In most cases, the racism is incidental. Race has nothing to do with your argument that the "job creators" are being taxed to death and their wealth is being given to people who don't deserve it, and yet you still insist on throwing it in there. I don't judge people for being racist, everyone has issues, some more frustrating then others. But when you focus on things like the "skin in the game" phrase, whatever you're implying (even if it's legitimate) most people are only going to ignore you. (except racists that is)

I suppose I can't expect everyone to know everything His Earness says, I sure don't.

RE: "Skin in the game" But it would be nice if SOMEONE knew OBAMA SAID IT.


Unfortunately, when you include things like that, it distracts people from your main point, which is the bullshit mentioned above about how the job creators are being ruined by the government.

The deliberate Uncertainty created by this corrupt regime is fking everything up. There's two trillion dollars in the hands of the people that is parked (you read that right, two TRILLION) waiting for two events: the Supreme Court's decision on obamacare and the election. If the Supreme Doofs rule this piece of crap commiecare NO ONE wanted "Constitutional" (P.S., it isn't) expect another economic nosedive.

Time and again the myth has been proven wrong. And on top of that, there are huge companies here in America that pay absolutely no taxes at all.


It's certainly true that certain companies legally pay no taxes, and they grease the palms of BOTH parties. But why do these companies (as well as everyone else) NEED lobbyists? Because the government is too big and too powerful.

If it's a "myth", as the left proclaims, then who ARE the job creators? Certainly not government, as a government job is a tax drain. Small businesses, while making up the highest percentage of businesses, can only hire so many employees, and if obamacare passes, you can expect they'll be hiring even fewer.


Corporations that would be providing in some cases billions of dollars are given a free ticket because they own a few lobbyists. Meanwhile, anyone who has ever worked for any corporation can clearly see that the main principal behind corporate success is the elimination of jobs wherever possible. Sure every once in a while a new position is created. Usually it's for the sole purpose of eliminating others. These days it's practically the first rule of business.

If liberals, who make up just over half the population, really feel this way about corporations, then why don't they do something on their own?

I don't know if Jim Sinegal, the CEO of Costco, is a liberal, but Costco pays an almost-living wage to start and he's stated his employees come first over both rapid growth and the whims of stockholders. When Ben and Jerry ran their company, they "used to have a policy that no employee's rate of pay shall exceed seven times that of entry-level employees". I got no problem with that, and obviously it was profitable.

Don't wait for government to make everything "fair". You'll be too poor to notice when it happens.

your response was long and the first half just reiterated me being a gnostic but i am what some may consider a "christian" gnostic.

So, as a Christian gnostic, what parts of the bible do you feel are authorative and what do you throw away? Do you consider the Old Testament to be valid?

so i dont see god as a failure nor evil.
i view god very much like the trinity.
father,son,holy ghost
or..
mind,body,spirit.
both work fine.
also if you changed the word "matter" to represent "ego"
then you would be closer to how i view the battle of "good" vs "evil"
i would say it is ego vs spirit.
you would say god vs devil,but we would be saying the same things.

I take it you don't believe Satan exists? If you don't believe in the fall, what is your narrative as to how things got the way they are?

the inherent differences in our philosophy are simply this:
internalization.
externalization.
i believe the teachings of christ (and others) hold the key to free ourselves from the ego (which is the ultimate liar).salvation starts when we realize we are spiritual beings with the spark of the divine.the creator if you will.spirit,soul,chi work also and that the ego seeks to dominate the spirit,pulling us ever further from our true self and our creator.(indivisible btw).

you view this dichotomy in a totally different light.jesus/god are outside.seperate and only through humility and acceptance that christ is lord and savior and died for your sins can you (or anybody) achieve salvation.(be saved)

I don't think it is that black and white. What you seem to believe is that you're one with God, and that by awakening your spiritual self (through gnosis i assume) you can conquer the ego and be free.. What I believe is that we each have a sinful nature which is corrupt and separates us from God. I believe that Christ conquered that nature as a man on the cross, and that through His substitutionary atonement, we are reconciled back to God and reborn in the spirit.

So, this isn't externalizing it. We come to Christ to be healed, but that is just the beginning. Being born again means to become a new creation and receive the Holy Spirit. It is not simply to bow to Christ and thank Him for salvation. It is to be remade in the image of Christ, and that is inside and outside.

Neither it is separateness from God, because the body of Christ is unity with God. We are in Him and He is in us and He is in the Father, and the Father is in Him. Christ is the head of the body of Christ, as the Father is the head of Christ. We are sons and daughters of God and co-heirs with Christ.

so when you ask if i believe christ was savior i would answer yes..most certainly,but i come to that conclusion by a different path and different tools.
yet we both use the bible.
pretty neat huh?
but you ONLY use the bible as your authority and that is fine but i tend to use..well...everything..but thats another conversation.

Yet, how can He be savior when you say you can save yourself?

so now we come to what do i tell these lost and broken people who have experienced a crisis of faith.
well...
i dont attack their religion.
i allow them to talk and let that spike of uncertainty bubble to the surface so i can get a better look at it.if i am going to help anyone i have to know where the pain is yes?

you have to realize that the majority of the people i deal with came from very strict,authoritarian and fundamentalist families.they were usually sheltered from the real world (not always a bad thing) and the culture shock alone is a trauma in itself and many times the parents are not exactly curious people but their children are (or the ones that came to me).

the first thing i do is hand them a scofield study bible (i have a stack of them) and tell them to read JUST the words of jesus and get back to me when they are ready.scofield has all the words of jesus highlighted in pink,cant miss em.

now you may ask "why would enoch do that"?
simple.many religions have a long LOOOONG list of doctrine and dogma by having that person read just the words of jesus we get to cut 80% of that crap out and focus on the words of jesus.

Do you believe all the words of Jesus (in the bible) are truth?

here is what "sin" actually is.this may not sound biblical but it actually is.jesus spoke of it often.
sin is when you KNOW/FEEL something is wrong and you CHOOSE to do it anyways.

On the contrary, sin is when you disobey the direct commands of God. Plenty of people don't know or feel it is wrong to commit all sorts of crimes, and wouldn't otherwise know, if God didn't set a standard for behavior. According to this standard, it wouldn't be wrong to murder if someone didn't know or feel it is wrong.

and dont get me started on "original sin" utter nonsense that piece of garbage.the church was unable to make its case centuries ago and still has failed to make the case for original sin. i suspect you disagree...thats ok but dont engage me on this one.i aint budging.

The bible doesn't contain the words "original sin". What it says is that God created the world perfectly, but because Adam and Eve sinned, they brought death into the world through sin. And that since then, man is born with a corrupt nature that is spiritually separated from God. How does your narrative differ from this? Do you believe that God doesn't care about sin?

i mean.
what do you tell a 22 yr old boy who is gay that god has not forsaken him?
that he is not some abomination?
that his father is wrong for beating him with a pipe in a rage and throwing him out of the only house he has ever known?
how can this boy who was raised in a god fearing house believe for a second that god loves him when according to the bible he would not?raised to believe god was not only all-knowing but all-loving except him.

well you point to the scofield bible and ask that boy to find a verse where jesus says he hates fags.thats what you do.
because it jesus doesnt say that.

I'm surprised that this is what you believe.. Of course it isn't right for a father to beat their child and throw them out. That definitely isn't demonstrating the love of God. But that has nothing to do with the boys spiritual situation.

What Jesus says is that marriage is between a man and a woman, and sex outside of marriage is a sin. There is no room in Gods plan for homosexual behavior. Now, people are born with all sorts of adverse conditions. Some people are born with cancer, or with deformed bodies. Has God forsaken them? Everyone has their own special challenges. So, a person who has homosexual desires, does he have to act upon them? Some people have sexual desire for children, or animals. Is that right? Weren't they just born that way?

or the girl who was raped and the family convinced her it was her fault because she had sinned against god and that was her punishment.

or one of my most precious whose family member had molested her for years and when she finally got the courage to say something about it only to be told to shut up.that she was a liar (not even possible with this girl) and again...her fault and punishment from god.

i could go on and on and on.

Your examples are people acting sinfully and disobeying the direct commands of God to say that sin isn't what the bible says it is. What this is just proves how bad sin really is.

what i do for these very special people is get them to understand they are spirit.
that they have a spark of the creator (made in "his" image) and that spark is their true selves.
and to cherish that spark.
i show them love.
true love of the spiritual kind.the altruistic love our spirits crave to give and receive.
that it is possible to love themselves and to forgive those who rejected them.judged them and forsook them.

You're forgetting the greatest commandments:

Love the Lord thy God with all your heart, and all your mind, and all your spirit, and all of your strength. And love your neighbor as yourself.

They need to love God first and everything else will follow. I think what you're substituting for the love of God is the love of self, because you perceive you have a piece of God within you. Unless you are born again, you don't have the Holy Spirit. You can't get near a holy God with a sinful nature.

i teach them the power of forgiveness.
to forgive themselves..for to forgive yourself you first have to KNOW yourself and to do that...well..you have to swim through a river of your own shit to truly know yourself.
i teach them to be free.
and in the doing they become free to love others as openly and honestly as they were meant to and to understand that many people,most actually,do not understand the true gift jesus gave us:love and forgiveness=freedom.

The true gift Jesus gave us was His precious blood. What we need is Gods forgiveness for our sins. Without His forgiveness, we will face judgement. You don't seem to believe that is going to happen. If you want to believe that, this is your right. To teach other people this, you are potentially endangering them. What happens if you stand in front of God and He shows you that what you taught people about being free and forgiving themselves sent some of them to hell?

i do not use dogma nor doctrine to teach these things.
i do not seek these people out,they find me and my obligation is to honor that path they found to me as the will of the creator.
some have needed a room to stay and heal their wounds.
i give that place of security for them.( i do this for addicts also)
i do not charge money for i do not consider helping another human being out to find themselves a service but rather a kindness in recognizing another spirit.
and here is the neat part that has always tickled me:i have never wanted for anything.car dies? i get gifted a new one a week later.
short on the electric bill? i find a lottery ticket with almost the exact amount i needed.
needed a vacation to go back home?
friend offers out of the blue to buy me a plane ticket.

Before I became a Christian, I was led like this too, with signs and all sorts of little perks. I thought I was doing Gods work, but it turns out that I was being influenced by evil. There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death. Don't count on those signs because they aren't necessarily from God. If they aren't, how would you tell?

a few that i have helped went back to the church.
one woman i counseled for 12 yrs (really abusive husband) who is now a devout baptist like you!
aaand she is studying at a bible college,which of course i have to mess with her cuz they dont allow women to perform mass but i do help with her homework sometimes.

That's cool..I'm not a baptist though. I enjoy sermons from baptist pastors but I am non-denominational, so I don't ascribe the everything that baptists believe.

ok..now im just rambling.
it is late and im stupid tired but i wanted to respond before i went to bed.busy day tomorrow.
hope this gives you a clearer picture.not gonna proof read so it may just be gibberish.
in any case..
always a pleasure my friend.

I always enjoy our conversations. I hope you don't take offense at anything I said..I am just representing the truth I know and trying to figure out where you're coming from. God bless.


>> ^enoch

thanks for the response my friend.
though you are still using bullet form..ewww.

understand i use the term gnostic to give people a reference point,but that is all.
i am not ritualized like a sophian or strict adherence like a rosacrucian,but i would still be considered an apostate by the church...any church.

your response was long and the first half just reiterated me being a gnostic but i am what some may consider a "christian" gnostic.
so i dont see god as a failure nor evil.
i view god very much like the trinity.
father,son,holy ghost
or..
mind,body,spirit.
both work fine.
also if you changed the word "matter" to represent "ego"
then you would be closer to how i view the battle of "good" vs "evil"
i would say it is ego vs spirit.
you would say god vs devil,but we would be saying the same things.

the inherent differences in our philosophy are simply this:
internalization.
externalization.
i believe the teachings of christ (and others) hold the key to free ourselves from the ego (which is the ultimate liar).salvation starts when we realize we are spiritual beings with the spark of the divine.the creator if you will.spirit,soul,chi work also and that the ego seeks to dominate the spirit,pulling us ever further from our true self and our creator.(indivisible btw).

you view this dichotomy in a totally different light.jesus/god are outside.seperate and only through humility and acceptance that christ is lord and savior and died for your sins can you (or anybody) achieve salvation.(be saved)

so when you ask if i believe christ was savior i would answer yes..most certainly,but i come to that conclusion by a different path and different tools.
yet we both use the bible.
pretty neat huh?
but you ONLY use the bible as your authority and that is fine but i tend to use..well...everything..but thats another conversation.

so now we come to what do i tell these lost and broken people who have experienced a crisis of faith.
well...
i dont attack their religion.
i allow them to talk and let that spike of uncertainty bubble to the surface so i can get a better look at it.if i am going to help anyone i have to know where the pain is yes?

you have to realize that the majority of the people i deal with came from very strict,authoritarian and fundamentalist families.they were usually sheltered from the real world (not always a bad thing) and the culture shock alone is a trauma in itself and many times the parents are not exactly curious people but their children are (or the ones that came to me).

the first thing i do is hand them a scofield study bible (i have a stack of them) and tell them to read JUST the words of jesus and get back to me when they are ready.scofield has all the words of jesus highlighted in pink,cant miss em.

now you may ask "why would enoch do that"?
simple.many religions have a long LOOOONG list of doctrine and dogma by having that person read just the words of jesus we get to cut 80% of that crap out and focus on the words of jesus.

there have been a few times that is all i have had to do.set them on a path that is simple and not so laden with hail mary's and guilt and 'supposed" to's.

baptists are the ones where i have to address sin.
they read the bible and they think they understand sin.
oh hell no.they dont have a clue and while there are some great passages in the bible that address sin..something gets lost in translation sometimes and the church does not help.

here is what "sin" actually is.this may not sound biblical but it actually is.jesus spoke of it often.
sin is when you KNOW/FEEL something is wrong and you CHOOSE to do it anyways.

and dont get me started on "original sin" utter nonsense that piece of garbage.the church was unable to make its case centuries ago and still has failed to make the case for original sin.
i suspect you disagree...thats ok but dont engage me on this one.i aint budging.

i mean.
what do you tell a 22 yr old boy who is gay that god has not forsaken him?
that he is not some abomination?
that his father is wrong for beating him with a pipe in a rage and throwing him out of the only house he has ever known?
how can this boy who was raised in a god fearing house believe for a second that god loves him when according to the bible he would not?raised to believe god was not only all-knowing but all-loving except him.

well you point to the scofield bible and ask that boy to find a verse where jesus says he hates fags.thats what you do.
because it jesus doesnt say that.

or the girl who was raped and the family convinced her it was her fault because she had sinned against god and that was her punishment.

or one of my most precious whose family member had molested her for years and when she finally got the courage to say something about it only to be told to shut up.that she was a liar (not even possible with this girl) and again...her fault and punishment from god.

i could go on and on and on.

what i do for these very special people is get them to understand they are spirit.
that they have a spark of the creator (made in "his" image) and that spark is their true selves.
and to cherish that spark.
i show them love.
true love of the spiritual kind.the altruistic love our spirits crave to give and receive.
that it is possible to love themselves and to forgive those who rejected them.judged them and forsook them.
i teach them the power of forgiveness.
to forgive themselves..for to forgive yourself you first have to KNOW yourself and to do that...well..you have to swim through a river of your own shit to truly know yourself.
i teach them to be free.
and in the doing they become free to love others as openly and honestly as they were meant to and to understand that many people,most actually,do not understand the true gift jesus gave us:love and forgiveness=freedom.

i do not use dogma nor doctrine to teach these things.
i do not seek these people out,they find me and my obligation is to honor that path they found to me as the will of the creator.
some have needed a room to stay and heal their wounds.
i give that place of security for them.( i do this for addicts also)
i do not charge money for i do not consider helping another human being out to find themselves a service but rather a kindness in recognizing another spirit.
and here is the neat part that has always tickled me:i have never wanted for anything.car dies? i get gifted a new one a week later.
short on the electric bill? i find a lottery ticket with almost the exact amount i needed.
needed a vacation to go back home?
friend offers out of the blue to buy me a plane ticket.

a few that i have helped went back to the church.
one woman i counseled for 12 yrs (really abusive husband) who is now a devout baptist like you!
aaand she is studying at a bible college,which of course i have to mess with her cuz they dont allow women to perform mass but i do help with her homework sometimes.

ok..now im just rambling.
it is late and im stupid tired but i wanted to respond before i went to bed.busy day tomorrow.
hope this gives you a clearer picture.not gonna proof read so it may just be gibberish.
in any case..
always a pleasure my friend.

QM, I tend to disagree with many of your political comments, but I have to say that I think youare right about something. That is: Obama has not lived up to the (gigantic) expectations that people had for him. The "change" that was "hoped" for was not to the extent that was needed/expected.

That said, parties aside, what would you have wanted to see done differently over the last 4ish years? I don't mean who does what. I'm not asking for your favorite candidate or historical president. For a minute I'd like to pretend that that doesn't matter or don't exist, and presidents never have names. I'm just interested in what actions/decisions could have been taken/made that you might have approved of. What could have been done differently to land us in a better place for us both, and Americans in general?

And, again without giving any mention to political stripes, how would you make the world a better place?


@notarobot

Thank you for your question.

We Americans are notoriously short-sighted. Our politicians do just enough to win reelection and pass the buck (debt) to the next poor bastards. I don't see any way to reverse this, so whatever is done that works has to be constantly reinforced and relearned. But it isn't.

The simplest answer: reduce the size, authority, roles (and payroll) of government in our lives. Government is a necessary evil and loves creating "solutions'" to problems which are worse then the problems themselves, thus guaranteeing it always plays a huge role in "solving" every problem.

At this point in our history, whichever side is in power, things will worsen until a space alien invasion arrives or there's a civil war to restore some measure of balance between the states and the federal beast. I'm not happy about it, but we've lost our way and (hopefully limited) civil war may be the only solution left. You don't get good government unless politicians are scared shi'r'tless of the people.

Back in 2008 I would've exercised a moratorium on all federal laws for 2 years. This would have put the kibosh on the economic uncertainty that the Obama regime (sorry to name names again) has put on not only Americans but the world. There would be many more arrests (than zero) for the banking crisis, no bailouts and no scamulus.

I'm not sure how in every instance, but I would start dismantling government meddling in health care, not ending socialist care overnight but creating tax-free health savings accounts and demanding the consumer have real options. You don't pay your auto insurance company to put gas in your car and change the oil. Same principle.

I'd end federal control of education, it's a waste of time and money. Let the states figure it out. Private schools do a better job at half the cost. How are you going to educate children to be socially and historically aware and awake citizens mistrustful of government power when it's the very entity "teaching" them?

I'd make war, war again. Soldiers are supposed to kill people and break things until the enemy surrenders. Anything beyond that is someone else's job.

One of the reasons the economy is staying in the sh!tter is people waiting for Obama to be removed from office. Much as the Arab world sighs with relief (but can never admit it) when we (or Israel) take out a radical nutball, so the American left can't admit what a screw-up and disaster His Earness has been (pride). They will breathe a sigh of relief when he's gone as they unify in hatred of another moderate (read: pu$$y) Republican president who will then go right on growing government and approving annual budgets of all those unconstitutional programs like the guy before him. Jobs will slowwwly return.


A final answer no one wants to hear (and why I can't stand the left's insistence on an "equality of outcomes"): while one-sixth to one-third of people are capable and intelligent, if not "good" in all circumstances, another one-sixth to one-third are just plain hopeless, there's nothing anyone will ever be able to do to help them. I'm not talking about people with medical problems or even mental problems, just ordinary people who don't give a sh!t. I would minimize the damage they cause through severe legal penalties, make it exceptionally hard for them to game the system and/or simply pay them off to keep to themselves and stay out of the way.

When atheists argue that "God" does not exist, they are usually arguing against a specific idea of god as defined by one or another religion, which is possible to do, both with logic and physical/scientific evidence (example: the Abrahamic God that apparently made all of humanity from the incestuous offspring of two people is easily disproven, while his omnipotence is logically incompatible with his omni-benevolence).

If He is so easily disproven, it's interesting how no one in history has ever done so. What you're detailing in the supposed conflict between Gods omnipotence and omni-benevolence is the logical problem of evil. Plantigas free will defense proves that they are in fact logically compatible, so you don't have an argument here.

Let's put it this way: do you believe fairies exist? If no, prove it! You can't explain why dew drops are so neatly arranged on spider webs, or how the beautiful designs in the frost of windowpanes are made, so fairies make them. Tada!! Sure, you can be agnostic about fairies, arguing that they're manmade fiction, and explain scientifically how dew drops and frost patterns work, but that's just eliminating one definition of "fairy", there are infinitely more! A-fairyists, meanwhile, live with the evidence-based assumption that the probability of fairies existing is null, and the burden of proof lies on those who insist that some sort of fairies exist.

See where this is getting?

Yes, I see where you're conflating the issue. Anyone can make a claim, but that doesn't make every claim equally valid. Yes, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, and you can't disprove a universal negative. Yet just because you cannot disprove the existence of God does not make the God hypothesis equal to cosmic teapots. There is no good reason to believe there are cosmic teapots, but plenty of good reasons to believe there is a God. The difference lies in the explanatory power of the claim, which is the basis for believing any theory.

You believe in the theory of abiogenesis, presumably, even though there is no actual evidence for life from non-life. So by your logic, a magic teapot could be an equally valid explanation for the origin of life. But since Abiogenesis has more explanatory power (barely) for the origin of life than a magic teapot, that makes it more probable and gives you justification for believing it.

The burden of proof lies with whomever is making a claim, for or against. Your epistemological position about uncertainty is countered by the fact that certain claims have more explanatory power than others. I cannot absolutely prove magic teapots don't exist, but that doesn't mean I don't have good reasons to believe they don't exist; since they explain precisely nothing they can safely be discarded as a valid claim.

>> ^hpqp:
@GeeSussFreeK: I do agree, however, that many atheists like to posit the position that God, indeed, does not exist. That would require some evidence as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
@shinyblurry: Yes, they do like to posit that. When asked for that evidence however, they like to say they merely "lack belief", which is meaningless. Basically, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to say no to the question of whether God exists but escape the burden of proof. That is what this "lack of belief" is all about. It's not an "i don't know", it's a "no, but i dont have to provide any evidence for that".
When atheists argue that "God" does not exist, they are usually arguing against a specific idea of god as defined by one or another religion, which is possible to do, both with logic and physical/scientific evidence (example: the Abrahamic God that apparently made all of humanity from the incestuous offspring of two people is easily disproven, while his omnipotence is logically incompatible with his omni-benevolence).
I love how shiny uses the expression "want to have our cake and eat it to", which is a very rational and feasible desire (I'm a greedy atheist, I don't share my babby-cake with anyone. Mmmm, fetus fudge! <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smileevil.gif">).
Let's put it this way: do you believe fairies exist? If no, prove it! You can't explain why dew drops are so neatly arranged on spider webs, or how the beautiful designs in the frost of windowpanes are made, so fairies make them. Tada!! Sure, you can be agnostic about fairies, arguing that they're manmade fiction, and explain scientifically how dew drops and frost patterns work, but that's just eliminating one definition of "fairy", there are infinitely more! A-fairyists, meanwhile, live with the evidence-based assumption that the probability of fairies existing is null, and the burden of proof lies on those who insist that some sort of fairies exist.
See where this is getting?

>> ^messenger:

...I thought that it was an absolute fact that you cannot determine both the speed/direction and position of anything, no matter how it's measured by definition of the measurement of speed/direction requiring more than one position. That's to say, I'm under the impression that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has nothing to do with technology and will always be true under any conditions with any equipment in the areas where it applies, world without end, Amen. Am I wrong?

That is a combined 'yes' and 'no' answer.

Yes: Measuring exact values of electron is really hard. They don't even show up as precise values when we look at them, simply because they are so small and move so fast. We see that as a sort of 'smear'. (A Fourier transform.)

Heisenberg's equations for determining more precise values don't commute. (i.e. You cannot shuffle the variables around and still have it work.) This implies that it should be mathematically impossible to determine the velocity and position at the same instant.

No: Because all of the above is still based on the assumption that that our current method of measuring particles is all there is. If they could be measured more accurately or without adding energy to the system, the Uncertainty Principle should no longer be relevant.

Of course, science is pretty sure that's impossible. (Hell, they didn't even have that in Star Trek.) But we've proved ourselves wrong a lot of times in the past.

Soulmonarch, first, thanks for the excellent answers above. They were just enough for me to understand that something real was being measured and why I didn't understand the rest of the concept.

Now, you clearly know oodles more than I do about this stuff, but I thought that it was an absolute fact that you cannot determine both the speed/direction and position of anything, no matter how it's measured by definition of the measurement of speed/direction requiring more than one position. That's to say, I'm under the impression that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has nothing to do with technology and will always be true under any conditions with any equipment in the areas where it applies, world without end, Amen. Am I wrong?>> ^soulmonarch:

>> ^Payback:
When "they" talk about being able to see velocity or position, but not both... that's just a failure of technology right? There's not some weird universal law making it impossible?

You refer to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. (The more accurately you measure a particle's position, the less accurate you are regarding momentum. And vice-versa.)
And yes, the problem is primarily technological. If someone ever invents a way to peer in and measure tiny particles without some kind of energy exchange with the particle (via light or electron scatter), the whole argument pretty much becomes a moot point.
And man would THAT ever screw with quantum physics.

@GeeSussFreeK

The whole "what is True/Real?" is a ridiculous posture to begin with, since we know full well that our knowledge is limited by our sensory input and mental faculties as homo sapiens (one of Hume's main points if I remember correctly). "Reality" and "facts/evidence", when spoken of in science, are always taken with that knowledge in the background, which is what allows one theory to be replaced with another or refined, i.e. scientific progress. Who cares if this is all a computer simulation, or a butterfly's dream, so long as the science works? Well, religious people do, and they are usually the ones to bandy around words such as TRUTH with a capital T, what with their god being omniscient/omnipotent and all.

So no, the uncertainty underlying scientific theories has nothing to do with the uncertainty of religious beliefs, and especially not with the Abrahamic faiths, which paint themselves into a corner by being so specific about their god and his creation/functions.

@A10anis

Agnosticism is an epistemological position of the uncertainty of knowledge of things. In other words, the nature of knowledge about God, or knowledge in general really, as many above have pointed out (I'm taking it you did read the nice chart above!). Theism or Atheism is a position, either knowingly or unknowing rejecting or accepting the idea of God; one can be explicitly or implicitly atheist (like all children not exposed to the idea are implicitly atheist). Agnostic Atheist is the most common position, but few people have complete understanding of all the concepts involved, or have their own private understandings of what they mean; making any unilateral criticism troublesome. As to the foundations of science and Mathematics, Kurt Gödel had had a great role to play in the destruction of what most peoples concept of certain systems are. And the o so smart Karl Popper ideas on falsifiability has thrown the antique notion of certain truth from science against the wall, in which modern Philosophers of Science, like Hilary Putnam have found intractable to solve, except to say that very little separates, currently, the foundations of science form the foundations of any other dabble of the imagination. Einstein talked about this as well, that wonderment is really the pursuit of all great scientists...not certainty.

As to my original claim, that science has truths it can not rectify, I leave it to better minds to explain the problems of induction. David Hume, Nelson Goodman, and Kurt Gödel drastically changed any view of certain knowledge from science and maths that I had. The untenable nature of the empirical evaluation of reality is just as uncertain as Abrahamic codifications being real.

I close with this, some of the greatest minds in the history of science and philosophy had no problem, nay, drew power from the deep richness they gathered from their faith. It drove them to the limits of the thoughts of their day, René Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, Blaise Pascal, Alan Turing (who kept some vestibules of faith even after what happened to him), Georg Cantor, and countless others all had some "irrational" faith was more than just a ideal system of commands by some dead people, it drove them to greatness, and in many cases to rejection and madness of their "rational" peers. Georg Cantor, the father of the REAL infinite, died in a mental institution only to have his ideas lite a fire in the minds of the next generation of mathematicians.

It is my believe that we all want to have issue with x number of people, and make peace with y number. We elevate the slightest difference, or conversely, ignore a great flaw to peg this mark just right for us. Perhaps my y is just bigger than your x, or most peoples x as I find this debate I have is a common one; for tolerance, peace, and consideration. If you still think what I am saying is non-sense, then I guess we have nothing more to say to one another. I hope I cleared up my thoughts a bit more, I am not very good at communicating things that are more than just the average amount of esoteric.

>> ^Payback:

When "they" talk about being able to see velocity or position, but not both... that's just a failure of technology right? There's not some weird universal law making it impossible?


You refer to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. (The more accurately you measure a particle's position, the less accurate you are regarding momentum. And vice-versa.)

And yes, the problem is primarily technological. If someone ever invents a way to peer in and measure tiny particles without some kind of energy exchange with the particle (via light or electron scatter), the whole argument pretty much becomes a moot point.

And man would THAT ever screw with quantum physics.

@hpqp
I thought we might have a conversation.
Instead you come-out-of-the-box and imply I'm a coward.

Let me guess--you, an Atheist, are strong and fearless; while Agnostics are cowardly and timid. You bravely stand up and proudly proclaim to the world your strength--while agnostics cower behind in uncertainty and fear. Get over yourself--you do not know my life, or the people I've stood up to over this, during it.

[Edit] You're still one of my favorite sifters

9/11 Motivated Excessive Fiscal Spending

The wars are a tiny portion of the debt.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dead-war-on-terror-costs_n_856390.html

"If Congress also approves the president’s FY2012 war-funding request, the cumulative cost of post-9/11 operations would reach $1.415 trillion"

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

"As of October 22, 2011, the gross debt was $14.94 trillion."

This is not even addressing the point that the Iraq war had nothing to do with 9/11. You're going to have to explain your lack of conservative bona fides when Bush was in power another way.

Banks should have been allowed to fail

Not bailing out the banks would have trashed the economy. When banks fail, financing dries up, businesses can't meet their short term cash flow requirements and they default. The economy collapses. The end. It doesn't matter how you're ideologically attuned to government assistance in times of crisis, that this would have happened is simply a fact.

Better yet follow it through further. When banks collapse, without federal deposit insurance, individuals lose their personal savings. How far would you follow through your rigid and impractical ideological principles? Would you say free markets dictate they lose their savings for the bad judgement of those in the financial services industry.

Keynesian Fiscal Policy Works

Every other major economy is doing it. Take a look at how much China spent and how it's barely sputtered in growth. Every economist worth a damn is saying the US is not spending enough to prop up the economy. That whatever you're reading is drawing a comparison FDR rather than you know, something in the last 50 years should tell you they're full of the BS.

If you go back and read forecasts for unemployment before Obama was inaugurated, none of them expected to fall significantly or quickly in a short period of it. The prolonged European debt crisis has exacerbated that. Unemployment falling marginally is not evidence that stimulus spending does not work.

Look, what is it about fiscal spending that you don't understand? Economic uncertainty in Europe. Businesses don't know what demand will be like, so they sit on their money instead of investing or hiring more workers. Countries face that risk that as they wait, short term unemployed become long term unemployed because they've been out of the workforce and skills atrophy. So they spend in the short term to keep people employed or incentive through deductions for companies to hire. Tax cuts improve returns marginally. Spending to keep people employed reduces the cost of social services in the long-long term from people being shunned out of the workforce. You spend but you make your money back over time.

It's simple. And it makes perfect logical sense.

How is it that hard to understand?

The rest

I'll be honest, your writing manner makes you look stupid when you're trying to make factual arguments. Have you seen a newspaper article or dissertation written like this? No. Exactly.

FYI, I live in Australia. We have free hospital visits, virtually no government debt, almost record low unemployment and we never went into a recession. Funnily enough Keynesian fiscal policy works over here, must be an anomaly though.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The question that can't be answered is whether Bush would've spent like the amateur liberal he is without 9-11. There was plenty of criticism leveled at Bush by the right during his tenure. The left was so focused on ensuring America lost in Iraq it didn't have time to thank Bush for rubber stamping all of their usual failed social "programs".
The failouts and scamulus sealed Bush 43's legacy as a failure. Everyone should've been "allowed" to fail.
Now enter His Earness. Questionable background, no experience, gets shunted through by obeisant media fawns. Tries the same Keynesian BS that FDR did with predictable results. As FDR's antics prolonged the Depression by a decade, so His Earness has spent and spent with nothing to show for it but enormous new debt (and no WW2 to save his bacon). Now this regime's media says with a straight face that the scamuli "prevented even worse unemployment". Hippie PLEASE.
We've now had six years of Taxocrats running Congress...what's better now than before?
You are going to have to defend the indefensible next year. Be sure to vote November 3rd.




>> ^RedSky:
@quantumushroom
QM, my problem with your point of view is throughout Bush's term, you didn't appear to have any issues with his profligacy as he (and the Republican congress at the time) pushed through bill after a bill that took the country massively into debt. Now your concerns are presumably that in the worst economic crisis in 60 years, the Democrat government is spending too much to prop up the economy and prevent the skills of the short term unemployment stagnating and turning into the long term unemployed dependent on social benefits.
Where are your standards here?
Or your consistency?

Dude, stimulus does not immediately kick in. It takes time to take effect.

Yes - so far it has taken over 2 years and STILL hasn't 'taken effect'. (rimshot)

And considering the economic data that suggests that this was the worst economic downturn in since the Great Depression, where unemployment reached 25%, how is it "balderdash" unemployment would have climbed into the teens?

Where is the evidence that 'proves' unemployment WOULD HAVE reached 13% or 17% or 25%? Depends on who you are talking to of course. There are indicators that US unemployement is indeed more along the lines of 17% when you take away 'book cooking' techniques such as not counting people who aren't looking for jobs anymore, and so forth. Regardless, there is no substantive economic evidence that unemployment as traditionally measured was going to keep increasing beyond the plateau it reached.

You also failed in your economic analysis.

It isn't my economic analysis. It is the economic analysis of economists. Argue with them. Just because you disagree with them doesn't make you right. It just makes you one of millions of people with an uninformed opinion.

"...the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in August that said the stimulus bill has '[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points' and '[i]ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million.'"

I already talked about the CBO report - which is one of the most 'generous' interpretations possible and is based on fuzzy facts and a bunch of imagination. Other analysis is far more critical, and has a lot more concrete data to back it up.

"most economists believe"

Nope - you don't get to pull an Obama tactic here. When Obama says bullcrap like this he skates away because the media doesn't call him out. I'm different. I'm calling you out. Define your claim. "Most economists"... What economists? Name names. Name the organizations. Name the time. Name the place. Name the report. Name the data. Supply your proof to your claim that 'most economists' say the bill wasn't successful because it wasn't big enough. The only economnists who say that kind off garbage are prog-lib Keneysians - who aren't worth the powder to blow them up. There are HOSTS of economists who completely, unequivocally, and thoroughly disagree with that highly questionable position.

Again, I challenge you to show me a recession in modern times that was not ended after a period of deficit spending. You can't name one, can you?

Your position is spurious because for the past 70 years the US government has been on a constant deficit spending binge. I can with equal validity claim the following...

"I challenge you to show a recession in modern times that was not PRECEEDED by a period of deficit spending. You can't name one, can you?"

When the baseline of government is constant debt spending, for anyone you to claim that all 'positive' events are the result of deficit spending is nonsense. The chart proves nothing expect that the government has been debt spending 95% of its existence. It sort of also proves that that the recessions in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and this recession were preceeded by deficit spending.

there's no other way to explain it

Yes there is and I just showed it to you. Only people who are mired in a narrow, biased, bigoted, and blinkered Keneysian world-view can say there is 'only' one explanation. Reality and facts prove otherwise.

we've ALWAYS ended recessions with deficit spending

And this is why you are proven to be narrow-minded, biased, bigoted, and blinkered. Private sector growth is what ends recessions - not deficit spending. If deficit spending 'ended' recessions, then why are we still in a recession? Obama Jerkface the First has engaged in more deficit spending than any president in US history in raw terms. Why aren't we in an economic boom right now after 3 years on his debt steroids? If debt got rid of recessions, then we'd never go INTO a recession because we've been debt spending 95% of the time. Your analysis is so simplistic, so flawed, and so moronic that it begs the question whether you even think about what you write, or if you are just so steeped in leftist propoganda that you have abandoned free-thinking completely.

So what was WWII?! What were the 1980's?!

WW2 was a world war that was followed by a post-war private sector boom of increased private spending and greatly decreased government debt spending. The 1980s was a period of time when private businesses grew as a result of decreased government taxation - caused by a conservative president forcing a liberal congress to cut entitlements somewhat.

Explain how in the world deficits prolonged the Great Depression!

Like many prog-libs, you lack historical knowledge. FDR engaged in massive debt spending and public works long before WW2. The creation of public works based on deficits created an environment where government was a 'job creator', not the private sector. When the government is actively involved in setting wages, being the 'job creator', and otherwise setting a baseline of economic activity, then the private sector holds back its capital, jobs, and other activities. The reason is simple - the private sector cannot compete when the public sector is artificially manipulating costs and prices. It creates an atmosphere of massive economic uncertainty, and the private sector is unwilling to take risks, make bold moves, or otherwise do anything that might be jeopardized by a sudden decision by government to move in that direction.

So when government is subsidizing construction workers (such as with public make-work crap), it interferes with the private constriction industry. They are not going to hire workers at $20 an hour when government workers are getting tax-subsidized $30 jobs. They can't compete with that. So they don't hire anyone, and they fire people they already have, and they also have people quit because government is hiring at higher than market value wages. Then in a year when those jobs dry up, the private sector is flooded with workers who expect a 30 an hour job, but the job environment is full of employers who only pay 25 (or less), and who are scared to hire anyone because they have no idea if government is going to go on another bogus debt binge or not. The only time the private sector steps up in in periods of time when they know the government is NOT going to be rocking the boat with arbitrary decisions for a while. This is why there was a big boom AFTER the war (when government activity decreased) and in the 80s. Recessions are ended when the private sector has CONFIDENCE - and that only happens when government is NOT doing anything.

I could go on a long time, but I doubt you care to hear it. Prog-libs who believe only the Keneysian model don't care to hear how thier precious philosophy screws up the world market, prolongs economic downturns, and basically is the major cause of suffering, poverty, and economic unrest.

I don't for the life of me understand why people like you will literally argue the sky isn't blue if it fits your ideological narrative.

Pot - meet kettle. Your world view is 100% backwards. You are the one calling the sky green. You are the one saying the moon is made of cheese. We in the real world await your arrival some day when you're ready for it.

>> ^ghark:

I would just point out one thing for @NetRunner - the OWS movement is not the anti-tea party per se, over 70% of them identify as politically independent.
http://occupywallst.org/article/70-percent-ows-supporters-independent/


That doesn't surprise me in the least. Ultimately to me that's the big X-factor about OWS.

My optimist side says this is just the right kind of brew from which a strong, left-leaning 3rd party could arise. Or maybe just an authentic, left-wing version of the Tea Party -- people who don't swear fealty to the Democratic party, but who will force the politicians of both parties to cater to them via the threat of outside challenges in primaries and general elections. At a minimum, maybe it'll just help keep the media talking about the real problems (unemployment, wealth inequality, corporate misdeeds), and not the fake problems (debt, inflation, regulatory "uncertainty").

My cynical side tells me that its heavy resistance to making alliances with either party (including even established liberal groups like MoveOn), as well as its assiduously non-partisan messaging, is ultimately going to prevent it from being more than just a news fad. I'm worried that their somewhat rigid adherence to "independence" winds up meaning they get themselves political isolation, and not political revolution.

I'm hopeful about the potential for OWS to bring about a real reset of the political system, but each day that goes by without them making any attempt to translate the protest's energy into some sort of direct political action (i.e. voting, petitioning, primarying, general strikes, etc.), a bit of that hope fades. If all they ever plan to do is occupy public spaces and wave signs, they're just going to wind up being ignored.

Nice selective quoting.

"The classical (Roman) writers affirm that they offered on great occasions human sacrifices; as for success in war or for relief from dangerous diseases. Cæsar has given a detailed account of the manner in which this was done. "They have images of immense size, the limbs of which are framed with twisted twigs and filled with living persons. These being set on fire, those within are encompassed by the flames." Many attempts have been made by Celtic writers to shake the testimony of the Roman historians to this fact, but without success."

We have no reason to doubt the testimony of their contemporaries. And if you want more evidence, how about national geographic:

Druids Committed Human Sacrifice, Cannibalism?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/03/090320-druids-sacrifice-cannibalism.html

It's actually far worse than I thought. Far from a quaint little holiday where people mourned the dead, it was sick pagan bloodbath.

What's clear is that you're more interested in a convenient truth;; you said it yourself, you skim over the evidence in apathy, and just want to believe what you want. Doesn't change the facts though; Halloween celebrates an evil day where a bunch of savages worshipped demons, sacrificed human beings and apparently ate their flesh. I'm sorry, but there is nothing there for Christians to celebrate. Pat Robertson is 100 percent correct.

>> ^pho3n1x:
Show me where, in your first link, it mentions human sacrifice...
Instead, don't. I'll quote it for you:
That the Druids offered sacrifices to their deity there can be no doubt. But there is some uncertainty as to what they offered, and of the ceremonies connected with their religious services we know almost nothing.
Also, quoting the other article you mentioned regarding bonfires:
It comes from the contraction of bone fire, where the Celts used to burn animal bones to ward off evil spirits.
Try harder.
--
Catholic Mass, to my knowledge, is not based on pagan sacrifice at all, but rather using bread and wine as a "bloodless" sacrifice honoring the crucifixion of Christ. Granted, I only skimmed the articles because I'm not really that interested in the whole ordeal, but it seems to me like you don't like to read anything other than the pamphlets your church of choice provides about each secular holiday anyway, so I'm probably just wasting my time.
You can believe what you want to believe, let me believe what I want to believe.
--
Religion is like a penis.
It's awesome that you have one.
It's awesome that you're proud of it.
But please stop whipping it out and waving it around in public.
It's not any better or more important than mine.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Druids worshipped baal, engaged in human sacrifice:
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_bulfinch_chxlia.htm\

This was not a wholesome little get together, and it did involve blood sacrifice. The root of bonfire is "bonefire" http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_origin_of_the_word_bonfire
No, not all spirits are demons; God is a spirit, and angels are spirits. Yet, many people have this idea of a dichotomy between "good" spirits and evil spirits, but in reality they're almost all evil spirits. Any spirit not sent by God is a demon. Spirits impersonating the dead are demons, spirits which claim to be other gods are demons, the spirits people channel are demons, etc. The astral realm is owned by Satan and populated by demons pretending to be every kind of fantasy someone could imagine, and many people wouldn't. There is no Goddess, there are no ghosts, there aren't any of these psychic manifestations. It all stems from Satan. Satan is a being, not a concept, as real as you and me, and he is the deceiver of this entire world.
I agree, Catholic mass is sacrifice, because it is pagan ritual the church took on as its own. It has nothing to do with God, but it does represent the union of the sun and moon, as per babylonian mystery religions.
By and large, people who practice sorcery, divination, channeling, "psychic" abilities, and the like are all doing Satans will. They all come out in droves to celebrate this evil day, to worship other gods and practice their witchcraft; basically to do all the things which God commanded us not to do. The only involvement Christians should have on this is to pray for those who are deceived.
>> ^pho3n1x:
I think you're misconstruing the use of the word "sacrifice" to summon imagery of blood sacrifice (ie Indiana Jones).
Not all sacrifice is macabre or evil. Catholic Mass is a sacrifice.
I've not read a single source regarding Samhain/Halloween/All Saints Eve, even one from "your side" of the argument, that alludes to human sacrifice.
http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Projects/Reln91/Blood/s
acrificemainpage.htm
Besides, "pagan" is a blanket term. The ones you are trying to illustrate are Druids. They would make animal sacrifices, which were then immediately consumed as part of the festival.
Satan does not exist in the religion which you are misunderstanding. Satan is a Christian idea.
And I still assert that spirits are not all demons. Is the Holy Spirit a demon?
Before you try to correct me, I also have a lot of personal experience in these matters, and I know that there are some misguided individuals. By and large though, "pagan" religions (as paganism is not in-and-of-itself a religion) do not share these views and simply see the matter for what it is. Animals and crops are harvested for the coming winter, and tribute is paid to "the death of a god", not to "a god of death".