@gorillaman

Why would we need to quintuple resources by 2100 if population is only forecast to grow 50%? There is no shortage of potential arable land and more would be made room for if food prices were to rise (bringing them back down).

As I said before, I'm not debating environmental damage and climate change need to be addressed. But you address it directly, you don't attempt to reduce the world population to <1Bn ... somehow, like you propose.

No, corporations primarily do cause environmental harm, particularly climate change:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-companies-man-made-global-warming-emissions-climate-change

That's why changing their incentives directly through taxes or emission schemes is the best approach. I would almost say that attempting to reduce your carbon footprint at a individual level is an exercise in self masturbatory indulgence, which while gratifying is completely insignificant. It's the by-products of all the everyday products that you consume during the industrial process that create the vast majority or pollutants.

3rd paragraph - I've already addressed everything there several times here. You simply are not acknowledging the facts:

http://priceofoil.org/2013/11/26/new-analysis-shows-growing-fossil-reserves-shrinking-carbon-budget/
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2013/nov/26/why-fossil-fuel-reserves-growing-oil-carbon

Does our current reliance on carbon based energy precipitate environmental issues with regards to global warming in the future? Obviously, but an international agreement on raising the cost of it, to reduce our reliance on it, is more likely than an agreement on enforced family size limits.

It's called shaming. Look it up. And yes, it does work. Matter of fact, psychologically, it's one of the surest ways to endure behavior. Unfortunately, we've lost that in America with teachers barred from using red ink, giving bad grades and every little league athlete getting an award.

When 90% of the worlds population is making fun of you, you begin to rethink your stance. And conversely, it's the same tactic bullies use but only in a negative way. As you said, "human nature" is to conform with a little room for individualism. People want to fit into the crowd, and when you're the only one gay-bashing, you stand out in a very negative way when everyone is either ignoring you or calling you an idiot.

(Not to mention, ads like this cause those of us who support gay rights to cheer louder thus making it harder for those beating up LGBT's to get away with their acts feeling like they did the whim of society. It's called Mob Behavior. It's also very human . . .)

@cosmovitelli, I'm still not seeing any hard facts from you. Yes, those are all awful things, but you are alleging that these people are demonstrably worse than Hitler (systematically killed at least 6 million Jews, arguably responsible for the largest conflict the world has ever seen), Stalin (murdered, tortured and deported .... well, no-one knows, but estimates range from 3 to 60 million) and Genghis Khan (killed a sizeable percentage of the worlds population at the time).

Also, you are aggregating the acts of every US president since Truman vs the acts of 3 individuals.

That's an extraordinary claim, and I think you need to provide some facts and figures to back it up.

M Malevolent
O Oligarchic
N Nazified
S Succubal
A Anti-Neutraceutical
N Nonvegetarian
T Treachetourial
O Organo-assassins

The following address should be on every death to eco-terroristists' organization's, "Raze This Motherfucker", hit list:

World Headquarters Monsanto Company 800 North Lindbergh Blvd. St. Louis, Missouri 63167. Phone: 314/694-1000

Everyone who works for this corporation should be considered complicit in the undoing of species-

Monsanto is the reason bees are disappearing worldwide-
Monsanto is the reason heath care is unaffordable-
Monsanto is the reason gasoline no longer lubricates rubber and composites in combustion engines-
Monsanto is responsible for the disappearance of heirloom variety seed banks the world over-(hybrids notwithstanding, their originating variants tucked-away in bunkers)
Monsanto is a poisonous cabal of eugenicists, working to help other cunts reduce the world population through systematic, experimental means, with the world's sentients as her guinea pigs.

Someone needs to mail them some anthrax powder mixed with ricin, to get that full effect.

You actually ignored the weaker parts of my argument.

If a history of violence against military and civilian targets is your grounds for banning an organisation, does that mean you want the Republican party banned for attacking a civilian news organisation, or military targets? How about the Democratic Party for essentially the same thing?

Who gets to choose when violence is justified?

Should the U.S. get to choose for everybody, including the 95.5% of the world population who are not U.S. citizens?

Claiming that an organisation is non-violent is not sufficient to prove innocence. It is quite possible to get a lengthy stay in prison in the U.S. for non-violent activities, such as online gaming, and in fact although I take the statistic with a grain of salt I have seen it claimed that 60% of U.S. prisoners are in prison for non-violent reasons. The number of U.S. prisoners (730 per 100,000) is in fact far higher than Chinese prisoners (121 per 100,000) by such a large percentage that the total prison population in the U.S. is higher than China despite having only about one third the total population (I hasten to point out that things have improved slightly since 2008, but my point stands).

BTW, don't get the idea that I have anything against the U.S., because I don't. I just don't accept that it is the bastion of freedom and that China is the evil empire.

I really hate when people pull stats like this out of their asses because it downplays and belittles the difficulties of living in poverty.

There is so much vagueness in your statement that I shouldn't even bother with it, but it is upsetting me, so here we go:

What is the First World? The best current definition is probably the group of countries which have the highest Human Development Index, generally meaning that life there is pretty damn good. That would include countries you might not expect (like Chile, Argentina, Bahrain, and Singapore) but it is a better definition than the historical meaning of First World (basically, US, Canada, and Western Europe).

Combined population of First World countries: 1.136 billion people

Let's assume that poverty is the bottom 10 percent of that population, so you are looking at a non-impoverished First World population of 1.022 billion

Account for China's middle and affluent classes, who are surely better off than poor people in Croatia or Latvia, by adding 350 million

Do the same for India and let's call that 70 million people

Then assume that the top 1% of the rest of the world is probably better off than the bottom 10% of the First World, and you can add a further 33 million people ((World population - First World - China - India) x .01)

So then, the total number of people living better than poverty stricken First Worlders is ...... 1.77 billion people or about 25% of humankind.

So, yes, you are "richer" than 75% of humankind even if you are poor in the First World, but even that is relative if you consider purchasing power.

All of this isn't to say that I am sick of hearing about "first world problems" especially when I am from there but don't live there. I walk out my door everyday and see the very real problems of abject poverty, malnutrition, lack of access to clean water, and on and on. But I also understand how difficult it is to be poor in the US and European countries, and I think we should never downplay that struggle. Telling people to stop complaining because it could always be worse has never been a very convincing argument for me.

Oh, I misread what you said. Do you know that 1/3 of the worlds population calls themselves Christian? You can't pigeonhole Christians..we call from every social class, every type of environment, every kind of circumstance..people find God in innumerable ways. It's really though, that God finds you by leading you to Himself.

You were biased in favor of..

1. using English 2. using 'existence' as the subject in your point. 3. using the word existence instead of other synonyms. 4. using 'is' as your verb. 5. making the point that 'existence is.' 6. explaining your point with the specific combination of words you chose to use. 7. using a period. 8. Making your sentence short. 9. using two words in your sentence. 10. making my challenge more difficult by being strategic. 11. capitalizing the first letter in the sentence. 12. not capitalizing the other letters. 13. using standard status quo western sentence structure. 14. thinking you would earn 10 powerpoints.

These were just the biases you revealed through writing. There were many many more silent biases that lie beyond detection in your noggin.

For me to prove that your sentence was biased in 10 ways, I need only to believe what I've written - and I do. For you to prove that your sentence was unbiased, you need 100% world population consensus, which I deny you.

>> ^lantern53:

White men are the most maligned people on the planet. We make laws here protecting women from domestic abuse, providing health care and free breakfasts for their kids, etc. yet because this man is not a woman, he is some kind of shit to be abused.
By your logic, since he is a man, he must be thinking that woman are property to be utilized in any way with no regard for their well-being.
Your logic is porked.


Sorry, but that's just fucking sad.

This particular dipshit (I didn't see any other white men being interviewed) didn't pass the protections you mentioned all by himself (if he had anything to do with them at all). For all you know, he fought tooth and nail against them. By your "logic" this idiot shouldn't be criticised because those protections exist at all.

What in this video made you believe he has ANY regard for the well-being of women, outside of allowing an abortion to save her life? Or are you just running to his defense because he has an "R" next to his name?

About 30% of the world population is white. Do you think only white men had anything to do with laws that protect women? By your logic, those white men were ALSO solely responsible for the housing market collapse, 3 unneccesary wars, the world-wide recession, and all the financial scandals that seem to be exposed on a daily basis. They could use a little maligning. Cherry-picking history and regurgitating logical fallacies seem to be all you Repugs have in your arsenal nowadays. It's pitiful.

The whole point of the video is that this crusader against abortion hasn't even considered the view of those who would be most affected by anti-abortion laws. Why do you think that is? Money from anti-abortion donors? Religious nuttery? Towing the party line? Incapable of empathy (a sociopath)? That he is a man who wants to pass laws that only affect women makes it even more disgraceful.

We can always count on the gop-bots to bring the stoopid.

Well, those might seem to be good reasons, but in the end, atheists are supposed to be against religion. If it was really about religion, you would the criticism spread around a lot more than it is. I haven't seen many atheists taking vocal stands against Allah or Krishna, even though between the two they represent a 1/3 of the worlds population. This is especially true of the "new atheists", even though many of the things they rant about are epitomized in islamic and hindu countries. It just seems that todays atheism isn't so much anti-God(s) as it is anti-Christ. It's not focused on all gods, it's focused on the true God: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

>> ^wraith:

@shiny:
Regarding your question:
1. People who had a dramatic change in their life tend to be very vocal an opinionated about that. Why should that not also true of people who loose or gain religious beliefs?
2. For me, who has never believed in a god or gods, I tend to react to pressure that religious people exert on me and my life. I would not classify that as god "dealing with my heart".
3. Most people who are even able to frequent these fora are from western wealthy nations which, through god's almighty plan or certain socio-economic factors turned out to be predominantly christian.
Regarding your statement: I, from the safety of a country where supposed blasphemy is not met with harsh punishment by learned elders of a forgiving religion, do criticize all religions almost equally. Even I, given the christian background of my home country reserve most of my criticism for christianity because I encounter it most in my daily life.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Yeah, but we're talking about atheists, and you don't really see many atheists out there arguing against Allah or Krishna.

I'm sure this poll is a shock to many of you. Growing up in the secular world, where all of the media you consume is geared towards secular interests, and when all of the people you hang around have those same interests, you might get the idea that Christians just constitute some fringe part of society. At least, that's what I used to think. I was fairly shocked to find out that this country is predominantly Christian. Or that 1/3 of the worlds population is Christian.

I am also in the more unique position of having once been a die hard believer in evolution and the old age of the Earth, and being convinced otherwise by the evidence, or lack there of. To note, I was perfectly willing to accept these two ideas, even as a Christian. I had been fully indoctrinated and so I had naturally expected to find a preponderance of strong evidence for them, case closed. It was only after investigating the data (and not just the conclusions) that I was *extremely* shocked to find that it took a greater leap of faith to believe in those theories than it did to believe Genesis.

For those of you unafraid to challenge your preconceived notions, and challenge you it will, I recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0890510628/ref=tmm_pap_used_olp_sr?ie=UTF8&condition=used

You really haven't been paying attention if you think I'm not open to the idea of a god @shinyblurry. The very fact that I'm arguing I don't know, directly implies that I'm an agnostic, not an atheist.

I've seen that you have an openness to the idea, but you're also quick to take an adversarial position. Are you truly open to who God is? Are you okay with the idea of a God so long as it isn't Jesus?

I can also say that as a former agnostic, I understand where you're coming from.

There could be a god. But 1) there has to be proof of the it's existence

Logically, if there is a God, the entire Universe is proof of His existence. I don't know about you, but personally I find the idea of Universes spontaneously creating themselves to be an absurdity.

Imagine a painting with three black lines on it. You could come to all sorts of conclusions about what that is supposed to represent. You could draw philosophical ideas from it. You could see it as a social commentary, or a mathematical representation. You could measure it, sample the paint and paper, run many different tests. You could count the number of brushstrokes. You could do all of this and more, subject it to every sort of empirical inquiry, and you would be no closer to finding about the intention of the painter than you were when you started.

The only way you are going to see the signature of the Creator is if you realize you are looking at His Creation. The evidence is *everywhere*. Neither is poking and prodding it and subjecting it to tests going to tell you anything about what He intended. This is the only real question.

and 2) Religion and god are two separate things, just because a creator exists doesn't give any more credibility to religion.

I agree, and I've made this point to atheists in the past, mainly when I believed that no religion was the correct one. If you consider that everything is equally unlikely, then you are looking at 50/50 odds for special creation versus naturalistic means.

There are many many religions out there. Assuming one is right, that means many are wrong More than likely, all are wrong.

Why is it more likely that all are wrong rather than one being right? The question is, has God revealed Himself to the world, or not. If not, then all are wrong. If so, then one is right.

In all likelihood, odds are better that a creator would be more like Cthulhu then some caucasian, gun loving republican. You claim god made us in his image, when in reality, it's far more likely that you made god in our image.

The stereotype you are presenting does not represent anything Christians believe. Maybe some Christians act that way, but that isn't what scripture says about God. It says that as the Heavens are higher than the Earth, so are His ways above our ways.

If we were created, humans are the Creators crowning achievement. The "odds" are better that He made us like Him.

The simple truth though is that god is academic. Either he's always been here and it's all part of some ridiculously elaborate pre-destination plan so it doesn't matter what we do as it's all part of the plan, or he doesn't care, or he does, but he doesn't intervene. In each of those cases. The alleged fact of a creator's existence does not affect our lives, at least not any way we're aware of. Nor does a creator suddenly make any of the religions right or true.

Or, it does matter what we do, because God does intervene in His creation, and He has given us a standard of behavior which He is going to judge us by. The existence of God does not make any of the religions true, but it is positive evidence that one of them is true.

Or god doesn't exist and never has. Again...nothing changes. religion still exists in spite of this, they still get together and do their thing and that's fine. Religion is not inherently bad, it's what you DO with religion that is hurtful or helpful. Even if you removed religion from humanity forever. Humanity still has a ton of other things that we do that are part of our lives that have no rational basis in fact but we do it anyway. That's fine...it's part of what makes us human.

Man corrupts everything he touches because our nature is inherently sinful. Man can use anything as an excuse to do evil.

The dilemma is not for me to believe, the dilemma is for you and/or your god to prove why I should believe. Especially if you want public policy to be influenced. When public policy is not involved, you have the same freedoms everyone else does. And you can't use the bible to prove you're right. You do know what circular reasoning is and that' it's a fallacy right? You quoting the bible does absolutely nothing other than to show you don't really understand what reasoning and logic is.

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

Except there is evidence in the bible which proves the bible is Gods word, such as the fulfilled prophecy. It may not prove that I am right, to you, but the evidence has convinced over 1/3 of the worlds population. That isn't even the question, in any case. I'm not trying to prove I am right to you. I don't believe there is anything I can do to ever convince you that God exists, or that His name is Jesus Christ. That's the work of the Holy Spirit.

That is what I was explaining to you earlier. It's not an evidence problem, it's a heart problem. God has already given you sufficient evidence to know that He is, and who He is. Only God can change your heart. What He charged me with is to tell you the gospel and give you an answer for the faith that I have.

Religion wants to say they're right and everyone else is wrong. That's nice. A lot of people think they're right and everyone else is wrong. I think I'm right and my supervisor is wrong. The onus is on me to show why I'm right.

I'm glad you've found happiness in your religion. I've found happiness in the way I live which does not require a god or a religion. Who is right? Maybe none of us are right. Maybe we both are right. The lesson is just simply that there are many ways to happiness. There is no single way. Your happiness is not better than my happiness and vice versa. Your happiness does not get to infringe on my happiness and vice versa. This is how we live and get along in the great melting pot. You don't get dominion. you never will. History is quite clear on what happens when a group of people come along and say, live our way..or else. Believe in the same things we believe...or else.

Christians are not called to have dominion. I will of course strongly disagree with immoral laws, but people have the right to govern themselves as they wish. Although this is still a strongly Christian nation, we have a strong secular influence in our government. I accept that as being the reality.

your happiness does not get to trump someone else's happiness. If you let people steal and kill you have a lot of unhappy, and dead people. That's not sustainable and you can't really survive that way. Again, simple morality that does not require a creator. Next question?


You said that it isn't sustainable yet if you look at history you will see that stealing and killing is what we have been doing all along. The point is this..Let's say that the Nazis won the war and conquered the world. Eventually, they won everyone over to their philosophy, and now there is peace on the Earth. The glue that holds everything together is that once a year, they torture a jewish baby to death on camera, which brings great happiness and unity to the entire world. One year the baby died before they could torture it, and there were riots and many, many people were killed. Is it therefore moral to torture that baby to death, since it brings peace and happiness to the entire world?

>> ^VoodooV

>> ^enoch:

>> ^shinyblurry:
And this is how you can become demon possessed

congratulations! you have just won the super irony award!
considering that many biblical authors partook in the ingestion of shrooms.a common practice among seers and prophets of that time.


And the evidence for that is?

The prophets that spoke in the bible were inspired by God, and they didn't do what was common to the idolators of that time, or this one. Moses, for example, was educated by the Egyptians but you won't find a single shred of their "higher education" in the bible. They had the most advanced medical knowledge in the world at the time, much of which involved rubbing donkey dung in your wounds, yet the scriptures he wrote tell you to wash your hands after touching anything unclean, isolate people who are infected, and that the blood is the life of the body. This was thousands of years before any of these concepts were understood by anyone. Doctors didnt start washing their hands until the 1800's, and if someone had read the bible, George Washington wouldn't have had to die from bloodletting, and the black death probably wouldn't have killed off 1/3 of the worlds population.

Use your Sudoku skills. In case you need a little ego boosting motivation, Einstein supposedly said 98% of the world population would not be able to solve this.

Answer: http://www.manbottle.com/trivia/einstein_s_riddle/einstein_s_riddle_answer

If this debate is inconsequential to 99.999...% of the worlds population, is it completely pointless?


No srsly, jokes aside, any frontier science is going to be the indulgence of the smartest 1%. I don't think thats a reason to stop. The deal with exploration is you don't know what you'll find over the horizon.