The blunted point of this video: religion is about faithfully following and constraining curiosity, while science is about aggressively questioning and holding nothing sacred.

Science is also about atheistic materialism. The idea of the supernatural cause is rejected apriori:

No evidence would be sufficient to create a change in mind; that it is not a commitment to evidence, but a commitment to naturalism. ...Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it.

Steven Pinker MIT
How the mind works p.182

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.

Richard Lewontin, Harvard
New York Review of Books 1/9/97

Religion itself serves no purpose. Going to church, partaking in sacraments, putting on a public face of piety, these are the dead works of men. The heart of Christianity is to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, to know God intimately and experientially. It is not religion but relationship.

A point I would add is that in human societies there may be a time and a place for each, but they will still each question the value of the other.

At the outset, they were friends to one another. The idea of an orderly Universe based on universal laws is a Christian idea, and so is the idea that we can suss out those ideas by investigating secondary causes. Science really got its start in Christian europe. Though they are portrayed as rivals now, it is truly a false dichotomy. I think John Lennox explains this best:



What we should be talking about then is the individual common ground, in your own head, between these two things. You describe a more Unitarian God, responsible for creating/upholding the laws of a changing Universe, and nothing else. I might describe a God with far less impact or far greater impact on human lives here on Earth (...or hundreds of Gods along a God power-spectrum). I might also specify some particular stories about how I know my God to be the true God.

At their essence, I don't think there is any conflict. Religion tells us about who the Creator is while science tries to explain how He did it. The bible isn't a book about science, although it contains some scientific principles. It is a book that describes what God wants from us, why He created us. Science shows us His marvels, it tells us why the stars shine so brightly, it reveals their secret power.

The God I believe in is a personal God who created us for a purpose. His desire is for us to know Him personally and attain to eternal life through His Son Jesus Christ. I believe He is the true God because He transformed my life and being, made me whole by His love, and because I received the direct witness of the Holy Spirit. Everyone who believes in Jesus Christ will receive the witness of the Holy Spirit and then Gods existence will become undeniably true. God Himself provides the evidence if you approach Him in faith.

On the other side is Science, where neither bullshit nor treasured dogma are valued once proven wrong. Your world is composed of atoms, which we've taken pictures of, and we've landed robots on another planet... but where we wonder what the meaning of any of this is, and how long its going to be before we screw it up.

The idea that science is an objective enterprise is a myth. This isn't about the best evidence.

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”

Max Planck

If you want to challenge the status quo, you need the support of the status quo. It's a closed system. You're not getting any grants or getting published unless you're towing the line on the conventional wisdom of the day. Check out some of the finds that modern science conveniently ignores..



Evidence starts around 10:00 or so

Also check out this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Exploding-Myth-Conventional-Wisdom-Scientific/dp/1904275303

>> ^bamdrew:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/us/politics/pro-gingrich-pac-plans-tv-ads-against-romney.html?_r=1&hp


Article about this whole thing....

Excerpt:

The film’s producer, Barry Bennett, a former consultant to a super PAC that supports Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, said he came up with the idea himself.

Mr. Bennett said he had bought an “opposition research book” on Mr. Romney compiled by the staff of a Republican rival during the 2008 campaign and had found its contents “stunning.”

“David Axelrod,” he said, referring to Mr. Obama’s strategist, “is going to have a heyday with this, and Republicans need to know this story before we nominate this guy.”

He is certainly NOT unequivocally opposed. Far from it, completely. Please.


So he doesnt believe in affirmative action? Great, maybe he realizes that the term minority and majority are just that.. terms... and the group they are applied to can change.


This is why he wants out of the UN. Its all well and good now, that WE are in charge. It's better to start setting up a system that benefits everyone, even those NOT in charge at the current moment.

I'm not buying into him being against other lifestyles to the point of not being reasonable or allowing states to decide... its not a slippery slope to me that he wants people to decide for themselves, so that things can start to really sort out. The Defense of Marriage act? Ok, well In 2004, Paul was one of only 27 House Republicans who voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment.

In 2010, he flipped from a “no” to a “yes” on repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. “I have received several calls and visits from constituents who, in spite of the heavy investment in their training, have been forced out of the military simply because they were discovered to be homosexual," he explained. “To me, this seems like an awful waste.”

Eric Dondero is the one telling "eye witness" stories about Ron Paul and he is not exactly credible as a political rival and former staffer...

If Ron Paul is personally uncomfortable with gays but puts forth a political ideology that doesn't discriminate & strives to protect the personal liberties of ALL Americans, he's as good as Obama to me. I don't see Obama going out of his way to force the issue either...

Here is why "They" don't want him: his libertarian views trump his moral compass. simple as that. he can be fair and rational.

@Pantalones

Natural rights means they come from nature, meaning you have some deep insight into the "real" nature of nature. You might call them God given rights, but then that begs the question, how do you know what those are? The ones we call natural rights, are they really? Why isn't property? Why isn't it actually happiness, not pursuit of happiness? There is no evidence to support which ones are natural, and which ones we are just deciding arbitrarily. As such, the burden of proof is on people claiming rights are natural. If we look out into nature, it tells a tail of a very "inhuman" nature. Nature respects nothing; parents eat their children or murder the children of a genetic rival, rape, genocide, slavery, suffering of all kinds shapes and varieties, life is a tail of endless suffering inflicted on other life. The rule of nature is there fairness isn't real, only brutality and domination. So to say there is a "natural" right to live, freedom and fruit salad, you would need some justification for that. The founders used a justification; God did it. I can't hold to that justification, and even if I did, I couldn't hold to the justification is those 3 things and not some others. As such, if there are "natural rights", no one has a valid claim to what they are.

@budzos

I digress good sir, we are arguing semantics of our own personal morality, an intractable thing for me in text. I wish you well, and hope I didn't cause you much distress. I, too, often find myself frustrated by what I see as fatuous arguments, but the problem doesn't come from logical flaws, but my own inability to make clear the exceptions that are inherent in such complex issues, compounded by my own lack of command of the English language.

Ignoring your blatant and ignorant mischaracterization of the bible for a moment, perhaps you don't realize the role the 10 commandments has played in our legal system. Not withstanding that every single one of those commandments were once laws of this nation, it has also profoundly influenced the legal system as a whole. Some quotes:

Delware supreme court:

Long before Lord Hale declared that Christianity was a part of the laws of England, the Court of Kings Bench, 34 Eliz. in Ratcliff's case, 3 Coke Rep. 40, b. had gone so far as to declare that "in almost all cases, the common law was grounded on the law of God, which it was said was causa causans," and the court cited the 27th chapter of Numbers, to show that their judgment on a common law principle in regard to the law of inheritance, was founded on God's revelation of that law to Moses.
State v. Chandler, 2 Harr. 553 at 561 (1837)

John Adams

"It pleased God to deliver on Mount Sinai a compendium of His holy law and to write it with His own hand on durable tables of stone. This law, which is commonly called the Ten Commandments or Decalogue, . . . is immutable and universally obligatory. . . . [and] was incorporated in the judicial law."

John Quincy Adams

The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws. . . . Vain, indeed, would be the search among the writings of profane antiquity . . . to find so broad, so complete and so solid a basis for morality as this Decalogue lays down."

Chief Justice John Jay

The moral, or natural law, was given by the sovereign of the universe to all mankind."

Jusice James Wilson

"As promulgated by reason and the moral sense, it has been called natural; as promulgated by the Holy Scriptures, it has been called revealed law. As addressed to men, it has been denominated the law of nature; as addressed to political societies, it has been denominated the law of nations. But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same divine source; it is the law of God. . . . What we do, indeed, must be founded on what He has done; and the deficiencies of our laws must be supplied by the perfections of His. Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law as discovered by reason and moral sense forms an essential part of both. The moral precepts delivered in the sacred oracles form part of the law of nature, are of the same origin and of the same obligation, operating universally and perpetually."

Alexander Hamilton

"The law of nature, “which, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this.”"

Justice Joseph Story

"I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying its foundations." (emphasis added)
>> ^shuac:
Actually, the first ten commandments (out of a total of 623) were written by the jews and later co-opted by christians.
If they were authored by god (the way many people claim), you'd think they'd be the greatest top-ten list ever created anywhere at any time, greater than any writer living or dead. You'd think that, wouldn't you?
Here they are. Get ready.
1. I am the lord god, you shall have no other god before me.
2. Thou shalt not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above (so much for religious art & sculpture)
3. Thou shalt not take the lord's name in vain
4. Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy (ignored by more christians than probably any other commandment)
5. Honor thy father and mother (apparently regardless of whether they're worthy of honor)
6. Thou shalt not murder (except when god does it or commands it)
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery (also ignored by many christians)
8. Thou shalt not steal (like, say, evangelical preachers?)
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, his field, his manservant or his maidservant, his wife, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's.
A pretty unimpressive list, I must say. Nothing about slavery or rape or genocide here...but then, what would the rest of the bible actually contain if not for slavery, rape, and genocide? Number ten is my personal favorite because it's probably the first prohibition against a particular brand of thought. Thoughtcrime, as George Orwell would've put it.

I've only been into motogp since the last part of last season. It's an awesome thing to watch for the close racing and all the overtakes and tactics and excitement. Simoncelli was a new gp rider last year and I've watched him change and develop and really start to show his real talent. Despite being far too big for the bikes he had a knack of going fast in a really exciting way. I didn't know him at all, but I did like him as a rider and he was always interesting to watch.

It's often said that people enjoy watching racing for the crashes. That if motor racing is made too safe it sanitises and ruins it. That if there is no risk there is no excitement. Bollox. I watch F1 and MotoGP to see the skill of the riders and drivers. To see the race unfold. To see how they better their rivals on the track. Of course crashes are going to happen, particularly on the bikes. If they aren't crashing it's questionable if they're pushing hard enough. Simoncelli certainly knew about crashing as he was pushing 110% from the start before his skill level had risen to meet his ego. As his time in MotoGP has gone on he's got better and better. He was going to win races and going to win a championship. I'm genuinely saddened by what's happened. 24 is no age to go.

My heart goes out to Colin Edwards and Valentino Rossi. They must be going through hell right now.

Hey black that also happens to be rival candidate.
Hey rival candidate that also happens to be black.

You see where I'm going with this?

I'm still waiting for the reincarnation of Bill Hicks. The man was a legend, I don't know if he will ever be rivaled.

Don't get me wrong, I love Louis, but I'm still waiting for him to speak to the truth of the North American socio-economic situation like Carlin did.

Conspiracy theories are like religion. There is absolutely NOTHING you can say to someone that wears a tin-foil hat to disprove what they believe. Even when faced with evidence to the contrary, they just believe it is part of a massive "cover-up" that is so laughably impractical and illogical it rivals turning water into wine...

One would assume all of the targets the rebels designate are pro-Gaddafi forces, not rival tribes or anything like that.

In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
If you wanna be rivals. We can. I don't see the point tho.

I said something about your poor choice of video. Nothing about your character or personality (other than that you might be a FPS fanboy).

So cut it the fuck out unless you want a big retarded flame war.


I haven't said anything about you personally in anything I have posted. Everything I have put out there has been in the interest of slightly provocative humor. In fact when I responded to you I treated your post and you with the utmost respect. If you can't take a little bit of humor... then I suppose I would have to recommend you toughening up your skin, because frankly giving you some friendly ribbing was really funny. However in the interest of peace, I will desist in my attempts to make you laugh and shake your head.

>> ^BreaksTheEarth:

I can't wait until they find the tomb of Zahi Hawass. His self-aggrandizing rivals Ramses II.


Don't you just love his voice though?

Well, that was an easy one to disprove. Via Wikipedia:

Riots in the 1970s
1970 - Kent State shootings, May 1970, (Kent, Ohio, United States)
1970 - Hard Hat riot, Wall Street, May 8, 1970, (New York City, New York, United States)
1970 - Harakat Tahrir riots, June 17, 1970 El-Aaiun[citation needed]
1970 - Falls Curfew (Belfast, Northern Ireland on 3–5 July 1970)
1970 - Fatti di Reggio, July 1970, (Reggio Calabria, Italy)
1970 - Koza riot, December 20, (Ryukyu Islands, United States, later Okinawa Prefecture, Japan)
1971 - May Day Protests 1971, May 1971, (Washington, D.C., United States)
1971 - 1971 Springbok tour (Australia)
1971 - Camden Riots, August 1971, (Camden, New Jersey, United States)
1971 - Operation Demetrius (Northern Ireland on August 9–11, 1971)
1971 - Attica Prison uprising, (Attica, New York, United States)
1971 - Indo-Pakistani War of 1971
1972 - Bloody Sunday (Derry, Northern Ireland on 30 January 1972)
1972 - Operation Motorman (Northern Ireland on 31 July 1972)
1973 and 1974 - Athens Polytechnic uprising, Greek student riots and revolution at National Technical University of Athens, military junta overthrown, (Greece)
1973 - Oklahoma State Penitentiary Prison Riot, (McAlester, Oklahoma, United States)[citation needed]
1973 - Ageo incident, Tokyo Metropolitan Railways Riot,(Tokyo and Saitama, April 1973)[citation needed]
1974 - Cherry Blossom Festival at the Richmond Stadium, (Richmond, Virginia, United States)[citation needed]
1974 - Ulster Workers' Council strike (Northern Ireland, May 1974)
1974 - Ten Cent Beer Night, (Cleveland, Ohio, United States, June 4, 1974)
1975 - Chapeltown riot Leeds, West Yorkshire ,England
1975 - Nieuwmarkt riot, March - April 1975 (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
1975 - Livernois-Fenkell riot (Detroit, Michigan, United States)
1975 - European cup Final 1975, Leeds United riot in Paris
1976 - Vitoria Riots, March 3 (Vitoria, Basque Country, Spain)
1976 - Kobe Festival Riot by motorcycle gangs (Bōsōzoku), May 15 in Japan
1976 - Notting Hill Carnival Riot (London, England)
1976 - Soweto Riots (Soweto, South Africa)
1977 - 1977 Egyptian Bread Riots, January, 1977, (Egypt)
1977 - New York City Blackout riot, July 1977, (New York City, United States)
1977 - Sri Lankan riots of 1977, (Sri Lanka)
1978 - Rameeza Bee Riots, (Hyderabad, India)
1979 - Disco Demolition Night, (Chicago, Illinois, United States)
1979 - White Night gay riots, May 1979 (San Francisco, California)
1979 - Greensboro Riot/Shootings, Nov. 1979, (Greensboro, North Carolina, United States)
1979 - Southall Riots, (Southall, West London, England)

>> ^quantumushroom:

Of course, watching an atheist angered by a lack of morality in the populace is hilarious. People didn't regularly act this way 40 years ago. What changed?
Not everyone proclaiming to be a Christian follows Thou shalt not steal all the time, but more of them have values than the ones raised with....NOTHING.


So what's the reason that all these god-fearing, morally-informed-with-superior-'Christian'-values people engaged in riots? Ummm... maybe it is because the proximate causes of a riot are based on economic and societal conditions and not prevented by a 2000 year old book. Also worth noting in the list is included Bloody Sunday, which, if I remember correctly, was part of a conflict based on rival gangs within your beloved Christianity kicking the shit out of each other.

well, i might suck at moob motorboating, but i can totally auto-fellate like a boss, so WHATEVS!

i had just been for a run in the rain, so my t-shirt was all wet and sticking to me -- i thought it would help, but sadly i just don't have what it takes. i feel that with dedication, one day i might rival the almighty @UsesProzac.

♥

Fry once said on Qi that two companies in Swizzerland actually make a multipurpose knife and that the army diligently buys 50% of their knives from each company.

EDIT: Never mind it seems Victorinox actually bought the rival company...so now it's technically just them.