Audi has been blacklisted as a bottom-dwelling spammer by dag. This account has been ban-hammered and all its comments redacted.

I say that's a wonderful validation for agnosticism. I just explained this to you the other day. We cannot know anything for sure because we only have our flawed senses and limited mental capacity to rely on. That's agnosticism.

As a former agnostic, I am familar with what it is. Are you agnostic?

Big bang theory doesn't say the universe sprang forth from nothing, it says the universe rapidly expanded from the singularity. All the matter of today's universe existed, in some form, in the singularity. Any proposals about the state of the universe prior to the Planck epoch are pure speculation. The rest of your argument is all based on this false presupposition so I won't bother refuting it.

Mainstream big bang theory says time and space had a beginning. If you don't want to discuss this, it's up to you.

Humans were social creatures long before they invented/discovered Yahweh. We lived in tribes. Hunters cooperated to bring home meat for everyone while gatherers collected fruits/vegetables to also share. Children were raised by the tribe as a whole. The tribe had safety in numbers. Members who were found to be stealing or cheating would find others were no longer willing to cooperate with them, possibly they would face exile. Tell me, would you be more likely to survive, especially in the wild, if you worked in harmony with the others or if you had to do everything for yourself? Similar traits are common in many mammals and birds. Warm-blooded creatures are generally too high-maintenance to be entirely self-sufficient. We can't crank out hundreds of offspring every mating season and walk away. We need to cooperate to survive. None of those non-human mammals have heard God's Word, either, and they seem to be doing pretty well.

As far as the animals go, it is written in the bible that God takes care of them. Yes, cooperation is necessary to survive but this doesn't account for all moral behaviors. The behaviors you describe all help perpetuate your existence because you are doing them to gain an advantage socially. What about behaviors that have no advantage, which are actually determintal to your survival? Self-sacrifice, for instance..Someone who runs into a burning building to save a baby risking death to do it. If all morality is just selfishness, how do you explain this behavior. It's foolish from that standpoint, because it makes you less likely to survive. Why do people risk their lives for others?

Coveting might lead to theft, murder, etc, or it might lead to nothing. Someone on my block drives a nice Audi A6. I see it now and then and think, "Man, I wish I had an A6" and then I go on with my day. I do not envy them, steal from them, assault them, or murder them. The line is drawn at which point I cause another person harm. Wishing I had an A6 doesn't hurt anyone.

Just because it doesn't lead to it every time, doesn't mean it won't eventually. It's suprising what people will compromise under certain circumstances. Personally, I've never seen anything good that came from it in my life. I think there plainly a wisdom to never coveting what you don't have, or refuse to earn for yourself. I know plenty of people who sit around jealous of other peoples things and accomplishments. They feel their lives are unfair because that everyone else has more than they do. Yet, if they just ignored that and did for themselves, to their own satisfaction, they would be much happier people.

I do not lack an objective standard for morality. Harmfulness is pretty damn objective. It's not my feelings, it's theirs. It's not ok to rape people because people don't like being raped, ergo rape is not morally justified in my world view. Is it justified in some peoples' world view? Yes, unfortunately it is, but they are a very small minority of the total population (though I'd be very happy for them to be even smaller).

It is so objective? What if you have three men, and two decide that the other cannot be trusted..so they kill him. They did harm, but they think it was for the best, so is that ok? This is what morality by concensus easily leads to, when it is just mere opinion and agreement. Do you know how much evil has been done in the world because of thinking like that? Feelings are not objective..they are really the most subjective thing you could think of. Without an absolute standard of good which people have to obey, it could only be subjective opinion. In which case people will just make it up as they go along. As a limited human with a subjective experience, how could your morality ever be objective?

@shinyblurry

The most interesting thing is that the Universe sprang into existence from no prior material.

Big bang theory doesn't say the universe sprang forth from nothing, it says the universe rapidly expanded from the singularity. All the matter of today's universe existed, in some form, in the singularity. Any proposals about the state of the universe prior to the Planck epoch are pure speculation. The rest of your argument is all based on this false presupposition so I won't bother refuting it.

How do you respond to the argument that, if we're simply biological machines then all of our thoughts are nothing but chemical reactions which therefore cannot be trusted?

I say that's a wonderful validation for agnosticism. I just explained this to you the other day. We cannot know anything for sure because we only have our flawed senses and limited mental capacity to rely on. That's agnosticism.

Well, how would you explain the uniformity of morality that we see in all cultures, past and present. It would have to be something explained by biology, except there is no biological imperative except selfishness.

Humans were social creatures long before they invented/discovered Yahweh. We lived in tribes. Hunters cooperated to bring home meat for everyone while gatherers collected fruits/vegetables to also share. Children were raised by the tribe as a whole. The tribe had safety in numbers. Members who were found to be stealing or cheating would find others were no longer willing to cooperate with them, possibly they would face exile. Tell me, would you be more likely to survive, especially in the wild, if you worked in harmony with the others or if you had to do everything for yourself? Similar traits are common in many mammals and birds. Warm-blooded creatures are generally too high-maintenance to be entirely self-sufficient. We can't crank out hundreds of offspring every mating season and walk away. We need to cooperate to survive. None of those non-human mammals have heard God's Word, either, and they seem to be doing pretty well.

In regards to whether thoughts can be harmful..well, consider for example the commandment not to covet. It's a thought crime because it leads to breaking all of the other commandments. Coveting leads to envy, envy to desire, desire to larceny, murder, lying, stealing and adultry. It's entirely rational, nipping problems in the bud before they even begins.

Coveting might lead to theft, murder, etc, or it might lead to nothing. Someone on my block drives a nice Audi A6. I see it now and then and think, "Man, I wish I had an A6" and then I go on with my day. I do not envy them, steal from them, assault them, or murder them. The line is drawn at which point I cause another person harm. Wishing I had an A6 doesn't hurt anyone.

Lacking an objective standard for morality, what makes it wrong? Why is it bad to have sex with animals, hurt people, rape people..if it's just your feelings. If that's the case, some people feel that raping people is just great..doesn't that make them morally justified in your world view?

I do not lack an objective standard for morality. Harmfulness is pretty damn objective. It's not my feelings, it's theirs. It's not ok to rape people because people don't like being raped, ergo rape is not morally justified in my world view. Is it justified in some peoples' world view? Yes, unfortunately it is, but they are a very small minority of the total population (though I'd be very happy for them to be even smaller).

>> ^westy:

Forever alone.


I should have known it would be you.

If they were going to describe a car based on racial stereotypes, wouldn't a Mexican car be able to drive across rivers, jump 30ft. fences and work farm land?

To be fair, Mexicans practically build all the cars now anyway, why not build one of your own. Here's a list of car manufacturers who have cars that are currently built in Mexico: Acura, Audi, Bentley, BMW, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Chrysler, Dodge, FAW, Ferrari, Fiat, Ford, GMC, Honda, Hummer, Isuzu, Jaguar, Jeep, Lamborghini, Land Rover, Lincoln, Maserati, Mastretta, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mercury, MINI, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Peugeot, Pontiac, Porsche, Radical, Renault, Saab, SEAT, Smart, Subaru, Suzuki, Toyota, Volkswagen and Volvo. [Wikipedia]

meh. wasnt this an audi or bmw commerical that mythbusters did?

fixed! thanks for the heads up.

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
dead

>> ^xxovercastxx:

It could be worse; you could die on the roadside with another guy's dick in your hand, covered in his urine.


Depends the dick

>> ^Mi1ler:

Am I the only one who questions why they are filming the guy taking a leak on the side of the road in the first place?


I'm guessing they were waiting for the guy in the Audi who was going to be showing off by driving sideways round the corner. They probably thought it funny to film the guy having a piss to make the shot of the guy being all cool in his car a bit funny.

Not the height of sophisticated humor I'll grant you, but it seems strange that they'd be filming a corner in a road at about the time someone comes round it trying to show off.

But the Audi commercial showed the car doing all those fancy moves in the snow!

>> ^EMPIRE:

>> ^calvados:
How does the snowplow not have snow tires?!

That's exactly what I was thinking. How is this even possible?


I was thinking 'I wonder how the insurance works out on that'

Guy in audi and guy in truck 50/50 parked car's damages?

The Audi Quattro sounds like a dragon having epic diarrhea. Pure 5 cylinder awesomeness.

>> ^peggedbea:

maybe next we can get some videos of black people eating watermelon.


close enough?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGrqW3nx5HM

considering the YT acct this is linked to has only 4 stolen videos (like the giant slide also busted on mythbusters) with like 10 views... This is not only fake but really lame and stolen from someone else's YT. Maybe even self / friend linked.

I might have believed the video until they did the toilet plunger. That was obviously fake. Not only would it not make a good seal but the car looked to modern to have that VW/Audi air vacuum based locks.

I'm sure a small air bladder could pop a door open, maybe a trunk, but it would bend the crap out of the door.

the whole tennis ball thing does actually work on some vehicles. i had an '85(?) Audi 2000 that had some kind of pneumatic lock system that it worked on, but that's the ONLY vehicle I've ever owned that it has worked on. it's obviously not going to work on manual or electric locking systems.

the pneumatic locking system my Audi had was designed around being a 'luxury feature' of not hearing the locks go "ka-chunk" when locking and unlocking.

this video however, is almost certainly crap. as far as i know there is no way that would work, let alone unlock the rest of the vehicle in the process.