He's referring to "manmade" global warming, which is socialist BS theory.

Either the truth is available to you or it isn't. If you go all the way to death without ever finding it, it either suggests there is no truth, it doesn't matter..or, the third option that most "educated" people cannot accept..that they missed it...or even..that they rejected it. Jesus told us that He is that truth, the one that gives forgiveness for sins and grants eternal life. If He is real then anyone has access to the truth at any time, no matter who or where they are.

God says the reason people reject Him is because they don't want to be personally accountable to Him. Well, that's what atheists like Hitchens have said all along. They don't agree with a higher power having an authority over them; the very idea is offensive to them. Yes, I know atheists aren't supposed to technically believe in God, but strangely they seem to hate Him all the same. In any case, this rebellion could only ever be short lived. The party is over when the check is due.

I'm not nagging, I am just providing some perspective on this message..which goes something like

"Don't worry everyone! You're gonna die forever, it's gonna be okay!"

He is going to rail against God to the bitter end. I just feel sorry for his brother who has to watch this knowing what he does.

>> ^Gallowflak:
>> ^shinyblurry:
this is the damned speaking to the damned..find hope in no hope! when his spirit leaves his body he is going to be utterly fucking terrified

If his spirit leaves his body, I'm sure he'll be overjoyed at the prospect of continuing his existence. He just doesn't think it will.
It isn't enough that something might be nice if it were true. Not for him, not for me, not for any decent individual with a modicum of moral or emotional courage. It's about the truth; our quest to discover it, to determine it, and establish a method that can overcome our inherent bias and approach rational objectivity.
I say that, if there is an aspect of divinity to the universe, either present within it or responsible for producing it, it would be impossible to connect with it via any of our manmade religious texts. I do not entirely reject the possibility of a god, but I do entirely reject the idea that the Bible, for example, contains any more metaphysical truth than the Vedas.
Stop nagging, dude.

>> ^shinyblurry:

this is the damned speaking to the damned..find hope in no hope! when his spirit leaves his body he is going to be utterly fucking terrified


If his spirit leaves his body, I'm sure he'll be overjoyed at the prospect of continuing his existence. He just doesn't think it will.

It isn't enough that something might be nice if it were true. Not for him, not for me, not for any decent individual with a modicum of moral or emotional courage. It's about the truth; our quest to discover it, to determine it, and establish a method that can overcome our inherent bias and approach rational objectivity.

I say that, if there is an aspect of divinity to the universe, either present within it or responsible for producing it, it would be impossible to connect with it via any of our manmade religious texts. I do not entirely reject the possibility of a god, but I do entirely reject the idea that the Bible, for example, contains any more metaphysical truth than the Vedas.

Stop nagging, dude.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^spoco2:
Awesome stuff.
I hate with a passion those who espouse not giving their kids vaccinations, especially those who do so based on here-say or what a 'friend told them' without ever looking into it.
Vaccines keep us safe, they have eradicated many diseases that would otherwise be killing us by the thousands or millions.
So while it's good to keep a sceptical eye on things at all times stopping things like vaccines without having any fricken idea why you are other than some uninformed dicks told you it was dangerous is just horrendous.
It's the same people who take homoeopathic medicines instead of actually doing anything to get cured of life threatening illnesses.

Eradicated diseases? No, the vaccines have suppressed many diseases, but have not eradicated them. If vaccines "Utterly destroyed" the maladies then the vaccines would no longer be needed and you would be advocating their uselessness.
The diseases are still around, and will continue to be around. Vaccines, no matter how good, will always be weaker than nature's wrath.
I blame this on the community of health and science for one reason. Autism is spiking, as are so many other diseases, and the answer to the question of why is pretty much an "I don't know the answer. But I will fail to give a possible answer that is believable, and additionally I will sell our opinion without any fanfare or exictement at all. It will be like a box of shit, but then, we don't know if it is manmade shit or not, but enjoy the shit nevertheless."
Also, if someone doesn't have the answers, people will temporarily fill in the blanks for them. It is our nature, it has been the way of man for 30 thousand years. It is how science advances (Temporary thoughts or theories.) Even the smartest, liberal minds do this everyday... So you cannot really hate people who guessed vaccines were bad.
You can however hate them now that the evidence contradicts their guesses.

The way of science isn't to fill in the blanks with wild speculation. Ok, every hypothesis starts with a guess, but the blank isn't truly filled in until its been tested. Your right though, humanities curious nature seems to be born out of a fundamental fear of the unknown, and we'll make up any fairy tale to help us sleep. I honestly wish we could embrace our ignorance without shame, after all, ignorance is really only damaging when you delude yourself into thinking you know the answers you don't. Do I hate the people that jumped to the wrong conclusion, not really, but I can't say I think much of the people who propogated the lie.

Small pox is gone. So yes, eradication is possible given persistence and commitment.

Weaker than natures wrath? That is some mighty fine grandstanding there, going for the nomination of best dramatic comment . Frankly, medicine and food are the two most important areas science has advanced. For instance, mortality rates for mothers giving birth is less than 1%, down from nearly 10% so many years ago. And this malevolent force of nature to which you refer hasn't struck every first born yet.


I agree with the jist of your comment mostly, though. If my child just got diagnosed with autism, I would be looking for answers, and vaccines would seem to be a smart place to look, strange men in lab coats poking children with needles is an easy target.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^spoco2:
Awesome stuff.
I hate with a passion those who espouse not giving their kids vaccinations, especially those who do so based on here-say or what a 'friend told them' without ever looking into it.
Vaccines keep us safe, they have eradicated many diseases that would otherwise be killing us by the thousands or millions.
So while it's good to keep a sceptical eye on things at all times stopping things like vaccines without having any fricken idea why you are other than some uninformed dicks told you it was dangerous is just horrendous.
It's the same people who take homoeopathic medicines instead of actually doing anything to get cured of life threatening illnesses.

Eradicated diseases? No, the vaccines have suppressed many diseases, but have not eradicated them. If vaccines "Utterly destroyed" the maladies then the vaccines would no longer be needed and you would be advocating their uselessness.
The diseases are still around, and will continue to be around. Vaccines, no matter how good, will always be weaker than nature's wrath.
I blame this on the community of health and science for one reason. Autism is spiking, as are so many other diseases, and the answer to the question of why is pretty much an "I don't know the answer. But I will fail to give a possible answer that is believable, and additionally I will sell our opinion without any fanfare or exictement at all. It will be like a box of shit, but then, we don't know if it is manmade shit or not, but enjoy the shit nevertheless."
Also, if someone doesn't have the answers, people will temporarily fill in the blanks for them. It is our nature, it has been the way of man for 30 thousand years. It is how science advances (Temporary thoughts or theories.) Even the smartest, liberal minds do this everyday... So you cannot really hate people who guessed vaccines were bad.
You can however hate them now that the evidence contradicts their guesses.

>> ^spoco2:
Awesome stuff.
I hate with a passion those who espouse not giving their kids vaccinations, especially those who do so based on here-say or what a 'friend told them' without ever looking into it.
Vaccines keep us safe, they have eradicated many diseases that would otherwise be killing us by the thousands or millions.
So while it's good to keep a sceptical eye on things at all times stopping things like vaccines without having any fricken idea why you are other than some uninformed dicks told you it was dangerous is just horrendous.
It's the same people who take homoeopathic medicines instead of actually doing anything to get cured of life threatening illnesses.


Eradicated diseases? No, the vaccines have suppressed many diseases, but have not eradicated them. If vaccines "Utterly destroyed" the maladies then the vaccines would no longer be needed and you would be advocating their uselessness.

The diseases are still around, and will continue to be around. Vaccines, no matter how good, will always be weaker than nature's wrath.

I blame this on the community of health and science for one reason. Autism is spiking, as are so many other diseases, and the answer to the question of why is pretty much an "I don't know the answer. But I will fail to give a possible answer that is believable, and additionally I will sell our opinion without any fanfare or exictement at all. It will be like a box of shit, but then, we don't know if it is manmade shit or not, but enjoy the shit nevertheless."

Also, if someone doesn't have the answers, people will temporarily fill in the blanks for them. It is our nature, it has been the way of man for 30 thousand years. It is how science advances (Temporary thoughts or theories.) Even the smartest, liberal minds do this everyday... So you cannot really hate people who guessed vaccines were bad.

You can however hate them now that the evidence contradicts their guesses.

Hi again, I know its been some time, but I've been really busy with my real-life stuff lately, but I wanted to give a reply to your last reply. Since your post was somewhat longish, I've extracted some quotes, but keep in mind I have read and considered your entire text.

"You seem to blame religion for people's tendencies to want simple answers and to blindly follow authority, but I blame human nature for that."

Well, let me put it this way: I blame human nature for the existence of religion

"I think you'd see a lot more of the positive things that religion can bring to both individuals and society(...) If believing in something supernatural helps people take that message to heart, I'm not convinced it is such a bad thing."
Does religion really "bring" the good stuff, tho? Thats what I'm questioning, really. God would have to have been pretty darn sadistic to make more than one religion, so i think we can agree that atleast all except one religion is manmade. It is the thinking apes first and (in my opinion) worst attempt at understanding, and putting in order, the world around them. Morality is also a human construct, so is science, so is money, so is reason, community, logic, laws, politics etc. Its all man-made, and theres nothing wrong with man-made constructs, or, at least, there doesnt have to be. One of the problems of religion tho, is that it acts like a parasite on all these other constructs and concepts, and you seem eager to give it as much credit as possible whenever something goes right, and exempt it from any blame whenever something goes wrong. Take its affiliation with politics, for instance, and compare it to philosophy. How many advances in politics have been made because of religion, how often has religion been the deciding factor for GOOD whenever there is a shift in the moral zeitgeist.

No, the vast majority religious people are not blind dogmatists, but thats hardly anything religion should get credit for, is it? It's not the ayatollahs or the priests or the bibles or the qurans that are pushing to make people think for themselves, is it? Why should it? after all, religion is born out of revelation and dogma, and it depends on FAITH for it's survival. Its very existence depends on its followers ability to restrain their use of critical thinking.

The fact that religion can make otherwise extremely smart people believe claims that are indistinguishable to fairytales is yet another example of how religion manages to make exceptions for itself, by making it acceptible behaviour to brainwash children and excluding itself from rational discourse. It then goes on to hijack morality, compassion and love to claim as its own, while accepting no blame for the countless times it has done nothing but making a mockery out of all such concepts.

The truth is that we can do fine without religion. in fact, strike that, we can do better without religion, and history is a testament to this fact. Religion has proved to be an utterly unreliable source for knowledge about everything:

Creationists are mad to take its claims about nature and history seriously
Literalists are mad to take its claims about morality and law seriously
Conservatives are mad to take its claims about sexuality and abortion seriously
Moderates are mad to cherrypick and distort its claims about nature, history,morality,law,sexuality and abortion, And I would be mad to take them seriously

Whether the change is voluntary or not doesn't affect the argument of whether religion can be a useful tool in helping us find happiness in our lives, so I fail to see the relevance.
Nor did I draw that conclusion from that argument. My point was that religion has been on a constant retreat in the battle against science and reason over truth claims about the world. Every battle has been fought with the intention of winning ground, and every battle has been lost by religion. "God" has been relegated back to more and more diffuse gaps in our knowledge. Later in my post I argue that the same is true for the moral wisdom contained in religion, it ought to be subject to the same beating as religions claims about the natural world has been, because I cant see religion excel in any area of moral wisdom.

Next, dismissing entire religions because of the actions of a few individuals is just illogical

Oh not this shit again. Nowhere in my post did I say so, and you know it. If you are referring to the comment about the Catholic child-rape, you fail to see my point completely. YOU claimed, and keep claiming, that religion is, or can be, a useful guide to leading a moral life, finding happiness and so on. Well, if what you say is true, institutions like the Catholic church ought to be beacons of light for the rest of us. Countries ruled by the likes of Taliban and the top clerics in Iran ought to be countries with the best possible human rights records, because after all, the laws they govern by are taken directly from the sources of wisdom themselves, our cherished holy books. Show me a society that has positively benefitted from adopting a more, not less, religious stance, and your claim might have some merit.

My point about bringing up the disgusting actions of the current leadership of the catholic church, is that obviously, religion hasn't helped at all. Perhaps it didn't make things worse either in this case, but we have to remember that its not ME who claims the catholic church is to be seen as a source of profound wisdom and morality, nor do I think adhering to catholic doctrine will help you make better moral decisions. it is the church itself who make these claims, and you, by saying things like "religion can be a useful tool in helping us find happiness in our lives"

Finally, you dismiss religious work because they were written by our ancestors.

Wrong again. I didn't dismiss it because it was written by our ancestors, I dismissed it because it quite obviously doesn't live up to the reputation you are trying to give it. But if it was truly, say, inspired by an eternal , real god, it really ought to live up to at least some degree. So when it doesn't... Why? Because it was manmade. made by people with flaws like you and me, and even worse, it was made thousands of years ago, by people who knew so little about the world they lived in. In a time where the world map was probably the size of maybe Israel and Egypt combined. And considering the circumstances they lived in, I dont blame them for being less then perfect, and much of what they wrote is certainly interesting, and stories like Genesis are fascinating insights into their minds and how they thought about the world. But as far as shedding light on the actual origin of our universe, it is as useless as Deuteronomy is in moral guidance.

And no, you shouldn't dismiss the constitution because it was written in the past, you should judge it like anything else on its actual contents and its track record.

>> ^volumptuous:

important
And seriously, how much mental gymnastics does one need to do in order to believe that manmade pollution doesn't destroy this planet?


Well, in this case, it doesn't take much as BP is taking an active role in directly destroying it instead of just passively! In a way, it's pure innovation, way to go BP! (dies a little inside, but in the name of comedy!)

*important

And seriously, how much mental gymnastics does one need to do in order to believe that manmade pollution doesn't destroy this planet?

@gwiz665, I understand you have a problem with "inalienable" or "natural" rights because people tend to think they come from a god, but god didn't always mean exclusively a personal god. Read the God Delusion, Dawkins writes about how god meant what creates you, whether that be something thought to be personal or natural. Einstein talked of a natural god being the creator of the universe, and he certainly wasn't talking about a man with a white beard!

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

I understand that men and manmade constructs like government may want to take natural rights away, but they're a part of you and no man or manmade construct should take them away: your right to life, speech, beliefs, expression, self-preservation, etc.

Found some info!

Looks like it was the Pantai Remis landslide. You can see the new "manmade" cove in Google Maps.

>> ^Lodurr:
There are lots of unique examples of altruism in nature, but not every animal or living thing displays altruism. The only ones that display altruism do so because it benefits the species in the long run. Just because altruism can exist without manmade laws doesn't mean it always does.
If you took a step farther back, you would see that religion and laws are a part of nature in the sense that they're a part of culture, and we require culture to survive. Of course that's very different than saying any of the religions are right.
It's more strange to suggest that religion was unnecessary for our survival. If it wasn't necessary, it would not have existed (and persisted). Whether it's necessary for our future survival is another topic. It's not yet as vestigial as our tailbones, and in any case, it needs to shrink naturally just as our tailbones did while we adapt to its absence.


Just because something is beneficial doesn't mean it will develop in every species. Adding gills to humans would certainly benefit us, for example. Not having gills wasn't enough of a problem to wipe us out, is all.

Religion's existence doesn't prove its necessity, either. As a form of control it might have been beneficial to society in general. You can do something illegal and potentially get away with it, but you can't hide from God so it's a more effective deterrent than any legal system. That doesn't guarantee that we wouldn't have made it with just laws, though.

There are lots of unique examples of altruism in nature, but not every animal or living thing displays altruism. The only ones that display altruism do so because it benefits the species in the long run. Just because altruism can exist without manmade laws doesn't mean it always does.

If you took a step farther back, you would see that religion and laws are a part of nature in the sense that they're a part of culture, and we require culture to survive. Of course that's very different than saying any of the religions are right.

It's more strange to suggest that religion was unnecessary for our survival. If it wasn't necessary, it would not have existed (and persisted). Whether it's necessary for our future survival is another topic. It's not yet as vestigial as our tailbones, and in any case, it needs to shrink naturally just as our tailbones did while we adapt to its absence.

(via google cache)

who voted for this video
burdturgler - rougy - lighthouse - moodonia - legacy0100 - rasch187 - therealblankman - BoneyD - Gunter - schmawy - vinovin - campionidelmondo - blownspeakers - theaceofclubz - TheSofaKing - ziggystardust - atara - Abducted - dag - Bidouleroux - Raigen - UsesProzac - rosekat - maximillian - Lendl - Hastur - sometimes - grahamslam - Ornthoron - dystopianfuturetoday - MrConrads - vairetube - Dash - RedSky - zomgg - doogle - qruel - BlackSheep - daxgaz - Mi1ler - Fusionaut - Oatmeal - anyprophet - crotchflame - BlueCrew56 - J-Rova - QuadraPixel - ant - boblobblaw - Xax - omnistegan - oohahh - Lowen - Skeeve - popey - chilaxe - xxovercastxx - LittleRed - Zor - gargoyle - berticus - Crawlius - volumptuous - millos - thinker247 - icantfeelmylegs - ex-jedi - Hive13 - Majortomyorke - lesserfool - Flackblag7 - zomgunicorns - MojoeMAN - joedirt - furrycloud - robbersdog49 - lavoll - sepatown - jimnms - Baera - nickreal03 - dbot2006 - rychan - poolcleaner - aaronfr - sanderbos - savethecirclepit - Issykitty - Gaean - Kerotan - rbar - rubadub - ravioli - CaptWillard - captmorgano - K0MMIE - sircrunch - kwaran - Razor - blutruth - vyka11 - srue - gnargnar - dtmike07 - thain - Thylan - Napalm - Bullard - Chaucer - ElJardinero - Trancecoach - videosiftbannedme - Plonq - Quboid - kceaton1 - enon - Fedquip - StukaFox - Spoon_Gouge - Tymbrwulf - E_Nygma - residue - Hex - bareboards - nedlyskid - nomino - Tiver - spoco2 - brycewi19 - MaxWilder - Velourium - Irishman - Krupo - mefa - gemini70 - solecist - ristintin - GreatBird - cybrbeast - garmachi - direpickle - steroidg - SpaceOddity - ManMade - MarineGunrock - Crosswords - cdominus - mauz15 - dpedro - pigeon - ZuroS - nibiyabi - thepinky - alien_concept - The_Ettin - maatc - deathcow - mkone - neuralnoise - LightningOfGods - southblvd - iNqz - Smugglarn - dw1117 - thehelix - Nebosuke - Sketch - nadabu - OpticNerve - Fred_Chopin - lucky760 - Zifnab - guessandcheck - Buzman - pho3n1x - Fester_Boil - DrPawn - evilspongebob - ridesallyridenc - minimurf440 - Jordass - Carrot - Zonbie - Aemaeth - SLuRRY - Astr0 - JuliusP - Ryjkyj - LordNeptune - Birdman - jvenezia - Throbbin - calvados - Kevlar - MrFisk - internets - Kluz - evil_disco_man - jenmo - dbalsdon - jrbedford - NetRunner - radx - arvana - broseth - tasseo4 - White - Doc_M - JAPR - EDD - kronosposeidon - Gimpy
[toggle display of all 212]