No, perhaps you should re-read, the bible has NO historical authority. Like a broken clock it can, rarely, be right, but I can't reasonably accept anything from it without outside corroboration

Oh really? So why is that archaelogically, it has proven to be 100 percent historically accurate?

“No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.” Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publications Society of America, 1969

There have been over 25,000 discoveries which prove its historical accuracy alone. Seems like far from being right accidently, it's always on time.

Sooo...You are claiming that these books have not been under the same copy/editorship for millennia ? My point does not require a by-line match, only that the folks copying (and editing) the canonical versions are in control of both, and have incentive to make them seem more impressive. Are you claiming this was not the case?

Of course I'm claiming its not the case. It also doesn't make any sense. You don't think the jews at the time would notice that people were editing in prophecies later? They were fanatical about these kind of details..so unless you're claiming it was a gigantic conspiracy your view seems illogical. The jews were very careful about copying..the earliest manusciprs we have and the oldest ones have very few discrepencies.

Wow, nice straw split. The portion of the testimony that claims the divinity of jesus is cut from whole cloth, that is what you were talking about, that is a forgery. You wish to interpret it as a testimony of divinity, when the historical record strongly supports the contentions that these parts were not in the original text, and are not attributable to Josephus => forgery.

The vid you post takes the safety position that since the original appears to be about jesus that it is proof of his historicity. The original text, as far as we can reconstruct it, as well as all the other non-fake historical documents don't actually claim that jesus was real or divine, they only convey the story as stated by christians.

I can also state the christian story, as a matter of historical record, without validating it or accepting it myself, the fact that christians existed is not proof that jesus did.

lol..so, when a historian talks about someone in history, its not evidence..what kind of evidence do you want? Photographs?

"Josephus includes information about individuals, groups, customs and geographical places. Some of these, such as the city of Seron, are not referenced in the surviving texts of any other ancient authority. His writings provide a significant, extra-Biblical account of the post-Exilic period of the Maccabees, the Hasmonean dynasty, and the rise of Herod the Great. He makes references to the Sadducees, Jewish High Priests of the time, Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius' census and the Zealots, and to such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II, John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and a disputed reference to Jesus (for more see Josephus on Jesus). He is an important source for studies of immediate post-Temple Judaism and the context of early Christianity.

A careful reading of Josephus' writings allowed Ehud Netzer, an archaeologist from Hebrew University, to discover the location of Herod's Tomb, after a search of 35 years — above aqueducts and pools, at a flattened, desert site, halfway up the hill to the Herodium, 12 kilometers south of Jerusalem — exactly where it should have been, according to Josephus's writings."

Read that? His writings were so accurate that we were able to find a mans tomb 2000 years later. Turn off your schitzophrenia for a moment. You're claiming Jesus isn't a historical figure, even though this historian, whom you say is accurate for Cyrus, verifies that He is. I'm not talking about whether He is divine, just that He existed. You can't have it both ways. He's a historian who obviously checked his sources..he's isn't telling stories, he is relating facts. You just want to throw the ones you don't happen to agree with.

I see what you did there, let me see if I can recreate your "logic":
1)I claim the testimony has been forged
2)Therefore I must accept Josephus as completely unreliable
3)Therefor the bible is the only source of the story
4)Therefor the claimed historicity of the events depends on the bible
5)Therefor for the Cyrus claim to hold the bible must be divinely inspired

Step 2 does not follow, most of Josephus is considered sound. The fact that your predecessors felt the need to lie in his name does not invalidate all his writings, only those which we have reason to believe have been altered. As it turns out, your boys tended to do a pretty unconvincing job in their historical revisionism.

Again, forget about the divinity claims which were interperlations. He records the existence of the historical person of Jesus. So, if its good enough for Cyrus, its good enough for Jesus. You can't have it both ways. Your pathogical unbelief is amusing, but unwarrented. So your only sources are one that claims Jesus is real, and another that claims God frees the slaves. Again, not helping your case in any respect.

Wow. You're so ridiculously stubborn that you are actually going to defend your indefensible viewpoint. Fine, it's your funeral. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Did you know that Cyrus freeing of the slaves confirms the bible is true? It was prophecied that the jews would go into exile and be freed at the exact time Cyrus freed them:

"Jeremiah predicted Israel’s second captivity would last 70 years for every year they had not observed the Sabbath year rest of the land. "And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years." (Jer 25:11) The Babylonian army conquered Israel in the spring of 606 B.C. Confirmed by history as well as the Bible, Israel’s captivity in Babylon ended exactly 70 years later in the spring of 536 B.C., in the Jewish month Nisan. As was predicted, the Persian King Cyrus freed the Jews to return to their land (Ezra 1:1-3)."

You're right, there is also historical confirmation outside of the bible of what Cyrus did: it comes from the 1st century roman historian Titus Flavius Josephus. The same historian who confirms that Jesus was a historical figure and affirms His life death and resurrection. This agrees with modern historians, almost none of which make the ridiculous claim that Jesus never existed.

So lets review..so far your position confirms the accuracy of bible prophecy and the existence of Jesus as a historical figure. I really couldn't have said it better myself. So yeah..any other evidence you'd like to present to prove my case?
>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
lol!! wow this is truly classic.
Maybe you should actually read the articles you're providing as evidence from your desperate google search to disprove me.
Do you know what slaves he freed? The Jews. That's right, Gods chosen people.

Sooo...that means he was a Christian? Do you understand the concept of moving the goal posts?
>> ^shinyblurry:
How do we know this? The bible. Getting a sinking feeling yet?

I have never claimed that the bible does not reference historical events/places/people, but it can not by any objective measure be considered historically accurate itself. Cyrus, unlike Moses and Jesus, is not a construction of the biblical authors, if the bible had never existed we would still know of Cyrus and have a general understanding of what he did.

lol!! wow this is truly classic.

Maybe you should actually read the articles you're providing as evidence from your desperate google search to disprove me.

Do you know what slaves he freed? The Jews. That's right, Gods chosen people.
How do we know this? The bible. Getting a sinking feeling yet?

Isaiah 45
1 “This is what the LORD says to his anointed,
to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of
to subdue nations before him
and to strip kings of their armor,
to open doors before him
so that gates will not be shut:
2 I will go before you
and will level the mountains[a];
I will break down gates of bronze
and cut through bars of iron.
3 I will give you hidden treasures,
riches stored in secret places,
so that you may know that I am the LORD,
the God of Israel, who summons you by name

Ezra 1
The Proclamation of Cyrus
1(A) In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia,(B) that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so(C) that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom and also put it in writing:
2"Thus says Cyrus king of Persia: The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and(D) he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. 3Whoever is among you of all his people, may his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and rebuild the house of the LORD, the God of Israel—(E) he is the God who is in Jerusalem. 4And let each survivor, in whatever place he sojourns, be assisted by the men of his place with silver and gold, with goods and with beasts, besides freewill offerings for the house of God that is in Jerusalem."

5Then rose up the heads of the fathers’ houses of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests and the Levites,(F) everyone whose spirit(G) God had stirred to go up to rebuild the house of the LORD that is in Jerusalem. 6And all who were about them(H) aided them with vessels of silver, with gold, with goods, with beasts, and with costly wares, besides all that was freely offered. 7(I) Cyrus the king also brought out the vessels of the house of the LORD that(J) Nebuchadnezzar had carried away from Jerusalem and placed in the house of his gods. 8Cyrus king of Persia brought these out in the charge of(K) Mithredath the treasurer, who counted them out to(L) Sheshbazzar the prince of Judah. 9And this was the number of them:(M) 30 basins of gold, 1,000 basins of silver, 29 censers, 1030 bowls of gold, 410 bowls of silver, and 1,000 other vessels; 11all the vessels of gold and of silver were 5,400. All these did Sheshbazzar bring up, when the exiles were brought up from Babylonia to Jerusalem.

So lets get this straight..to dispute me you are providing evidence which is biblical, from the very same God that I am saying is responsible for it. You're technically correct, this was outside the Christian west. I reeeeaally don't think it helps your case though. Apparently the bible is sufficient evidence for you now, so now please let me urge you to turn away from your sins and give your life to Jesus Christ, the Lord and Savior, who takes away the sins of the world and gives men eternal life. I know its hard to admit when you're wrong, but now I would say the evidence is overwhelming.

>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Christians are the reason we abolished slavery. There has never been an abolitionist movement anywhere besides in the Christian west.

Your first sentence is false, non-Christian humans have been abolishing slavery for millennia, see here.
You, of course then back peddle by talking about a "movement". I'll counter that the only reason that a movement was necessary in the US was because Christians so bitterly opposed abolition that a great amount of political force (and a massive war) had to brought to bare against them. Civilized societies, on the other hand, seem to dispense with it much more easily.

I say that's a wonderful validation for agnosticism. I just explained this to you the other day. We cannot know anything for sure because we only have our flawed senses and limited mental capacity to rely on. That's agnosticism.

As a former agnostic, I am familar with what it is. Are you agnostic?

Big bang theory doesn't say the universe sprang forth from nothing, it says the universe rapidly expanded from the singularity. All the matter of today's universe existed, in some form, in the singularity. Any proposals about the state of the universe prior to the Planck epoch are pure speculation. The rest of your argument is all based on this false presupposition so I won't bother refuting it.

Mainstream big bang theory says time and space had a beginning. If you don't want to discuss this, it's up to you.

Humans were social creatures long before they invented/discovered Yahweh. We lived in tribes. Hunters cooperated to bring home meat for everyone while gatherers collected fruits/vegetables to also share. Children were raised by the tribe as a whole. The tribe had safety in numbers. Members who were found to be stealing or cheating would find others were no longer willing to cooperate with them, possibly they would face exile. Tell me, would you be more likely to survive, especially in the wild, if you worked in harmony with the others or if you had to do everything for yourself? Similar traits are common in many mammals and birds. Warm-blooded creatures are generally too high-maintenance to be entirely self-sufficient. We can't crank out hundreds of offspring every mating season and walk away. We need to cooperate to survive. None of those non-human mammals have heard God's Word, either, and they seem to be doing pretty well.

As far as the animals go, it is written in the bible that God takes care of them. Yes, cooperation is necessary to survive but this doesn't account for all moral behaviors. The behaviors you describe all help perpetuate your existence because you are doing them to gain an advantage socially. What about behaviors that have no advantage, which are actually determintal to your survival? Self-sacrifice, for instance..Someone who runs into a burning building to save a baby risking death to do it. If all morality is just selfishness, how do you explain this behavior. It's foolish from that standpoint, because it makes you less likely to survive. Why do people risk their lives for others?

Coveting might lead to theft, murder, etc, or it might lead to nothing. Someone on my block drives a nice Audi A6. I see it now and then and think, "Man, I wish I had an A6" and then I go on with my day. I do not envy them, steal from them, assault them, or murder them. The line is drawn at which point I cause another person harm. Wishing I had an A6 doesn't hurt anyone.

Just because it doesn't lead to it every time, doesn't mean it won't eventually. It's suprising what people will compromise under certain circumstances. Personally, I've never seen anything good that came from it in my life. I think there plainly a wisdom to never coveting what you don't have, or refuse to earn for yourself. I know plenty of people who sit around jealous of other peoples things and accomplishments. They feel their lives are unfair because that everyone else has more than they do. Yet, if they just ignored that and did for themselves, to their own satisfaction, they would be much happier people.

I do not lack an objective standard for morality. Harmfulness is pretty damn objective. It's not my feelings, it's theirs. It's not ok to rape people because people don't like being raped, ergo rape is not morally justified in my world view. Is it justified in some peoples' world view? Yes, unfortunately it is, but they are a very small minority of the total population (though I'd be very happy for them to be even smaller).

It is so objective? What if you have three men, and two decide that the other cannot be trusted..so they kill him. They did harm, but they think it was for the best, so is that ok? This is what morality by concensus easily leads to, when it is just mere opinion and agreement. Do you know how much evil has been done in the world because of thinking like that? Feelings are not objective..they are really the most subjective thing you could think of. Without an absolute standard of good which people have to obey, it could only be subjective opinion. In which case people will just make it up as they go along. As a limited human with a subjective experience, how could your morality ever be objective?

@shinyblurry

The most interesting thing is that the Universe sprang into existence from no prior material.

Big bang theory doesn't say the universe sprang forth from nothing, it says the universe rapidly expanded from the singularity. All the matter of today's universe existed, in some form, in the singularity. Any proposals about the state of the universe prior to the Planck epoch are pure speculation. The rest of your argument is all based on this false presupposition so I won't bother refuting it.

How do you respond to the argument that, if we're simply biological machines then all of our thoughts are nothing but chemical reactions which therefore cannot be trusted?

I say that's a wonderful validation for agnosticism. I just explained this to you the other day. We cannot know anything for sure because we only have our flawed senses and limited mental capacity to rely on. That's agnosticism.

Well, how would you explain the uniformity of morality that we see in all cultures, past and present. It would have to be something explained by biology, except there is no biological imperative except selfishness.

Humans were social creatures long before they invented/discovered Yahweh. We lived in tribes. Hunters cooperated to bring home meat for everyone while gatherers collected fruits/vegetables to also share. Children were raised by the tribe as a whole. The tribe had safety in numbers. Members who were found to be stealing or cheating would find others were no longer willing to cooperate with them, possibly they would face exile. Tell me, would you be more likely to survive, especially in the wild, if you worked in harmony with the others or if you had to do everything for yourself? Similar traits are common in many mammals and birds. Warm-blooded creatures are generally too high-maintenance to be entirely self-sufficient. We can't crank out hundreds of offspring every mating season and walk away. We need to cooperate to survive. None of those non-human mammals have heard God's Word, either, and they seem to be doing pretty well.

In regards to whether thoughts can be harmful..well, consider for example the commandment not to covet. It's a thought crime because it leads to breaking all of the other commandments. Coveting leads to envy, envy to desire, desire to larceny, murder, lying, stealing and adultry. It's entirely rational, nipping problems in the bud before they even begins.

Coveting might lead to theft, murder, etc, or it might lead to nothing. Someone on my block drives a nice Audi A6. I see it now and then and think, "Man, I wish I had an A6" and then I go on with my day. I do not envy them, steal from them, assault them, or murder them. The line is drawn at which point I cause another person harm. Wishing I had an A6 doesn't hurt anyone.

Lacking an objective standard for morality, what makes it wrong? Why is it bad to have sex with animals, hurt people, rape people..if it's just your feelings. If that's the case, some people feel that raping people is just great..doesn't that make them morally justified in your world view?

I do not lack an objective standard for morality. Harmfulness is pretty damn objective. It's not my feelings, it's theirs. It's not ok to rape people because people don't like being raped, ergo rape is not morally justified in my world view. Is it justified in some peoples' world view? Yes, unfortunately it is, but they are a very small minority of the total population (though I'd be very happy for them to be even smaller).

i just watched this documentary this morning: Much Ado About Something about the claim that Christopher Marlowe (who in the theory fled in exile to Italy, rather than killed) being the real writer of Shakespeare's plays. It's quite an enjoyable documentary even if you don't come to the end anywhere near convinced by the Marlovian Theory.

as one of the critics put it "icon-bashing has never been so amusing."

I have to completely disagree with the formation of your argument. Unfortunately, you have presented a very shallow, 1 dimensional view of violence; most would refer to it as a scarecrow. I wish to state before I go further that I wish I lived in this world you imagine. I long for a world where violence isn't an answer. Let us take on your examples one at a time, then go into the thrust of the issue.

As far as terrorism goes, it is hard to even understand what terrorism is. It isn't very rigidly defined. Is it terrorism to force people to pay taxes, or is it only when you blow them up when they aren't expecting it? Terrorism is more of a red herring word used to justify actions rather a "thing" itself. that is a dodge of the issue, but then again, so was this word all along. So lets move into some of your better examples.

Was the objective of Vietnam and Korea to stop Communism? If so, then the success rate is 50%. As far as things go in the world, those aren't terrible odds. South Korea still exists as a democracy, violence won out in that case over rivaling violence.

The world war 2 example is a curious example to use. It actually shows a different picture then I think you would like to present. In the end, Germany ended up with a ruined country, as you say. But, that is only because it met up against resistance/violence. In the end, Germany was BOMBED into submitting, not talked into it. A greater force of violence stopped the lesser source of it. It was the rule of the jungle carried out in its most prime. Countless attempts by Brittan and France to talk Germany out of taking over its neighbors had no effect, only when the grind of blood and bullets was too much for her to bear did Germany relent. Indeed, WW2 is a horrible example for you to use...probably the worst I can think of.

Instead you should of used people like Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther, and Martin Luther King Jr. These people were truly non-violent and changed the world. However, they are the conspicuous examples. The reason they stand out in history is because all to often, non-retaliation results in certain defeat. Look at the plight of the native Americans. While history tells the tail of all the tribes that fought, many did not. Many made deals with the White man. The history of these arrangements is grim indeed. For the White man would constantly renig the terms and send into exile the native Americans. Even the great Jefferson, the champion of democracy, sent the native Americans further and further down the trail of tears. They did not fight. The suffered...and suffered. Perhaps, if they fought, they would off been completely eradicated, so, instead, they choose exile and decimation. Which is better, I am not one to say. But surely, their non-violence did not result in one could consider a victory.

You need to remember your fathers. And I don't mean the founders of the USA. I mean 2 billion years of evolution on this planet. Humans are not some sanctimonious super being. We are composed of the same shit, sweat, and tears as everything else. The history of all animals is almost wholly violent. The lion doesn't solve his mating deputes with a rival by any other means than brutality. Your immune system doesn't win out by being less virulent than the infection it sees to mend. Your food won't survive long enough to reap if you don't stop the insects and vermin from eating it. Washing your hands is akin to mass murder of bacteria. Anti-bacterial soap is akin to genocide. But we resolve ourselves of these sins almost constantly so that we can be naive in the construction of our morality when dealing with each other. In this world, it is life for life. Nothing alive doesn't take life as well, spare most planets. Plants are only noble creation along with some fungi. Most every animal on the planet exploits unto pain through violence some other organism. herbivorous being the most foul violator eating the only noble life on the plant. Carnivores are their penitence.

This world is a cycle of pain, and its root is violence. Violence is what drives evolution forward. One of the expatiations of the Cambrian Explosion is the arrival of carnivores. And billions of years later, you stand on the top of the tradition of exploitation. And you won't be rid of it be ignoring it inside you. You might construct a society that can slowly cope and perhaps even bread out billions of years of evolution. And in perhaps 10 thousand years, you can look back and see that you reduced human violence by 20%. And that would be a great accomplishment. Only to then be wiped out by a asteroid ending all human life to be replaced by the new slug overlords. The great comedy of life is to think you can make a difference in the 80 years we have vs the billions that the history of life has been with us. Unless you are talking about complete genetic experimentation to change the face of what it means to be human, I don't see anything working. Maybe you make a government system that handles the nature of man better, but the nature of man...the 2 billion year old murder animal, is still set before you.

Like I said, I don't like this world. I would rather live in your fantasy world. A world of reason, of peace, of progress. We don't have that world. We have a world of brutal, violence. It's only true self is that of conflict and competition that is all to often violent. It the a 2 billion year old rule that we didn't make up but have had to better realize, lest make poorly designed strategy to deal with the beast that is man.

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^BoneRemake:
UPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

VOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTEEEEEEEEEEE

"violence doesnt solve anything "
and yet we go to war, explain that mrs former cop.

By the way, you forgot to quote her whole comment, which in its entirety goes:
"My message to the young people out there is that violence does not solve anything. It can get you into more trouble than what it's going to solve. [If you are being bullied] don't suffer in silence: find a trusted a adult and let them know what's going on."
So first off, your question about wars was completely off-topic. But I'll take a shot at answering it anyway.
She didn't say people were smart. She didn't say people don't ever get violent. She instead pointed out violence doesn't solve any problems. Did we solve the terrorist threat with the Iraq and Afganistan wars? Did we stop Communism with the Vietnam and Korean wars? Part of the reason Germany went to war in World War 2 was because their economy was in the crapper after World War 1 and they owed money in reparations. Did they solve that problem by getting their country bombed to rubble?
Nations go to war for many reasons. There's the ostensible reasons like "spreading freedom" that the population is forced to buy and there are the actual reasons like securing resources or the sheer madness of the country's leadership. My question for you is, at the end of the day, can you really think of a war that "solved" a problem in a way that couldn't have been solved peacefully?

-- Curveball and the manufacture of a lie
-- Life and times of Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, AKA Curveball
-- Curveball: How US was duped by Iraqi fantasist looking to topple Saddam
-- Curveball's admission 'raises questions about CIA'
-- Curveball deserves permanent exile for WMD lies, say Iraq politicians

Bloody hell, editors at the Guardian sure put in a lot of effort into these kinds of stories.

What you meant, I believe, is that Obama was the best corporate smooth-talker of 2008.

To start a movement you need two things. Change that is mesurable and verified, and action.

For example, putting out corporations from Congress is not a movement (Because it is not a changing of principles.) Corporate exile is already the promised status quo. Yet those people running for office realize a dreadful truth--we won't vote for them because they are not viable. So this means what? It means we have not voted for those who would kick Haliburton out of Congress and so our movement doesn't give a rat's ass about who pays Congress' salary.

If you want to correct corporate control over elected officials, it would not be a "movement" you are looking for, it would be to fix the movement you already have. (I.E. The Tea Party was supposedly a fix for the republican party. (Unfortunately, in my opinion, they suck... and were exactly the kind of "fix" the republican party did not need.)

A real change, a real movement, however, would be to vote for the guy that doesn't promise voters the moon.

A real change would be to vote for the guy that doesn't have a D or R or I or L in front of his name, but to vote because he isn't an asstard. It would be to vote for the man, not the platform--which is exactly why the republican party is decrepit.

You know what I find most amusing? The left would have been better served by Ron Paul because he would have closed Gitmo, ended Iraq, repealed the Patriot Act and so much more. Instead you got promises based on platforms.

I am a Republican because I don't like the party, not because I do...

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I'm disappointed in Obama and the democratic congress. I expected much more from them. The most depressing aspect of my problem with Obama is that he was the best option in 2008, and will almost certainly be the best option in 2012. If I vote for him again, I risk sending a message that I condone the continuing corporatization of the democratic party and allow it to further shift to the right in its futile attempt to triangulate.

I agree with what your saying, trust me. But, as I was trying to point out we've, as a species, gone to great lengths to hurt ourselves and negate progress. That is what I was alluding to when I said: "I've seen the worst and the best of things we have in this world come from humans. Many of our terrible aspects can be linked to mental illness, abuse, no education, etc... ".

In many cases the "evil" or "good" are a neutral aspect anyway (if you look at it from a evolution point of view). But, evolution also shows why many of the things we consider good are merely evolutionary necessities to survive, i.e. grouping, society, negative impacts on the group by mentally ill group-mates--leading to punishment/exile/or death. This is present in the animal kingdom as well. There have been some recent books covering this very point and they're quite good; if you wish to read one, my advice would be for "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris.

Lastly, I know science will not have all the answers. But, if we can deal with the problems I listed above it will bring us closer to a day with understanding; but, many problems will still be left (as technology gets more advanced, it requires less and less people to cause near fatal problems for cities-->countries-->and then the world. If we can't find a way to fold the people back into society willingly we may ultimately fail. By the mid-point of this century, maybe even sooner, it may only take one scientist with a vendetta or a psychotic break (caused by the mind or drugs) to create a virus that targets human specific genetics--if that scientist can throw in some nano-tech... That might be it.

Or we could end up with nano-bots able to self-replicate in our bodies and provide us with protection from viruses, bacteria, other nanites, and able to give you your daily medication as well.

The future is clearly open-ended right now, but I don't think it's quite as dim as justanotherday postulates. Yet, science and religion in the long-term are most likely completely incompatible. Religion can stay in the background without causing conflicts, but if it's at the core or upfront competing with science they'll always rub each other the wrong way--as they are nearly polar opposite in function and approach.

/Yes, I do think the "Atheist" in the video is a Anti-theist. It doesn't mean he's wrong, but he is approaching a solution in the opposite direction that I would suggest (unless the religious leader is like the scientist above in my example: psychotic, mentally ill, etc...).

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
I didn't want to derail your conversation there, but as an aside, science has also been a great cause of pain and death. It is has a neutral bias, as I would also see religion. The state of it is largely in the hands of the humans at the helm. We have medicine, but we also have machine guns. We have the United Christian Children's fund, but we also have sexual abusing Fathers.

In reply to this comment by kceaton1:
>> ^justanotherday:

Interesting. I guess everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Besides, given his past, I can see why he is bitter. Life can be cruel. It is hard to embrace any authority when it fails you so miserably. I still don't see why some believers and non-believers can not get along. Of course, the media only focuses on the few that can't get along. The majority of believers and non-believers can get along. Neither can definitively prove the other side is completely right or completely wrong. So they do a sort of agree to disagree. I do believe that anyone, with any kind of sense, realizes that there is much more to humans that transcends all beliefs. We are more than we appears. More than the sum of our parts. At least science proves that concept. But that does not conclude anything else except just that we are more.
--In the final analysis, I think we will find the true answer is beyond all human perceptions. One can't possibly think we are the highest intelligence in the multi-verse space-time. That would be arrogant at best. If we are, then it is a sad multi-verse space-time. If we are not, then the possibilities are endless.--


The only problem with how you put this is that you are giving a value to something we can't reliably judge for ourselves. It's the same gripe he has with religion. Religion likes to contribute to it's own definition and no other relative position is welcome.

We would also be arrogant if we don't consider the fact that we may be the smartest thing there is. We know already that there were most likely ancestors and perhaps non-ancestors in human past that had a high IQ; due to the size of their neo-cortex. The difference is that our lineage brokered the gap between minds with an extremely descriptive language and body language piece of construction in our brain.

Also, you describe humanity as "sad". I've seen the worst and the best of things we have in this world come from humans. Many of our terrible aspects can be linked to mental illness, abuse, no education, etc... Don't give aliens the benefit that they will not have to deal with the same issues.

Finally, science has made HUGE strides in not only understanding ourselves, but also the environment and creatures around us. In 100 years, out of the 250,000 years we've been around, we've made strides that would seem impossible just a decade earlier. In 1995 when I left graduated from high school the Internet was good for gaming and small-scale communications. In one decade it had become HUGE, allowing you to do things never imagined before (even gaming saw the same leap--just from the advancement of the Internet; WoW is a good example). The Internet is now on the verge of becoming threaded into our everyday life; this is true for a nearly endless list of technological changes and scientific knowledge.

Science also has made great leaps in understanding our psyche (soul for others) and our overall brain and psychology. If you want some quick rundowns on what we know don't look at psychology (as it tends to be secondary to neuroscience), look at neuroscience and artificial intelligence.

Alright I redacted my post here because on a third reading it was just too emotional and ugly.

I'm not opposed to the military in general. I'm opposed to calling the 401 "The Highway of Heroes" and the misuse of the military. I know some people in the military too and for the most part they're fine intelligent individuals. That said, they joined up mostly for financial reasons or because they figured military training would serve as or help them towards an education. Not to protect the country or preserve my freedoms. What in the fuck does patrolling the mountains of Afghanistan or patrolling the slums of Iraq have to do with protecting my freedoms?

I would still like to say this, though: Shove the "love it or leave it" attitude up your ass, you fascist idiot. Also, I say these things because I'm relatively anonymous here on the web. I would not make these statements publicly even in Canada, because guys like you get so wound up you can't even comprehend what I've typed, and you'd love to see me pay somehow for offending you. So, yeah you're most likely a fascist while simultaneously living your life of helping people. "Exile to infidels" is the response of the indoctrinated, and the inculcated... whoops, there I go again.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

Holy shit! That's Cake Shop! I saw a lame hipster concert there once.
Oh, I'm so much cooler than all of you...


Where else are you going to take an Iranian woman in exile, but the Cake Shop, that old punk rock mecca in the East Village?

What's really fucking crazy about this video is that, in the middle of the clip, Rollins starts talking to a chick I knew about 15 years ago!

Oh, I'm so much cooler than you.

Oh, you're right. There is no deal solution, though.

In reply to this comment by MrFisk:
Probably not, in most cases. But I think the point is that housing elderly inmates is an expensive drain on society--a drain that outweighs the crime. Exile would cheaper.

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
They deserve compassion, dignity and respect? Did they give that to their victims?

Probably not, in most cases. But I think the point is that housing elderly inmates is an expensive drain on society--a drain that outweighs the crime. Exile would cheaper.

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
They deserve compassion, dignity and respect? Did they give that to their victims?

>> ^Kreegath:

Some more info has been released, and it's been revealed that the person getting sucker punched was a police officer.
Apparently what broke the camel's back for the muslim audience was when they showed a clip of dutch exile-iranian gay porn in Muhammed masks.


I guess I can imagine a bunch of ultra conservative right wing Christians reacting the same way if exposed to gay Jesus on Jesus porn. Is Jesus on Jesus a thing? Because it should be.