>> ^JenRave:
Is it just me.. or does anyone else realize that was over BACON!?! What do they lace the bacon with heroine these days? Yes he was articulate, and respectful, and aware of his feelings. And, now he can learn to value detachment, and the variety life can offer.


Excuse me, but I will not tolerate this heresy in the comments section of the video I sifted.

you dont ask the small questions do you?/grins
IATB:Why do you believe what you have faith in?
enoch:why are you here?for what purpose do you serve?what is the meaning of existence?
i am not trying to berate you with rhetoric.just giving you the scope of your question.you might have well asked me "in one sentence explain the big bang and its relation to gravity and magnetic fields".the reasons why i have faith are complicated as they are simplistic.grand as they are minute.
if i had to answer in a short,finite sentence.i would say because there is more to the universe than we can comprehend,and that we are a part of something far greater,more beautiful than our limited perceptions can comprehend.could i be wrong? of course,i have to leave that option open,to attempt to comprehend the incomprehensible leaves a wide margin for error,hence the term faith and not "Know".it is also why i do not preach,or attempt to convince others of my righteousness.the closest i can come to explaining,and i most surely will fail,is that i have a sense of something behind the veil.it is not tangible but it is.it is etheric in nature..yet it is not.everytime i have found myself at a crossroads and attempted to control my destiny i met resistance,but when i surrendered to it,i was always led to the what i most needed and wanted at the time.
is that scientific? no.
do i have any conclusive proof other than anecdotal?no.
could it possibly be something "other"? yes.
if i would say yes to this,why say i have faith? because i have to leave that option open.just because we dont understand it now,does not mean mankind will not understand the mechanics of it later,and it is quite possible there is a totally scientific reason for it.
but if thats true,why say say you have "faith" at all? just because mankind can define or explain a universal mechanism does not detract from my faith.it only strengthens it.
IATB:Regarding philosophy, do you know the definition of the word “conjecture”?
enoch:yes,and it is a trap i try to avoid.sometimes i succeed,other times i fail.it is conversations like these that help me avoid such traps.it is easy to become comfortable when everybody is saying the same thing.challenge the idea and you may find yourself with not only a new way of thinking but a much crisper outlook.trimming the fat as they say.
IATB:That is to say, why do you believe what you believe?
Do you know of any beliefs that you hold which do not have supportive conclusive evidence?
enoch:just that we are a triune.mind=proven.we have one.body=proven.we have that also.spirit=unproven and no discernable test to date to even measure for one.hence the term "faith".
IATB:When I say, I don't believe that there is life on Mars, what do you think I am saying?
A) There is no life on Mars
B) I don't believe there is life on Mars.
C) Both of the above
enoch: B there has been no proof nor disproof of life on mars.there is conjecture based on certain enviromental conditions that may have,or has,supported life.but no actual proof as of yet.
IATB:What is a greater strength?
A) The ability to share ideas.
B) The ability to discern the truth of a shared idea.
enoch: this is a trick question for the answer is both.because they speak of a polarized polemic.one speaks of arbitrary sharing=good.
the other speaks of a personal ability to dissect and discern the shared idea.
both are good and have strengths.i think if you made A)the ability to share ideas without rebuttal or discussion.would have been a better statement for me to judge their strengths.

on a final note.understand that the way i perceive the universe and hence my faith would have had me burned at the stake for heresy a few hundred years ago.when i use the term "god" i am not referring to a masculine entity that resides outside space and time and watches over us as if we were a colony of ants.to dispense his wisdom and fickle judgment as a school yard bully distributes marbles.i use the term as a noun.my interpretation of god is subjective and is not based on any text or scripture.i adhere to no dogma at all.
to put things in their simplest form.the universe and everything within it..is god.
i am running out of time my friend so i will have to bring this to a close.
i hope i answered your questions satisfactorily and i hope the conversations continue.feel free to ask me more questions.i hope your car is coming along nicely.
till the next time..namaste.

Raptor riding Jesus feels this movie is heresy. Everyone knows that Earth is the only planet with intelligent design and even if there are aliens, they are clearly from the devil because they don't know raptop riding jesus.

>> ^ant:
>> ^gwiz665:
Beats the shit out of the Limp Bizkit version.

I like both


HERESY! BURN HIM!

>> ^notarobot:
I appreciate Brand's appeal for rational global-problem solving as well as his research and his organization of information, but I share almost none of his enthusiasm for the topics he discussed.
Genetic engineering presumes that humans, in our 50-70 year life span know better than nature. Nature has been at the game of shaping genes, of us and every living thing on the Earth, for a long time. Once a gene has been modified it can stay way for eternity. There is no undo. It is arrogant for any human to believe that even the knowledge of how to meddle with genes should be the same as carrying the wisdom to wield that knowledge without error.

If you think something shouldn't be done, because nature knows best, you could carry that same argument to all aspects of our technology, and I doubt you want us to live in pre-stoneage time again. I don't see how nature knows anything, or cares about anything. Nature just functions through mutation and selection. At any time an invasive or disruptive species could evolve. The only safeguard on nature is that evolution moves quite slow.
We have been genetically modifying animals since the first wolf was domesticated. Just look at what kind of freaky dogs we have created since. Or highly productive farm animals that couldn't function in the wild, a dairy cow for example. Now we have the ability to speed up and improve this process. And granted, there is a difference, because now we can move genes into an organism that never were there before, like jellyfish genes in a mammal.
Most if not all species that we engineer have no competitive advantage in nature and will only thrive in our carefully managed farmlands. For potentially more dangerous applications, we need to take adequate precautions and thoroughly test species or build in kill genes that we could trigger. Or just make them infertile.

Though it is true that warheads can be dismantled (with significant effort) for use in nuclear power stations, the fact that the bi-product of fission reactors is weapons-grade material remains lost on most people.

This fact is not lost on many engineers. Many modern reactor designs cannot make weapons grade materials. The reason that many old nuclear plants can do this is because they were specifically designed to make the bomb material and produce energy in the process.
Weapons grade material can also be made without reactors by extracting the fissile component of natural uranium.

Geo engineering is the product of similar arrogance of as genetic engineering. It is fueled by a desire for a static environment. The fact is that the Earth has never stood still, and will never do so (except for that one time in film..).

Of course the Earth doesn't care what we do, it and life will go on no matter what we do, even after a full out nuclear war. The point could be made that we have been geoengineering for a long time now. Just look at our cities, farmland and pollution. The only problem is that some of our geoengineering is potentially harmful to us and nature. Therefore deliberate geoengineering is proposed to mitigate these problems. From a humanitarian view one would want to mitigate these problems to relieve human suffering, just like we try to eradicate horrible diseases.

>> ^cybrbeast:
I couldn't agree more with this guy. He even talked about the evils of Greenpeace trying to stop Africa from using biotech. But that's only half of it, they are also against artificial fertilizer and pesticides. Probably responsible for the deaths of millions of Africans.
We need more rational environmentalists!


I appreciate Brand's appeal for rational global-problem solving as well as his research and his organization of information, but I share almost none of his enthusiasm for the topics he discussed.

Genetic engineering presumes that humans, in our 50-70 year life span know better than nature. Nature has been at the game of shaping genes, of us and every living thing on the Earth, for a long time. Once a gene has been modified it can stay way for eternity. There is no undo. It is arrogant for any human to believe that even the knowledge of how to meddle with genes should be the same as carrying the wisdom to wield that knowledge without error.

Though it is true that warheads can be dismantled (with significant effort) for use in nuclear power stations, the fact that the bi-product of fission reactors is weapons-grade material remains lost on most people.

Geo engineering is the product of similar arrogance of as genetic engineering. It is fueled by a desire for a static environment. The fact is that the Earth has never stood still, and will never do so (except for that one time in film..).

Thanks for the promote!

In reply to this comment by cybrbeast:
TED's own YouTube embed are highly superior in speed and quality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxwiVFgghE
*promote

>> ^jwray:
Platinga's free will defense is merely a stealthy withdrawal of the axiom of omnipotence. Besides, free will has nothing to do with evolved parasites.
The problem of evil is absolutely unsolvable. The existence of evil contradicts the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God.
The hypothesis of god does not help at all in making accurate predictions about the universe, therefore it should be discarded. Besides, his supposed powers would contradict all known laws of physics.

The concept of evil is not wholly a logical one, so perhaps in this sense you are right - it isn't a problem to be solved: like one solves an equation.
Secondly, omnipotence is partially a paradox, so it probably has an extra-logical "solution." I find the best, and also truly funny, answer to the old scholastic problem of God creating a stone he cant lift this one

God creates a stone he cant lift
God lifts said stone.

This is a proper paradox, I think. But even Descartes said that God perhaps isn't bound by mathematics. Since all of science is basically math + "reality", searching for evidential experience for God is almost a heresy. What would that entail, anyway?

Hehe... thx man. Gotta love teh hubble!

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Upvote for "Satan's penis." With such a massive tool, no wonder bad boys are popular with the ladies.

In reply to this comment by ponceleon:
The hubble space telescope is Satan's penis, used by atheist scientist to spread their so-called science. If god wanted us to put things in space, he would have created ladder-trees that reached that high so we could climb up there and look with intelligently designed space-seeing-eyes.

Utter rubbish!! Heresy too!

Upvote for "Satan's penis." With such a massive tool, no wonder bad boys are popular with the ladies.

In reply to this comment by ponceleon:
The hubble space telescope is Satan's penis, used by atheist scientist to spread their so-called science. If god wanted us to put things in space, he would have created ladder-trees that reached that high so we could climb up there and look with intelligently designed space-seeing-eyes.

Utter rubbish!! Heresy too!

The hubble space telescope is Satan's penis, used by atheist scientist to spread their so-called science. If god wanted us to put things in space, he would have created ladder-trees that reached that high so we could climb up there and look with intelligently designed space-seeing-eyes.

Utter rubbish!! Heresy too!

ok....
this is pure tripe.
first,there is no sign of a debate.
for a debate to happen there has to be two opposing views.
second,while this teacher may have had a "born-again" experience,which is fine,he seems to be more prosyletizing than debating,which is not fine in the realms of a "debate".
i have seen kent hovind debate,his skills are less than extraordinary,and is usually left shackled by his own inept and circular logic by an experienced person of science.think it was dr bennet,but i could be mistaken.
the man built a museum in order to perpetuate his premise that dinosaurs and man lived at the same time.that alone disqualifies him in any rational discussions about creation.
mr hovind claims to be an evangelical,but in actuality he is a fundamentalist.
the written word IS the word of god...period.
to entertain any other theory,premise or reality is to deny his whole belief system.this is the main reason he promotes creationism so fervently.
the fact of the matter is:the bible is the written word of man and anybody who looks deeper into the matter will see that plainly.

so let me throw my two cents here:
first:there are 66 books in the bible (73 if you are catholic),yet there are in actuality 267 books of the bible,all by biblical authors.
why so many books not included in the bible?
nicea council of 325 a.d emperor constantine played a large role in its canonization.understand that before this time christianity looked far different than the christianity you see today,the current christian churches roots started in 325 a.d.
the bible contains the gospels (the good news) of mathew,mark,luke and john.
but there are actually 24 gospels.
*for all you heretics out there i suggest reading the gospels of mary,judas and thomas.you might enjoy the revelations of paul also.all are apocryphal books.
second:understanding that in the time of the biblical writings of the old testament (from the hebrew torah),sacred geomancy,astrology,numerology and a huge dose of superstition,influenced almost all religious texts.they were almost entirely metaphorical.
for example..the book of genesis,which has been written and re-written over and over,is actually a metaphorical representation of the tetragrammaton,which in itself is a graphic representation of creation itself,yet having little,or nothing,to do with religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton
to use the book of genesis,and all its obvious flaws,to explain and argue the validity of biblical creationism,is not only a poor platform,but lacks imagination.
the only reason i can surmise that seemingly intelligent people keep re-visiting this dead horse,is that they believe whole-heartedly in the "word",
and to allow any other belief is tantamount to having to rebuke god.
this is the fundamental flaw in..well...fundamentalism.
when your belief system is so rigid,based in bad science and even worse theology,you are doomed to either break or dismiss all evidence as heresy.
this is dark ages material,and should be rejected,but sadly its not.

one final note...
if the definition of science is:the study and observation of the natural,physical universe through testing and experimentation,to reach a consensus based on theory and fact.
and if you believe there is a creator.
a creator who created the known physical universe.
would it not then make sense that science is actually the study of god?
is that NOT a more poetic,and beautifully harmonious way of looking at the universe?
because to me science reveals creation to be a much more complex,profound and poetic place than the book of genesis.
who wants to be dust and a rib?
booooooring.
now the story of a single-cell organism fighting,scratching and ultimately co-operating with other single-cell organisms to form more complex,and ultimately what we see today.creatures of all unique and incredible forms.
now THATS impressive!
so ends todays sermon..
please dont forget to tip your bartenders and waitresses.
next week!
sink or swim wednesdays!

>> ^jiyanibi:
Basically, but as far as I know genocide hasn't been committed in the name of Wikipedia.



Yet. Give it 1000 years. One group will go to war against the other.

Books will be dust and all human knowledge will be merged into the one digital source and linked digitally to our minds for convenience. Once something is not just 'a site' but knowledge linked into your mind - everyone's knowledge will be the same knowledge. it seem as the ultimate truth...

Any debate about it being incorrect will be saying what 99.99% of people know is wrong.

It will be Heresy!!!

>> ^snoozn:
This was interesting, though confusing. I couldn't tell if he was just arguing against the concept of the Christian God as a trinity, or using this as an argument against Christianity as a whole. I wish he'd explained a little more what exactly the Holy Spirit is supposed to be, but probably his target audience knows more about such things than I do. And why so arrogant? But interesting none-the-less.


From his YouTube page, it looks like this video is just one part of a larger argument against Christianity in its modern form.

This video itself, though, is not an argument against Christianity. At most, it attempts to show that many of the so-called Trinitarian heresies are just as historically and Biblically well-grounded as the doctrine of the Trinity itself.

But it sounded arrogant to you? It sounded more like your average college lecture to me. Which is what you'd expect; the maker of the video is a college professor.

Who writes this shit?

California Assembly Bill HR 36 Relative to Pluto's planetary status

WHEREAS, Recent astronomical discoveries, including Pluto's oblong orbit and the sighting of a slightly larger Kuiper Belt object, have led astronomers to question the planetary status of Pluto; and

WHEREAS, The mean-spirited International Astronomical Union decided on August 24, 2006, to disrespect Pluto by stripping Pluto of its planetary status and reclassifying it as a lowly dwarf planet; and

WHEREAS, Pluto was discovered in 1930 by an American, Clyde Tombaugh, at the Lowell Observatory in Arizona, and this discovery resulted in millions of Californians being taught that Pluto was the ninth planet in the solar system; and

WHEREAS, Pluto, named after the Roman God of the underworld and affectionately sharing the name of California's most famous animated dog, has a special connection to California history and culture; and

WHEREAS, Downgrading Pluto's status will cause psychological harm to some Californians who question their place in the universe and worry about the instability of universal constants; and

WHEREAS, The deletion of Pluto as a planet renders millions of text books, museum displays, and children's refrigerator art projects obsolete, and represents a substantial unfunded mandate that must be paid by dwindling Proposition 98 education funds, thereby harming California's children and widening its budget deficits; and

WHEREAS, The deletion of Pluto as a planet is a hasty, ill-considered scientific heresy similar to questioning the Copernican theory, drawing maps of a round world, and proving the existence of the time and space continuum; and

WHEREAS, The downgrading of Pluto reduces the number of planets available for legislative leaders to hide redistricting legislation and other inconvenient political reform measures; and

WHEREAS, The California Legislature, in the closing days of the 2005-06 session, has been considering few matters important to the future of California, and the status of Pluto takes precedence and is worthy of this body's immediate attention; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California, That the Assembly hereby condemns the International Astronomical Union's decision to strip Pluto of its planetary status for its tremendous impact on the people of California and the state's long term fiscal health; and be it further

Resolved, That the Assembly Clerk shall send a copy of the resolution to the International Astronomical Union and to any Californian who, believing that his or her legislator is addressing the problems that threaten the future of the Golden State, requests a copy of the resolution.