claims (in this case, one that accepts the fact of evolution) will lead you to the conclusion that the overarching religious point of the bible is invalid. And it is simply attempting to nudge the liberal Christians who attempt to interpret the bible with a huge grain of salt just a little bit closer to atheism.

The fact is that an absence original sin means we don't need to be saved from it. Sure, we do sin and we need to do something about it, but if you are going to take the original sin as metaphorical (because evolution discredits the concept) then why should you take the biblically proposed remedy as literal? And if you're going to take the resurrection as a metaphorical assertion that you need to do this or that to improve your life and the lives of others, than why pay particular attention to that metaphorical assertion. To me, a someone who takes a vast majority of the bible as metaphorical but lives his or her life by it, is about the same as someone saying that they favor a Zizekian outlook on life - which is great and all, but again, it's limiting. There are plenty of ideas out there, go discover them and decide if they should shape your worldview!

Whether or not you think the above proposition is a better way of doing this or not, is up for debate. I think it's the way forward and videos like these help people move in that direction. They did for me.

@HadouKen24 - I think that our disagreement centers around our differing opinion of the utility of religion. In my opinion, these transcendental states you speak of are not in any way dependent on a religious belief. It is true that many beautiful things have been created within the confines of religious experience. But almost all of the most profound thoughts, intricately beautiful music and profound works of literature I can think of are all written or composed in absence of religious inspiration. Sure, this is certainly a matter of opinion, but I do not think there is any denying that atheists can create beauty in their lives just as I don't deny that the religious can. Which begs the question, is it necessary? Sure many people have found inspiration in religion, however the ecstasies you speak of can just as easily be created by the biochemical effects of substances or - perhaps more healthily - the close ties of relationships or the beauty of nature.

So seeing as how beauty is not exclusively inspired by religion, I prefer my art to be entirely reality-based. And I think it's better that way. To me, knowing that that painting I am looking at, the music I am hearing or the book that I am reading has a long lineage of innovation and creativity traceable through the efforts of countless individual minds throughout time is far more interesting to me than the simple notion that someone contemplated an extremely ambiguous and enigmatic all powerful being and decided to write something about it.

Again, this is all a matter of opinion, but my point is that religion is not necessary for this transcendentalist beauty.

Which brings me to the video. I agree with you that religion is diverse and individuals typically lie along a continuum of adherence levels within each religious tradition. I also agree with you that it is far nicer when a Christian chooses to take most of the bible metaphorically, and as such has no reason to oppress homosexuals, shun scientific understanding and so on. What I do think, however, is that the step between calling yourself religious and taking most of the bible as metaphorical teachings with moral value and calling yourself an atheist and taking the entire bible as metaphorical teachings with moral value is a small and painless one.

Which is the whole point of this video.

This video is not directed at the fundamentalist Christians who hold to the literal teachings of the Bible. It is far too great a leap for them. It is directed towards people who have thought about their faith and concluded that they can not take certain parts of the bible as literal and authoritative, but still give biblical teachings some sort of privileged authority over other ideas put forth. There are many, but one of the main problems I see with this type of religion is that the privileged authority given to the bible tends to cause ignorance of other those other ideas that in reality have an equal opportunity at validity.

Which is why I posted the video.

Because it points out that applying a logical, reality-based analysis of the bible's claims (in this case, one that accepts the fact of evolution) will lead you to the conclusion that the overarching religious point of the bible is invalid. And it is simply attempting to nudge the liberal Christians who attempt to interpret the bible with a huge grain of salt just a little bit closer to atheism.

The fact is that an absence original sin means we don't need to be saved from it. Sure, we do sin and we need to do something about it, but if you are going to take the original sin as metaphorical (because evolution discredits the concept) then why should you take the biblically proposed remedy as literal? And if you're going to take the resurrection as a metaphorical assertion that you need to do this or that to improve your life and the lives of others, than why pay particular attention to that metaphorical assertion. To me, a someone who takes a vast majority of the bible as metaphorical but lives his or her life by it, is about the same as someone saying that they favor a Zizekian outlook on life - which is great and all, but again, it's limiting. There are plenty of ideas out there, go discover them and decide if they should shape your worldview!

Whether or not you think the above proposition is a better way of doing this or not, is up for debate. I think it's the way forward and videos like these help people move in that direction. They did for me.

>> ^Skeeve:

The problem is that people do get treated unnecessarily.
The real problem, though, is that doctors do not have a reliable way to determine which of these very small cancers that are caught by a biopsy are potentially dangerous and which will never bother a man in his lifetime. (Indeed, autopsy studies show that more than half of men in their 50s and three quarters of men in their 80s in the U.S. had prostate cancer but died of something else.)[...]Such ambiguity would not be so bad if the treatments were virtually risk free.[...] Surgery (open radial prostatectomy) often results in urinary leakage [...] damage to the nearby muscle that controls urination may lead to incontinence. [...] Meanwhile, the nerves and blood vessels controlling erections may be severed during surgery, causing erectile dysfunction (impotence).[...] Radiation therapy of the prostate often ends up damaging the rectum and bladder because it is hard to avoid radiation scatter[...] Moreover, rectal bleeding and fecal soiling are frequent but commonly unreported side effects of both radiation therapy (including radioactive seed implants) and surgical approaches.

People do get treated unnecessarily. And those treatments have side effects that can be far worse than living with the cancer. Only 4 percent of prostate cancers spread to the bones or organs. Medical organizations now advise that asymptomatic men should not have routine screening unless they have a strong family history of prostate cancer.>> ^alien_concept:
@Yogi Perhaps because it's the most common form of cancer here in the UK and so many men remain undiagnosed because they're too scared to have it done and he though, fuck it. I dunno. Because it was funny and he knew it would be? I don't really understand what's dangerous about it @Skeeve? I can guarantee you that here they wouldn't treat anyone unnecessarily here on the NHS



I have no idea dude, whether it's the same here or not. Your post is very interesting. All I do know is my dad had prostate cancer after being checked and they caught it early enough for him to get away with a few weeks of radiation therapy, so maybe I'm biased

The problem is that people do get treated unnecessarily.

The real problem, though, is that doctors do not have a reliable way to determine which of these very small cancers that are caught by a biopsy are potentially dangerous and which will never bother a man in his lifetime. (Indeed, autopsy studies show that more than half of men in their 50s and three quarters of men in their 80s in the U.S. had prostate cancer but died of something else.)[...]Such ambiguity would not be so bad if the treatments were virtually risk free.[...] Surgery (open radial prostatectomy) often results in urinary leakage [...] damage to the nearby muscle that controls urination may lead to incontinence. [...] Meanwhile, the nerves and blood vessels controlling erections may be severed during surgery, causing erectile dysfunction (impotence).[...] Radiation therapy of the prostate often ends up damaging the rectum and bladder because it is hard to avoid radiation scatter[...] Moreover, rectal bleeding and fecal soiling are frequent but commonly unreported side effects of both radiation therapy (including radioactive seed implants) and surgical approaches.



People do get treated unnecessarily. And those treatments have side effects that can be far worse than living with the cancer. Only 4 percent of prostate cancers spread to the bones or organs. Medical organizations now advise that asymptomatic men should not have routine screening unless they have a strong family history of prostate cancer.>> ^alien_concept:

@Yogi Perhaps because it's the most common form of cancer here in the UK and so many men remain undiagnosed because they're too scared to have it done and he though, fuck it. I dunno. Because it was funny and he knew it would be? I don't really understand what's dangerous about it @Skeeve? I can guarantee you that here they wouldn't treat anyone unnecessarily here on the NHS

A human sized object, in the shadow of the bus, shadowed because of the broad daylight. There is some missing content in the video just before the biker was hit. I really cant tell how the driver didn't see the rider nor how he would have been able to see him either. This is uploaded by the police department and I'm thinking they want to get a message across with no ambiguity rather than have the view question whether or not they would have been able to avoid the rider themselves.
In reply to this comment by blabble:
Really? I think you should not drive if you can't see a human-sized object in broad daylight.

In reply to this comment by aimpoint:
All those cars in the beginning overpassed the biker.

One second the bus is in the right lane, the next its on the left. How quickly did that bus change lanes?

I would imagine the kid tried to pass the bus as he passed the car but didn't see the biker compared to the much larger profile (and shadow) of the bus.

I don't think he should have ran, but at the same time I don't think he even saw him.

*Skillful? I am not sure with this newfangled ambiguous channel...