how can i trust a man who keeps calling his middle finger his index finger? he's clearly mentally unstable. now if you excuse me, i am going to go cut celery MY way. that is, with reckless disregard for the safety of my appendages.

Example?

You want to see everyone get equal housing, so you threaten, cajole, bribe, extort and entice the government pawns to do your bidding. Have them put a gun to the head of banks (while assuring them it's not loaded) and order them to start giving bad housing loans to people whom it's known will not repay them. Promise the guilty they will never have to pay for creating these disasters, the reliable taxpayer will be there to clean up the mess.

Then when the house of cards collapses, you can always shrug off the blame to "greed", ignoring your role in creating unnatural, unstable opportunities...you're just a humble guy with good intentions who wanted the bums to all have their own mansions.

Soulpatch is on to something...if only he knew what...

Damn! I forgot aboot you dang Canadians! You're too close!

I will give you 5 virtual twonies. Go down to your local mountie station and ask for them there. They'll be waiting for you.

In reply to this comment by therealblankman:
Silent 'e'. Live in Canada. Send cash please... prefer Canadian dollars or English Pounds, the Yankee greenback is so unstable these days.

In reply to this comment by brycewi19:
10 (virtual) bucks to anyone who can pronounce the name of the town who is NOT from Washington!

Silent 'e'. Live in Canada. Send cash please... prefer Canadian dollars or English Pounds, the Yankee greenback is so unstable these days.

In reply to this comment by brycewi19:
10 (virtual) bucks to anyone who can pronounce the name of the town who is NOT from Washington!

By "closest at hand", I didn't mean that you grabbed it right away. While you did spend years coming to Jesus, it's no coincidence that you did, IMO. You say that among religions, you were particularly prejudiced against Christianity for it's implausibility. This doesn't surprise since it was the one you were most familiar with, and so the one you had seen the most problems with, until you investigated the other ones, and found them even worse. As you have noted several times yourself, growing up in the West, you were also strongly prejudiced towards Christianity, since a large part of our cultural ethos and moral code stems directly from it, even for us atheists. So, if you were going to discover that one religion was the true one, it would almost certainly be a strain of Christianity as it's the one that fits your own culture's moral code the best. If you'd chosen Voodoo instead, then your careful search of religions would be something worth pointing to as evidence.

I was prejudiced against Christianity because I didn't believe Jesus was a real person. I had never actually seriously investigated it, and I was also remarkably ignorant of what Christianity was all about, to the point that it might strain credulity. So no, it wasn't due to familiarity, because there wasn't any. I was just naturally inclined to reject it because of that doubt about Jesus.

At the point at which I accepted it, I had already rejected religion altogether. I was no more inclined to accept Christianity than I was Voodoo or Scientology. I had my own view of God and I viewed any imposition on that view as being artificial and manmade. The *only* reason I accepted Christianity as being true, as being who God is, is because of special revelation. That is, that God had let me know certain things about His nature and plan before I investigated it, which the bible later uniquely confirmed. My experience as a Christian has also been confirming it to this day.

These definitions, especially the ones about Satan are really self-serving. You declare that you have the truth, and part of that truth is that anyone who disagrees with you is possessed by the devil, which of course your dissenters will deny. But you can counter that easily because your religion has also defined satanic possession as something you don't notice. Tight as a drum, and these definitions from nowhere but the religion's own book.

My view is not only based on the bible but also upon my experience. I first became aware of demon possession before I became a Christian. I had met several people who were possessed by spirits in the New Age/Occult movement. At the time, I didn't know it was harmful, so I would interact with them and they would tell me (lies) about the spiritual realm. I thought it was very fascinating but I found out later they were all liars and very evil. It was only when I became a Christian that I realized they were demons.

I don't think everyone who doesn't know Jesus is possessed. If not possessed, though, heavily influenced. Everyone who sins is a slave to sin, and does the will of the devil, whether they know it or not. The illusion is complex and intricate, traversing the centers of intellect, emotion, memory, and perception, and interweaving them; it is a complete world that you would never wake up from if it wasn't for Gods intervention. The devil is a better programmer than the machines in the Matrix.

Actually, it was a very different feeling from that. I didn't feel I was the target of any conspiracy. I had stumbled into one --my group of friends-- but I was ignorant of the conspiracy before I had my experience. After I had it, I realized that they were all part of something bigger than me that I could never understand, and that I was actually in their way, that my presence in their group was really cramping their style a lot, slowing things down, forcing them to get things done surreptitiously. I realized they weren't going to directly remove me for now, but I didn't know how long their patience would last. So I removed myself, and hoped they'd leave me alone. In hindsight, they were horrible friends to begin with, so it was no loss for me. Losing those friends was a very good move for me.

Whatever they were involved in, it sounds like it wasn't any good. I can get a sense for what you're saying, but without further detail it is hard to relate to it.

Again, you're claiming you are right, and everything untrue comes from Satan, and if I have any logical reason to doubt your story, you can give yourself permission to ignore my logic by saying it is from Satan and that's why it has the power to show the Truth is wrong. So, any Christian who believes a logical argument that conflicts with the dogma is, by definition, being fooled by Satan, and has a duty to doubt their own mind. Even better than the last one for mind control. It does away utterly with reliance on any faculty of the mind, except when their use results in dogmatic thoughts. Genius. Serious props to whoever came up with that. That's smart.

God is the one who said "Let us reason together". I accept that you have sincere reasons for believing what you do and rejecting my claims. If you gave me a logical argument which was superior to my understanding, I wouldn't throw it away as a Satanic lie. I would investigate it and attempt to reconcile it with my beliefs. If it showed my beliefs to be false, and there was no plausible refutation (or revelation), I would change my mind. The way that someone becomes deceived is not by logical arguments, it's by sin. They deceive themselves. You don't have to worry much about deception if you are staying in the will of God.

Like, if you say you believe God exists, I say fine. If you say you know God exists, I say prove it's not your imagination. If you say evolution is wrong, ordinarily I wouldn't care what you believe, except that if you're on school board and decide to replace it with Creationism or Intelligent Design in the science curriculum, then I have to object because that causes harm to children who are going to think that they are real science, and on equal footing with/compatible with/superior to evolution.

Have you ever seriously investigated the theory of evolution? Specifically, macro evolution. It isn't science. Observational science is based on data that you can test or observe. Macro evolution has never been observed, nor is there any evidence for it. Micro evolution on the other hand is scientific fact. There are definitely variations within kinds. There is no evidence, however, of one species changing into another species. If you haven't ever seriously investigated this, you are going to be shocked at how weak the evidence actually is.

evolution is unproved and unprovable. we believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.

sir arthur keith
forward to origin of the species 100th anniversay 1959

You may be right. I may be right. I think it's more likely that I'm right, but that's neither here nor there. How do you know you're not seeing things that aren't there? My experience proves the human mind is capable of doing so and sustaining it. The bible could have been written by several such people. Maybe in that time and place, people who ranted about strange unconnected things were considered to be prophets, and once plugged into the God story, they went to town. I'm not saying it's true, just a possible theory.

There isn't anything I can say which will conclusively prove it to you. The reason being, because my testimony is reliant upon my judgement to validate it, and you don't trust my judgement. You are automatically predisposed to doubt everything I have to say, especially regarding supernatural claims. So asking me to prove it when you aren't going to believe anything I say about it is kind of silly. All I can say is that I have been around delusional people, and the mentally ill, very closely involved in fact, and I know what that looks like. I am as sharp as I ever have been, clear headed, open minded, and internally consistant. You may disagree with my views, but do you sense I am mentally unstable, paranoid, or unable to reason?

Also, the prophets in the bible weren't ranting about strange, unconnected things. The bible has an internal consistancy which is unparalled, even miraculous, considering that it was written by 40 different authors over a period of 1500 years in three different languages.

If I was "in it" and deceiving myself then, I was in something and deceiving myself before. My beliefs about all supernatural things remain unchanged by my experience, that's to say, I still don't believe they exist.

I didn't either, so I understand your skepticism. Until you see for yourself that material reality is just a veil, you will never believe it. But when you do see it, it will change *everything*.

First, not claiming to have created anything doesn't mean he didn't do it, or that he did [edit] claim it and the records were lost. Two, hold the phone -- this rules out Christianity. Genesis states the world was created in six days a few thousand years ago, or something. You can argue that this is metaphorical (why?), but surely you can't say that world being flat, or the sun rotating around the Earth is a metaphor. These are things God would know and have no reason to misrepresent. Since it's God's word, everyone would just believe it. And why not? It makes just as much sense that the Earth is round and revolves around its axis.

There is no reason to include Gods who made no claim to create the Universe, which is most of them. If their claims are lost in antiquity, we can assume that such gods are powerless to keep such documents available. What we should expect to find, if God has revealed Himself, is an active presence in the world with many believers. This narrows it down to a few choices.

I don't argue that this is metaphorical, I agrue that it is literal. I believe in a young age for the Earth, and a literal six day creation.

[On re-reading the preceding argument and the context you made the claim, it is a stupid see-saw argument, so I'm taking it back.] Consider also there are tens of thousands of different strains of Christianity with conflicting ideas of the correct way to interpret the Bible and conduct ourselves. Can gays marry? Can women serve mass? Can priests marry? Can non-virgins marry? And so on. Only one of these sects can be right, and again, probably none of them are.

The disagreements are largely superficial. Nearly all the denominations agree on the fundementals, which is that salvation is through the Lord Jesus Christ alone. There are true Christians in every denomination. The true church is the body of Christ, of which every believer is a member. In that sense, there is one church. We can also look at the early church for the model of what Christianity is supposed to look like. The number of denominations doesn't speak to its truth.

2. The method itself doesn't take into account why the religion has spread. The answer isn't in how true it is, but in the genius of the edicts it contains. For example, it says that Christians are obliged to go convert other people, and doing so will save their eternal souls from damnation. Anyone who is a Christian is therefore compelled to contribute to this uniquely Christian process. I can't count the number of times I've been invited to attend church or talk about God with a missionary. That's why Christianity is all over the world, whereas no other religion has that spread. Also, there are all sorts of compelling reasons for people to adopt Christianity. One is that Christians bring free hospitals and schools. This gives non-truth-based incentives to join. The sum of this argument is that Christianity has the best marketing, so would be expected to have the largest numbers. The better question is why Islam still has half the % of converts that Christianity does, even though it has no marketing system at all, and really a very poor public image internationally.

Yet, this doesn't take into account how the church began, which was when there was absolutely no benefit to being a Christian. In fact, it could often be a death sentence. The early church was heavily persecuted, especially at the outset, and it stayed that way for hundreds of years. It was difficult to spread Christianity when you were constantly living in fear for your life. So, the church had quite an improbable beginning, and almost certainly should have been stamped out. Why do you suppose so many people were willing to go to their deaths for it? It couldn't be because they heard a good sermon. How about the disciples, who were direct witnesses to the truth of the resurrection? Would they die for something they knew to be a lie, when they could have recanted at any time?

3. This kinda follows from #1, but I want to make it explicit, as this, IMHO, is one of the strongest arguments I've ever come up with. I've never presented it nor seen it presented to a believer, so I'm keen for your reaction. It goes something like this: If God is perfect, then everything he does must be perfect. If the bible is his word, then it should be instantly apparent to anybody with language faculties that it's all absolutely true, what it means, and how to extrapolate further truths from it. But that's not what happens. Christians argue and fight over the correct interpretation of the bible, and others argue with Christians over whether it's God's word at all based on the many, many things that appear inconsistent to non-Christians. In this regard, it's obvious that it's not perfect, and therefore not the word of God. If it's not the word of God, then the whole religion based on it is bunk.

The issue there is the free will choices of the people involved. God created a perfect world, but man chose evil and ruined it. Gods word is perfect, but not everyone is willing to accept it, and those that do will often pick and choose the parts they like due to their own unrighteousness. We all have the same teacher, the Holy Spirit, but not everyone listens to Him, and that is the reason for the disagreements.

I didn't say people needed it. I said having a religion in a scary universe with other people with needs and desires that conflict with your own makes life a lot easier and more comfortable. Religion, in general, is probably the greatest social organizing force ever conceived of, and that's why religions are so attractive and conservatively followed in places with less beneficial social organization (i.e., places without democracy), and lower critical thinking skills (i.e. places with relatively poor education).

People come to Christianity for all sorts of reasons, but the number one reason is because of Jesus Christ. There is no such thing as Christianity without Him. I became a Christianity for none of the reasons you have mentioned, in fact I seem to defy all of the stereotypes. I will also say that being a Christianity is lot harder than not. Following the precepts that Christ gave us is living contrary to the ways humans naturally behave, and to the desires of the flesh. As far as education goes, Christianity has a rich intellectual tradition, and people from all walks of life call themselves followers of Christ. You're also ignoring the places where Christianity makes life a lot more difficult for people:



In contrast, in times and places where people on a large scale are well off and have a tradition of critical thinking, the benefits of having a religion as the system of governance are less apparent, and the flaws in this system come out. It becomes more common for such nations to question the authority of the church, and so separate religion from governance. The West has done so, and is leading the world. Turkey is the only officially secular Muslim nation in the world and has clearly put itself in a field apart from the rest, all because it unburdened itself of religious governance when an imposed basic social organization structure was no longer required.

Then how might you explain the United States, where 70 percent of people here call themselves Christian, 90 percent believe in some kind of God, and almost 50 percent believe in a literal six day creation?

You're right, and you may not know how right you are. Modern scientific investigation, as away of life, comes almost entirely from the Christian tradition. It once was in the culture of Christianity to investigate and try to understand the universe in every detail. The thought was that understanding the universe better was to approach understanding of God's true nature -- a logical conclusion since it was accepted that God created the universe, and understanding the nature of something is to reveal the nature of its creator (and due to our natural curiosity, learning things makes us feel better). The sciences had several branches. Natural science was the branch dealing with the non-transcendent aspects of the universe. The transcendent ones were left to theologists and philosophers, who were also considered scientists, as they had to rigorously and logically prove things as well, but without objective evidence. This was fine, and everyone thought knowledge of the world was advancing as it should until natural science, by its own procedures, started discovering natural facts that seemed inconsistent with the Bible.

This isn't entirely true. For instance, Uniforitarian Geology was largely accepted, not on the basis of facts, but on deliberate lies that Charles Lyell told in his book, such as the erosion rate of Niagra Falls. Evolution was largely accepted not because of facts but because the public was swayed by the "missing links" piltdown man and nebraska man, both of which later turned out to be frauds.

That's when people who wanted truth had to decide what their truth consisted of: either God and canon, or observable objective facts. Natural science was cleaved off from the church and took the name "science" with it. Since then, religion and science have both done their part giving people the comfort of knowledge. People who find the most comfort in knowledge that is immutable and all-encompassing prefer religion. People who find the most comfort in knowledge that is verifiable and useful prefer science.

The dichotomy you offer here is amusing; Christianity is both verifiable and useful. I'll quote the bible:

Mark 8:36

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

>> ^messenger:

There is a hell of a big difference between fantasy and reality. Trying to equate the two in any topical debate about any impassioned modern problem and it will turn into a circle of debate fired on by the blathers-kites that would idiotically decide to argue any of it's points. A circus of clowns?

If you argue to be swayed by the things that don't exist you in fact give away detail of your mind and psychologically, a stronger suite of knowledge that in fact--ironically--makes you more susceptible to do exactly what Samuel was warning against. Samuel is talking about control, and finding help or gaining control so that you will not commit these crimes. But, if you watch the movies and give into them you become quite unstable and out of control; no matter what you think.

Fantasy in control of reality is quite the joke, but some see to think we should be worried and I have to wonder why? All I can say is go see a psychiatrist soon.

This goes back to Video Games, Rock & Roll, Dancing, Dungeons and Dragons, Movies, The Internet, etc--all of which were the ultimate undoing of our youth, and in quite a few of these cases it did exactly the opposite of what was said. The opposing view always have the exact same type of psychological profile.

>> ^RFlagg:

"A speed which most cars can get up to." Can they? And can a Focus? I've gotten to 90 something in one of my cars but it was shaking too bad to keep going, most cars I've had become unstable around 80 something. I mean the speedometer goes to 120, but I question if they can go that fast.


im guessing they're of the older and clunkier variety? my old 93 accord ex got to 110 and it was in a pretty wretched state.

"A speed which most cars can get up to." Can they? And can a Focus? I've gotten to 90 something in one of my cars but it was shaking too bad to keep going, most cars I've had become unstable around 80 something. I mean the speedometer goes to 120, but I question if they can go that fast.

The cops are a bit unstable in Seattle. Jaywalking, like public whittling, might get you shot in the face.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

No, I'm highly unstable.


ME T00 !

No, I'm highly unstable.

@RedSky

It's not that speculative activity has "nothing" to do with supply and demand. Of course it does. I'm saying that once you get past that initial set of contracts between the initial speculator and the farmer/mill/bread company/whatever, you get further and further away from supply and demand as a factor. You get people who are betting on price swings for profit rather than someone actually providing a service. The video did a pretty good job of illustrating the see-saw effect this has on markets, which makes prices unstable.

This see-saw effect causes severe and sudden price spikes and dips as people pile on short sales or speculative buying. The point is, if the price for a good increases 71% in a short period of time without extreme supply issues, it's likely a speculative effect. Yes, the video could have done a better job of explaining why biofuels, certain supply shortages, etc, don't account for nearly all of the price increase, but I've heard that broken down elsewhere. I'll try to find a source.

Furthermore, large US investment banks have convinced sovereign wealth funds (think Saudi royal money type funds) to invest in US commodities markets in recent years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081102462.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/02/24/us-commodities-sovereignwealth-idUSTRE51N28Z20090224

This is what these huge piles of money do to protect themselves. More recently, investors bought huge piles of Swiss Francs because it was the world's most stable currency. However, since such huge investment in the currency suddenly increased the value of the Franc, it caused Swiss exports to become more expensive. This started to destabilize their economy, as producers were having trouble keeping contracts with their buyers. So, the Swiss central bank started manipulating their currency value by offering to buy unlimited amounts of any foreign currency. They succeeded in dropping the Franc's value by around 10%. None of this activity had anything to do with supply or demand of Swiss goods...or goods anywhere for that matter. It was simply massive amounts of investment from a crowd mentality.

Same thing goes for the price of gold. It's just a giant hedge against inflation and/or price spikes in other markets...so you get these accumulations of money in "safe" areas, and that's how you get massive overvaluation of various goods and commodities (bubbles).

It's all due to the level of complexity. "Speculative activity" is a stabilizer when the number of speculators is low, but it has a destabilizing effect as the number of speculators increases.

@RedSky Both "sides" are just gambling. They use all kinds of statistical models and data to convince themselves that they're not, but they are. They know it's unstable, but they're trying to avoid the hot potato.

You're correct in your logical assertions that each of these parties have a "role" in the market. Yes, hedge funds can have a downward influence. Yes, speculators can drive up prices. In theory, these cancel out. In reality, it causes the system to become fragile because these upward and downward influences don't happen simultaneously in a neat math equation. The problem is that all of this up/down activity causes drastic fluctuations in the price of goods which have nothing to do with supply or demand. The more layered the contracts and transactions get, the less stable the price. Even if the up/down forces actually succeed in "stabilizing" (or even lowering) the average price over time, that doesn't prevent people from starving because rice is too expensive this month.

Yes, all of those supply/demand issues are factors in price, but they do not mitigate the central point. The video started off by explaining that the 4 "complex" factors you listed at the end don't account for price instability. Consumers, producers, supply chains, etc can acclimate to gradual changes, but they have a hard time responding to spikes. That's one of the central points of the video.

The biggest problem is that the application of these economic theories work well to increase stability when complexity is low, yet they actually decrease stability when complexity increases. It's easy to logically explain why speculators are necessary. It's a persuasive argument, but it ignores the bigger issue at hand. It's much harder to explain why "speculators speculating on speculators" is a problem when people can easily understand "speculators are good in this logical everyday situation".

Yup, you're wasting your time. You will propose rational arguments and reason... Shiny will respond with religious dogma. Rinse, repeat, bang head on desk.

You cannot reason with blind faith.

But as you are blind, Shiny, others will continue to look and poke in those dark places you claim your god exists. The light of our inquiry and skepticism will illuminate that which is hidden in your god's domain. We will take it from your god and convert it to science. You will be painted ever further into the corner of your own ignorance until such a point that you have no ground upon which to stand. While you remain rigid in your unquestioning belief, we will seek understanding and truth and know them by their ability to stand up to scientific inquiry.

No god can hide from science. And someday we will place those that are left, like toys long outgrown, on a shelf... along with those gods from the past which you yourself do not believe in.

In all seriousness though, if you've heard or are hearing the voice(s) of your god, you might want to look into the possibility that you have schizophrenia, Shiny. This is not a jab or an attempt to imply that you are mentally unstable, but actual concern. The reality is that there are numerous sufferers of schizophrenia who hear auditory hallucinations, some of these take the form of "God". Something to consider.

>> ^EMPIRE:

Guys... seriously? You're still responding to Shiny Blurry?. You're wasting your time trying to stuff some knowledge into a black hole of ignorance.

That's pretty much where I am coming from. Although, I wouldn't call my system dualistic if the sense is that they are equal forces. Now, this kind of evil may seem mundane, even banal, but really that is the worst kind. Slow change over time turns the good bad and the bad good. Satan uses and abuses whatever access he has, which is every person who sins, and he has a worldwide plan of deception built into every facet of modern life. Most of the corrupting ideas he insinuates into society have the same basic principles:

Get people to worship anything other than God..ie, other gods, money, power, themselves..etc

Get people to worship the creation rather than the Creator..ie, the pagans, deists and animists, environmentalists

Get people to believe that they can change reality through will power or do things under their own power..ie, the new age movement, secular humanists etc

Everything which is going on has a spiritual dimension, which is basically a war between the forces of good and evil. There is no space which isn't claimed, so everything which can be claimed is in dispute. While this might be a little thing in the grand deception, it helps reinforce the self-empowerment theology that many ascribe to.



>> ^Krupo:
No worries, I get lazy sometimes and just ascribe my comments to upvotes and downvotes.
To go along with your desire to ban 'craaazy' thoughts, that's where the downvote function comes in handy. To play "anti-devil's advocate" (if you see what I did there), despite what you may think, shiny made a valid point, grounded in some pretty logical teaching in a dualistic sort of systme (not really usign the right terms, but let's move on) -> if you do believe in the supernatural (and many do), if you're not embracing spiritual power from God / the "positive" source, then everything else is coming from the negative source (e.g. Satan or the evil equivalent you suscribe to).
Now, drawing a link between a TV scam and the Prince of Darkness is a bit of a stretch, but if you see "scams" as evil, and Satan as "the boss of evil", then this isn't as crazy as it sounds. And certainly not ban-worthy.
Fun discussion though. <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smile.gif">
Incidentally, in the thread, which isn't really 'mine' but belnoging to the video, I was more shocked taht I hadn't put this into the eia channel as ant did for me. For surely, if you see someone of your favorite gender wearing one, it'll make you reconsider things.
>> ^Boise_Lib:
@EvilDeathBee - Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
"Nothing he's said has been extremely offensive or outrageous." I agree.
"Also, who knows? Maybe us challenging him all the time may lead him to start questioning all the nonsense that has been shoveled upon him." I disagree--any comments which don't agree with his previous mindset will only be seen as an "attack" on his "faith" (read delusions). This will actually only harden his resolve to chastise the sinners.
"...banning him simply for speaking his beliefs would simply be hypocritical on this site." I agree--that's why I stated above, "If sb just stated his/her beliefs that would be a different story, but this insistence on continually attacking over--and over--and over gets real old, real fast." For example take qm, I completely disagree with almost everything he says (and I think he might be an unstable person), but I would fight to keep him from being banned just for that. When qm has something to say--he says it--then moves on; he doesn't take over the whole thread and trash someones posting spouting trite crap.
About the ignore button--I'm not really sure how it works. Does it wipe out all the replies? Some of the replies are gold and I wouldn't want to miss them. If I ignore someone does that mean I wouldn't see their comments on a video I posted? I wouldn't want that because I want to see all activity on my posts.
Now, banning may not be the only solution available to the site admin here. If his comments could be limited to one per video that might be a viable solution--with out invoking the dreaded ban. As @Payback has said before if everyone simply ignored him the whole problem would go away--but that's (almost) against human nature.
Thanks again for the discussion, and Sorry @Krupo for taking up so much of your thread.