Proverbs 14:12

There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death

That's your version of history, but it isn't the correct one. In the beginning, God made them male and female. I also understand that you're incapable of seeing sex except through the lens of your own gratification.

Romans 8:7

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

You said it yourself, it's as close to God as you get in life; it's an idol for you. The law your idol gives you is the pleasure principle, and whatever seems right to you, that's what you do. You don't think you're doing anything wrong because it makes you feel good.

The very last thing anyone wants to hear is that they're guilty, especially when it involves something they enjoy. You don't like to think of yourself as a sinner, even though you have undoubtably broken Gods laws thousands of times. It's the front that people maintain, as if they are white as snow; how dare you accuse me! I know better; all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Your conscience is burdened by your secret sins, and Gods knows, even if you pretend they never happened. God will forgive you, if you repent and ask Him into your life. If not, you will answer for all of them at the judgement seat.

Your moral relativism is nothing more than nihilism. Man brought sin and evil into the world, and he knows that some things are absolutely wrong. Everyone understands this at an intrinsic level, but the reasoning is corrupted by carnality. The mind will do anything, believe anything, to justify its own sin. It will lash out, dismiss, reason away, mock or flatly try to destroy anything which sheds light on its misdeeds.

John 3:19

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

I know what's going on in my own mind, and my mind is at rest. God gives me peace, and I am free. Do you control your thoughts or do your thoughts control you? You see religion as a crutch, and to some it is, by Jesus takes away crutches. Everything the world needs to get by, I can do without. All I need is Jesus, and He is my sufficiency. In that is hope, joy and love.

Sin always has consequences. Maybe you're not honest enough to admit to yourself the consequences sin has brought into your life, but I guarantee you, if you looked at everything in your life that you have done which is against the law of God, you will see quite a bit of misery that you could have avoided. You might even think it was worth it, but you don't see the flip side of it, of what you have lost that you never knew you had. God has a plan that is better than your plan, to give you a hope and prosper you, but you choose to do it your way, and you reap what you sow. You cannot see the pitfalls that are ahead of you. You have blinders on, because you love your sin more than the truth.


>> ^messenger:
You're wrong. Sex predates both marriage and religion. Sex wasn't designed by God (except in that if you believe in intelligent design, creatures evolved to be able to do it, and to enjoy it, which makes all kinds of sense, from that perspective). Picking and choosing things essentially at random from the world and putting them into categories of bad and good, and describing all the "good" things as things that God designed and intended, and things that are "bad" as things that Satan designed (sins) is naive and puerile.
Sex is absolutely wonderful, and when I'm having sex within the bounds of a solid committed relationship, there's pretty much no better feeling in the world. That's about as close to God as I get. But even sex outside a committed relationship is awesome and life-affirming too. If nobody told you there was something wrong with extramarital sex, it would never occur to you that it was bad (unlike rape and murder, which we instinctively know is wrong). Taking beautiful things and calling them sins, and calling people who do them sinners is wrong. That's something else my conscience tells me. It creates people who believe they are bad and that God is unhappy. Religion invented evil and sin, and probably with the best intentions. But just the same, without religion, there would be no concept of evil or sin, just social mores, people who do things that we don't like, or don't approve of. And sex is by far the strongest case I can think of because outside a religious framework, sex is just pure wonderful.
Your fourth paragraph nearly perfectly applies to you. I hardly have to change a word, just remove the sentence specifically referencing Christians: Religion is superstitious garbage. You put it in a mind, and garbage like your absolutist and arrogant judgements and views on morality come out. When you opened the door to religion (as you constantly encourage us to do), boy oh boy did it ever enter and create a stronghold in your mind. The enemy (I wouldn't use such strong terms) has conquered you and now exerts nearly complete control over your life. You're so close to the problem you can't even see that it's a problem. It takes someone further away from it (non-faithers) to let you know. You're welcome.>> ^shinyblurry:
This way of thinking is simply a misdirection from the original purpose of sex. It is designed for one man and one woman, who are married and committed for life. Sex in the marriage bed is sacred; everywhere else it is vulgar and leads to the aberrant behavior and thought life we see being espoused in this video.
Yes, as you have noted, it is systemic in all cultures, because this is a fallen world populated by fallen people. Satans version of sex is whenever, whereever, with whoever, and this is the mindset that men are programmed with from birth. Yes, it is natural for men to feel this way, because that is the way of the world. It is not the way of God. You have to learn the way of God because we are all born spiritually dead, with the flesh at war with the spirit at all times. It is natural for us to sin, and self-control is alien to this nature. No one knows how bad the human heart really is, but Hitler gave us a good demonstration.
I agree with you, religion is no cure for anything. That has nothing to do with Jesus. You either know Him or you don't, regardless of what you call yourself. Many people who claim to know Christ only have a religion, and no actual relationship with Him. You cannot overcome sin without the Holy Spirit. Those who don't know Christ only have the amount of self-control that God has graced them with.
Spiritually, the principle is garbage in, garbage out. There is a war in the mind, and when you open the door to something, it comes in, stakes out territory, and builds itself a stronghold. Unfortunately, there are many Christians living in sin and so they are spiritually compromised. The enemy has conquered them and exerts great influence over their lives. You can't wage an effective warfare when the front line of the battle is on your doorstep.
You are in a spiritual war whether you realize it or not. Every day a battle is being waged for your soul. You have been captured, and taken deep into enemy territory..and many soldiers have breeched enemy lines to come and set you free. They have set the key right in front of your cell, and have done everything they can to get your attention, but you refuse to leave; you prefer your slavery. You are satisified with a carrot on a stick. Always seeking, never finding. Temporary pleasure, no lasting peace. The oasis never being dispelled, despite the mouthful of sand. Bread and circuses. I pray for you, that you would see the bars my friend.

You're wrong. Sex predates both marriage and religion. Sex wasn't designed by God (except in that if you believe in intelligent design, creatures evolved to be able to do it, and to enjoy it, which makes all kinds of sense, from that perspective). Picking and choosing things essentially at random from the world and putting them into categories of bad and good, and describing all the "good" things as things that God designed and intended, and things that are "bad" as things that Satan designed (sins) is naive and puerile.

Sex is absolutely wonderful, and when I'm having sex within the bounds of a solid committed relationship, there's pretty much no better feeling in the world. That's about as close to God as I get. But even sex outside a committed relationship is awesome and life-affirming too. If nobody told you there was something wrong with extramarital sex, it would never occur to you that it was bad (unlike rape and murder, which we instinctively know is wrong). Taking beautiful things and calling them sins, and calling people who do them sinners is wrong. That's something else my conscience tells me. It creates people who believe they are bad and that God is unhappy. Religion invented evil and sin, and probably with the best intentions. But just the same, without religion, there would be no concept of evil or sin, just social mores, people who do things that we don't like, or don't approve of. And sex is by far the strongest case I can think of because outside a religious framework, sex is just pure wonderful.

Your fourth paragraph nearly perfectly applies to you. I hardly have to change a word, just remove the sentence specifically referencing Christians: Religion is superstitious garbage. You put it in a mind, and garbage like your absolutist and arrogant judgements and views on morality come out. When you opened the door to religion (as you constantly encourage us to do), boy oh boy did it ever enter and create a stronghold in your mind. The enemy (I wouldn't use such strong terms) has conquered you and now exerts nearly complete control over your life. You're so close to the problem you can't even see that it's a problem. It takes someone further away from it (non-faithers) to let you know. You're welcome.>> ^shinyblurry:

This way of thinking is simply a misdirection from the original purpose of sex. It is designed for one man and one woman, who are married and committed for life. Sex in the marriage bed is sacred; everywhere else it is vulgar and leads to the aberrant behavior and thought life we see being espoused in this video.
Yes, as you have noted, it is systemic in all cultures, because this is a fallen world populated by fallen people. Satans version of sex is whenever, whereever, with whoever, and this is the mindset that men are programmed with from birth. Yes, it is natural for men to feel this way, because that is the way of the world. It is not the way of God. You have to learn the way of God because we are all born spiritually dead, with the flesh at war with the spirit at all times. It is natural for us to sin, and self-control is alien to this nature. No one knows how bad the human heart really is, but Hitler gave us a good demonstration.
I agree with you, religion is no cure for anything. That has nothing to do with Jesus. You either know Him or you don't, regardless of what you call yourself. Many people who claim to know Christ only have a religion, and no actual relationship with Him. You cannot overcome sin without the Holy Spirit. Those who don't know Christ only have the amount of self-control that God has graced them with.
Spiritually, the principle is garbage in, garbage out. There is a war in the mind, and when you open the door to something, it comes in, stakes out territory, and builds itself a stronghold. Unfortunately, there are many Christians living in sin and so they are spiritually compromised. The enemy has conquered them and exerts great influence over their lives. You can't wage an effective warfare when the front line of the battle is on your doorstep.
You are in a spiritual war whether you realize it or not. Every day a battle is being waged for your soul. You have been captured, and taken deep into enemy territory..and many soldiers have breeched enemy lines to come and set you free. They have set the key right in front of your cell, and have done everything they can to get your attention, but you refuse to leave; you prefer your slavery. You are satisified with a carrot on a stick. Always seeking, never finding. Temporary pleasure, no lasting peace. The oasis never being dispelled, despite the mouthful of sand. Bread and circuses. I pray for you, that you would see the bars my friend.

This way of thinking is simply a misdirection from the original purpose of sex. It is designed for one man and one woman, who are married and committed for life. Sex in the marriage bed is sacred; everywhere else it is vulgar and leads to the aberrant behavior and thought life we see being espoused in this video.

Yes, as you have noted, it is systemic in all cultures, because this is a fallen world populated by fallen people. Satans version of sex is whenever, whereever, with whoever, and this is the mindset that men are programmed with from birth. Yes, it is natural for men to feel this way, because that is the way of the world. It is not the way of God. You have to learn the way of God because we are all born spiritually dead, with the flesh at war with the spirit at all times. It is natural for us to sin, and self-control is alien to this nature. No one knows how bad the human heart really is, but Hitler gave us a good demonstration.

I agree with you, religion is no cure for anything. That has nothing to do with Jesus. You either know Him or you don't, regardless of what you call yourself. Many people who claim to know Christ only have a religion, and no actual relationship with Him. You cannot overcome sin without the Holy Spirit. Those who don't know Christ only have the amount of self-control that God has graced them with.

Spiritually, the principle is garbage in, garbage out. There is a war in the mind, and when you open the door to something, it comes in, stakes out territory, and builds itself a stronghold. Unfortunately, there are many Christians living in sin and so they are spiritually compromised. The enemy has conquered them and exerts great influence over their lives. You can't wage an effective warfare when the front line of the battle is on your doorstep.

You are in a spiritual war whether you realize it or not. Every day a battle is being waged for your soul. You have been captured, and taken deep into enemy territory..and many soldiers have breeched enemy lines to come and set you free. They have set the key right in front of your cell, and have done everything they can to get your attention, but you refuse to leave; you prefer your slavery. You are satisified with a carrot on a stick. Always seeking, never finding. Temporary pleasure, no lasting peace. The oasis never being dispelled, despite the mouthful of sand. Bread and circuses. I pray for you, that you would see the bars my friend.


>> ^messenger:
"This degenerate culture?" You mean, every human culture? Men, in general, deep down, feel this way. And, like O'Neal points out, men and women are naturally programmed to think and feel differently about sex. It's in our nature -- or if you prefer, it's the way God intended. If men thought about sex the same way that women do, there wouldn't have been enough sex happening to propagate the species. And if women were as casual about sex as men are, then we wouldn't have secure enough families to raise a successful child. It's the balance of nature. We need both men's huge sex drive and women's preference for lifelong bonding for survival as a species. Men who don't want sex and women who don't want family stability didn't have children who survived, and that's why there's so few of either type around now.
You can't stop men's sex drive, not even with religion. Evidence? The more religious/conservative neighbourhoods of Istanbul (where I live) are the ones with the most sexual assaults on the street. In my liberal neighbourhood just 15 minutes away, a woman can go get bread at 2 am. Want something closer to home? The more conservative states are the ones where men consume the most porn per capita. Utah is #1! And in the extreme, among professions where sex is forbidden (meaning Catholic priests only), there's a massive problem with child rape. You, SB, may be a shining knight following the path of the Lord, but those around you pretending to be pious are getting fiddly -- either with themselves or with non-consenting victims -- when you're not looking.
Yet again, it makes more sense that nature is as nature is, which makes more sense than saying some things are your imaginary friend's will, and others are the result of our "degenerate" or "fallen" state.>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^spoco2:
He had great delivery, I'll give him that. But things like this, and moreso his interview on WTF, show that he had a fucked up view of women and men's relationships to them. He really had a view of women that they were, at heart, out to get men, out to make us unhappy... he seemed like he was never really going to be comfortable to be in a proper relationship with a woman.
Which is/was sad.

This is an accurate portrayal of the way that men, who see women as means to an end, namely their own sexual gratification, do think. I think it's rather stereotypical of this degenerate culture, actually..

I'm not talking about a myth, I'm talking about math. There are 167,550,080 acres in Texas. If you divide that by 7 billion people you get 0.023935 acres per person. An acre is 4840 square yards. 4840 * 0.23935 acres is 115.84 square yards. A square foot is 1/9 of a square yard. 115.84 * 9 = 1042 square feet for every person on Earth. As it stands, 90 percent of the worlds population lives on 10 percent of the land. I don't know where you live but in America we have over 300 million people and the majority of the land here is empty. The vast majority of land in the world is uninhabited. To say there isn't enough land for everyone is the myth.

The fact is, we have more than enough resources; the problem is the mismanagement of the resources we already have. For example, around 1/3 of the food we produce gets lost or wasted every year. That is around 1.3 billion tons of food. That is enough to feed the world many, many times over.

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ags/publications/GFL_web.pdf

The worldwide GDP is 63 trillion dollars. We clearly do not lack the resources to take care of all our essential needs. Again, it is simply the gross mismanagement of resources, greed, wars, poor infrastructure and other factors that led to the inequality we see today. Over 30k people starve to death every day, not because of a lack of food, but because of a lack of love.

People have been predicting that the world would run out of resources since the 1700s. Your ideas about carrying capacity are simply outmoded and the theory itself has no real basis in reality:

http://videosift.com/video/Overpopulation-is-a-myth


>> ^hpqp:
>> ^shinyblurry:
You could fit the entire population of the Earth in the state of Texas giving them 1000 square feet per person. You could feed the entire world on what Europe spends on ice cream every year. The problem isn't space, or resources, because we have plenty of both. The problem is human nature, specifically greed and a lack of love for our fellow man.

Pulling more ignorance off the webs, how unsurprising. That "population in Texas" myth needs to die, as well as the rest of the misinformation about human demographics that plagues the internet (often written by religious people: equally unsurprising). I'd suggest you look up "carrying capacity" and read up on how much of the earth's resources humans actually use, but considering you're a devout YEC, fat chance you'll let facts change your mind.
You're partly right about greed being a problem, but it's part of a bigger problem: a society/world economy entirely constructed around the imperative of growth.

>> ^criticalthud:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^criticalthud:
just out of curiosity, in the midst of global warming doubters promoting the theory that the earth is warming through solar/cosmic/natural means... has there been much consideration into the idea that the earth is currently in a cooling phase -- enormously offset by what we're doing to it?
second,
one large concern i have with global warming is "system adaption" - that being that it generally takes the ecosystem a bit of time to adjust to whatever is happening to it (ie: glaciers don't melt immediately). Meaning that the damage we caused 10 years ago is being felt now. Meaning also that even if we were to cease mucking about right now, we could expect continued and possibly even escalating ecosystem problems in the years to come.
so, is it time to panic? dunno. could be.

Which is why it's so important to understand things better. Rapidly cutting CO2 emissions before we have the replacement technology in place would be costly, not just financially but world history shows big financial impacts generally spill over into violent impacts. Battery technology is getting very close to making electric cars that are superior in every way to their gas guzzling brethren. I truly do believe that the enormous CO2 contribution made by burning gasoline is rapidly on it's way out for purely economic rather than environmental reasons. Another reason I don't feel the need for panic.
As I stated above, I am NOT being a skeptic in declaring that H2O dominates the greenhouse effect. It is the uncontested scientific fact.
I am NOT being a skeptic in declaring that H2O's role in climate models and forcing/feedbacks is very poorly understood. It is an uncontested scientific fact, some models even disagree on whether to assign it as a positive or negative feedback.
Think about those two for a good long while before thinking everything Al Gore said should trump peer reviewed science.

you seem to mistake me as someone who is arguing with you. i'm really only interested in insights.
I'm certainly not a climatologist. I work with spines. But in answer to your proposition that it would be chaotic if we cut back, I think the strength of the human species is in their ability to adapt, and as far as i'm concerned, the ballooning world population combined with a worldwide contracture in resources makes this inevitable (not to mention the growing climate change issue) - but it's up to us on how painful we want it to be.
Our entire economic system and our culture of consumerism needs to be revised. We are mindless automatons, with little awareness to our impact on the earth as a species. Our daily lives are almost entirely self-centered.
Secondly, as to "the" question of human contribution, I would offer the microcosm of the forest fire, in which carbon is suddenly released into the atmosphere. The overall effect is, clearly, very warming, almost suffocating. On a grander scale, the species is continually burning and releasing carbon into the atmoshphere all over the planet. How that would fail to warm the planet escapes me. but, like i said, it's not my field. peace out.


Sorry if my tone comes off as combative, it's not really my intent so please don't take my vehemence on issues personally. Maybe I'm just getting older but I'm of the mindset that the fastest way to know where I'm right and wrong is to be forward and assertive with how I understand things and allow the opportunity to be corrected where I'm wrong.

My thoughts on the human contribution are tempered by a few things. From the very top, that CO2's contribution is small compared to H2O(I count this an uncontested fact). Annual CO2 emissions are small(5%) compared to natural CO2 emissions(I again count this an uncontested fact). The experts do insist that the human CO2 emissions are building up and still driving the natural CO2 levels significantly higher each year. We don't understand the natural CO2 emission and absorption processes very well, so poorly in fact our margins of error on them are larger than the human contribution. There is evidence that CO2 levels are rising in the last 100 years, and there is a correlation there to human emissions. What we don't have strong evidence for yet is what impact that has on climate. We DO know it is warming effect, but the magnitude of it is still poorly understood. As I've outlined above the understanding of temperature trends over the last 2k years is still a work in progress with large margins of error(even systematic ones that are being worked out). The computer models we have by definition are no more reliable than that data, which places us without a strong correlation or confidence in what magnitude of change the CO2 will have when all other variables are considered.

As a side point, if you look at the IPCC or listen to certain climatologists, you may hear it sounding like they disagree and believe my last statement is disproven. What they have studied is the impact CO2 increases should have overall with the assumption of all other variables being equal. It's a useful figure to have, and the confidence in it is better than my last statement described. That is because I was talking about something different, I stated that CO2's impact, with all other variables being considered NOT equal, is still poorly known and has very low confidence levels. In the real world the impact of one climate variable impacts the role of all the others, and often significantly. The IPCC and a select few climatologists talk about CO2 projections that ignore that interaction as a base assumption and somewhere along the line between them and the public or them and Al Gore, that base assumption gets dropped off. That base assumption is central and vital, and it's why as our climate models improve we will see predictions for CO2 that fall outside the error margins of the IPCC models with that assumption. That doesn't invalidate the IPCC's work, it is an advancement of it and improvement upon it. Remembering the base assumptions is vital for the public to maintain faith in the integrity and reliability of scientific research. People need to know WHY the predictions they were told by the IPCC a few years back have changed so much and yet the IPCC insists they weren't wrong. The truth is simply that they were misunderstood.

As yet another rabbit warren, there is an even smaller set of people within the climate community who actively encourage that misunderstanding. They do it firmly believing that the impact of CO2 with all else ignored is still indicative of CO2 with all else considered. Which is even a reasonable and normal expectation. The trouble is it falsely communicates the level confidence and margin of error of current known facts. I can't abide that kind of thinking, it's what is supposed to differentiate scientists from priests and politicians, they are supposed to refuse to make that kind of compromise when presenting what they do and do not know is demonstrably true.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^criticalthud:
just out of curiosity, in the midst of global warming doubters promoting the theory that the earth is warming through solar/cosmic/natural means... has there been much consideration into the idea that the earth is currently in a cooling phase -- enormously offset by what we're doing to it?
second,
one large concern i have with global warming is "system adaption" - that being that it generally takes the ecosystem a bit of time to adjust to whatever is happening to it (ie: glaciers don't melt immediately). Meaning that the damage we caused 10 years ago is being felt now. Meaning also that even if we were to cease mucking about right now, we could expect continued and possibly even escalating ecosystem problems in the years to come.
so, is it time to panic? dunno. could be.

Which is why it's so important to understand things better. Rapidly cutting CO2 emissions before we have the replacement technology in place would be costly, not just financially but world history shows big financial impacts generally spill over into violent impacts. Battery technology is getting very close to making electric cars that are superior in every way to their gas guzzling brethren. I truly do believe that the enormous CO2 contribution made by burning gasoline is rapidly on it's way out for purely economic rather than environmental reasons. Another reason I don't feel the need for panic.
As I stated above, I am NOT being a skeptic in declaring that H2O dominates the greenhouse effect. It is the uncontested scientific fact.
I am NOT being a skeptic in declaring that H2O's role in climate models and forcing/feedbacks is very poorly understood. It is an uncontested scientific fact, some models even disagree on whether to assign it as a positive or negative feedback.
Think about those two for a good long while before thinking everything Al Gore said should trump peer reviewed science.


you seem to mistake me as someone who is arguing with you. i'm really only interested in insights.

I'm certainly not a climatologist. I work with spines. But in answer to your proposition that it would be chaotic if we cut back, I think the strength of the human species is in their ability to adapt, and as far as i'm concerned, the ballooning world population combined with a worldwide contracture in resources makes this inevitable (not to mention the growing climate change issue) - but it's up to us on how painful we want it to be.
Our entire economic system and our culture of consumerism needs to be revised. We are mindless automatons, with little awareness to our impact on the earth as a species. Our daily lives are almost entirely self-centered.

Secondly, as to "the" question of human contribution, I would offer the microcosm of the forest fire, in which carbon is suddenly released into the atmosphere. The overall effect is, clearly, very warming, almost suffocating. On a grander scale, the species is continually burning and releasing carbon into the atmoshphere all over the planet. How that would fail to warm the planet escapes me. but, like i said, it's not my field. peace out.

Excellent post. Remember also that 10%-30% of the (world?) population are sociopaths completely incapable of empathy.

>> ^kceaton1:

I usually assume most of humanity is full of many people that are incapable of compassion and more importantly empathy. Not only does it explain why women date assholes (most people are anyway, to some degree--unless as stated they have empathy), but also why women might also be "bitches" (or assholes). Simply put nobody gives a fuck about anybody else's feelings, really, unless their action can create direct repercussions that affect them or something they do care about. Empathy, unfortunately, seems to be learned by most people the hard way (and this of course affects the entirety of the "Human Experience", not just relationships): you get a very painful disease/syndrome/ailment/injury and have to LIVE with it. People just do not have high level empathy unless terrible things have happened to them (I'm sure there is the few exceptions).
Basically, women will date assholes because the majority of the population are. Men that are the stereotypical built-up, juiced, arrogant, confident, and usually ignorant bull-pup are what we are thinking about in these scenarios. Most of them, on their worse day, had a broken finger or did poorly in school. They lack the empathy needed to NOT be an asshole. It has nothing to do with anything else. Assholes are simply people that don't understand, people!
As I said age is most likely going to change that as they become withered and old. As they get diseases or finally have their genetic misfires take hold, like MS, Cancer, or AIDS. Or deal with their Type II Diabetes that forces them to eventually go in for dialysis and even later the removal of limbs to stave the finality of its ultimate toll on their life. Or those that can no longer pass the duty of hardships onto others, and must help their mother as she slowly dies with much needed around the clock help--requiring baths, medicine, feeding, clothing, 24/7 diligence--due to their degenerative "syndrome/disease" that will ultimately kill them and irrevocably change their son or daughter forever.
That is how empathy is gained and it is also how assholes become good members of the community. It's also the best way not to marry, date, or be in a relationship with one. Merely find out if they have had hardships in their life that have directly affected them (not others around them, it MUST happen to them). Ask them some simple questions, like: what has that event taught them about others and how did they think beforehand? If they can give you a solid answer--they are not an asshole.
Case closed.

My mistake about the numbers. It's 1%, or 70,000,000 people (every website I went to had the same number, so I'm sure you can find it yourself).

There's no context and no references there, but to me it means psychopaths are aware society holds there to be a difference between right actions and and wrong actions, not that they themselves feel it's wrong, as evidenced by the lack of empathy, which is how the rest of us perceive moral values. That's just because I've done some casual reading about psychopathy in the past, not because I remember that statement clearly. If Hare or someone like that ever clearly stated that psychopaths are innately aware of what's right and wrong, then I'll drop my point. But I don't see how someone could feel something is wrong if they are unable to empathetically perceive how it hurts someone else.>> ^shinyblurry:

10 percent of the worlds population are psychopaths? Have any evidence for this claim? In any case, you're wrong. Even psychopaths know good from evil:
"Psychopaths have a total lack of remorse for the abuses they commit. They generally know the difference between right and wrong, but they do not care."

10 percent of the worlds population are psychopaths? Have any evidence for this claim? In any case, you're wrong. Even psychopaths know good from evil:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Lack_of_empathy

"Psychopaths have a total lack of remorse for the abuses they commit. They generally know the difference between right and wrong, but they do not care. Even when they are aware of the consequences of their actions, they frequently rationalize their behavior so as to minimize the seriousness or shrug off responsibility. They often blame their victims for their own crimes; "he shouldn't have provoked me" and "suckers deserve to be swindled" are common sayings."

Everyone is born with their special challenges. Psychopaths struggle with adhering to moral standards, but this isn't because they aren't aware that they exist. They know what they're doing is wrong but they do it anyway. A person can become like this for a lot of reasons. We live in a fallen world and this manifests in genetic defects, mental defects, and yes, even defects in following our conscience. I have the opinion that many of these defects are self-created. In any case, God can still present those so afflicted with real choices, and the opportunity to receive salvation.

>> ^messenger:
@shinyblurry
Subjective perception of moral values by humans is the basis of your ontological argument here, which rests on the premise that everyone can subjectively perceive moral values. We've just learned that not everyone can do so: an estimated 700,000,000 people around the world cannot perceive moral values subjectively. Do you still maintain that we can all directly perceive moral values?
A related theological argument goes that God made moral values and then gave us free will to choose to follow them or not "because robots would be undesirable", according to you in that same dialogue. "Unfortunately", we break those rules all the time. Now, he can put any barrier in our way, and make life as difficult as possible, and this will be a test of our desire to follow our God-given conscience. But he didn't give everyone a conscience. It's nothing like depriving someone of one sense. It's like depriving someone of all senses so they can't understand what is expected of us morally, nor even that anything is expected. It's like expecting a robot to know right from wrong without telling it that these two categories even exist. What's the point of having free will if you don't have a conscience? Did God want some people not to perceive him, and to wander around being the worst people on the planet to everyone else? Was this "desirable?"

I think it's fair to assume that more than 50% of the world population would rather not live under corporate rule. Why on earth would you stand against us? >> ^Morganth:

"I speak for more than half the world's population..."
Since when the fuck does some college student represent anyone besides herself? I don't care what you're saying. Do NOT say you represent people when you really just wish you did.

I can't even imagine the thrill of building something thats going to drive around on the surface of mars.

@marinara
The Rover is called Curiosity. I think thats answers quite a lot of your questions.

I mean, forgive me if I misunderstand you, but your complaint seems to be that they are exploring things you seem to think we either understand already, or perhaps have no importance. I suppose my feeling is you don't know what you don't know. Who knows what investigating the Climate of Mars may reveal. Maybe Mars Rocks aren't like Earth rocks. Maybe they can find more evidence that Mars could have once supported life, or that it still can. We find out so much through almost random probing, just our curiosity with no real aim other than to acquire more knowledge. Thats the thing about discovery, you can't pick and choose what you find, you just have to go look.

As for Humans going to Mars, well I agree that there isn't much scientific merit to that, at least not in the short term. I think you have to think of it as a PR stunt. Like it or not scientific exploration and research comes at a cost. A milestone like men on Mars would truly reignite the imaginations of the worlds population, of what humanity is truly capable of, that investing in science is truly the best path for a better future. I think thats worth it.

Miss you? I like you and find you interesting as a person, but I find discussions with you about God's nature mostly unfulfilling. The reason is that you start with a conclusion (the Biblical God exists; the New Testament is literally true), and mishear, ignore and twist every other input you receive to match your conclusion.

By and large the people on the sift attack me and not my arguments, as you're doing here. You and the rest have your own preconceived notions about reality which you zealousy defend. And to imply I am ignorant or logically inconsistant is bull. I used to be like you and think like you; I came from the secular world and I reject it as delusional.

The evidence you have given is a psychotic break you once had. Any other evidence is meaningless to you, so there's no sense even talking to you about these issues. By God's lack of definition, he cannot be proven not to exist. But even if he were clearly defined, and it were possible to categorically prove that he doesn't exist, you wouldn't accept this information because you have suffered a mental injury that prevents you from doing so. (Do you still love me? )

Sometimes you make it hard to love you but I still do. Yes, everyone who has had a spiritual experience is crazy, which is a good slice of the world population. Have you ever thought that maybe you're the one who isn't right? I mean you have to believe that you know better than over 90 percent of the planet and most everyone who has ever lived. No wonder your ego is out of control.

But this is the internet, and what I'm doing at the moment leaves significant gaps of time with nothing to attend to, so here we go, again: As before, I think you're filtering out and twisting what you don't want to hear. Qualia isn't saying God doesn't exist (and he never does, except where someone's definition of God presents a logical impossibility). Rather, he's dismantling Craig's ontological argument by showing that the premises on which it rests are false, and therefore the conclusion is not necessarily true. He's not arguing that it's false, just that Craig's premises are. He's not trying to prove anything, only Craig is. Qualia is showing that Craig's proof in this instance is invalid. And in that, he does a good job, and only proves that Craig's argument doesn't hold because he cannot prove the premises.

Are you kidding me? Listen, read my post, and then try to imagine I am a lot more intelligent than you give me credit for, and then read it again. I know exactly what Qualia was doing, and I showed it up for what it is, a bunch of opinion and fallacy masquarading as logical argumentation. He utterly failed to refute Craig, and it amazes me that anyone could fail to see how weak his arguments are. If you think I am wrong then show me why.

I am not out to prove Gods existence, I am here to tell people they can prove it to themselves. If you prayed to Jesus in humility and asked Him for the truth, He would show it to you. You don't need to trust my experience, you can find out for yourself.

>> ^messenger:
Miss you? I like you and find you interesting as a person, but I find discussions with you about God's nature mostly unfulfilling. The reason is that you start with a conclusion (the Biblical God exists; the New Testament is literally true), and mishear, ignore and twist every other input you receive to match your conclusion.
The evidence you have given is a psychotic break you once had. Any other evidence is meaningless to you, so there's no sense even talking to you about these issues. By God's lack of definition, he cannot be proven not to exist. But even if he were clearly defined, and it were possible to categorically prove that he doesn't exist, you wouldn't accept this information because you have suffered a mental injury that prevents you from doing so. (Do you still love me? <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smile.gif"> )
But this is the internet, and what I'm doing at the moment leaves significant gaps of time with nothing to attend to, so here we go, again: As before, I think you're filtering out and twisting what you don't want to hear. Qualia isn't saying God doesn't exist (and he never does, except where someone's definition of God presents a logical impossibility). Rather, he's dismantling Craig's ontological argument by showing that the premises on which it rests are false, and therefore the conclusion is not necessarily true. He's not arguing that it's false, just that Craig's premises are. He's not trying to prove anything, only Craig is. Qualia is showing that Craig's proof in this instance is invalid. And in that, he does a good job, and only proves that Craig's argument doesn't hold because he cannot prove the premises.

Something many people forget is that urbanisation leads to more damage by natural disasters. I once heard about one theory in a geography lecture that the number or intensity of natural disasters and storms has not risen significantly, but the damage and therefore the perception has.

In the year mentioned in the video, 1900, the world-population was under 2 billion, today it is almost 7 billion.

In the U.S, the number has gone up from 76 million in 1900 to 312 million today (4,1 times more).

And most importantly, the areas at the gulf got more populated: Florida's population rank rose more than that of any other state, from 33rd to 4th place in state rankings from 1900 to 2000.

The denser you populate, the more effect it will have on more people and more houses when natural disasters happen.

1900-America's need for disaster-relief and today's America's disaster relief is not comparable without scientifically balancing a lot of factors first.

Whereas nation states where religion is part of the law of the land. Well look at those nations. These are isolated states that have remained in a development vacuum but got rich off selling oil. There is no freedom of speech or democracy in those states. The very fact that the first world deals with say OPEC allows the theocracy to be sustained in those nations.

Religion was a form of government for most of Europe. Then we had the enlightenment, democracy, revolution, kings, wars, history and so on. Religious denominations in Europe are now rapidly fading. This process never occured in the Middle East. Suddenly they have BILLIONS to spend on spreading their 'faith' as a form of government intervention. Saudi Arabia building schools in Pakistan that eventually created the Taliban was not an act of religious domination but a ham fisted attempt at geopolitics via religious doctrine. Because for some fucking reason the Saudis believed the Taliban would actually listen to them or something LOL. (Is this of course ignoring specific political issues of the time, USSR, evil empire, Regean, cold war, US allies with Saudi Arabia, fighting proxy wars, stinger missiles, Charlie Wilson and so on).

Saudi Arabia is cool because its such a fucking relic of government policy they have little room for any type of social policy because that is dictat by Religion. Thus their policies stem from it. They are like evil but religiously ahaha so they just fund fundamentalists everywhere thinking it will give them political clout and power when in reality it backfires. Kinda like this US thing where it's like FREEDOM FOR ALL... THROUGH FUCKING DAISY CUTTERS. To Save Iraq We have to destroy it. To save Afghanistan. We have to keep sending troops for a dubious objective. Oh wait let's pull out now. etc.

Fundamentally we have to appreciate the fact that religion is but a theory of the that explained things prior to science. With the rise of science, it tried to fight it. Finally slowly it's either merging or being eliminated or reconstituted in new ideological belief sets.

What I mean to say is that it's only through the evolution of man, knowledge and ideas that humanity has reached a point where it starts to doubt a very flawed perception of reality. First gods were manifest everywhere. Then they were nature. Then they are ghosts. Now we are supposed to believe or have faith.

Those of a stronger mental make up could possibly accept that we live and die and that is the end. Others cling to religion because it is safe. Others believe in living eternally through genes, about the only thing we consistently carry on through time.

Time will see the end of man man religions, into new constructs of stupidity, because science still, while providing much of the answers lacks many fundamental resolutions for most issues at the core of religious belief. Time will tell us all. But so far so good.

>> ^hpqp:

How did Christianity get to Europe? Conquest. To the Americas? Conquest and colonisation. To Africa? Colonisation, slave trade. To Australasia? Colonisation. Does that mean that these means have been taking place all the way 'till now? Of course not. After a few generations of growing up with the imposed religion, you forget it was imposed in the first place. Unless you were "cleansed", then there are no next generations.
Same story with Islam. Only eventual difference: violent conquest/conversion is directly condoned, one could even say "ordained", by the holy text (e.g. 2:191-3/2:216); oh, and the prophet was also a tribal leader and war general, unlike the possibly fictional Jeebs of the Christians.
I'm not saying people don't convert, just that the majority of religion's spread is through breeding and childhood indoctrination, and that the origins of the desert monotheisms' spread (especially Christianity and Islam) was conquest and colonisation so your original comment does not seem to be making any relevant point.
edit: add to that the continual use of majority pressure and intimidation, especially when religion is part of a country's legal and political system.
>> ^Farhad2000:
Naa. Islam reached 1 billion in the 21st century.
The assumption you are making is that it's been spreading at the knife edge from what the Moor times?
>> ^hpqp:
Uh, you do know that more often than not it was spread, like Christianity, at the edge of the sword, right? Conquest, colonisation, slave trade, same old same old.
>> ^Farhad2000:
Furthermore people forget that Islam represents 22% of world population. Much of it not in the Middle East. If the religion was so shit it wouldn't have taken every other religion out there.

How did Christianity get to Europe? Conquest. To the Americas? Conquest and colonisation. To Africa? Colonisation, slave trade. To Australasia? Colonisation. Does that mean that these means have been taking place all the way 'till now? Of course not. After a few generations of growing up with the imposed religion, you forget it was imposed in the first place. Unless you were "cleansed", then there are no next generations.

Same story with Islam. Only eventual difference: violent conquest/conversion is directly condoned, one could even say "ordained", by the holy text (e.g. 2:191-3/2:216); oh, and the prophet was also a tribal leader and war general, unlike the possibly fictional Jeebs of the Christians.

I'm not saying people don't convert, just that the majority of religion's spread is through breeding and childhood indoctrination, and that the origins of the desert monotheisms' spread (especially Christianity and Islam) was conquest and colonisation* so your original comment does not seem to be making any relevant point.

*edit: add to that the continual use of majority pressure and intimidation, especially when religion is part of a country's legal and political system.

>> ^Farhad2000:

Naa. Islam reached 1 billion in the 21st century.
The assumption you are making is that it's been spreading at the knife edge from what the Moor times?
>> ^hpqp:
Uh, you do know that more often than not it was spread, like Christianity, at the edge of the sword, right? Conquest, colonisation, slave trade, same old same old.
>> ^Farhad2000:
Furthermore people forget that Islam represents 22% of world population. Much of it not in the Middle East. If the religion was so shit it wouldn't have taken every other religion out there.