I spent the winter on the verge of a total breakdown
While living in Norway
I felt the darkness of the black metal bands
But being such fawn of a man
I didn't burn down any old churches
Just slept way too much, just slept

My mind rejects the frequency
It's static craziness to me
Is it a solar fever?

The TV man is too loud
Our plane is sleeping on a cloud
You turn the dial, I'll try and smile
We've eaten plastic weather
This family sticks together
We will escape from the south to the west side

My mind rejects the frequency
It's just verbosity to me

I spent the winter with my nose buried in a book
While trying to restructure my character
Because it had become vile to its creator
And through many dreadful nights
I lay praying to a saint that nobody has heard of
And waiting for some high times to come again

My mind rejects the frequency
It's static craziness to me
Is it a solar fever?

The TV man is too loud
Our plane is sleeping on a cloud
You turn the dial, I'll try and smile
We've eaten plastic weather
This family sticks together
We will escape from the south to the west side

My mind rejects the frequency
It's just verbosity to me

Dirty old shadow, stay away
Don't play your games with me
I am older now, I see the way you operate
If you don't hurt me then you die

My mind rejects the frequency
It's static craziness to me
Is it a solar fever?

The TV man is too loud
Our plane is sleeping on a cloud
You turn the dial, I'll try and smile
We've eaten plastic weather
This family sticks together
We will escape from the south to the west side

My mind rejects the frequency
It's just verbosity to me

>> ^messenger:

Definitely involves commercials, including for her own perfume line. Just a string of commercials with her Fever song replacing the audio. Strange.


Strangely alluring....I'd like to smell the scent....

Definitely involves *commercials, including for her own perfume line. Just a string of commercials with her Fever song replacing the audio. Strange.

That woman with the Bladerunner-zoom camera is obviously useless to the hungry cabin-fevered cat.

definite dupe.

and that woman with the Bladerunner-zoom camera is obviously useless to the hungry cabin-fevered cat.

You've done some nice cherry picking here. Sepacore, my hope in this conversation is that you will be intellectually honest to address the substance of the arguments, rather than trying to find some angle to make your point so you can *avoid* addressing the substance. I don't think that is too much to ask.

My point exactly.
Therefore to call it 'evidence' rather than 'subjective experience' is an at best misleading if not false claim, as the term 'evidence' used in conversation with others generally refers to something provable to others.

To say something like "I had a subjective experience that is evidence to me" would be fine, as it has a buffer around the term to denote that 'evidence' in this case is in no way substantial or transferable to others, i.e. not evidence to others and can be discarded.. and any line of poetic words can not change this.

Jesus made a claim, that if I put my faith in Him, He would send me the Holy Spirit to supernaturally transform me, and live within me. If that happens, it is objective evidence that His claim is true. You may have other theories as to why it happened to me, or that it happened at all and I am simply deluding myself, but something has happened, and I have changed. Whether it is subjectively experienced, it can be objectively observed in my life. I am a different person, and those in my immediate family and circle of friends have certainly noticed it.

Let's look at the definition of evidence:

ev·i·dence
   [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing.
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

As you can see, not all evidence can be empirically tested. Personal testimony is sufficient to send people to the electric chair in our court system. My personal testimony, and the testimony of billions of others, does count as evidence. This is all beside the point:

If you understand the above point (one you made yourself), then you may agree that those who 'require evidence' (regardless of what some guy poetically said), can not genuinely accept your use of the word 'evidence' as having the same value as what now has to be refereed to as 'actual evidence' for clarity after the term has been devalued to host a non-transferable personal experience (i.e. not evidence to others), and therefore swapping out this term for a personal 'reason to believe' is not only required for more clearly followable terminology within a conversation but is more accurate in general discourse of 2 opposing views.

You have completely ignored the entire point of my argument, and it seem you deliberately left out the key part of what I was saying:

"but it is something you can test on your own"

I am not telling you, I experienced God so believe in God on that basis. I am telling you that Jesus made a claim which you can empirically test. You have constantly objected that there is no empirical evidence for God, yet you have failed to validate whether this is true. You have merely assumed it is true, through many other lines of reasoning, except the one that would, if the claim was true, produce any results. Again, Jesus said directly that you would have no experience of God outside of going through Him, and your experience directly matches His claim; No have no experience of God. You assume its because there isn't a God, which is natural to assume, but Jesus said it is because there is no way to even approach God or know anything about Him except through Jesus.


Re Jesus said, Jesus said etc

The notion that one would give another great tools/resources like logical processing, rational thought and critical thinking and then put forward a reward of 'subjective experience based evidence' only achievable by those that disregarded such 'gifts' enough so as to have a chance of achieving this form of evidence is absurd.

If there is a God, then you are using none of these tools correctly. If you've ever read the book "flatland", then you can understand how two dimensional creatures would consider the possibility of a 3D world illogical and irrational. Thus, so does a materialist consider the spiritual reality to be illogical and irrational. This is why I say atheism is a religion for people who have no experience of God.

The bible anticipates your argument and your skepticism:

1 Corinthians 1:18-22

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Men have always taken great pride in their intellectual accomplishments, yet none of them have ever given even one shred of revelation about Almighty God. The wisdom behind the cross is much higher than this worldly wisdom, and it in fact proves it all to be vanity and foolishness, but the world cannot see that, because it is wise in its own eyes:

Romans 1:22

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

No offense taken as you've missed the point. Firstly there is a difference as i do not claim to 'know' that God doesn't exist. I claim to have 'reasons to believe' that it is unlikely. Knowledge of mental deficiencies, emotions, subjective experiences, experience recognition mental softwares and the way humans make mass assumptions to quickly gain degrees of understandings of any/every situation alone take me right up to that hairsbreadth away point. Whereby it can take time and effort explaining to people the difference between agnostic (don't know/care), agnostic-atheist (don't know, doubt it) and atheist (believe not), I'm happy to wear the tag as a generality in non-specific and non-in-depth discussions.

However I'm aware that a God identical to your claims 'could' be hiding in the shadows just outside of human detection and actual evidence as the religious coincidentally claim to those who request proof (yet then in the same breath can state 'but I have personal evidence'.. yes, seems convenient and unlikely).
Just like I'm aware that there 'could' be a 700 story tall pink dragon that farts rainbows named Trevor that simultaneously exists and doesn't exist inside both of my kidneys without being split into 2 parts..
Or someone 'could' prefer their beliefs enough to unknowingly and automatically do mental acrobats around anything that would disrupt them including acknowledging that their position is unsubstantiated outside of a mind that wants to believe (this is in fact what can occur when someone suffers from a delusion).
Debating possibilities is a waste of time, whereas debating probabilities is where you might actually get some results or at least supportable reason to belive.

I'm not talking about probabilities. Jesus was a real person, and He made claims. These claims can be tested.

As far as the difference between God and trevor goes, one has explanatory power and one doesn't. Neither does anyone believe in trevor; he isn't plausible. He isn't even logically coherent. No one believes in flying tea pots, and flying tea pots don't explain anything. God does explain something, and in many cases, is a better explanation for the evidence, such as information in DNA and the fine tuning of our physical laws. Asking whether the Universe was intelligently designed is a perfectly rational question and there is evidence to support this conclusion. Do you know that 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians believe in a personal God? I am not appealing to an authority here, but I think this statistic shows that people trained in science do believe that the evidence points towards God.

understanding of stellar evolution is actually very primitive

The arguments relating to 'we don't know everything yet' is not a basis in which to claim 'X is just as, if not more so, likely to be true'. Claims require their own 'evidences' to support them. Pushing ideas onto people requires 'transferable evidence' and just because there is a question mark at a stage whereby most other aspects of a theory hold true enough to be accurately predicted during tests, does not reflect on another theory being more likely but may indeed reflect on another theory as being less likely.

Again, this is just cherry picking and I think you have lost track of the thread, or you don't want to follow it. You said that part of your skepticism about God creating the Universe was that we understood things about stellar evolution, which is to say we don't need to invoke God as an explanation. I pointed out that not only is our understanding primitive, but even if it were perfect, how does that rule out a Creator? You are confusing mechanism for agency. The stars didn't create themselves, the laws that govern the cosmos caused them to form, and ultimately the laws that caused them to form also had an origin. You have to explain the agency before you can say you don't need God to explain something.

I won't reply much to this as it merely shows that you're already geared to ignore actual evidences that would support the idea of the universe not requiring a God (note that this readiness to disregard facts is what occurs within delusions so as to keep degrees of stability withing fantasized worlds).

I can just as easily say this:

And I won't reply much to this as it merely shows that you're already geared to ignore actual evidences that would support the idea of the universe requiring a God (note that this readiness to disregard facts is what occurs within delusions so as to keep degrees of stability withing fantasized worlds)

Although we haven't figured everything out yet, we've only had about 400 years worth of good studying and scientific thinking on the matter of a 13.7 billion year old case... how much can you honestly expect us to know definitively when so much of our combined time goes towards supporting notions that can't actually be proved?

I don't, and therefore, I wouldn't expect you to say that what has been described actually proves anything one way or the other.

Yes I know that humans must make assumptions so as to figure things out, in fact it was one of the if not THE main focus of my previous post.
Could you ask your question if their wasn't uniformity in nature? No. The fact that there is, is what allows for those that can question it to arise. Our mere being here says nothing as to whether there is a God, in fact nothing in science thus far (to my knowledge) says anything as to whether there IS a God, however some things do say as to whether or not a God is required.

So what is the experiment that proves science is the best method for obtaining truth if you have to assume things you cannot prove to even do science?

Our being here doesn't prove there is a God, necessarily, but we should be surprised to find ourselves in a Universe that is so finely tuned for life.

Scripture (your one and others) say a lot of things, some things vaguely, somethings specifically, and some things contradictorily (Google 'bible contradictions' for examples), but most of all, it says things poetically somewhat like a manipulating salesman whose product you're not allowed to touch, until you've handed over the money. Scripture also doesn't say things as well as some writers over the years could have, but hey it's only the word of God.. I'm interested in things outside of scripture, things that are testable, things that are comparable to an alternate source than where they came from.

You're cherry picking, and dodging the substance, and now even the point of the argument. You were agreeing with Sageminds contention that if God is perfect, then He is also perfectly evil. I pointed out that scripture describes God different, and I also gave you a logical argument outside of scripture for it:

It would be less perfect for God to be a mixture of good and evil versus being perfectly good.

Do you have a response to that argument?

Cheap shot: proof please. I require it in order to respond to the statement & question.
Na just kidding I don't expect any proof for these claims, just like I can't provide you any proof about Trevor.. * whispers: because Trever doesn't actually exists *. In these cases we'll just dismiss each others unsubstantiated claims until the other provides either evidence or acceptable reason to believe said claims.

It's your claim that God does evil in the bible, and so I am asking you why, hypothetically, is it wrong for God to take a life? Since we're talking about the God of the bible, He is the creator of all things, and so has ultimate responsibility over His creation. He is responsible for every aspect of your life, and has the say over your continued existence. Therefore, what makes it wrong for Him to take life just as He gives and maintains life?

Conflict.

Christian claim: God gave humans free will and allows them to use it whereby they will be judged in the afterlife.
Christian claim: God may affect the world in your benefit if you pray (or as your hypothetical, affect the world against you if you're naughty).
Christian claim: God exists outside of detection.
Christian claim: God can do anything.
Christian claim: God.
Christian claim: God is mysterious / we can not understand the will of God
Christian claim: God likes X, God doesn't like Y.

Or to summarize: God exists outside of known existence and has the ability to create and destroy anything without exception.
This is the result of human intelligence evolving to the point of getting one of our psychological survival drives (hope) to an indisputable peak of performance.

My point is that believers over time have given themselves so much wiggle room, when we start talking about 'why God X, why not Y, can God Z' etc, then we enter the realm of imaginative flexibility where the desperate and delusional can simply change the variables of what they want to use regardless of the conflicts, and ignore any logical positions by getting caught up on their preferred ideological technicalities while rejecting other physical or metal technicalities or proofs.

Again, this is a hypothetical scenario involving the God of the bible. It's your claim that God has done evil, so you can back it up with a logical argument? I've outlined a few scenarios and asked you if God would be evil for doing any of those things. I am not talking about mysterious ways, I am talking about specifics.

I have to say 'proof please' again. The words of 1 source (the Bible) are not good enough, evidence requires testability and multiple sources of confirmation. Too much imagination and you can slip away from reality.

Again, we are speaking hypothetically of a scenario you engaged in; "how would you react if the God of the bible showed up at your door". You said you would react in such and such way, which is unrealistic considering how the God of the bible is described, which is what I pointed out to. Based on your modified understanding of the God of the bible, do you think you would react the same way?

Would have replied sooner, but was busy and then D3 launched =D

No problemo..take your time? How is D3?

>> ^Sepacore

You're missing the point of this video. He never mentioned Democrats or Republicans. Reich, while he was Labor Secretary under Clinton, is currently part of Common Cause. As it slogan says, Holding Power Accountable. Similar to Lawrence Lessig and Change Congress / RootStrikers, they want to lessen the corporate influence on politics to bring it back to a government for the people. Reich is pointing out the flaws in legally allowing companies like Bain Capital to do what they do and profit excessively from it.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

All you really need to know is that its a Robert Reich video to know to throw it in the trash where it belongs. It is such a dumbed down, simplistic 'unnuanced' (to use a leftist term) interpretation. Aw - and he even uses cartoons.
I see a lot of pontification, and moralizing, and oh-so-much self-righteous indignation. This kind of business practice is perfectly legal, and it is engaged in by Democrats and liberals all the time, but somehow only Romney is to blame of course. :eyeroll: Typical. As usual, its an election year hit piece used to angry up the blood of the ignorant and the stupid.
You guys act like firing people is some sort of horrible thing that should never never never be done. I know leftists are blindingly ignorant and uninformed of how things are in the "real world" rather than thier fevered imaginations... But companies have to fire people all the time. In fact, if they don't fire people then they become bloated, cumbered, over-saturated dinosaurs that get annihilated by thier competitors. I notice that even the moronic Robert Reich freely admits that the process makes the business work better and more profitable. No one likes to be fired, but as the years go buy companies build up headcount, and as time goes on there are jobs that become obsolete, tasks that are redundant, and processes that are inefficient. Tightening the screws is healthy. It is how companies survive and thrive.
I myself was a casualty of a "downsizing" a few years ago. It happens. It isn't the end of the world. You brush up your resume, get out and hustle, and find a new job. Only in the tortured, idiotic mindset of a liberals does it make any sense that all jobs should be permenant and unending. Grow up people.

All you really need to know is that its a Robert Reich video to know to throw it in the trash where it belongs. It is such a dumbed down, simplistic 'unnuanced' (to use a leftist term) interpretation. Aw - and he even uses cartoons.

I see a lot of pontification, and moralizing, and oh-so-much self-righteous indignation. This kind of business practice is perfectly legal, and it is engaged in by Democrats and liberals all the time, but somehow only Romney is to blame of course. :eyeroll: Typical. As usual, its an election year hit piece used to angry up the blood of the ignorant and the stupid.

You guys act like firing people is some sort of horrible thing that should never never never be done. I know leftists are blindingly ignorant and uninformed of how things are in the "real world" rather than thier fevered imaginations... But companies have to fire people all the time. In fact, if they don't fire people then they become bloated, cumbered, over-saturated dinosaurs that get annihilated by thier competitors. I notice that even the moronic Robert Reich freely admits that the process makes the business work better and more profitable. No one likes to be fired, but as the years go buy companies build up headcount, and as time goes on there are jobs that become obsolete, tasks that are redundant, and processes that are inefficient. Tightening the screws is healthy. It is how companies survive and thrive.

I myself was a casualty of a "downsizing" a few years ago. It happens. It isn't the end of the world. You brush up your resume, get out and hustle, and find a new job. Only in the tortured, idiotic mindset of a liberals does it make any sense that all jobs should be permenant and unending. Grow up people.

thank you!:D
sorry for the lateness.

In reply to this comment by BreaksTheEarth:
Welcome back, you have some good music taste.

oh man... I remember that one. It freaked the hell out of me everytime!

I remember several other episodes i liked:



There's the one set in the future, and there's this kid who's going to be tested by the government, and he's all excited. In the end it turns out in this society, people with an IQ too high are executed to maintain society equal.

And there's also that one about the girl who gets transformed into a manequin.

And the one about this couple (i think) who get stuck in a sort of parallel time dimension where everything is put into place by blue men or something of the kind.

and there's also the classic about the box with the red button and if you press it, someone in the world dies and you get 1 million dollars (there's a recent movie made about this)

I also remember the one where a girl in the pilgrims' time and a boy in the 80's suffer from a fever and end up being able to communicate with one another

>> ^Drax:

I used to love the 80's Twilight Zone episodes as a kid. There's a lot of classics.
For a genuinly creepy one look up "Grandma". Written by Stephen King. I believe the director was someone well known too.

>> ^SuperChikan:

>> ^SlipperyPete:
Having taken the Trans-Siberian, I was loving the memories that Part 2 evoked: cabin fever, vodka, and random locals wanting to drink with you. Contrary to their experience, everyone I met on the train was amazing, although the drudgery of days and days of unchanging landscape does make the journey less romantic than you might think.
As always with VICE, this is a fantastic documentary.

I always wanted to ride the Trans-Siberian, and even with the monotony and the drunks the experience looked not at all unpleasant.


Time of year is a big factor - Summers are hot, buggy, but the days are quite long; I arrived in St. Petersburg on or about Nov 15 and had made it to Beijing about Dec 15. Near-Winter in Siberia wasn't too fun, but I imagine early Autumn would be ideal (late Sept, early Oct).

It was definitely an amazing experience, and by far the cheapest way to travel per kilometer on the planet.

I just dug out a CDR of pics - will post one or two later as part of my trip down memory lane.

>> ^SlipperyPete:

Having taken the Trans-Siberian, I was loving the memories that Part 2 evoked: cabin fever, vodka, and random locals wanting to drink with you. Contrary to their experience, everyone I met on the train was amazing, although the drudgery of days and days of unchanging landscape does make the journey less romantic than you might think.
As always with VICE, this is a fantastic documentary.


I always wanted to ride the Trans-Siberian, and even with the monotony and the drunks the experience looked not at all unpleasant.

Having taken the Trans-Siberian, I was loving the memories that Part 2 evoked: cabin fever, vodka, and random locals wanting to drink with you. Contrary to their experience, everyone I met on the train was amazing, although the drudgery of days and days of unchanging landscape does make the journey less romantic than you might think.

As always with VICE, this is a fantastic documentary.

Interesting point (the date), it's brought in on New Year's Eve when festivities are at fever pitch & nobody's taking a blinding bit of notice....Kind of reminds me of this from just over ten years ago.

I can't invoke "quality" 'cos I've got a question over in sift talk about it at the mo, but that won't stop me from giving this vid a *doublepromote 'cos I just l-o-v-e politicians being exposed for the snake-charmers that they are.