I would beg to differ on this sentiment. We have little knowledge of where we come from. Even Francis Crick, one of the founders of DNA suggested that we are on Earth through panspermia from another sentient race.

Then you have to ask who created them, and who created the creators, and so on. It becomes a chain of causality. You then have two options. Either, you have to believe that something came from nothing, or, there is an eternal first cause of everything that exists. I think something coming from nothing is impossible, so an eternal first cause is the only option left. If you agree, then we'll call that God.

Who knows? The Christian perception of god in reality is quite possibly unfathomably simple, that is to say that which is the creation of all existence. Listen, I want the truth just as much as you do, that is why I gone far out to experience mystical experiences that only prove to me that whatever this is, is far more complex and loving.

It's good to hear that you are pursuing the truth. That is something I greatly respect. My question to you is, if the truth is Jesus Christ, as He claims (I am the way, the *truth* and the life), would you turn your life over to Him?

The Christian conception of God is actually very complex in some ways, and simple in others. Complex, when you consider the Holy Trinity and the incarnation of Christ. Simple, when you consider the Fathers love for His children the sacrificial love of His Son. The theology also shares this dichotomy of depth and simplicity, and it is all knit together with sinews of love and unity into the mystical body of Christ. The Christian God is, like the Universe He created, both complex and simple.

I'm not sure what you mean by more loving. I'm going to need a definition and example of what you're talking about before I reply to that.

No one can prove Jesus was raised from the dead it is a phenomenon not widely occurring. I would never say that Jesus never existed but I think it is probable that Jesus existed in a much more humble way than what is described by his disciples. Therefore, I look at it as a book of tall tales. There is nothing wrong with that, I mean if you can accept it for what it really is... a book of Tall Tales.

Presumably, if Jesus is alive, He could prove it couldn't He?

Yes, I went to a Lutheran church every Sunday for eighteen years. Most of my parents community were involved with the church. They all know my feelings on the subject and over time I have seen their Christian foundations dissolve for better or worse. For me, it is undeniably a farce of divinity. I respect Christianity, probably without Christianity I would never had wanted to seek out the real, hard truths. Christianity spoke so much of honesty and truth. I adore those concepts and unfortunately Christianity does not hold a flame to what I now know.

You will find me very much in agreement with you when you say that dead religion is a farce of divinity. When it comes down to it, there are two types of Christians in this world. Those who have a religion, and those who have a relationship. Those who have a religion are those who follow the traditions of men, and believe that to follow God is to go to church, read the bible, and pray at the suitable times. Basically, if they follow their good and bad checklist well enough, some day they will make it to Heaven. Their faith is blind and based only on what they've read, but not what they've understood to be true from experience.

Those who have a relationship are those who have a personal, intimate, experiential relationship with the living God. They have the Holy Spirit living with them, who has supernaturally transformed them into new people. These people experience the presence of God in their daily lives, and are personally guided by God in everything they do. These people know the truth, experience it, and live it out every single day. It sounds to me that your experience had the character of the former and not the latter. I am not shocked at all that you left the church under those pretenses, and I would have too. It is a story I have heard many times in the past, that people who grew up with dead religion and never learned how to have a personal relationship with Christ, quickly abandoned the faith of their parents, because either they never really believed in the first place, or they had no foundation for their beliefs, and the world quickly converted them to its ways.

There is more to this story Shinyblurry, my spiritual quest started late, after I was free from the churches hold . I am not a liar, I have never purposefully stolen anything and I treat people with honesty and compassion. I may be very left leaning but I find myself to be much more ethical, non judgemental and compassionate than most

I appreciate that you're a relatively moral person. We as humans tend to judge ourselves based on a relative standard, based on how we line up to other people. Compared to rapists and pedophiles, we're both very upstanding citizens I am sure. Compared to Hitler, we are looking almost perfect. Yet, God doesn't judge on a sliding scale; He uses an absolute standard. Gods standard for good is moral perfection, and He considers anything short of that to be evil. That is why God is holy and we are not. So, for example, you say that you're not a liar, but if you've ever told even one lie then you are in fact a liar, as a liar is a person who has lied. If you've ever stolen *anything*, regardless of its value, you're a thief. If you've ever used Gods name in vain you are a blasphemer. Gods standards are even higher than this, though, in that He consider what you've thought in your heart. For example, if you've ever even looked at a woman with lust He considers you an adulterer at heart, and Jesus says if you've ever hated anyone you've murdered them in your heart. (full disclosure: I've done all of these things) So you can see that our relative standard doesn't cut it when it comes to what God considers good, and even one sin is too many. That's why Jesus died for our sins, because we cannot meet Gods holy standard on our own.

One night maybe ten years ago, for a few seconds, and then hours I thought God had contacted me and it was weirdest thing I have ever experienced. And it was real, I mean the experience. And so my quest began and I found a partial truth after many years of research...

Tell me more about your experience of God..why was it weird, and what partial truth did you find that seemed to confirm it?

and it only raises more questions on divinity, soul, morality, the mind, the universe. Thus is life. Keep asking questions. Keep thinking. Keep researching.

I respect your search for the truth, and I think it is a good thing. Scripture says, seek and you shall find. Ask and you shall be given. Knock, and the door will open. Do you believe that you have a soul?

The truth is out there, yet none of us know it yet. And I mean NO ONE.

I'll have to stop you here because you're making an absolute claim and this is self-contradictory. This is revealed by the question, "is it absolutely true that no one knows the truth?" The best you could say is that you don't know the truth, but you don't know what I know. How could you, if you don't know what the truth is?

Further, this ties into what we're discussing about the video. That there are only two routes to truth. Either you are omnipotent, or you get revelation from an omnipotent being. Since neither of us are omnipotent, there is only one possibility of either of us knowing the truth, which is an omnipotent being revealing it to us. I fully agree with you that outside of such revelation no one knows anything. But, if God gave me such revelation how would you know whether He did or not? You couldn't say no one knows the truth, because you don't know what God has or has not revealed. You only know what God has revealed to you, if anything.

I'm a neuroscientist. I get it. I'm not saying it doesn't suck for this kid. Lots of things that happen suck for lots of people. I'm saying one cop tasering one kid doesn't constitute national news. People get tasered all the time. This one is particularly jarring because it's a kid. Thus, it's a heartstrings story, not one that will help you inform your decisions in any way whatsoever.

>> ^Murgy:

I'm not sure you understand what it is like to be shot with a taser, my friend.
To give you a very brief picture, I can pretty well guarantee that this child wouldn't have noticed the puncture wounds from the electrode prongs until long after the incident itself.
In a nutshell, an electroshock weapon seeks to exploit the way the nervous system works to make the brain think electrical impulses are being send from every muscle in the affected are to contract, even if a pair of said muscles are in direct opposition to each other. Obviously muscles pulling against each other is quite a painful thing. Hell, if an adrenaline release has occurred, these conflicting muscles can literally tear themselves off of the bone with a long enough shock.
At the time, though, much of the real pain comes from the simple interaction of sensory nerves and electricity. For the sake of simplicity, we'll call prong one A, prong two B, and motor nerve pathways C.
For the brief moment that said energy moves from point A to point C, all affected sensory nerves send the maximum amount of electrochemical signals as possible in response to what the nerves think is a harm causing force far greater than an electric shock actually is. This manifests itself as the greatest possible amount of pain from an extremely localized area, the amount of possible pain being proportional to the concentration of sensory nerves in the affected area. This then repeats itself during the transition from point C to point B.
>> ^bmacs27:
They aren't exactly knocking on doors or digging through leaked memos here. This story doesn't really address any of the real issues we're facing. It doesn't address unemployment, or our economic crisis. It doesn't address the global clusterfuck we're in the midst of. It isn't telling us anything we need to know about our elected officials, or how we're being governed (really, unless you consider some local cop to be governance). In the end it's just another piece about some asshole cop because that's what gets eyeballs from lefties. Same shit, different patriotic backdrop.

I'm not sure you understand what it is like to be shot with a taser, my friend.
To give you a very brief picture, I can pretty well guarantee that this child wouldn't have noticed the puncture wounds from the electrode prongs until long after the incident itself.
In a nutshell, an electroshock weapon seeks to exploit the way the nervous system works to make the brain think electrical impulses are being send from every muscle in the affected are to contract, even if a pair of said muscles are in direct opposition to each other. Obviously muscles pulling against each other is quite a painful thing. Hell, if an adrenaline release has occurred, these conflicting muscles can literally tear themselves off of the bone with a long enough shock.

At the time, though, much of the real pain comes from the simple interaction of sensory nerves and electricity. For the sake of simplicity, we'll call prong one A, prong two B, and motor nerve pathways C.
For the brief moment that said energy moves from point A to point C, all affected sensory nerves send the maximum amount of electrochemical signals as possible in response to what the nerves think is a harm causing force far greater than an electric shock actually is. This manifests itself as the greatest possible amount of pain from an extremely localized area, the amount of possible pain being proportional to the concentration of sensory nerves in the affected area. This then repeats itself during the transition from point C to point B.

>> ^bmacs27:

They aren't exactly knocking on doors or digging through leaked memos here. This story doesn't really address any of the real issues we're facing. It doesn't address unemployment, or our economic crisis. It doesn't address the global clusterfuck we're in the midst of. It isn't telling us anything we need to know about our elected officials, or how we're being governed (really, unless you consider some local cop to be governance). In the end it's just another piece about some asshole cop because that's what gets eyeballs from lefties. Same shit, different patriotic backdrop.

This video is awesome! If EVER there was a video to demonstrate the total ignorance and unwillingness to be educated, the utter simplicity of mind, and the complete idiocy of the staunch republican voter, this is it.

Hilarious!

You guys make them waay to complex. Simplicity works too!
65536,0,65536,0,2624,0,0,0,512,512,64,512,0,128,64,0

Brilliance. Simplicity. These guys should have done The Blair Witch Reject or Paranormal Excrutiance~

MY point (not THE point) was the beauteous simplicity of the exchange.

Hence the title.

Yes.

Done and dusted. No big argument. Just yes and move on.

If I could have cut this up to be just 45 seconds, I would have done so. Unfortunately, I only know how to cut up YouTube vids. I also would have cut out the advert.

Unfortunately, I have apparently ruined your day because my computer skills are lacking.

I send you a "there there" and hope you feel better soon.




>> ^chingalera:

Thanks for the mandatory advert-Oh, and Shaq earned his doctorate. I feel so good now knowing that hoop-stuffing earns university points.
Other than that-Non-Journalism, mute point, kick dead horse, get your gay on, etc. What really matters in a world of bullshit anyway? Asking the question begs an answer from oneself. This post has nothing to do with true gayness. One may sense anger and frustration the motivation for the offering or perhaps a pulpit or soapbox boost to make a point.
What's the point?.

1. An "eternal first cause" and/or "creator" does not in any way by default = a degree of intelligence and/or act of deliberate purpose and/or 'living' entity/mechanism.

2. Every-time an argument asserts the idea of an "eternal first cause" and/or "creator", said assertion holds no relativity to the likelihood/plausibility of a God.

KCA.. really?

"The kalam cosmological argument, for example, establishes an eternal, personal, transcendent first cause of the Universe".
No it doesn't. It's wordplay, deception and confusion/delusion, the only tools in which theological arguments have EVER been viewed as to hold a degree of legitimacy until met by intelligent humans who can see the patterns of speech. The use of formulated distractions in an attempt to validate an invalid proposition is deceit.
~Even if disputed, refer to 1st point. There is no argument for God's existence here.

Kalam Cosmological Argument:
- whatever begins to exist has a cause (premise 1)
- the universe began to exist (premise 2)
- the universe has a cause

The argument follows the following structure:

- if X, then Y
- X
- therefore Y

But alas, if we take a closer look, we can clearly see a MASSIVE sleight of hand in KCA.

Consider the arguments below and it will start to become clear what it is:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- If someone is lying, they are not telling the truth
- My son is lying on his bed
- Therefore, my son is not telling the truth

OR

- whatever is not right is wrong
- my left leg is not right
- therefore my left leg is wrong

OR

- If it is bright, it gives off/reflects light
- My son is bright
- Therefore, my son gives off/reflects light
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You see what just happened?

Even though, the 3 arguments above follow the logical structure of "If x, then Y, X, therefore Y", they are complete nonsense....

... because the words 'lying', 'right' and 'bright' change meaning in premise 1 and 2, rendering the arguments completely useless.

And this is exactly what is happening in KCA with the terms 'begins' and 'began'. The difference between 'i'+'S' and 'a' has a value that those who make this argument either try to pretend isn't there, or have simply been fooled by it themselves due to their lack of interest/attention of the subject or their desperation to justify their preference for psychological comfort in the face of human minds not having had the pressures to evolve to properly comprehend self-termination, due to their being no continuation of processing once the engine stops and the lights go out.


To explain the deception within KCA further and more specifically..

The phrase "begins to exist" changes meaning in premise 1 vs premise 2.

In premise 1, "begins to exist" is being used in the context of things coming into existence as a result of "REARRANGEMENT OF EXISTING MATTER/ENERGY".
E.g. things like cars, people, trees etc etc

Whereas.....

in premise 2, "began to exist" completely changes meaning to "THE ACTUAL CREATION OF MATTER AND ENERGY"

just like our examples above.......
'lying' as in deceiving somebody VS 'lying' as in lying down on a bed.
'right' as in what is correct VS 'right' as in which side of the road you drive on in the USA.
'bright' as in giving off light VS 'bright' as in being smart.

and..

'Begins' to exist as in rearrangement of matter energy VS 'began' to exist as in the actual creation of matter and energy.

The shift in meaning renders KCA completely useless.
Independent of the science, there is a logical flaw in the argument.

Even if premise 1 and premise 2 are 100% true, you cannot draw the logical conclusion because of the shift in meaning.

i.e.
- The sky is blue
- I drive a car
- Therefore I like to eat apples.

Premise 1 and 2 are true in the argument above but the conclusion is nonsensical, just like in KCA



For those who prefer visual explanations: 3:56 Mins/Secs (+ some decent music imo)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkYkFw2X4mY

Note: The 6th description that gets dropped into the William Lane Craig description is meaningless in this video. Likely thrown in as a 'let's just give it to the believers-without-testable-evidence for the analysis' as often there's an attempt to claim 'morals' as God-dependent.. despite that small/large societies would have struggled to properly form in hunter+gather days AND hold long term stability without such a balancing mechanism being evolved along with them, to which is still evolving today in the political form of 'human rights' and 'humanitarianism'.

Credit for most of this breakdown of KCA to Mutantbass, used because it was articulated well with simplicity.
Modified for personal tastes and elaborations:
http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=13352.0

Fair enough. I can imagine a number of safety/emergency protocols but I've no idea how cost effective they would be. Given the simplicity of the system I can't imagine it would be to difficult though. Hell we send people through the sky in an aluminum tube over 10,000 feet in the air all the time, I can't imagine this would be any more dangerous. The first several years will undoubtedly have some accidents, every new tech does. If we never tried new things though we'd never go anywhere.
>> ^saber2x:

I know we can do it, but it wont be NASA prepping your pod, it will be some jackass that use to work at McDonalds. All im asking is what do they do if you do have a emergency or mechanical failure?
>> ^RadHazG:
Naturally its a large pod. Plenty of room for compressed slow release breathable air tanks. We send air with men on spacewalks, we can surely keep a large capsule with 6 people filled for a while.
>> ^saber2x:
what happens when the oxygen in your pod runs out over Kansas seeing your in a vacuum tube?

I love that! beauty in simplicity

genius in simplicity

Taken at the standard of this franchise's budget and all that it could have been it is and frankly has always been a train wreck.

The original had three things for it: (1) a well realised game map, (2) a clever parkour mechanic, and (3) a novel sci-fi/fantasy story mixup concept.

What it sucked at, and continues to suck at is:

(1) Having a story with memorable characters, plot arcs and twists that make any sense or remotely have any forethought or planning involved. I can't for the life of me remember what happened in the first 3 games besides the endings. I can remember maybe 2 or 3 of the villains out of the 20323092930 people I was asked to assassinate.

(2) Missions and gameplay elements with depth, not just an endless litany of minigames and gimmicks, none of which do much to disguise the repetitiveness of your objectives & the simplicity/shallowness of the combat. For the huge amount of weapons to choose from, nothing has changed the fact that most combat is just counter-kill based, and it's been that shallow from the original. The enemies are disposable and largely approachable in the same way.

(3) Clearly being a franchise that releases unbaked games far too frequently with few gameplay additions to milk people endlessly for their money. A yearly franchise with this much environment detail in it, must have next to nil time to improve mechanics/gameplay before the pixel crunchers have to start cranking out textures. It shows.

Ooooor for simplicity, *discard.

Psychedelics (Psychotropics; and their main "term" in the next sentence) are definitely interesting mind wise. As I have in my own profile, Psychoactive drugs are indeed ALL very interesting.

This can include something as mundane as Codeine all the way up to LSD. Quick Message: Cocaine and Heroine are the same "type" of drugs technically: i.e. changed perception, mood alteration, etc... But, these ARE very dangerous to play with, versus the reward you receive: the reward here being an expanded mind that has the ability to understand any information from the remembered mental states that are achieved at the height of the drugs half-life in the body. Typically, specifically with shrooms or Psilocybin, it will create a calm-well being, and positive affirmation after affect that will even defeat depression in certain cases. This has been researched in atleast two studies that I've seen, Bill also talks of yet another--yet, he didn't mention that there is a 1% chance, and it may actually be lower than that now with further testing, that a "bad trip" will occur causing the reverse, but luckily not lasting in a long-term manifestation like the "good-trips".

There are generally two ways your going to enlighten yourself. Drugs like Marijuana will give a "high". Hopefully, with a mental state induced called: euphoria. The euphoric effect will allow you to feel very much "mood-stabilized". If you were depressed euphoria can completely reverse it, which can cause problems as it may cause you to become "psychologically addicted" to it due too it's affect; especially if depressed and more-so if you have an addictive personality trait in your genes (if this were Cocaine it would most likely always lead to a downward spiral and death). This is how many people lose the addiction game with bad drugs like Cocaine and Heroine, or even the Codeine you're doctor prescribes you. Anyway, the Euphoria allows many people to reach a level of peace and comfort that they can't otherwise. The sheer change in the organization of how you synapses fire to give you perceptual information, memories, and your own thoughts--have changed from your normal state. You literally think different. But, when you start to think about what you're working on, the same ideas no longer come back as they did just before you started to use: they come back changed. This is where change happens, it's where inspiration can come from.

For drugs like acid it becomes even easier to understand why you may think much greater things. Once the drug works it starts linking many of your perceptual areas, with your thoughts together into one giant drawing board. Sometimes, most of the time your subconscious mind, specifically your dream center starts to play with you using random memory sequences or perceptual information. Then when it fully takes hold you leave Earth as you've known it, while the drug is in full affect (this is why usually friends get others to watch over them, lest you do something incredibly bad--this is also why you really shouldn't play with the scarier drugs). It's very easy to see where these great ideas come from now, as now you are walking in a dream that is semi-controlled and mostly not. It begins to add random merging patterns, what the overall goal of the mind is at this point most likely is just to link all the information together; like a new song with a DJ. But, the experience is a lot like a journey, sometimes without prodding you will literally walk into a room with the "treasure chest", or the game changing idea that you need.

What you truly get in the end is the ability to realize that the human body is grand, with the brain a magnificent structure, designed in simplicity, but able to grow to see past that simplicity, that structure, those people that never went and looked, and you see the men that can stand on the shoulders of giants. Those that push the envelope.

If it was me go for shrooms, acid, and marijuana. But, read up on each and every one first so you know what to expect and NOT what to do to jeopardize your life; lastly, this is ILLEGAL...). All of these type of drugs are able to create a very unique experience while active on your active brain. Hopefully, like may others in history you can act like a Psychoactive compound on our collective psyche, as many have before.

/long but hopefully informative
//they're still Illegal...
///edited for grammar

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ghark:
Besides, by saying the GOP made nice comments about Arab Spring then bad comments about these protests, aren't you highlighting their hypocrisy? So what's the big deal about highlighting hypocrisy when it comes from the other side?
Yes, I'm highlighting their hypocrisy, because they are actually being hypocritical.
Democrats are not. They are sympathetic to OWS. They are saying good things about OWS. They are not capable of issuing orders to the police protesters are clashing with, and they definitely are not ordering a violent crackdown on demonstrators who are largely arguing for Democratic proposals.
>> ^ghark:
I agree that Republican obstructionism is not good, but if Dem's had the significant majority in both the house and senate would it make a big difference? I think in the past it might have, when the corporate influence in politics wasn't so great, these days... I think it's a very hard argument to make, especially considering the fact they didn't do anything significant when they did have the numbers after the last election.
Let's do some quick math. Suppose the Democratic Party consisted only of clones of Bernie Sanders and Joe Manchin. Further, let's suppose that in any given election, the Democratic party sends 80% Bernies, and 20% Joes to Congress. For simplicity, let's assume all the Joes always vote with Republicans, and that 100% of the Republicans vote against anything OWS wants.
You need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. How big does the Democratic Party's margin of victory need to be for there to be 60 clones of Bernie Sanders in the Senate? Answer: 75. You need Democrats to carry 75% of the Senate. That means a minimum of 25 of 50 states need to have both their Senators be Democrats. Are there 25 blue states? And that scenario also requires ALL the remaining states be purple, with no pure red states at all.
Now, if Republicans weren't filibustering everything and anything, then the math changes only slightly. Democrats could pass legislation with just 50 votes (plus Biden), but as long as the Republican party stays 100% unified against anything even remotely like what OWS wants, you need 63 Democrats in order to wind up with 50 Bernies.
This is my way of saying "Democratic purity isn't the problem" -- 80% Bernies would be a massive, massive leap forward in Democratic ideological purity, and it still wouldn't do jack shit for us, because the deck is stacked against us by a) the rules of the Senate, and b) lockstep Republican opposition to sane policy.
So, are you out there working to help give Democrats that kind of majority, or improve their purity, or at least doing something about Republicans? Fuck no, you're out there taking potshots at Democrats because you didn't get a pony from Obama.
It ticks me off, because it's part of what's killing this country. To quote Yeats, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."


I think the argument has to go a little deeper than that - you are talking about improving the number of 'rational-acting' Democrats which is a noble idea, and one which I of course support. However, at some point (if things stay the way they are) people are going to be unhappy with the system so you're going to get swing voters voting Republican. So unless both parties are brought into line we'll just persist with the current system where, no matter what anyone votes, there will never be enough Bernie Sanders' to make a difference.

The answer to both your Democratic problem, and the Republican problem can be mostly solved by just one change, removing the money in politics.

I don't think it should ever be about which side is better, it should be about 'how do we get the results we want' - talk is cheap after all.

The reason I don't think you can just hope for more people to vote Democrat and expect change that way is Obama had a huge wave of support in the last election; you'd just had years of Iraq war, Afghan occupation, colonialism just about anywhere there was oil, corporate looting, disastrous economic decisions etc by Bush, 2008 was the moment where the Democrats could have made a difference. But what have they done? I mean seriously, while we debate this nonsense people are getting slaughtered all over the world in the name of oil, by your troops, by your private armies, by your weapons and often with other countries support (including mine). There is a time for debate, but we must also realize that we are destroying our own livelihoods and the livelihoods of our children, we need to fix the path we're on sooner rather than later.