>> ^bareboards2:

It sounds good to me. I hope this isn't a joke.


Nope, it's real.

It sounds good to me. I hope this isn't a joke.

Excellent, and the timing is pretty good, got me laughing. Although I STILL don't see my favorite - In the WWII epic "A Bridge Too Far", at the end Sean Connery says "Well, as you know I've always thought that we tried to go a bridge too far..."

Also, what about Pluto Nash? (then again, what ABOUT Pluto Nash?)

>> ^Issykitty:

How about more like 7pm? I can't get there that early. Workin'
>> ^dag:
I had a look at all the menus, and BJ's sounds good to me. Shall we say 4PM on Saturday?



You work on CATurdays? You're a cat!!

How about more like 7pm? I can't get there that early. Workin'

>> ^dag:

I had a look at all the menus, and BJ's sounds good to me. Shall we say 4PM on Saturday?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I had a look at all the menus, and BJ's sounds good to me. Shall we say 4PM on Saturday?

Mine was http://videosift.com/video/Lifes-been-good-to-me prophetic really. :]

You're to good to me. Thanks!

In reply to this comment by Zifnab:
Weird Al always deserves *quality!

@rottenseed, so is it any good? Let me know if I should watch it.

I used to hold the idea that religion is control by way of fear for a long time but I don't anymore. The thing is that, it wasn't until monotheistic religions came on the scene that the fear and guilt aspect of religion showed up. Before the monotheistic religions, most beliefs didn't even have an afterlife that anyone could obtain.

For the better part of human history, the gods were arbiters of earthly events that we found to be larger than ourselves. The ocean was seen as a god, the sky was seen as a god. It's only been in the last 1700 years that fear and guilt have been used as control mechanisms.

I know we've talked about this before but why shouldn't you judge people for the path that they're on. Surely if it were something extreme like murder or rape, you would judge them regarding that path, why should judgement be limited to only extreme examples?

I contend that if you really care about having as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as you possibly can, you'll be weary of subjectivity and subject every bit of information that you believe to be true or that might be new to you with the rigors of extreme objective scrutiny. Why would you want to believe something that you can objectively verify that isn't true.

Here's the think about your paragraph on faith. It isn't arrogance if you are correct. Truth can be found objectively and objectively discovered truth is the only kind that matters. The first question that should come from discovering something subjectively is "how do I know that I'm not delusional?", or "How do I know that I can trust my senses?" Faith can be derived from subjective beliefs, and to me, because of that fact, I see faith as the most self-centered and egotistical thought process in existence. It favors the methods of the individual as being more potent in discovering truth than the rigors of objective verification. It makes the statement "I am important and trust worthy enough to make conclusions based on my limited perception of reality and therefore my conclusion is equally valid to contending views."

The nature of intellectual debates where two people hold two opposing ideas is that one person is correct while the other is incorrect, or they are both incorrect. Isn't it more important to present all of your ideas with other person in order to discover what is correct, or to at least discover that neither are correct?

To be honest, I find that the kind people who think that proclaiming truth is the height of arrogance, don't actually know what it means for something to be objectively true. I find that those people have a wishy-washy outlook on belief in the way that everyone beliefs are equally valid. The creedo being "I have beliefs that are good for me and you have beliefs that are good for you therefore we are equal". I find that kind of view childish in the way that it seems like it's trying to be overly equally. Some beliefs are true, some beliefs are false, and some beliefs are not true (being that they are misinformed or something similar).

If someone believes that 2+2=5, is it arrogance to tell them that they're belief is false?

In reply to this comment by enoch:
religion is control by way of fear.
they pretend to be the gatekeepers and the ONLY people with the key to get through.
this is utter bullshit (try telling a fundamentalist that though....oh wait).
to me evolution and natural selection are more in line with my understanding of a creator than say:adam and eve,gilgamesh or mithra.

my understanding of a creator and my connection to that creator also allows me..in fact compels me..to stick to my own understanding and not judge others the path they are on.(be that christian fundamentalist or atheist).
my path is my own.my understanding is my own as are my conclusions.
i have the humility to understand i do not know everything,far from it and that my existence is about my own experiences and understandings.
and to have the flexibility according to these understandings that they may..at any time..change due to my subjective reality.
so any new information i receive is added and creates a new paradigm.

as for faith.
well..i cant help you there to further your understanding.that is a personal road and any attempt i do make concerning that will only be regarded with your understanding and most likely misunderstood.
so i dont even try.
why would i? to do so would be the height of hubris and arrogance and i would become just like the preachy fundamentalist.
/shivers...no thank you.
i prefer human interaction laced with mutual respect and a full understanding that i may,possibly..be wrong.

anyways.
always great chatting with you about this subject.
it is still one of my faves.
be well brother.

Ok, I will. Promote this

In reply to this comment by legacy0100:
lol dorky but good. Remind me to promote this.

lol dorky but good. Remind me to promote this.

Looks pretty good to me.

I was never the one who had to draw all the time, and although I do go through phases of drawing more, I'd have to say no. I think I prefer the theory to the actual practice!

As for people painting the Sistine Chapel on phones, well some people manage to get good results even from Microsoft Paint, or the humble Etch-a-sketch... that would be people with far too much time on their hands if you ask me!

I did see a video of someone doing a really cool piece on an ipad, and now I wish I'd kept the link to sift (although it might be here already).In reply to this comment by taranimator:
Digital finger painting is strangely both more liberating and more restrictive. I'm still messing about with about 5 different apps trying to find one I could call 'user friendly'. On my home computer I have a lovely Cintiq -- you can see the image and draw on it with a stylus. I quite dig that. On my phone and my Ipad I can draw with my finger or a stylus. The finger painting is more awkward in some ways but to get the ipad/pod to pick up the motions of the stylus you have to press really hard! It's a bit weird. There's no real touch-sensitivity like on the Cintiq -- various apps try to simulate the look of it with tapering and speed = line width contols. So far not so good for me. But OTHER people are painting the freaking Sistine Chapel on their phones.. so the problem is probably not the tools but the user, ahem - me!
Still, I persevere! I swear, had I never seen the beautiful artwork people make on their phones, I never would have considered it possible. But I am intrigued.. and it IS fast! I can then upload those sketches to polish in a proper graphic program or just enjoy their speed-painting loosensess.
Are you a doodler?