Actually simply top 15 countries by cases, not deaths. As as I know there haven't been 1.5 million killed around the world at this point.

Still, scary to see.

Trust me.

This is NOT Death Diving.

Pour some cement mix in that water and let it dry. Then call me.

#wimps

I agree with you that Israel has taken away the freedoms of the people in Palestine, however I feel that that freedom was lost by the people because of their continued backing of Hamas and Hamas's continued attacks against Israel.
I think that both parties are at fault to some degree, but I also believe the burden of the blame rests with Hamas and their continued requests for the destruction of Israel. To answer your questions directly:
1b. Do you disagree with any of, "The core Hamas themselves are (generally speaking) just haters like WBC or the KKK and they get support now from the citizens because they're all collectively being severely oppressed by Israel." ?
I agree that Hamas are just hater racists. I believe that they have integrated themselves into the Palestinian people with a hate and blame based marketing campaign that has the Palestinian children learning how to kill Jews in class. This campaign is reinforced by some of the policies of the Israeli government as an unintended consequence. I have consistently seen any positive developments towards peace wind up being corrupted by the outrageous demands of Hamas that they will not settle for anything but the complete elimination of Israel and the refusal to recognize the Israeli state.

"2b. Do you think, if a free Palestinian state were created with the 1946 borders, that Hamas would retain enough support from the people to continue fighting with Israel, which would keep their lives constantly under threat, just as is the case in Israel now? Personally, if the citizens weren't being oppressed, I don't think they would favour killing anybody, and would choose a live-and-let-live policy so they could raise a family in peace and seek success in the world."
Perhaps, but Hamas has stated many times that their goal is not just reverting back to the 1946 borders, but the elimination of Israel. They've ingrained that into the people of Palestine and as we are discussing this I fear that this may be a situation where peace can not be brokered because of the constantly reinforced hatred towards the Jewish people. I pray it doesn't revert to a situation like that of WW2 where entire cities were eliminated in order to get Germany to eventually collapse. (We didn't just do it to the Japanese, although the comparison may be more accurate) Besides reverting back to the 1946 borders isn't really feasible, or justified, but that is a WHOLE different discussion. (There weren't borders in 1946 as all of Palestine was under British control from WW1)

"Can you substantiate that? Celebration alone makes someone a terrorist? And "blight on humankind" doesn't even have meaning. They ARE humankind. They're not an affliction."

I can actually, celebration of an innocents death in my opinion shows a lack of a soul and a lack of sympathy towards other human beings. Celebrating the death of a child is about the most evil thing I can think of, yet Islamic extremists do it on a regular basis. It makes you a monster and puts you outside of humankind. So yes it makes you very much an affliction on humankind. Unfortunately it is very likely a symptom of humankind as well, but like an infection is a symptom of being alive, sometimes it must be abraded and removed completely.
As humans we have to value life and celebrate life, not death. I feel the same way about the KKK or any other organization that divides the human species into groups and has devalued one of those groups to the point where the death of one of them is something to be celebrated. That is hate and it is evil. Evil, real evil, exists in this world and it can be seen in the video above.

Celebrating the death of innocents isn't in and of itself something that makes a person a terrorist, it merely reinforces the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization.

All this yet I still like to play FPS. Huh...gonna have to dwell on that.

>> ^kymbos:

So, avoid disappointment, aim low? Does America compare itself with those countries? I thought it was a developed nation. You do provide me with entertainment, I'll give you that.>> ^A10anis:
>> ^kymbos:
Ah, no: "The United States has the highest rate of gun related injuries (not deaths per capita) among developed countries, though they also have the highest rate of gun ownership and highest rate of officers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence>> ^A10anis:
>> ^kymbos:
Americans have a habit of shooting people in general.

What a stupid, crass, crude, comment. Or did I miss that you pressed the sarcasm button?


Statistics are limited and can be misleading in showing the big picture. Would you feel safer in Colombia, South Africa, Brazil, Somalia or Russia? (rated the most dangerous countries on earth) Check out their figures on crime and, if you still feel they offer a safer environment in which to live, feel free to visit them.


I'm pleased you are so easily entertained, though that was not my intent. It was, actually, to point out that making silly generalizations was pointless. Anyway, like my wife, I'm pretty sure you will need to have the last word, even though you have nothing rational to say. I'm done.

So, avoid disappointment, aim low? Does America compare itself with those countries? I thought it was a developed nation. You do provide me with entertainment, I'll give you that.>> ^A10anis:

>> ^kymbos:
Ah, no: "The United States has the highest rate of gun related injuries (not deaths per capita) among developed countries, though they also have the highest rate of gun ownership and highest rate of officers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence>> ^A10anis:
>> ^kymbos:
Americans have a habit of shooting people in general.

What a stupid, crass, crude, comment. Or did I miss that you pressed the sarcasm button?


Statistics are limited and can be misleading in showing the big picture. Would you feel safer in Colombia, South Africa, Brazil, Somalia or Russia? (rated the most dangerous countries on earth) Check out their figures on crime and, if you still feel they offer a safer environment in which to live, feel free to visit them.

>> ^kymbos:

Ah, no: "The United States has the highest rate of gun related injuries (not deaths per capita) among developed countries, though they also have the highest rate of gun ownership and highest rate of officers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence>> ^A10anis:
>> ^kymbos:
Americans have a habit of shooting people in general.

What a stupid, crass, crude, comment. Or did I miss that you pressed the sarcasm button?


Statistics are limited and can be misleading in showing the big picture. Would you feel safer in Colombia, South Africa, Brazil, Somalia or Russia? (rated the most dangerous countries on earth) Check out their figures on crime and, if you still feel they offer a safer environment in which to live, feel free to visit them.

Ah, no: "The United States has the highest rate of gun related injuries (not deaths per capita) among developed countries, though they also have the highest rate of gun ownership and highest rate of officers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence>> ^A10anis:

>> ^kymbos:
Americans have a habit of shooting people in general.

What a stupid, crass, crude, comment. Or did I miss that you pressed the sarcasm button?

@bareboards2

I'm also glad that we can discuss these issues like reasonable people. I apologize if I've come off as unreasonable in the past. The truth is that I'm always willing to talk things out.

I've heard the rhetoric about death panels from both sides; I just haven't put in the effort to separate fact from fiction. Now that I've looked into it, this is what I've found. What you're describing (end of life consultations) is not the same thing as what are now being called death panels in Obamacare. Yes, it is true that the provision you are speaking about was demonized by republicans and ultimately removed from Medicare. I'm actually not sure how I feel about it, because it is a form of assisted suicide, and it could be abused. Some seniors may feel pressured into forgoing care, just as you hear of some people receiving substandard care because they are organ donors.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/dad-rescues-brain-dead-son-from-doctors-wishing-to-harvest-his-organs-boy-r

In any case, the conversation has evolved, and we are no longer talking about these end of life consultations when we are talking about death panels. The death panel in Obamacare is an unelected board of 15 "health care experts" (the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB) who will make critical decisions on what services within Medicare are financially viable, and which aren't. Here is a quote from President Obama in the first debate acknowledging this:

"It — when Gov. Romney talks about this board, for example, unelected board that we’ve created, what this is, is a group of health care experts, doctors, et cetera, to figure out, how can we reduce the cost of care in the system overall?” Obama said.

“Now, so what this board does is basically identifies best practices and says, let’s use the purchasing power of Medicare and Medicaid to help to institutionalize all these good things that we do,” Obama added.

This is also acknowledged by a senior adviser to Obama:

"WE need death panels. Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?_r=2

So call it death panels, or rationing, the principle is still the same. The recommendations this board makes will become law unless it is overridden by a 2/3's majority vote in congress. Here is a good example of how this type of legislative oversight is making health care "better" (penalizing hospitals for readmitting patients within 30 days):

"Beginning Monday, the hospitals will receive lower reimbursements on Medicare claims filed with the government for each admitted patient. Over the year, the total amount of those reductions will vary from $1.2 million for MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Northwest Washington, the region’s largest private hospital, to about $12,000 for Reston Hospital Center in Virginia. Of 16 hospitals in the District and Northern Virginia, all but three will get paid less."

"Some of the hardest-hit facilities are inner-city hospitals that tend to treat sicker, poorer patients. These patients sometimes end up being readmitted because they have a harder time getting medication and follow-up doctors’ appointments, often because they lack transportation, hospital officials said.

“Not only do we have the very sick patients, they also have very significant social needs,” said Kamaljit Sethi, who heads quality and safety at Providence Hospital in Northeast, where officials estimate they will lose about $320,000 in the coming year."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/hospitals-in-dc-va-to-lose-millions-from-medicare/2012/09/30/2fe0f96c-08ca-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83b
f_story.html

What this means is that patients with the greatest needs will lose the most services, because the hospitals will no longer be able to serve them because of this penalty. This outcome could turn out to be deadly for thousands of people, ultimately, all in the name of efficiency. This is a perfect illustration as to why Government should have as little power over your health care as possible. Here is testimony from the front lines:

" Today while working my shift in the emergency room, an old lady was brought in very sick and in fact near death. I did my usual workup and evaluation and attempted to administer life saving treatment. It was my plan to admit this woman to the hospital. I found out a little later that this same woman had been a patient here just slightly more than 2 weeks ago with a DIFFERENT DIAGNOSIS. I was told that if this woman was admitted, the hospital would not be paid.

The new Medicare rule now is that if the same Medicare patient is re-admitted to the hospital within 30 days, the hospital will not be paid. When they first started this nonsense they said this only applied to patients with the same diagnosis. Now they have "expanded" the rule to include re-admissions for any reason. So if you're in the hospital for pneumonia, and 3 weeks later, you break your leg.......too bad. Medicare will not pay the hospital to fix your leg."

http://grouchatrighttruth.blogspot.com/2012/10/death-panels-are-here.html

This is completely outrageous, I think you will be forced to agree. Personally, I think we need to have a national conversation about this issue, and both sides need to come together to hammer out this issue. Obamacare is clearly not ready for primetime, and as it stands it is going to hurt people.

As far as your other comments, I'm not limiting myself to any particular news source. I am a political independent and I will share with you that I won't be voting for either candidate this year. I will still participate in the local elections but I cannot vote for either candidate in good conscience. While I am socially and fiscally conservative on many issues, I am liberal on others, such as helping the poor, the environment (within reason), and immigration. I don't fit into a polical cookie cutter and I don't automatically support a candidate because they give God lip service.

I like both Chris and Sam, but after reading the passage I think Sam was irresponsible in his writing - though I see it as more glib than malicious. I'm happy to discuss it with anyone who disagrees, but the way I interpret the passage is...

"If Muslim Jihadists - who fear not death and want nothing more than to nuke us for religious reasons - ever came to power in a state that possessed nuclear weapons, our only option would be to nuke them first. It would be horrible, absurd, unthinkable and would result in millions of deaths and would likely lead to retaliation.... BUT IT WOULD BE THE FAULT OF RELIGION."

I think the problem is three-fold, a) that he mounts an argument that justifies preemptive global nuclear war, b) that, sadly, he paints our conflict as one of religion and not one of foreign policy and c) that he sees Muslims as crazy people who would sacrifice the lives of their children in exchange for dead Americans and heavenly virgins. This is indefensible.

Let me respectfully remind my good sift libs that Middle Eastern rage against the US has to do with foreign policy, not religion. It's blowback. It was Bush that said they hate us for our freedom, and Chomsky (on the left) and Ron Paul (on the right) that said they want us to stop bombing them, building bases in their countries and installing puppet dictators. Are we really going to side with the Bush doctrine instead of having to concede something to a person of faith?

Again, I like both these guys and would rather they didn't fight, but Hedges makes a fair point. We atheists aren't used to being criticized from the left and it puts us in a weird position. I don't think Sam is a hater, I think he just wrote an irresponsible couple of paragraphs in haste.

Anyway, the full passage is below. Judge for yourself. Tell me where I'm wrong.

SAM HARRIS: "It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen. Indeed, given the immunity to all reasonable intrusions that faith enjoys in our discourse, a catastrophe of this sort seems increasingly likely. We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry. The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it. Given the steady proliferation of technology, it is safe to say that time is not on our side."

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

It's interesting that the first ever interaction I ever had with you Gwiz was around your concept of "self censorship". Let me reiterate what I said all those many months ago: Just because you can say anything you want, doesn't mean you should. That includes threats to maim or kill little old ladies with Alzheimers.
>> ^gwiz665:

Well, @dag, the difference is the people who do the things are the psychopaths, not those of us who are disgusted by her actions.
Saying - among friends or associates, such as here - that she's a wicked person, a fucking bitch and whatever other explitive you want to add is in no way psychopathic and to suggest it is undermining the meaning of the word.
SHE is likely a psychopath, if she does not feel remorse or have "bad feelings" about doing this to an innocent animal.
She deserves punishment, not death. If someone thinks she deserves death for this, then their moral compass is screwed up, but they are not psychopaths.
So once again, bullshit.
If you or anyone else wants to sit in a soundproof booth of self-censoring and not try to rock the boat, go ahead, but don't expect other people to join you there.

Well, @dag, the difference is the people who do the things are the psychopaths, not those of us who are disgusted by her actions.

Saying - among friends or associates, such as here - that she's a wicked person, a fucking bitch and whatever other explitive you want to add is in no way psychopathic and to suggest it is undermining the meaning of the word.

SHE is likely a psychopath, if she does not feel remorse or have "bad feelings" about doing this to an innocent animal.

She deserves punishment, not death. If someone thinks she deserves death for this, then their moral compass is screwed up, but they are not psychopaths.

So once again, bullshit.

If you or anyone else wants to sit in a soundproof booth of self-censoring and not try to rock the boat, go ahead, but don't expect other people to join you there.

Not only that, but sometimes someone will get totally creamed and walk away without so much as a scratch. Then other times, what looks pretty painful but not deathly turns out otherwise.

1. What is your idea of perfect happiness?
Being in love.
2. What is your greatest fear?
Dying (not death, because by then I'll be dead).
3. What is the trait you most deplore in yourself?
Jealousy.
4. What is the trait you most deplore in others?
Dishonesty or abuse.
5. Which living person do you most admire?
Daniel Dennett
6. What is your greatest extravagance?
I don't think I really have any great extravagance. Maybe my computer?
7. What is your current state of mind?
Relaxed and thoughtful.
8. What do you consider the most overrated virtue?
Altruism and faith.
9. On what occasion do you lie?
Rarely, but if my lie can save a lot of grief, by avoiding an unnecessary confrontation about something stupid, I might.
10. What do you most dislike about your appearance?
My gut.
11. Which living person do you most despise?
Hmm, so hard to choose: Kent Hovind, Kenn Hamm (all those creationist dumbfucks), and televangelists. And Rasch187.
12. What is the quality you most like in a man?
Honesty, humor, friendship, intellect.
13. What is the quality you most like in a woman?
Awesome beewbage. Heh. Nah, humor, honesty, straight-forwardness, intellect, friendship.. I look for the same qualities in both guys and girls, to be honest.
14. Which words or phrases do you most overuse?
"Fantastic", "super", "In a minute"
15. What or who is the greatest love of your life?
For now, music.
16. When and where were you happiest?
I don't know. Maybe when I was in Ireland in 2002 and was entangled with a girl from my high school, or one summer in 2003 I think, where we were a bunch of people in a summer house where I played guitar and we all sang and stuff. I liked that.
17. Which talent would you most like to have?
Better song-writing skills.
18. If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?
Physically, I'd trim up. (Already on it)
More cosmically, I'd like to be able to have a better overview of a situation during, instead of after it happens.
19. What do you consider your greatest achievement?
My education, my music skills and the website I ran in 2004-2007, which I was very prolific on. (www.edb-tidende.dk it's dead in the water now though)
20. If you were to die and come back as a person or a thing, what would it be?
I would come back as a young version of myself and try to change things up, see what would happen if I made different choices.
21. Where would you most like to live?
With a loved one. Don't really care where.
22. What is your most treasured possession?
My mind. Of things outside myself, then I think the things I can't replace. The data on my computer, pictures, documents etc. I think. All other "possessions" can be replaced. They're just things. I would say friendships, but that's hardly a possession.
23. What do you regard as the lowest depth of misery?
Depression, then everything sucks. Been there, no fun.
24. What is your favorite occupation?
Playing music, engaging in reasonable discussions, masturbation. (at the same time)
25. What is your most marked characteristic?
I say my mind. I'm a pretty straight-forward, no-nonsense kinda guy. Other than that, I don't know. Other people are better judges of that than me.
26. What do you most value in your friends?
Honesty and humor.
27. Who are your favorite writers?
Frank Herbert, Neal Stephenson, William King, Scott McGough.
28. Who is your hero of fiction?
Randy Marsh. Heh, or Rorsharch and Dr. Manhattan. Randy epitomizes the human condition, weak, narrow sighted and everything. Rosharch represents a view of the world in black and white, which I like the concept of; and Dr. Manhattan represents the way the world is and he is basically intellect personified, which I also like.
29. Which historical figure do you most identify with?
This requires me to know a lot of history. I don't, because I don't care much about it. I identify with me, because I am me, no one else.
30. Who are your heroes in real life?
The four horsemen, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens.
31. What are your favorite names?
Lisa, Cecilia, Michael, Jason, off the top of my head.
32. What is it that you most dislike?
People lying to me or in general who are dicks to me. I have no interest in these people.
33. What is your greatest regret?
Two things, I think. Not doing anything about the girl I had a serious crush on for most of my elementary school until high school; and not realizing that Computer Science was not for me earlier, instead of fucking around there for two years.
34. How would you like to die?
I'd rather not.
35. What is your motto?
"Don't be a dick" is something I can stand by.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Most people wish to see good deeds and work rewarded and bad deeds and evil punished. That's how we roll on earth. I find it amusing that you wouldn't care about rewards versus punishment for MT and Hitler, yet you find the 'golden parachute' concept upsetting.

---
They're dead, so their eternal suffering, joy or nothingness affects only them. As far as our need to see rewards and punishments: I do not believe eternal suffering, nor eternal reward to be an aspect of justice, for it serves only the purpose of satisfying a lust, not a function. If their postmortem reward or punishment (not the idea of it, but the truthful existence of it) affected us in a positive, progressive way, only then would it be a worthwhile system of dealing with what we consider injustice. However, because it is uncertain that there is a force which doles out afterlife justice, we have no business worrying about it. We can appreciate what dead people did while they were alive, or be glad they're dead because they were a hinderance to the progress of life.

I don't disagree (ha!) with the idea of religion; I believe it serves a function, especially at our point in evolution, where we are only beginning to come to terms with these absract concepts. But religion all too often is a closed system, causing divides that need not exist. Yes, religion has done good -- let's keep that aspect; but it needs to be fluid. All philospohy of worth should be as an ocean, whether it be concerned with possible existence/nonexistence of gods or scientific understanding of our universe.
---

Yes, for most people, God serves in part as a kind of Keeper of Scorecards, but rewards and punishment may be only one aspect of an "afterlife" which technically is consciousness after this life.

You're perhaps assuming that the endgame of religion is to
follow rules now to live in a Heaven forever, which would mean
some sort of consciousness apart from a Creator. That may not
be it at all. Buddha described Nirvana as 'the end of
suffering' and left it at that. Buddhism is atheistic.

---
I'm assuming that the interpretation of the majority of mainstream religions are to live in a Heaven forever, because that is how I have encountered them with almost everyone I've ever known or known about. I'm not opposed to the idea of an afterlife, I simply find it a moot point. As the living, we should be concerned with life, not death.
---

You claim moral relativism exists, but for the atheist, does evil exist?

Which way of living demands more responsibility, the
religious person trying to follow moral precepts or someone who
doesn't necessarily care what happens because nothing finally
matters; death is the End? I don't want to live in a society
where everyone makes their own rules up as they go along; few
atheists would either.

Since for the atheist there is no Prime Mover behind what
society commonly defines as "goodness", why would an atheist
seek to enforce any kind of (self) responsibility at all? If
you felt bad about hurting someone because you didn't treat
them according to the Golden Rule, why not just kill them? If
there was no afterlife they would simply cease to exist along
with their pain and the question of right or wrong would be moot.

Yes, I'm being a tad silly, but hopefully I've made some half-assed point that, "Morality has to come from somewhere."

---
Your points are not silly at all, merely common interpretations -- and I don't mean that pejoratively. I do not believe in evil in such a rigid, unrealistic way. Evil could be considered any action which seeks or causes an end to life. But evil is not necessarily bad. Cancer kills, human dies, human returns to earth, new life begins. From "evil" comes "good". A supernova could be considered evil, but it also gives birth to new life, which is good. I believe our existence within a realm of constant destruction dictates to us the sanctity of life, and thus morality. Life is the underdog in this universe, which will become apparent (to whatever exists in this solar system) when our sun decides to stop behaving as it is now. It's not always a struggle for power, but a struggle for life itself. Yes, in a relative universe you may decide to kill your fellow man, but on a macro level you become in conflict with life, in favor of destruction. Just as truth is valued over the lie, life is favored over death for very practical, and often poetic reasons that need not stem from God.

Concepts such as "morality" exist on the human level to illustrate and teach. Ideas and concepts are not so rigid as to dictate what is always right and wrong, nor should they ever be used to represent an absolute; espcially one as silly as "evil".
---

You are perhaps basing your argument against either the
existence of God or belief in God on the idea that since
religions provide conflicting statements, all of them must therefore be
false.

Religions are not God. Religion is a human endeavor and
therefore flawed, whereas the nature (or concept) of God is
perfection.

---
God as perfection is an assumption lacking observation. The nature of God (assuming it exists) cannot possibly be determined; though I'm not in opposition to the idea of that possible explanaion, let's not kid ourselves that the idea is anything but assumed. (Assumption not necessarily being a bad thing, but also not something to base your existence on.)
---

If I say, "We are breathing air" in English and you say it in
French, is one of us 'lying?'

Also, to many atheists why is 'lying' only a feature of religion? You mean atheists never tell lies--even little ones--when it suits them?

---
Lies are available for all to use. I wouldn't dream say otherwise.
---

Faith is not logical and much of religion isn't either, but to dismiss them all out of hand seems rather absolute, in a world where "there are no absolutes".

We can all agree when out brains die, if there is nothing, we will "experience" nothing forever. If there is an afterparty, atheist and believer alike will go "somewhere" even if it's only within their own consciousness.

---
On the contrary, faith is perfectly logical. I have faith in my senses enough to walk outside on a cool, winter day and not expect to walk into lava. Unless I smell sulfur... then I'd become suspicous, maybe I'd notice the increase in heat, and my faith will change. No longer can I have complete faith that outside is a good place to go. Just as my faith in Santa Claus went to zero, and my faith in God went to near zero, based upon observation and learning.

As humanbeings, we do not have the capacity to say anything with 100% certainty, so we must be careful to organize our minds into tiers of belief/faith. (Forgive my semantics; tier is perhaps not the best word, but I'm tired right now) Your immediate senses being on the top tier, followed by recognized patterns from experience, down to intellectual knowledge from schooling, on down to some philosophical interpretations, religion, God or gods, etc. (The existence of smurfs being, obviously far down at the bottom -- much farther than God even.)

Humans are unique in that we are deeply affected by ideas; but ideas have no corporeal nature that we are aware of (yet), so we cannot let any one idea rule our lives, but rather let us rule them. We are the makers of dreams, and need not suffer otherwise -- unless Kai'ckul visits my dreams and says otherwise.