?????? This guy seems quite bonkers. The more he talks the more idiotic he gets. He's just grabbing stuff out of thin air.

they are absolutely prime fodder for destructive ideologies.

but i've seen mentally ill atheists take after their bosses with machetes after watching too much anime. i've seen mentally atheists flip out while watching eternal sunshine of the spotless mind.

like at @GenjiKilpatrick said, it usually takes a catalyst for mental illness to turn into violence. but that catalyst doesn't HAVE to be religion. and in the absence of religion something else takes its place.

religions aren't something invented out of thin air. they have existed in every culture i can think of. most of them are really really similar. in the more ancient ones you can trace their dogma to serving an actual purpose benefiting human survival in the region (see cow worshipping hindis, or desert dwelling religions abstinence from pork). they obviously serve a purpose. and they change and evolve over time.

of the billions and billions of devout people throughout time how many of them have brutally slaughtered their children? i know you can list several. but thats out of BILLIONS. i'm not seeking to diminish the atrocities committed in the name of religion. i'm saying correlation does not = causation.

i'll wager my paycheck that there were warning signs leading up to this event. and i'll also wager my paycheck that the people who saw the warning signs were uneducated (about mental disorders) and i'll equipped and scared. declaring religion the cause of these kinds of horror stories doesn't lend itself to prevention very well. perhaps we need to take a better look at our mental health apparatus and not-nearly-adequate outreach, education and support system.

one thing i do think churches could do (and i know many churches that have) is adopt church counseling programs.. staffed by actual trained psychologists and counselors, not seminary graduates. to treat their members and give families an accessible, trusted place to turn to when they start seeing some destructive warning signs.

>> ^Deano:

>> ^campionidelmondo:
Crazy people often do more violent things than eat skittles. I don't see the connection between her crazy actions and religion. Linking this to religion is just like linking school shootings to violent video games. No, nothing that's being mass consumed drove this person from being the nice neighbour to slaughtering people. Stop looking for the fault in the things you don't like and accept the fact that some people are just crazy.

Of course there are connections. Just look at Islam. Christianity isn't as bad but people kill and maim others based on their reading of the Bible.
There's always the "just crazy" view. And I accept that to an extent. But I suspect people like that are prime fodder for destructive ideologies and supernatural thinking.
And she had access to a well established cult that served to radicalise her to a point where her family were no longer physically safe.

Actually my belief is based primarily in personal revelation, but thanks for playing...and yes, you could make a fool out of yourself all day, that's true. The problem with your theory here about the translations is, historians have the original manuscripts the early church used. We know exactly what those bibles looked like and what they said. Perhaps you could try a little research before you correct someone who knows a lot more about bible history than you do. And I'm sorry but almost all of those so-called books you're talking about are gnostic texts. Here's a hint, gnostics aren't really Christians, they're Universalists. The ONLY one out of any of the arbitrary number you pulled out of thin air that maybe should have been in the bible is the gospel of Thomas.

I happen to research these things all the time, and I had already researched this particular case a long time ago. I came to the conclusion, as has practically every other reseacher and historian, that it was a hoax, flat out. I read a little more into it because I see the spiritual side of it, but it is still a hoax all the same. Just as you can say this to me using the nickname "enoch" without any irony, you apparently haven't spent more than 10 seconds verifying what you say has any relevence.

>> ^enoch:
>>

no shinyblurry.
there is no middle ground for you ,which has nothing to do with faith or belief in jesus but is entirely about YOUR belief in doctrine and dogma.
267 books of the bible..all by biblical authors yet only 66 IN the bible (KJV) or 73 (if you are catholic).
164 revisions.
over 22,000 mistranslations: CONFIRMED.
josephius flavius:debunked.
i can do this all day scooter.

as for jesus's life after resurrection i tend to agree that it is speculation based on rumor and tidbits of conjecture but the gospels themselves are based in many instances in the exact same way.
the bible is an incomplete text.
we now have:
the gospel of judas.
the gospel of mary.
the gospel of james.
the gospel of thomas.
and so much more but the church will never recognize anything apart from what has been canonized since 325 A.D.jesus didnt build the church..constantine,hippo and carthage did..nicean council 325 A.D.before that christianity would be unrecognizable to you or any other christian on the planet.

your comments have an evangelical flavor to them so i know my comment will be ignored because you are self-righteous in your own certitude based on a seriously flawed scriptural text.
any perceived deviation from canonized scripture is to be viewed as coming from satan and therefore a lie.
how very....dark ages of you.

only a fundamentalist or evangelical would view digging for the truth as a way to confuse and cast doubt.
is your faith based in jesus?
or a book?
because from what i have seen of your comments it is the latter.

well.you go have fun with that.

>> ^silky:

In Australia, The idea of a budget reply is to do whatever you like. It doesn't matter as it has no value except to win votes. I have never seen an oppostion budget that has actually been implemented. Anyway, it looks like our target here of getting back to surplus to 2013 is pretty good.
Knowing the US people, they would never stand for in principle a reduction in military spending in a general sense. If they said, cut certian new technology programs back that would be implemented insted, then that would have a better chance of getting through the public. Investment in infrastucture is ALWAYS in these kinds of things.
The tax breaks endings for the top-end is simply vote-grabbing. Can't they get these top guys to be involved in fixing certain issues instead. That would be a new idea: anyone earning over $10 million in a single year needs to fix a component of the total system that would have indirect symetary in their field: "You! Mr Gates! You now have to fix the transportation system!" They have to use their own money, and don't have to pay any tax.


Ironically, that would also allow them to create jobs with the extra money they are not getting taxed, something the propaganda machine always says happens with that money. It seems like your suggestion would be common sense, and I always kind of hope to read stories about the good things they are doing in this regard. However the stories are usually always the opposite, they use their money to meet their own ends; e.g. Bill Gates is a supporter of Atmosphere scrubbing, so he's spending money to ensure pollution can continue as per normal, and he thinks we'll just be able to release other chemicals to scrub CO2 out of the air.

The mirror test huh? Besides humans the only ones who pass the mirror test are the great apes, which thankfully are the same order as humans so we know you aren't a cannibal. That leaves the other 18 orders of animals in the class of mammalia free to eat including veal, lamb, dogs, cats and every other pet you can conceive of. Well, except monkeys and I knew a guy with a pet monkey but it's rare so we won't put them in the pet category. So the mirror test is a pretty shitty test of what someone will or won't eat.

You just sound like another PETA member trying to convince billions of people that we aren't the top of the food chain and we should care about what we eat. Alive or dead a vast majority of animals don't have the same pain receptors we contain for the simple fact of being eaten alive. They have touch receptors in the extremities for movement and awareness of surroundings. You can look that up in any science textbook about animal nervous systems. You can believe and preach what you want about cruelness to animals. Either way it is still going to be eaten.

Even still, crushing an animal to death and having it die in seconds in your mouth as compared to being boiled alive over minutes is still less cruel. You should think of the alternatives of how the animal might die before you say eating it alive is cruel.
>> ^Gallowflak:

>> ^kronosposeidon:
It's a mixed bag for me. I'm completely inconsistent. This makes me squeamish and therefore seems cruel to me, but then I remember that I eat lobster from time to time, and lobster is prepared by boiling it alive. Cockles and mussels are also cooked while they're alive. A lot of the world includes insect protein in their diet, and insects are rarely dispatched humanely before preparation. Some are roasted alive before consumption. (I'm not even sure if there is a way to humanely kill an insect anyway. Decapitation?) And how about the way we treat animals before they're killed? How about veal? And has anyone seen film of modern chicken houses? Meat consumption is littered with ethical issues. I think about it often while stuffing Big Macs in my face.>> ^Fusionaut:
I don't know if biting into something that is still alive is all that wrong under the right circumstances. It happens in the wild all of the time. Dunking it in a hot, pepper sauce before the first bite seems cruel to me though. However, I did eat a live mayfly once. Grabbed it out of the air and then CHOMP! The wings got stuck in my teeth. Now you know a weird fact about me.


Right, but I'm not sure that typical meat consumption is comparable to consuming an animal alive for no purpose other than... whatever the purpose is. It's grotesque, it's excessive and it shows casual disregard - and perhaps even contempt - for the suffering of species that don't have our gawking faces. The fact that animals are eaten alive in the wild just isn't relevant, either. We're able to make the choice. Maybe I'm just a bitch. One of my overarching directives is to minimize the amount of suffering that I'm responsible for. This is just fucking awful.
It's not relevant but I don't eat veal or lamb, nor lobster or crab and certainly not octopus. I won't consume the flesh of any animal order that contains creatures which pass the mirror test.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

It's a mixed bag for me. I'm completely inconsistent. This makes me squeamish and therefore seems cruel to me, but then I remember that I eat lobster from time to time, and lobster is prepared by boiling it alive. Cockles and mussels are also cooked while they're alive. A lot of the world includes insect protein in their diet, and insects are rarely dispatched humanely before preparation. Some are roasted alive before consumption. (I'm not even sure if there is a way to humanely kill an insect anyway. Decapitation?) And how about the way we treat animals before they're killed? How about veal? And has anyone seen film of modern chicken houses? Meat consumption is littered with ethical issues. I think about it often while stuffing Big Macs in my face.>> ^Fusionaut:
I don't know if biting into something that is still alive is all that wrong under the right circumstances. It happens in the wild all of the time. Dunking it in a hot, pepper sauce before the first bite seems cruel to me though. However, I did eat a live mayfly once. Grabbed it out of the air and then CHOMP! The wings got stuck in my teeth. Now you know a weird fact about me.



Right, but I'm not sure that typical meat consumption is comparable to consuming an animal alive for no purpose other than... whatever the purpose is. It's grotesque, it's excessive and it shows casual disregard - and perhaps even contempt - for the suffering of species that don't have our gawking faces. The fact that animals are eaten alive in the wild just isn't relevant, either. We're able to make the choice. Maybe I'm just a bitch. One of my overarching directives is to minimize the amount of suffering that I'm responsible for. This is just fucking awful.

It's not relevant but I don't eat veal or lamb, nor lobster or crab and certainly not octopus. I won't consume the flesh of any animal order that contains creatures which pass the mirror test.

It's a mixed bag for me. I'm completely inconsistent. This makes me squeamish and therefore seems cruel to me, but then I remember that I eat lobster from time to time, and lobster is prepared by boiling it alive. Cockles and mussels are also cooked while they're alive. A lot of the world includes insect protein in their diet, and insects are rarely dispatched humanely before preparation. Some are roasted alive before consumption. (I'm not even sure if there is a way to humanely kill an insect anyway. Decapitation?) And how about the way we treat animals before they're killed? How about veal? And has anyone seen film of modern chicken houses? Meat consumption is littered with ethical issues. I think about it often while stuffing Big Macs in my face.>> ^Fusionaut:

I don't know if biting into something that is still alive is all that wrong under the right circumstances. It happens in the wild all of the time. Dunking it in a hot, pepper sauce before the first bite seems cruel to me though. However, I did eat a live mayfly once. Grabbed it out of the air and then CHOMP! The wings got stuck in my teeth. Now you know a weird fact about me.

I don't know if biting into something that is still alive is all that wrong under the right circumstances. It happens in the wild all of the time. Dunking it in a hot, pepper sauce before the first bite seems cruel to me though. However, I did eat a live mayfly once. Grabbed it out of the air and then CHOMP! The wings got stuck in my teeth. Now you know a weird fact about me.

thanks for sharing that-

everything in my world is a little more clear now..

>> ^VidRoth:
In reply to this comment by turboj0e:
anybody else notice how the owl just "appears" out of thin air??? right around the 3 or 4 second mark...... very interesting
Looks like really bad compression, slightly better quality vid shows it was already sitting there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6yt1nQs9TIw

>> ^turboj0e:

anybody else notice how the owl just "appears" out of thin air??? right around the 3 or 4 second mark...... very interesting

it's just badly compressed video artifact

>> ^turboj0e:

anybody else notice how the owl just "appears" out of thin air??? right around the 3 or 4 second mark...... very interesting


Yeah, what the frak?

In reply to this comment by turboj0e:
anybody else notice how the owl just "appears" out of thin air??? right around the 3 or 4 second mark...... very interesting

Looks like really bad compression, slightly better quality vid shows it was already sitting there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6yt1nQs9TIw

anybody else notice how the owl just "appears" out of thin air??? right around the 3 or 4 second mark...... very interesting

1. I saw an interview with Bernanke a month or so ago....he was asked this EXACT question. His response - they just log onto a computer, and create new money...digitally create new fungible cash, without actually having ANYTHING physically backing it. It exists in the digital world only. That is then given out to banks, and kept track of. The paper to cover the banks comes later...when they need it (ie....when people are withdrawing).

Transactions are all done digitally in big business, so there is less and less need to print paper, or hold gold to back the funds created....because noone checks it.

The money is literally created out of thin air...and only exists in their networks.

The idea is that the debt created is a promise from the loanee for future productivity...that will in turn create assets that are worth the interest to pay the bank back, and then some on top for a tidy profit.

This all comes unstuck when people A) Realise what the banks are doing, and demand their money (a run on the bank...) or B) The debts dont get repaid because the productivity is not creating enough of a return to service the interest.

Both these scenarios create toxic assets, and you end up with an economy with more visible debt that their is money....and bam, the whole system dies in a heap.

2. Absolutely nothing. Its way too entrenched. You can run for president on a campaign of destroying this institution, but have fun trying to educate enough people about it to back you on your crusade.



...Slavery never died, it was just abstracted by money. Its new name is debt.

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^SuperHotbUNZ:
I knew it would boil. I did not know it would freeze.

Actually, below .006 atm liquid water isn't stable... it either freezes or boils, depending on the temperature. If they had left it in the vacuum then it wouldn't have frozen. As said above this is what happens to a person tossed out of an air lock in space, and it is also closely related to the damage deep-sea divers experience if they surface too quickly.
Another interesting property of H2O is that adding pressure to ice at just under the freezing point (and above .006 atm pressure) turns it back into water, where as most substances freeze under increased pressure.
♥ Chemistry


Phase diagram for general fluids: http://www.teamonslaught.fsnet.co.uk/co2%20phase%20diagram.GIF

Phase diagram for water: http://www.cims.nyu.edu/~gladish/teaching/eao/water-phase-diagram.jpg


These diagrams show what you're describing. Notice the line separating solid and liquid. Under general fluids, the line tilts to the right showing that when pressure is added and temperature is constant, the phase of that fluid will move from liquid to solid. But for water, the line is tilted to the left, showing that with increased pressure at a constant temperature, ice would turn to water