If it's not fake, it appears the black VW was following the Porsche with the intent of kidnapping the occupants. Either the cyclist gave them the opportunity, or he was actually part of the operation (though he really didn't block the Porsche enough to be guaranteed that kind of response, unless they knew he was prone to that sort of thing).

I've watched much of the clip at 1/4 speed and learned a little. SPOILER ALERT.

The marker vanishes are now definitely obvious. The first time he slips it into his vest. The second time he flips it to the back of his fingers then drops his hand behind him and discards it.





So, the vest definitely does come into play a lot. He also pushed a card into the lower opening in his vest at about 3:45 while misdirecting by spinning a card in his other hand.



That's all good and fine, but other things are not simple sleight of hand.

At 5:10 with his back turned he shows us the signed card with the hand behind his back. Then in full view he simply turns the card against his back. Then his other hand raises up from the other side of his body to reveal the "same" signed card. (The one that was in view, btw, he tucks up into his vest at this point, keeping in hand the blank that was paired with it.) The only possible explanation for the same card being in two places at once is there must be multiple copies of each signed card, which means he has stooges who sign the exact same way every time or he has a technological advantage like others have mentioned (tiny scanner and printer).

The other thing that confounds is how he has a signed card in one hand and a stack of cards in the other. Then in full view the tall stack shrinks down to (approximately) one card and the single card grows into a stack instantaneously. I guess there must be some kind of technological solution to this as well, but I don't know how a functional stack of cards (and not just the appears of a stack of cards) could collapse and appear... unless they aren't functional and it's a trick deck that can easily expand or shrink to look like a deck or single card.

At 6:00 when he just shakes the bag and the signed card inside changes to the other signed card, I think he just flips the bag around with his shake motion and that the single card is printed on the front with one signature card and the other signature card on the back.

That's the only thing that makes sense... which again requires a special scanner and printer setup... I guess.

The sad thing for him is, in the eyes of others, you are as you appear in the eyes of others, not as you appear in your own.
He may believe he's not racist, just as Archie Bunker believed he was not racist, I mean he has a "black friend", Mr Jefferson over there (just don't ask Mr Jefferson about Archie).
If he only cares how he looks to himself, just saying his nonsense does the trick. If, on the other hand, he's trying to convince all those who read his comments that he's not racist, he's failing miserably.

I think they both need to watch this weeks episode of "through the wormhole", which dealt with racism and how and why, even though consciously you might not be racist, that doesn't matter so much when we are nearly ALL subconsciously racist (just to different levels). It was quite informative on the subject, and actually made sense of how many 'racist' people can honestly see themselves as non-racist.
In one experiment, racism was manifest in a 'shoot the man with the gun, don't shoot the man with the phone' experiment, where nearly everyone shot the black man with the phone more often than the white man with a phone, including the black people shooting, and everyone took less time to decide to shoot the black man, phone or gun. Amazingly, cops in the experiment seemed to do better than average at NOT shooting the black man, but still shot him faster and more often.

That statement is really a reflection of your own cognitive dissonance.

Chomsky doesn't pontificate about right/wrong or problems.

He's describing the applied game theory present in society.

If you think that's 'bad', then that's your own personal judgment of the matter.

Like 'the prince', his message is a conveyance of the relationship between intelligent actors manipulating perceptions, and intelligent actors acting on perceptions.


Imagine a fish seller, with too many fish. The fish will go bad soon if he does not sell them quickly.
Should he :

A) Ask people to buy more fish, before they go bad, please.

B) Go speak with the distributor that's buying fish from the fisherman and get him to spread the rumor that there is an incoming fish shortage.

(A) may be honest, but (B) will sell faster and for higher prices.

The idea is not to get what you want the most direct way - the idea is to get what you want the most efficient way.
You can be direct about getting what you want, or you can give people information that makes them come to a conclusion for themselves that makes them do what you want.
More abstractly : If it takes less energy to 'persuade' than to 'do for yourself', then use information to 'get people to do for you'. Let others spend their time and resources for you, and save your own.


Politically, this means ruling not by telling citizens what you want, but ruling by nurturing an environment where the media provides information that makes citizens ask for what you want of their own volition.
Then you aren't telling citizens what to do, you're merely obliging their wishes. You not only avoid appearing overbearing (which is not sustainable on account of eventual public disdain) - you actually appear obliging (which is perpetually sustainable).


If you want examples in an a-political environment (if in fact the political backdrop is foiling your ability to take the message in an impartial manner), you should look at Boyd's OODA loop and the Conceptual Spiral.

Analysis, synthesis, etc, etc, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_fjaqAiOmc&index=8&list=PLDB0DF43AA0B67552
http://www.iohai.com/iohai-resources/destruction-and-creation.html

Related matters :

Game theory (life/politics/economics is a game)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9Lo2fgxWHw
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lro-unCodo

Persuasion (use tools [real or perceived] to apply influence)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFdCzN7RYbw

*keep in mind that "from the responder's perspective" there is no difference between you doing X, or the responder thinking you did X - because in both cases the responder is acting on his personal perception of what happened (be it real or not).

-scheherazade

The cause of the downtime is unknown. That being said, Anonymous member AnonymousOwn3r is claiming responsibility for the attack:

Facebook appears to be down in various parts of the world. The service is not working for many in certain countries, but not all users appear to be affected even if they reside there. At the time of writing, the outage has lasted for more than an hour. The first report came it at 3:29PM EST, followed quickly by thousands more.

http://thenextweb.com/facebook/2012/10/11/facebook-apparently-down-in-several-countries-worldwide-including-italy-germany-france-and-more/

You tell me that you understand science, and were once very scientific, then you drop --excuse me-- a giant turd like this. I could as easily say, "If the Theory of Evolution is correct, then all living creatures are evidence of Theory of Evolution's correctness," and it would still be a meaningless statement because if we already know something is true (as in the premise), then evidence is redundant. It's precisely when we don't know something that evidence becomes useful. This is probably the hardest part about talking to you -- your weak grasp on how science and logic work. And don't take this as an internet ad hom. I'm being straight with you, really. It's not your strong suit. Own it.

Actually, I think that it is you who is demonstrating a weak grasp of logic here. It seems that what I was getting at went right over your head. What you've done here is rip my statement out of its context, and then claimed I was using it in a meaningless way that I never intended. It is a straw man argument, really, and yes you did use ad homs. A giant turd? Saying that its really hard to talk to me because of my weak grasp of science and logic? Come on. I had thought that our dialogue had transcended these kind of petty caricatures.

In context, the statement is designed to get you think outside the box you're in and weigh both sides of the issue equally. It's not an argument in itself. The statement that if God exists, everything that exists is empirical evidence for God is a logically valid statement. If God exists, everything you're looking at right now if proof that He exists. Obviously, this statement by itself doesn't help you determine whether God actually exists or not. You could just as easily say that if God doesn't exist, everything that does exist is proof that He doesn't exist. Therefore, the question is, how would you tell if you're in a Universe that God designed?

The real question is, why is either possibility more or less likely than the other? You haven't addressed this, but simply have taken a leap of faith in favor of your atheistic naturalism. You say, I don't see the Planner, and I didn't see the Planner make this Universe, therefore it is not designed until proven otherwise. The problem with this is that you can't even begin to justify this assumption until you can explain why either possibility is any more likely than the other. You can't say you don't see any empirical evidence because it might be staring you in the face everywhere you look. To analyze how either possibility is more likely than the other you have to discard your assumptions about what you have seen or haven't seen and think about this on a deeper level.

Taking it a step deeper, the fact is, you would only expect to see exactly what you do see, because you are in fact a created being. A created being should expect to find himself existing in an environment capable of creating him. The crux is though that this environment is also finely tuned. You should expect to see what you do, but you should also be surprised to find that it is finely tuned. It a bit like being taken out for execution in front of a firing squad of 100 expert marksmen 3 feet away, and finding yourself alive after all of them opened fire. You should not be surprised to find yourself alive, because obviously you would have to be alive to find yourself alive, but you should be surprised to find that 100 expert marksmen missed you from 3 feet away. In the same way, you should be surprised to find yourself to be a created being in a finely tuned Universe.

What you have on your hands is a Universe full of empirical evidence that it was or wasn't designed. There are only two possibilities; the Universe was either planned or unplanned. Again, how would you tell the difference? What would you expect to see which is different from what you do see? What would make either possibility more likely? That is the point. A finely tuned Universe should tip the scales of that evidence, if you are being honest about what you can really prove.

Supernatural creation is easier to understand, but just about any other explanation is as or more plausible. When you consider some of the extreme coincidences that are required for us to exist, it stretches the mind. But we've had billions of years to evolve, and if we're talking about the whole universe, it could be that 10^one trillion universes with different physical properties have formed and collapsed, and when a balanced one finally came out of the mix, it stuck around, and here we are.

It could be, except there is no evidence there is. Why is it you that can imagine an infinite number of hypothetical Universes with no evidence, but you object to supernatural creation as somehow being less plausible than that? There is no evidence that it is less plausible, you simply assume it is. Sure, if you use your magic genie of time and chance you could imagine just about anything could happen. Scientists agree:

Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.

George Wald, Nobel Laureate, Harvard
Physics and Chemistry of Life p.12

The odds of any of this happening by itself far exceeds the number of atoms in the Universe, and there is no actual proof that it actually could happen by itself, but you still believe it to be more plausible. Why is that? In the end, why is it plausible that anything would exist at all? Why isn't everything equally unlikely in the end? Notice what George Wald said? He said time itself performs the *miracles*. He said that because the existence of life is nothing short of a miracle, but even knowing that, you would still say God is implausible. I think these arguments are what is implausible.

Look at how these scientists come to the same conclusions as you have:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/

They acknowledge there are only two possibilities, one being God, but since they hate that possibility more than they hate embracing the anthropic principle, they go with that instead, having absolutely no evidence to base that conclusion on. They simply don't want to acknowledge the obvious, which is that a finely tuned Universe is *much* stronger evidence for an omnipotent God than it is for multiple Universes.

I would take a declarative statement about him, and see what implications it had, what predictions it made, then see if they were testable, either theoretically or practically. Like theoretically if God is omniscient, it means he knows everything, and if I can find an example of something he absolutely cannot know, then I've proven he's not omniscient.

What God says is that as the Heavens are higher than the Earth, so are His ways above our ways, and His thoughts above our thoughts. He also calls the wisdom of this world, foolishness. So God has directly said that it is only by His revelation and not our understanding that we can come to know Him. A limited temporal creature, trying to disprove Gods existence with his own corrupt reasoning is kind of laughable, isn't it?

In any case, it's easy to think of things God doesn't know or can't do. God doesn't know what it feels like to not exist. God can't remember a time that He didn't exist. God can't make a square circle, or an acceptable sin. This doesn't prove anything. A better definition would be, omniscience is knowing everything that can be known, and omnipotence is being able to do everything that can be done.

Or practically, if God answers prayers, then I can test that statistically. Now, you say that God refuses to be tested, but that also means that if people are sincerely praying, but someone else is measuring the effects of those prayers, that God will choose not to answer those prayers, "Sorry! I'm being tested for, so I can't help you out today." This puts the power of denying God's prayers in the hands of scientists -- ridiculous. So there's two tests for God.

Or perhaps He had sovereignly arranged for only insincere prayers or prayers outside of His will to be prayed for at that time which would give the results of the test the appearance of randomness.

This is self-fulfilling prophecy. The only reason the Jewish people came back to form a country again is because their holy book said they were entitled to do so, divine providence. Like Macbeth likely never would have become king of Scotland if he hadn't been told so by the Weird Sisters.

The Jews are historically from Israel, and there is archaeological evidence to prove this. The reason they came back to Israel is because it is historically their homeland. Given the opportunity, they would have come back to Israel with or without the bible saying they were entitled to. The point is that they were predicted to come back, not only around the date that they did, but their migration pattern was in the exact order, their currency was predicted, their economic and agricultural condition was predicted, and many other things.

I'm no biblical scholar, but I found three places where the destruction of Jerusalem is predicted. The first is in Micah 3:11-12, where it simply states that it will happen at some point. It doesn't say when, nor describe any of the circumstances. The second one I found is Daniel 9:24-26, where there's some detail that sounds kinda like Jesus, except that it was supposed to happen within 70 weeks (16 months) of when God spoke to Daniel, roughly 530 years BC. Or if you understand that the signal to begin the 70 weeks hadn't been issued yet, then Jerusalem was to have been build a mere 16 months before it was destroyed by Titus, which clearly isn't the case either. It also predicts the end will be by flood, but it was by fire, and then manual labour of soldiers, if Josephus' account is to be believed (he wasn't impartial).

The 70 weeks are not concurrent, first of all. Second, Jesus is the one who predicted the fall of Jerusalem:

Luk 19:41 And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it,
Luk 19:42 saying, "Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes.
Luk 19:43 For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side
Luk 19:44 and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation."

I would have to accept Jesus as messiah before I could accept this argument. And if I had already accepted him as messiah, then the argument would be meaningless, just like the one about the universe as evidence for God's existence.

I'll rephrase this by saying, that Jesus fulfilled dozens of prophecies about the coming of the Messiah. Clearly, the impact of that Jesus has had on the world matches His claims about who He is. Consider this quotation by Napoleon:

"What a conqueror!--a conqueror who controls humanity at will, and wins to himself not only one nation, but the whole human race. What a marvel! He attaches to himself the human soul with all its energies. And how? By a miracle which surpasses all others. He claims the love of men--that is to say, the most difficult thing in the world to obtain; that which the wisest of men cannot force from his truest friend, that which no father can compel from his children, no wife from her husband, no brother from his brother--the heart. He claims it ; he requires it absolutely and undividedly, and he obtains it instantly.

Alexander, Caesar, Hannibal, Louis XIV strove in vain to secure this. They conquered the world, yet they had not a single friend, or at all events, they have none any more. Christ speaks, however, and from that moment all generations belong to him; and they are joined to him much more closely than by any ties of blood and by a much more intimate, sacred and powerful communion. He kindles the flame of love which causes one's self-love to die, and triumphs over every other love. Why should we not recognize in this miracle of love the eternal Word which created the world? The other founders of religions had not the least conception of this mystic love which forms the essence of Christianity.

I have filled multitudes with such passionate devotion that they went to death for me. But God forbid that I should compare the enthusiasm of my soldiers with Christian love. They are as unlike as their causes. In my case, my presence was always necessary, the electric effect of my glance, my voice, my words, to kindle fire in their hearts. And I certainly posses personally the secret of that magic power of taking by storm the sentiments of men; but I was not able to communicate that power to anyone. None of my generals ever learned it from me or found it out. Moreover, I myself do not possess the secret of perpetuating my name and a love for me in their hearts for ever, and to work miracles in them without material means.

Now that I languish here at St Helena, chained upon this rock, who fights, who conquers empires for me? Who still even thinks of me? Who interests himself for me in Europe? Who has remained true to me? That is the fate of all great men. It was the fate of Alexander and Caesar, as it is my own. We are forgotten, and the names of the mightiest conquerors and most illustrious emperors are soon only the subject of a schoolboy's taks. Our exploits come under the rod of a pedantic schoolmaster, who praises or condemns us as he likes.

What an abyss exists between my profound misery and the eternal reign of Christ, who is preached, loved, and worshipped, and live on throughout the entire world. Is this to die? Is it not rather to live eternally? The death of Christ! It is the death of a God."

Nope. Eternal means within all time. It implies that such an entity wouldn't necessarily exist outside of time. Maybe you meant a different word, but "eternal" doesn't describe whoever created time, if words have meaning.

Words do have meaning. Check any dictionary; the definition I used is there:

e·ter·nal/i't?rnl/
Adjective:

Lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning.
(of truths, values, or questions) Valid for all time; essentially unchanging.

What is this (especially the bits in bold) based on? It this biblical? Your intuition?

Isaiah 29:13

The Lord says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men

1 Samuel 16:7

But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart

You can give God all of the lip service you want, but He is only interested in what is in your heart.

Yes, the Lord will test your sincerity:

1 Peter 1:6-7

In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials.

These have come so that your faith--of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire--may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.

Also, if God knows everything, then what could he possibly be "testing" for? You only need to test things if you don't already know. And if he does know, the he's just messing with my head, in which case, it's not a test.

The metaphor that is used for testing is that of impurities being refined out of gold or silver. Tests are to prove your sincerity, not necessarily what God knows.

>> ^messenger

You're confusing the philosophy of "empiricism" with "empirical data". The two are semantically related, but the former derives its name from the latter, not the other way around, just as stoic people are not necessarily stoicists, nor all humans humanitarian, nor all who exist existentialist.

The scientific method is founded upon empiricism:

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

I'll let some physics majors sort you out on this one:

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-184699.html

Science is based on no philosophy. The scientific method can be derived entirely from logic, which Craig just told us is a rational thing to believe in (I agree). It happens that the scientific method can only be applied to empirical data (which is separate from the philosophy of empiricism), which is defined simply as information gathered from the senses. This has nothing to do with beliefs about what is knowable. Nothing in science suggests any opinion on what else is knowable or not, just what appears to be or not to be a candidate for experiment. Science is incapable of determining whether abortion is morally wrong, and it takes no stance on whether that information is knowable. That's a question for philosophers and such.

I think you're forgetting that scientists are not objective, and must interpret the data, which can have as much to do with philosophy and belief as anything else. Check this out:

http://www.emotionalcompetency.com/sci/sm6.htm

I can also give you an example. At www.cosmologystatement.org there is an open letter to the scientific community, which is signed by over 500 scientists who doubt the big bang theory. These aren't creationists, btw. An excerpt:

"big bang relies on a growing number of never observed entities. inflation, dark matter, dark energy, etc, it cant survive without these fudge factors..in no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical factors be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by the astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. so discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed.

this reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry."

This was published in New Scientist magazine in 2004.

Are you still dubious of science, or just empiricism now? If you still are, can you point to any faulty information or conclusions science has arrived at that you are dubious about? Or if I've improperly worded the question to best get at your issues with science, please provide some specifics about science's methods, conclusions, or whatever that give you discomfort.

My trouble with empiricism is really more of a philosophical issue. I know empiricism can get results which are trustworthy, although the conclusions that people draw from them are a different story. I really just a have problem with things which aren't science; ie, theories or practices which have no hard evidence, which cannot be been tested or observed. I'll list them:

Big Bang Cosmology
Radiometric Dating
Uniformitarian Geology
Macro Evolution

>> ^messenger

PART 2 OF (now) 3

M: [Why do you doubt science?]

SB: I am dubious of the philosophy of empiricism upon which science is founded upon. Empiricism assumes that truth can only be discerned through our senses, and that our minds merely processes and categorizes this truth. I reject this view because there are clearly truths that empiricism cannot evaluate, including the validity of empiricism itself.

You're confusing the philosophy of "empiricism" with "empirical data". The two are semantically related, but the former derives its name from the latter, not the other way around, just as stoic people are not necessarily stoicists, nor all humans humanitarian, nor all who exist existentialist.

Science is based on no philosophy. The scientific method can be derived entirely from logic, which Craig just told us is a rational thing to believe in (I agree). It happens that the scientific method can only be applied to empirical data (which is separate from the philosophy of empiricism), which is defined simply as information gathered from the senses. This has nothing to do with beliefs about what is knowable. Nothing in science suggests any opinion on what else is knowable or not, just what appears to be or not to be a candidate for experiment. Science is incapable of determining whether abortion is morally wrong, and it takes no stance on whether that information is knowable. That's a question for philosophers and such.

Are you still dubious of science, or just empiricism now? If you still are, can you point to any faulty information or conclusions science has arrived at that you are dubious about? Or if I've improperly worded the question to best get at your issues with science, please provide some specifics about science's methods, conclusions, or whatever that give you discomfort.

I would say my experience is generally subjective but is objectively confirmed, both by other people, and my daily life. You can say I have interpreted those experiences subjectively, and I am just fooling myself, of course.

"Objectively confirmed" does not include either confirmation by other people nor by your daily life. Those are both, by definition, subjective. The faithful company you keep too is a self-selected group of people drawn together because of their similar mental states. My best guess is that you are fooling yourself, and have found other people who are fooling themselves too who confirm your delusions.

All I can say is that truth is paramount to me and I am incapable of believing something just because I want it to be true. I would rather have nothing and die a meaningless death than live out a comfortable lie.

I accept that you are receiving your information from your own experience, and not just what makes you feel good to believe.

That took me a lot longer to write than I expected. I'll take a look at your description of God next.>> ^shinyblurry:
<comment reference link>

I wasn't sure if this was parody or not, but it appears to be real. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/07/cloo-bathroom-app-_n_952626.html

You are being judged by the word of God, not by me. It isn't my judgement you have to fear. I don't personally want to know what you're up to. Yet, you do nothing in secret, because what you do is seen plainly by God, and your guilty conscience is the proof that you have offended Him. It isn't a question of if, but when you will stand before God. You need to be prepared for that day. This life is but a moment compared to eternity and the temporal enjoyment you derive from fleshly pleasure is not worth eternal consequences.

Let me give you a clue here. Just because someone says they are a Christian doesn't mean they are. And even if they are, it's in name only if they aren't following the Lord. Christ said such people will be punished. I doubt very many in the republican party are actually Christian. For the most part they are worldly people who use religion as a device to get votes. There aren't any perfect Christians, but you can certainly find many Christians who do follow the Lord. There are many I am sure in your local community. You aren't going to find them on TV.


In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
Sorry, you'll get no such apology from me. You, nor any Cristian is qualified to judge anyone. Ever. Period. What we do with our lives is non of your fucking business. The sooner you guys figure that out, the better off this world will be. When we die and if there's a god, then I guess we'll have to answer for our sins at that time. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but Christians are not the epitome of all the is good and pure. Your "Christian family values" republican politicians have proven that time, and time, and time again. So why should we listen to you hypocrites on how you think we should live our lives? We shouldn't. Because again, it's none of your business.

In reply to this comment by shinyblurry:
Have you ever actually read the whole passage? If you had it would make the meaning more evident. This is a common misinterpretation by secular people who don't understand the bible and aren't qualified to interpret it.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

It is a warning against hypocritical or self-righteous judgement, not an admonition never to judge anything. Christians are called to judge all things as to whether they measure up to the truth, or not. Only God is the judge of a person, but we are allowed to judge a persons behavior. I didn't judge the person of UP, I judged her behavior as being reprobate.

John 7:24

Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.

Clear enough?

If we were not called to judge, we would be unable to follow instructions such as:

Matthew 7:15-16

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?

Without judgement, it would be impossible to discern such a person. So, I am sorry to say but you are incorrect and I hope to see your apology on my profile post haste.



In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
>> ^shinyblurry:

It is a commandment against hypocripsy, not against judging..Christians are called to use judgement regarding everything that is in the world, and how it weighs against Gods truth.
>> ^Duckman33:
Judge not, lest ye be judged....
In reply to this comment by shinyblurry:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/UsesProzac" title="member since August 2nd, 2007" class="profilelink">UsesProzac Do you have even a modicum of dignity or self respect? You have promoted yourself as a harlot and you draw mens attention with lasciviousness. You are prostituting yourself and it is revolting.




That's a load of shit and you know it. Nice try though. The ONLY being qualified to judge anyone or anything is God himself, if he really exists that is. Not you, not Sarah Palin, not Michelle Bachman, not Rick perry, but God.

Have you ever actually read the whole passage? If you had it would make the meaning more evident. This is a common misinterpretation by secular people who don't understand the bible and aren't qualified to interpret it.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

It is a warning against hypocritical or self-righteous judgement, not an admonition never to judge anything. Christians are called to judge all things as to whether they measure up to the truth, or not. Only God is the judge of a person, but we are allowed to judge a persons behavior. I didn't judge the person of UP, I judged her behavior as being reprobate.

John 7:24

Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.

Clear enough?

If we were not called to judge, we would be unable to follow instructions such as:

Matthew 7:15-16

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?

Without judgement, it would be impossible to discern such a person. So, I am sorry to say but you are incorrect and I hope to see your apology on my profile post haste.



In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
>> ^shinyblurry:

It is a commandment against hypocripsy, not against judging..Christians are called to use judgement regarding everything that is in the world, and how it weighs against Gods truth.
>> ^Duckman33:
Judge not, lest ye be judged....
In reply to this comment by shinyblurry:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/UsesProzac" title="member since August 2nd, 2007" class="profilelink">UsesProzac Do you have even a modicum of dignity or self respect? You have promoted yourself as a harlot and you draw mens attention with lasciviousness. You are prostituting yourself and it is revolting.




That's a load of shit and you know it. Nice try though. The ONLY being qualified to judge anyone or anything is God himself, if he really exists that is. Not you, not Sarah Palin, not Michelle Bachman, not Rick perry, but God.

@SDGundamX

#1 apology: sorry for misinterpreting and misrepresenting your praise for the officials.

#2 apology: sorry, but the hyperlinks I input do not seem to appear (even despite a re-edit...). Below for reference in all their raw glory:
Gov't withholds radiation data: .
Gov't awards contract to agency to monitor internet (tweets and blogs) for nuclear radiation related comments: .
Gov't contract scope description: .
Comment from Tokyo Bar Association member: .

Agree that the organizations involved should not have re-edited the video to serve as propoganda.

About Kyushu Electric, I could not read the article you linked (blocked by a paywall). Is it about the employees doing the email campaign to influence the start up of the reactors?

cheers,
goemon

Being all into numbers, I put the numbers in the video into my own spreadsheet and discovered that the graph for the number of words/SAT score is of course not linear. They appear very much correlated, but not linear like the graphic showed. That's the fault of the video editor, not the MIT professor, because he never says anything about linear correlation.

As long as at least one of the factors doesn't correlate linearly (and I think we know that neither do), it's possible there is still a correlation between income and length of essay, but not necessarily a causative relationship. It's more likely that buried in the income statistic is the level of the student's English -- the poorer you are, the more likely it is your first language isn't English, so the more likely you are to write a shorter essay, and drag your economic demographic down.

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:

Maybe I'm just weird like that for being puzzled here, but if something is "outside of science" or "outside our universe", then by what magical method of knowing do people claim to know or suspect it exists in the first place? Shouldn't the most parsimonious answer be a provisional designation of non-existence until shown otherwise?
Something that can be asserted without evidence can reasonably be dismissed without evidence. It's not up to the unbelievers to prove a negative.
I understand people do not want to appear to be extreme or dogmatic, but an appeal to the middle ground (a 50/50 split probability for or against; a false equivalence) in the name of moderation, is still fallacious.


It's not entirely clear that people mean something that is "outside of science," and I certainly don't see many claiming that their god is "outside the universe." Most claim to have had direct personal experience with a deity. Many of whom are people I trust. Further, they seem to be honestly recounting their experience, and seem to have no motivation to deceive me (unlike claims of spaghetti monsters or martian teapots). While typically I wouldn't consider such reports particularly strong evidence of anything, it is certainly as strong (if not stronger) than the evidence opposing the existence of a deity, which are typically inferred from vague concepts like "parsimony" (aka Bayesian kool-aid). All evidence of existence (e.g. your existence) is tenuous at best, and all of it is inferred from internal mental states. That's why I find that the null model is typically derived from commonsense, not any hard and fast rules about existence or nonexistence. In this particular case, I find that people are relatively split. I have accordingly split my prior.

Maybe I'm just weird like that for being puzzled here, but if something is "outside of science" or "outside our universe", then by what magical method of knowing do people claim to know or suspect it exists in the first place? Shouldn't the most parsimonious answer be a provisional designation of non-existence until shown otherwise?

Something that can be asserted without evidence can reasonably be dismissed without evidence. It's not up to the unbelievers to prove a negative.

I understand people do not want to appear to be extreme or dogmatic, but an appeal to the middle ground (a 50/50 split probability for or against; a false equivalence) in the name of moderation, is still fallacious.