But one must first try. What Alex is trying to get across here is that you don't have to start from your fallback plan and stick to that.

One also has to remember that Alex is second generation immigrant, there is tremendous pressure on that gen as they are the first to have a full set of new opportunities. Unlike many bands, Rush members were not flunking grades, they are pretty intelligent, parents could see them becoming lawyers, doctors etc. Rock and roll as a career was then still new one.

But first you have to try, take risks and if it doesn't work, go to your second plan. If you are a parent, support that first try. Art is what drives mankind forward, it IS the hardest to succeed in it. That is the lesson you need to get across: "most likely, it's not gonna happen so be prepared for plan B". A lot of parents just don't want to see that plan A fail , which is going to happen if you don't let them even try.

And you are right on that number, it's very very close to reality. about 1 in 100 can get a work in music industry as a technician etc. blue collar job. About 1 in 1000 will get work as an artist. But that blue collar work, it's something special.. You learn to be a polymath and fast problem solver, you learn how to organize, how to delegate, how to communicate with anyone, how to get things done with the tools you have available. Technicians that have worked behind the stage are really talented and sought after.. They get things done, period.

regulations benefit mankind? don't let the libertarians/anarchists see this!

@VoodooV

your comment is the definition of circular logic.
ignoring the meat of my commentary to actually repeat what i said,and for what?

i was pointing out your lack of humanity.
i was pointing out that you use the very same tactics of former sifters that got banned because of their:harrassing,belittling and personally derogatory commentary directed at other sifters.

i watched you cry like a little girl and call dag out on multiple occasions when it was done to you.yet you feel it totally acceptable to do it to others you disagree with.

hypocrisy in action and you are totally oblivious to that fact.

other sifters criticize bob and lantern,myself included,for the exact same reasons i posted in my commentary (which you just regurgitated) but i dont see them following them from thread to thread to ridicule,belittle and berate, but YOU do.

i was not defending lantern.i was pointing to your hypocrisy and lack of humanity.
i was pointing to the fact that when YOU were the object of ridicule and harassment,you cried for bannation.

so how come when YOU harass it is somehow some social justice issue?
that your golden-honeyed words are really for the betterment of mankind but when its done to you..well..they are just being big meanies to you.

irony seems to be lost on you.

since your commentary reveals 2 dimensional thinking i can only assume you will take my commentary as somehow being a hateful attack against you.i assure,this is not my intent,nor does my commentary indicate an abstract support of lantern.quite the opposite.lanterns commentary was never my point to begin with friend.

i have offered multiple times for you and i to clear any grudges or disagreements in private.which were always ignored.

so i have said it before,and i will say it again:love your commentary.hate your high horse.

hypocrisy makes my eyeballs itch.
and you ARE a hypocrite voodoo.

@Trancecoach - respectfully leaving this discussion based on the following:

"You are actually going a long way to make my point that those who are "believers" in climate change are missing the value and indeed necessity for ongoing skepticism"

I don't understand how you can say that after i was the person that investigated the source of the first link you gave out. You hadn't even bothered to look into it, so i did, and you can say with a straight face that i'm a "believer" who has lost his scepticism?

You didn't even check completely through the second lot of links you posted, because the one i did check (on YOUR ultimate recommendation) ended up being written by a guy who saw climate change as one of mankind's top 10 problems. You've shown yourself twice now to be using sources that you haven't even fucking looked at, evidenced by a half hour investigation by me! You didn't even put a half hour into it!?

I remain open to evidence that climate change is not a man-made concern, or that it is not a concern. I'm not going to sit here and relay exactly how each of us think the scientific community works. You can read how it works on the scientific method and scientific consensus pages i linked earlier, anyone can. It's not open for debate; there is an overwhelming majority of scientific evidence in favour and there is not enough and not significant enough scientific evidence against. It isn't a coincidence that ~99% of the research points in one direction, and it isn't some conspiracy.... that isn't how science works. It's not perfect, a lot of shit science gets through because it's so hard to read and so relatively few people want to trawl through shite, but that's why it's better to look at the consensus - what is the AVERAGE opinion of ALL the clever people? It's a community that i consider incorruptible - because even if you paid off 10 research centres, there's still millions of individual scientists, individual institutions, so many people dedicated to keeping it pure because we know that's the only way we get the most from it. And ... the science and maths speaks for itself, the models are not "just models" as the moron associated with your latest link says. They are the best representations we have and they do represent parts of physical reality, and by using carefully considered techniques we can extract information about things. The alternative is to consult a Ouija board!?

By the way, nice 240 page pdf document for me to refer to. I didn't ask for a single link, i asked for a single point about which we were in disagreement... usually papers are cited to reinforce a point. You don't just cite something and go "there you go, read all of that, whatever you see that agrees with me; that's what i'm talking about!"

@Trancecoach holding a doctorate doesn't make you capable of understanding the scientific literature. If you held a bachelor's degree in one of the three sciences you'd stand a lot better chance of being able to understand the literature than someone who had a doctorate in say Art History. I would actually refer back to the Dunning Kruger effect and suggest that holding an unrelated qualification might lead you to overestimate your abilities.

And for someone who says that they *are* capable of understanding the scientific literature (and therefore the scientific method and approach), you dismiss "scientific consensus" as not being "scientific evidence". I don't understand what you mean here, but i think that's because you don't understand what scientific proof is.

I think it's a fundamental mistake that you're making. Scientists propose theories. Those theories that most accurately describe the situation and are most rigourously investigated are the ones that are accepted as being the case, and when things are found that are not correct, adjustments are made to the theory or other theories are proposed. There is never ever, ever.... EVER.. absolute evidence of anything in the way in which you request it, and that's your fundamental error, and stems from you not understanding the scientific method.

We have a lot of scientific consensus about gravity, but we do not have "scientific evidence" in the way you describe it. The evidence is ALL of the science that is done, ALL of the experiments ALL of the conclusions, positive and negative, and the consensus of the scientific community is reached and refined based on that research and ongoing research. There is no one document anywhere that constitutes "proof" that gravity is how we think it is. Not even all of the documents do that. They merely indicate to us what is most likely to be happening according to all of the knowledge and ingenuity that we've built up over the years.

I don't appreciate the scatter gun method you've used by posting all those links. You said in your latest post here that people try to confuse the issue by redirecting your request for "evidence" - the type that doesn't exist - towards other issues that you deem contentious. Yet you have almost drowned me in what appears to be about 15 different links to pages that seem to show singular examples of individuals that deny climate change. (Again, there are so many, and so many quotes, and no actual specification of what you are disagreeing with me about, that i can't rightly assess any of them.)

My point here is twofold - 1) don't try to be confusing like you accuse your opponents of, i.e. throwing as many links as possible to extend the argument to other points and 2) if that isn't what you were doing, could you perhaps condense your 15 links and selected quotes into a smaller point; that point being what it is about my previous posts you disagreed with?

Here are my points for you, simplified:
1) Scientific consensus does not mean "THIS IS HOW THINGS ARE" - it means that, on balance, according to everything we know and the opinions of those that are in the know, this is how we think things are until we know better.
2) There is no such thing as "scientific evidence" in the way you use the term; the only absolute proof is the one Descartes spoke about; the only thing you can know for sure is that your consciousness exists.
3) It is very easy to be misled by articles such as the one you linked from "the libertarian republic" website. This is also true of the last link you recommended for my research; you used that book to support your opposition to my assertion that human-caused climate change is not a matter of debate in the scientific community. Yet the same author was involved in the Copenhagen Consensus which lists as 6th most worthy of investigation (for the benefit and future of mankind), i quote; "R&D to Increase Yield Enhancements, to decrease hunger, fight biodiversity destruction, and lessen the effects of climate change"

I think that out of courtesy you should select one link which backs up whatever it is that you wish to refute, because it's not a good use of my time to have to go through each individual link, find out what you disagree with me about, and then spend time looking into it.

So, we disagree on one of the following:
1) The scientific consensus is that human-caused climate change is real, and that consensus represents the best of our current understanding as a species.
2) "Proof" in the sense you use it doesn't exist, the correct term is scientific evidence. The more evidence and the more convincing it is, the more firm the belief in a theory.
3) The article you linked from the libertarian website was unfairly representing its argument in relation to the paper it was referring to.

Please let me know. Remember - nothing is "beyond scepticism" in your words. I am sceptical about everything, including gravity, which i have an incredible amount of evidence for. However i am still sceptical about our understanding of it - i am always looking for differences. That doesn't mean that our understanding isn't the best one we have, and we should use it for our own advantage and safety.

I also note that you seem loathe to have a proper discussion with me. Our discussion could have been either about the scientific method or about the article you linked, but to throw all these links at me makes me feel you're unwilling or incapable of challenging your own opinion based on evidence. You don't even refer to the assessments of the article that i offered; you immediately discarded the article from your argument and linked me to other people that may or may not be misrepresenting the argument.

Mankind had way more fight in him after getting thrown through that table than Brazil ever did.

True dat, and as far as audience's facial responses go, typically German from any region, over-scrutinizing, province and war-remorse-oriented, otherwise, the YT gab from Germans speaks tomes to the same overall sentiments from native speaking Germano-types still caught-up in their own particular brand of dysfunction......buncha tight-assed Vaterland-style motherfuckers kinna pissed that The U.S. bothered' em while they were shitting on the planet typea-volk.

Sandra shines as always, self-effacing giggles when she knows she might be a bit off regionally, and having to look at douchebags in the audience with corn-cobs embedded permanently in their assess and still remaining as sweet and as charming as ever. Much love Sandra, keepin' it real.


NOW. Dicks and pussies climb up my ass with the racism card, and suck you your own assess. Got a fuckload of German in my blood, as well as (insert here, most races, creeds, or colors, though quite possibly no Chinese, all hail mankind's supreme overlords).

Hi voodooV..sorry it took me so long to reply.

you're committing another logical fallacy here. Argument from ignorance. just because you can't think of any other reason for morality doesn't prove god did it.

The fallacy you mentioned doesn't apply. The argument isn't for Gods existence, the argument is that atheism is incoherent because it has no foundation for morality, among other reasons. Ravi asked the question, without God what are the Ontic referrants for reality?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontic

To answer your question though. Survival...pure survival is pretty much the foundation of morality. what behavior ensures a long, prosperous and happy life? That's your morality right there. And it's all based on logic and reason, not an imaginary god.

is it better to be a dick to someone or is it better to work with other people. hrm...which ensures a higher probability of success in your endeavors.

is better in the long run to help or to hurt. Which ensures a greater likelyhood that people will be willing to help YOU out when you need it.

virtually everything that we consider moral today is the evolution (gasp) of instinctual rules we've learned over the millions (not thousands) of years that ensure a longer, happier life.

What you're talking about is pragmatism, which is to say that if it works then it is the best way to do things. Yet plenty of people have led long, prosperous and happy lives by exploiting other people for their gain. That's what works for them, so why shouldn't I emulate that standard of behavior instead of being self-sacrificing? Some of the most successful people who have ever lived got there by being terrible human beings. Basically, your standard of survival isn't about what is right, but what is right for me and that is entirely arbitrary. It also is an incoherent standard for morality.

Which is why only two of your commandments still hold up as secular laws.

I forget where I learned this but even biblical morality can be traced back to rules that made sense, at the time, that ensured survival. I think it has been shown that many of the biblical rules involving not eating certain foods can be traced back to diseases or some other logical reason, but hey, we didn't have an understanding of these pesky little things called bacteria and microorganisms back then so when you ate a certain food and died, that wasn't science, it was your imaginary sky god who was angry with you.

What's really interesting about that is that Moses was educated as an Egyptian prince, which was the most advanced country in the world at the time. He would have certainly been exposed to their medical knowledge, but you won't find a shred of that in the bible. The Egyptians were doing things like applying dung to peoples wounds, whereas the Laws of Moses detailed procedures for disease control, like hand washing and quarantine procedures, as well as public sanitation, and dietary laws which prevented the spread of parasites. They were thousands of years ahead of their time; we only started washing our hands to control disease in the past 200 years.

Even your fear and hatred of homosexuality and abortion can be easily explained by survival. When your village only numbered in the hundreds or maybe thousands and simple diseases and winters wiped out LOTS of people, discouraging homosexuality and abortion is actually a pretty good idea when the survival of your species is at stake. But when you've got advanced medicine and we've got the whole food and shelter thing dealt with and our population is now 7 billion. the whole "be fruitful and multiply" thing just isn't necessary anymore. In fact, it's becoming a problem. and Once again, survival will dictate our morality. If we do nothing to combat overpopulation and resources become an issue, I guarantee you that large families will eventually have a negative stigma attached to them until the situation is resolved.

You're talking to a former agnostic who once approved of homosexuality and abortion. I am not afraid of it, and I don't hate the people doing it. This is a clash of presuppositions; if there isn't a God then I couldn't give you an absolute reason why people cannot have homosexual relationships or murder their unborn children. If we're all just glorified apes contending for limited resources, then in that paradigm it may be necessary to cull the herd. I think the appropriate response though to someone contending we should eliminate vast swaths of the human populace to save the planet is, "you first".

But God is in control and this is His planet, and since He is still creating human beings, He will provide the resources to take care of them. It's the iniquity of mankind which is limiting the resources when the truth is that we have way more than enough to take care of everyone. Take for example the fact that over 30 thousand people starve to death every day. Is that because we don't have enough food? Actually, we have more than enough food yet we waste about 1/3 of the world food supply every year. The gross world product in 2012 was over 84 trillion dollars, more than enough to feed, clothe, house and vaccinate every single person on the planet. Those people die not because there isn't enough, but because the wickedness of man.

Don't ask me though, ask an anthropologist or sociologist. They've been studying this stuff for decades. I'm sure you could even find an anthropologist/sociologist that believes in god and they'd still say the same thing. our understanding of reality changes....as does morality. no one takes seriously the old biblical rules about stoning unruly kids, working the sabbath, and wearing clothing of two types of fabric anymore. So why should we listen other outdated biblical rules that don't apply anymore. As countless others of sifters have already informed you, you have the burden of proof and you haven't met it yet.

Call me when someone discovers a disease or some other problem that arises when you mix two fabrics and we'll revisit those rules k?

God has three kinds of laws, moral civil and cermonial. The rules you're referring to were civil and ceremonial laws for Israel and not for the rest of the world. They have no application today because they were connected to the Old Covenant God had with Israel. God has a New Covenant with the whole world that doesn't include those laws. The moral laws of God do not change with time, or ever. And although we fancy ourselves as more enlightened today, the reality of the world we live in tells us that human nature hasn't changed one bit. Human nature is every bit as ugly and self serving as it always has been. If you peel back the thin veneer of civility you will find a boiling pot of iniquity.

Stop committing basic logical fallacies and you might learn this stuff for yourself You haven't ever said anything that isn't easily invalidated by a simple logical fallacy or hasn't already been debunked long ago.

It's easy to speak in generalities; if I have committed a logical fallacy, then specifically point it out. The one that you detailed earlier did not apply.

Do you watch the Atheist Experience videos Shiny? because every time I watch one of the videos and listened to the same old tired theist "arguments" over and over again. I'm always reminded of you because you just aren't saying anything new. If you're serious about understanding why your ideas just don't pan out and you're not just trolling, you should seriously watch those.

I've watched the show, and again, I was a lifelong agnostic before becoming a Christian. I was pretty far left and would have probably fit in well with the lot of you not too many years ago. So, this is all to say that I understand where you're coming from and why you think and believe the way you do, because I used to think and believe in the same ways. Your mindset isn't a mystery to me. What I've learned about it is that God has to reveal Himself to a person before they will know anything about Him. Everyone gets some revelation and it is up to them to follow it. I received the revelation that there is a God and I pursued that for many years until He revealed Himself to me through His Son Jesus Christ. He has revealed Himself to you and everyone else on this website in some form or fashion. You would be shocked to hear some of the revelation people have received and turned away from, or rationalized away later. Statistics show that 10 percent of self professing atheists pray, and that is because they are unable to within themselves completely deny the revelation that they have received. I guarantee you there are atheists on this board who wrestle with all of this but since it isn't something atheists talk about (or would admit to publicly) you would never know it, that you're all keeping a lid on the truth.

And yet here you are a demand homosexuals to keep their sexuality a secret, keep it away from the public eye because it upsets you with your faith.
Nobody makes you go kiss a boy (assuming you're male yourself here) but nobody stops you from holding your girlfriends hand in public either. Nobody tells you you can't get married in the legal sense because you're straight and no kid gets bullied in school because they're into the other gender.
You talk about beliefs and lifestyles and in that you disrespect gay people, force your belief onto them. It's not a lifestyle, it is who they are, at the very core of their existence, like being straight is not a lifestyle for you. Your refusal to acknowledge this is nothing but deminishing their very identity.
If homosexuality was a lifestyle, so would be heterosexuality. Lifestyles are not natural attributes given by the gods, lifestyle is choice. Do us a favour, choose neither of them, become asexual. It's the best proof, the Pope will agree.

In the end you won't be able to let go of this because christianity has always been obsessed with sexuality, especially that of other people. So eager to control masturbationary habits (Don't be Onan, fight the urge!), women's sexual freedom (Contraception is for whores!) and the queer (Worse abominations than seafood!) and therefore blind to see that this nonsense crusade against everybodys desires drives the masses away from their oh-so-important message of salvation. That's why you loose the fight, mankind is becoming more tolerant and we refuse to beat down the minorities for you any longer.
You can't have it both ways, you can't preach god is love and then hand us a list of people we're supposed to hate and expect us to nod in silent obedience. Times have changed, the minorities get more and more allies.
Honestly, that's what I admire about the Westboro Baptist Church, they're idiotic haters but at least they're consistent with their ideologies and brave enough to stand up for them.

Your video, PBS SELLS OUT - A SAD DAY FOR MANKIND, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

See, this is a good example why I wouldn't consider myself an atheist. Just like the religious folk out there insist they know that god exists atheist insist that there can't be one.
The only thing we know as a fact is that many, if not all, the things people think they know about gods and the bigger questions of philosophy are wrong.
Atheism is, like it or not, a belief. Sure, it's guided by scientific fact and therefore much more acurate than most religions (yup, went there, called atheism a religion) but certain concepts (like the idea of divine creators) haven't been proven wrong so far. Maybe some day we will but the important part is this: we haven't yet. I don't even think we ever will. Somehow many people considering themselves atheist seem to think that since we have proven most religious texts to be false and/or unreliable is a proof of the nonexistence of any god. It is certainly not. We proved the bible to be wrong, that's all.
Personally I don't belief in any gods either. Heck, I even reject the concept of "souls". IMO were just happen to be self-aware machines of biological technology (for a lack of a better word) that are here because of whogivesafuckIdontknow. I am probably best characterised as an apatheist. Asking yourself and arguing about the question of any gods existence or possible life after death or even if we have a soul is pointless. At this point there is no answer that can be scientifically proven in sight. Why even bother asking? If the answer to such pressing questions (cause you have at best only 120 years until you die) is out there, it'll find us on it's own. We'll stumble over it if it's necessary.
I certainly support the fight against religious ignorance that has plagued mankind so far (and won't stop any time soon) but I just can't get past the irony of people who know to trust science (science is nothing you can believe in, just like math you accept it's as true or live as the fool who thinks 2+2=4 is a dirty lie) but still think they know answers to questions science can't answer yet.
I don't believe in a white, old, bearded dude living in the clouds watching me masturbate but I'm also not foolish enough to think I know more than the scientists of the world do. Somehow many atheist seem to be that kind of fool.
Let us just appreciate the fact that Pat Robertson of all people embraces the truth of evolution. Who cares if he thinks God is responsible? I doesn't matter. We can't prove him wrong. What matters is that he is siding with the smart people in this debate.

"Over time, we're going to see what works and what doesn't and things will generally settle down"
Illusion and fantasy...total confabulation.

A government is a simple creation really, it uses force to achieve the end goal which is control, not unlike a rapist or a thief-The antithesis of liberty in the example of say, the American government works because force is used by an immoral core of liars and thieves to achieve goals that benefit the few rather than the whole of society. Examples of just how fucked things are at face value VooDooV, why bother to cite the examples that are glaringly obvious to anyone who at their core, is a moral and free individual...pointless and insulting to anyone who can think.

Mind you, infrastructure and social safety nets enhance freedom, but what should the end-goal be? To enhance the moral framework of a society, which has surely not been done so far with the American form of government, on the contrary, we see the fabric of what makes a society prosper and maintain a fairness for all being eroded to serve the interests of a few, through force and control...through civil liberties being chipped-away at through surveillance and more prisons, more laws, more fines and punishments for more people, etc. Deficit spending pays debt forward to further enslave the recipients of services like roads and social welfare programs, higher education, etc. The freedom to make poor choices at a micro and macro level is what the current government is all about, getting worse every year.

Urban sprawl will continue as folks with pipe-dreams tout more green, less energy usage, cleaner burning cars and factories, etc. One 'problem' is addressed by creating one for another somewhere else.

Ever listen to Buckminster Fuller's idea of a 'green' or 'energy efficient society'? It doesn't use ANY of the current models of societal structure, it pretty much SCRAPS them all for a trans-formative way of moving forward. The old models are shit if they accomplish them through force and control of human activity. YOU don't live in a democratic system, in case you have been asleep for your entire life, democracy is only a fucking word, a concept not unlike any 'ism' created by humans in the past 3000-7000 years.

The financial structure of the United States is inherently evil. It can not be made fair and moral for everyone, it wasn't designed to. It is designed to serve the few at the top, with enforcers and regulators at the bottom-tier of their system. The government is NOT inherently evil but it has been hijacked by cunts.

Just because you think you know how politicians should perform, does not make it happen that way. Sane health care system? Nope. Maybe for the privileged classes-What they hand the masses is complete shit. National debt? Foreign policy? How would YOU do it? Then that's probably saner than the way it's being run, innit? Government is not needed for ANY of these aspects of a civil and moral society to function. All it takes is moral and sane judgement and agreement at solutions and for folks to voluntarily subscribe to these actions, without force, without police, without armies, etc.

Many more examples too many to pontificate upon, many variables of systems, all of which could function to afford everyone freedom and liberty, WITHOUT a government. The government is a construct just like everything else man creates-It takes willing humans to make them either function efficiently, or to scrap them for something new and improved.

I'm no libertarian, no anarchist, just a practical human being.
There are more reasons for scrapping the world system of government than there are for maintaining them, you simply refuse to see any other way THAN systems of government.

Mankind can self-govern if it does so with a formidable and sound moral compass...Is mankind doing that? It can also make the entire planet it's playground if it chooses to do so...Is mankind doing this??
FUCK NO!

Again SD, I concur and appreciate your input and correct observation of my offhanded statements and I still hold Japan as a nation, responsible for their own cultural dysfunction.

The UN can suck a cock, and I appreciate sincerely your admonition of my obvious limitations. I must say here as well to newtboy, that you mistakenly assume rage when quite the contrary energized the fits you appropriately identified. If I am mad at all, it is only because of my diversion of staring into the mirror of souls at length, only to see all of mankind as equals.

The United Nations is a complete and utter piece of shit SD and it saddens to see the world as a lackey to their ruse. Perhaps give more of a fuck about the world you inhabit to evoke that illusory institution and racism in the same sentence?

I also consider paper currencies and television as tools of control, slavery, and as many vile things in the hands of children as you can imagine.

Unfortunately for mankind, the past few generations and the current one are being groomed as complete dysfunctional morons so there's a very slim chance that anything will stop the process of creating a Codex Alimentarius the likes of which will put evil men in control of what goes into all mankind's bodies.

It's by design to make all humanity into an unthinking, automatomatious slave-class with no will or mind of their own until the planet has been thoroughly and completely controlled.

Denial is the most predictable of all human responses. But, rest assured, this will be the one-hundred and sixty-sixth time we have destroyed it, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it.

Hmmm... for some reason I get the idea that a couple of monkeys think I may be a creationist. Perhaps in the sense that we all as humans create the conundrums we mentate over for our own suffering, I tend not to place much credence in mankind's appearance as accepted by the backwater representatives of the western Christian mythos, more of a starseed type m'sself-That we are made in the image of 'God' is a no-brainer-What IS God small or big G to anyone is up for argument and refinement-Most of you atheists and natural-law SOTF Darwinians would be surprised to find that if you took the giant log out of your asses and placed it in a blast furnace, that the rarefied gold to be found at the heart of your own delusions would be enough to sustain the species indefinitely into the future.