It almost sounds like he is suggesting to keep an open mind and learn about other cultures, religions & mythology in order to understand those perspectives; and overall to be humble to the mystery: that we do not know.

In my opinion some of his opinions were a little contradictory - he doesn't believe in any sort of god or gods, but it seems that a wiser statement would be that he doesn't know, which would correspond with the "I don't believe in atheists" theme.

Furthermore, I honestly don't think that those who (in Hedges' words), "do not explore the religious impulse" are inhuman. Even if someone never explores it in their lifetime. In my opinion - the late bloomers who have disconnected themselves from all inclination of organized religion or spirituality, to find it on their own later in life might have a few more advantages than those that did not disconnect themselves from it at some point.

My personal preference is that I do believe in god because I want to believe in god. Whether it's a metaphor, completely abstract energy, a point in spacetime, a massive intelligent energy field that existed long before the big-bang, a life-force found only on Earth or the Milky Way or a fucking super mega alien technological consciousness program experiment or even a microscopic white dude flying on a microscopic magic carpet or all of the above and none of the above. I just believe even though my version of whatever creation/god is, is completely unidentifiable, it's everything and it's nothing.

Millions of real children with real feelings are killed by wars and sanctions the same "pro-lifers" can't seem get enough of not to mention an attitude to the environment which will see most life on Earth extinct in a few hundred years. I have to admit abortion is a tricky moral issue but that's just the point, it's a moral issue not a legislative one. So where you say abortions are immoral and I say carpet bombings are immoral. I guess we all have different ideas on morality and thank Christ for that otherwise I might think like you. >> ^ReverendTed:

As much as it pains me to say it, I agree with bobknight33 here.
I believe a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body. I also believe we should be responsible for the consequences of our choices. I believe a woman has the right to decide whether to have sex. (So, yes, I do believe in exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and threat-to-life.)
Seeing how quickly a fertilized egg develops into a fetus is striking (there can be a detectable heartbeat at 5 1/2 weeks), and that's where I get my opposition to elective abortion. I cannot accept that this is merely some part of "a woman's body" to be excised and discarded when it is so clearly a developing human.
I sincerely believe that we will one day look back on our tolerance for elective abortion with the same reprehension as we currently hold for slavery, ritual sacrifice or witch trials.
I know how difficult it is to have a rational discussion about abortion, but I find it hard not to say something. I try to keep an open mind and view issues from others' positions, but I can only really see this particular argument coming down to a discussion of when "life" begins; where does it go from being "termination of pregnancy" to "termination of a human life"? At conception? Birth? Or somewhere in between? Obviously, it's murder to kill a newborn, and it seems like there's a general consensus that it would be unethical to terminate a late pregnancy, but how far back does that reasoning go? And if we don't know when human life begins, it seems rational to err on the side of caution.

>> ^ReverendTed:

As much as it pains me to say it, I agree with bobknight33 here.
I believe a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body. I also believe we should be responsible for the consequences of our choices. I believe a woman has the right to decide whether to have sex. (So, yes, I do believe in exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and threat-to-life.)
Seeing how quickly a fertilized egg develops into a fetus is striking (there can be a detectable heartbeat at 5 1/2 weeks), and that's where I get my opposition to elective abortion. I cannot accept that this is merely some part of "a woman's body" to be excised and discarded when it is so clearly a developing human.
I sincerely believe that we will one day look back on our tolerance for elective abortion with the same reprehension as we currently hold for slavery, ritual sacrifice or witch trials.
I know how difficult it is to have a rational discussion about abortion, but I find it hard not to say something. I try to keep an open mind and view issues from others' positions, but I can only really see this particular argument coming down to a discussion of when "life" begins; where does it go from being "termination of pregnancy" to "termination of a human life"? At conception? Birth? Or somewhere in between? Obviously, it's murder to kill a newborn, and it seems like there's a general consensus that it would be unethical to terminate a late pregnancy, but how far back does that reasoning go? And if we don't know when human life begins, it seems rational to err on the side of caution.


i err soo far on the side of caution, i convince pro-life women have sex with me by saying that if they don't, they are aborting the child i have conceived of having with them

its a human life they are ending if they don't

better to err on the side of caution

the real hypocrisy of the pro-life forces out there, is once the kids born, that kid is someone else's problem... yeah, we'll fight to make sure you are born, but if they parent's can't afford to raise you in the first place... or are unfit... well that's their fault... and we should in NO way be responsible for that (y'know, even though our movement forced them to have you in the first place)

better for you, the uncared for, under educated, malnurished child to suffer and us to feel righteous
than
not create this suffering (on both your parents and your behalf) and us to not feel so accomplished

support you!?! give you a hand up? that sounds like a hand out! stay outta my wallet you socialist!

prolife is supported by Christianity!!! abortion is attacking God! because desert dwelling sheep herders knew more about life, dna, the reproductive process than we do today!
of course, we'll ignore all the socialist themes in the Bible while saying this
we'll ignore things like charity for the poor and sick
we'll ignore things like throwing the money lenders out of the church
etc etc

compassion just doesn't feel genuine if $ makes it go away

That's the thing about many republican views. They take an ideal, utopian world view....and work backwards.

"In a perfect world, there is no rape or incest and health care is perfect, thus there would be no need for abortion, therefore we should ban abortion."

That's nice and all, but it just isn't that simple. Yeah, if we lived in a perfect world where every single citizen was financially and emotionally secure and nothing ever bad happened and no one ever accidentally got pregnant, sure I would oppose abortion.

We don't live in that world, we won't ever live in that world in our lifetimes, so why would you propose a law that only applies in a perfect world?

A baby is not the equivalent of getting a pet for your kid to teach them responsibility. why would you needlessly punish the baby by forcing it to be raised by parents who are incapable of adequately raising it? You're trying to correct a mistake by forcing people to make another mistake. Some people should just never be parents, ever. Even if they were financially able to take care of a kid.

To use an analogy that even a republican should understand. An abortion is like a gun, you hope to hell you never need to use it, but you're going to be glad you're able to use it if you need it.

Samantha Bee demonstrated the republican hypocrisy perfectly. It's ok for THEM to make a choice, but it's not ok for YOU to make a choice.

Whenever you masturbate (oh wait, republicans never masturbate) Even when you're having legitimate baby-making sex. The male ejaculates millions of sperm. Each one of those sperm is a potential life. Yet only one of those sperm will make it, and the rest will die. Republicans don't seem to care about those millions of potential lives being snuffed out. And with the woman, every time a woman has her cycle, that's another potential life snuffed out.

Standard selective logic. We care about those lives, but not THOSE lives. Even when someone chooses to have the kid, Republicans seem to stop giving a shit since they propose cutting support for pregnant mothers and medical exams. Adequate education for those potential lives?..yeah fuck that. More hypocrisy we've come to expect from the right.

>> ^ReverendTed:

As much as it pains me to say it, I agree with bobknight33 here.
I believe a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body. I also believe we should be responsible for the consequences of our choices. I believe a woman has the right to decide whether to have sex. (So, yes, I do believe in exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and threat-to-life.)
Seeing how quickly a fertilized egg develops into a fetus is striking (there can be a detectable heartbeat at 5 1/2 weeks), and that's where I get my opposition to elective abortion. I cannot accept that this is merely some part of "a woman's body" to be excised and discarded when it is so clearly a developing human.
I sincerely believe that we will one day look back on our tolerance for elective abortion with the same reprehension as we currently hold for slavery, ritual sacrifice or witch trials.
I know how difficult it is to have a rational discussion about abortion, but I find it hard not to say something. I try to keep an open mind and view issues from others' positions, but I can only really see this particular argument coming down to a discussion of when "life" begins; where does it go from being "termination of pregnancy" to "termination of a human life"? At conception? Birth? Or somewhere in between? Obviously, it's murder to kill a newborn, and it seems like there's a general consensus that it would be unethical to terminate a late pregnancy, but how far back does that reasoning go? And if we don't know when human life begins, it seems rational to err on the side of caution.

As much as it pains me to say it, I agree with bobknight33 here.
I believe a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body. I also believe we should be responsible for the consequences of our choices. I believe a woman has the right to decide whether to have sex. (So, yes, I do believe in exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and threat-to-life.)
Seeing how quickly a fertilized egg develops into a fetus is striking (there can be a detectable heartbeat at 5 1/2 weeks), and that's where I get my opposition to elective abortion. I cannot accept that this is merely some part of "a woman's body" to be excised and discarded when it is so clearly a developing human.
I sincerely believe that we will one day look back on our tolerance for elective abortion with the same reprehension as we currently hold for slavery, ritual sacrifice or witch trials.

I know how difficult it is to have a rational discussion about abortion, but I find it hard not to say something. I try to keep an open mind and view issues from others' positions, but I can only really see this particular argument coming down to a discussion of when "life" begins; where does it go from being "termination of pregnancy" to "termination of a human life"? At conception? Birth? Or somewhere in between? Obviously, it's murder to kill a newborn, and it seems like there's a general consensus that it would be unethical to terminate a late pregnancy, but how far back does that reasoning go? And if we don't know when human life begins, it seems rational to err on the side of caution.

Yes, because developing military systems that can reach any point on this planet in less than sixty minutes while carrying "more payload than just a camera" is the perfect answer to her question what should be your ultimate goal to work on if you knew you couldn't fail. What about world peace? ;-) I know, i'm some sort of hippie...

Nevertheless: One of the best TED talks i've seen so far and besides the military agenda a great motivator. Should be shown in schools to encourage young minds to keep an open mind towards engineering and science careers instead of just focusing on business and management positions.

There have been a few possible theories, a more like a strong hypothesis, that has alternate ideas for the presence of Dark Matter. One of which is simply more a misunderstanding by us of the nature of what is happening at a fundamental level concerning the internal structure and spin of galaxies; their part and full presentation into the full dynamics--the true inner workings--isn't fully realized yet, but they assert a new reason for the discrepancy in how the galaxy spins at different radii in that galaxy and in fact kill off the need for Dark matter. Secondly, it's our mathematics involved that have created this absolute need for Dark Matter to even exist, which is explained in the last part about this subject below. Lastly, a few findings like the outer arms, the large gas/ice/dust/etc... volumes (nebulae and plasma lit regions) and the stars (and their systems)--their movement rate on the outside edge of their respective galaxies, which if like "normal physics" (I quote that because if we made a mistake, the fault will always be ours and not the Universes ) would seem to show that the inside should rotate faster than the outside edges, which is not what happens at all--they rotate at the SAME speed. The actual math involved to solve this little mystery shows that there HAS TO be a large chunk of the Universe missing to get the mathematics to finally spit out numbers that work out. They have provided their own set of new cosmological equations that describe the motion within a galaxy; as of this writing they have tried the new math equations on four different galaxies that are known well. The reason this one has most likely been called a theory as of late is due to their new equations completely and correctly describing the motion of those galaxies, from origin, even until their virtual deaths--that makes this small theory the strongest front-runner for getting rid of Dark Matter altogether. This was a large paragraph, I made it small to make it a tad more readable.

But, Dark Matter is a very well-held theory for the scientific community though and it still has quite a bit of evidence for it's case as well. It has much more proof than this smaller theory does, but it's good to keep an open mind and let your mind run free with new ideas every so often as it may give you a new idea as well. Due to an idea I heard from a physicist: Lawrence Krauss, I was thinking about the Universe and some implications concerning Quantum Mechanics with possible larger scale events that are occurring with cosmologists looking for ways to explain things, but they are basically on the run--the fresh ideas are gone. Because, of the little creative idea above that explains away Dark Matter it triggered a provocative idea, one that I'm not qualified to answer or really even guess at (beyond it's initial qualities)--so I will send the idea off and see if they can maybe visualize what I'm implying just a little more clearly. I'm not entirely sure there will be a correct way to view this idea due to it's near "virtual"-like impact on our Universe, one that may be unprovable except for three possible ways I can think of. Two of which are beyond are capability right now, but we will have the ability later and the last using Quantum Foam experiments to look for certain types of superposition maybe even using entanglement (it would need to be a semi-radical setup that is "one-sided" in nature and using information concerning Dark Energy, as I'll finish here at the end of the sentence) that may relate to information that might be probable to gain through later scientific gathering, like the expansion rate or if it's nature is confined merely to space-time or if it actually occurs eventually all the way down to the subatomic.

I had the idea that perhaps Dark Energy could actually be the tell-tale signs of an existing second Big Bang merely hidden under our collective noses due too space-time and it's nature (maybe it's fairly "structurally sound" when it comes to a bubble fight) or it's an active component of the Quantum Mechanical universe, perhaps directly attributed to the Quantum Foam. I'm wondering--and of course I've got no real idea what a Universe "pressing" upon us might do, if this could even happen--if Dark Energy is the pressure wave of perhaps a secondary Universe, probably very much like ours,but the logical, mathematical,constants, and theories have either become slightly different to a lot or the Universe is unlike anything in our book; but I'm assuming it came from the same Quantum Foam that got us here which means it may have more in common with us that we know.

I'm going to try and get some more feedback on this and see if it proves to go elsewhere and opens new doors.

>> ^ghark:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^ghark:
@bcglorf
You're jumping to conclusions my friend. I never said I supported Gaddafi, the people deserve their revolution, however the revolution has not been delivered by the people or for the people. Marbles has already covered that though, so all I will suggest is that it may do you some good to keep an open mind on issues, all that matters is the truth, and you don't always get that from the regular sources.

Don't be stupid.
You either support Gaddafi, or the Libyans fighting against him. Make your choice. You seem to think Gaddafi's defeat is actually somehow tragic. Do honestly believe that given the choice between Gaddafi and the Nato(and Arab league) backed opposition that Libyans will be worse for Gaddafi's defeat?
What is wrong with you people? Gaddafi has been defeated. Tell me, is that good or bad for the civilians in Libya?

I don't support either, did I not make that clear?
Would you mind if your country got bombed by Libya so that a few of their elite could make money of your natural resources? America's elite have done far far worse to the world than Gaddafi ever has, in fact they are the reason many countries dictatorships even exist, so by your logic you should be bombing yourselves.
On top of that, you are presuming that "yay, democracy won!!11" means the end of Libya's conflicts, checked out Iraq lately much?


So, I ask:
Gaddafi's defeat is good for the Libyan people. Do you agree with that or not?

And your answer is....

Neither?

Are the semantics giving your troubles, or the language in general?

If I were living under a dictator like Gaddafi, I would be optimistic about an outside nation providing air support and cover to local rebels trying to overthrow him. His defeat would be better for me than his continued rule, so a good thing. It doesn't mean Libyan's will be living the good life now. It means a less worse life. Thins might deteriorate once again, but there was zero chance for them to get better so long as Gaddafi remained.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^ghark:
@bcglorf
You're jumping to conclusions my friend. I never said I supported Gaddafi, the people deserve their revolution, however the revolution has not been delivered by the people or for the people. Marbles has already covered that though, so all I will suggest is that it may do you some good to keep an open mind on issues, all that matters is the truth, and you don't always get that from the regular sources.

Don't be stupid.
You either support Gaddafi, or the Libyans fighting against him. Make your choice. You seem to think Gaddafi's defeat is actually somehow tragic. Do honestly believe that given the choice between Gaddafi and the Nato(and Arab league) backed opposition that Libyans will be worse for Gaddafi's defeat?
What is wrong with you people? Gaddafi has been defeated. Tell me, is that good or bad for the civilians in Libya?


I don't support either, did I not make that clear?

Would you mind if your country got bombed by Libya so that a few of their elite could make money of your natural resources? America's elite have done far far worse to the world than Gaddafi ever has, in fact they are the reason many countries dictatorships even exist, so by your logic you should be bombing yourselves.

On top of that, you are presuming that "yay, democracy won!!11" means the end of Libya's conflicts, checked out Iraq lately much?

>> ^ghark:

@bcglorf
You're jumping to conclusions my friend. I never said I supported Gaddafi, the people deserve their revolution, however the revolution has not been delivered by the people or for the people. Marbles has already covered that though, so all I will suggest is that it may do you some good to keep an open mind on issues, all that matters is the truth, and you don't always get that from the regular sources.


Don't be stupid.

You either support Gaddafi, or the Libyans fighting against him. Make your choice. You seem to think Gaddafi's defeat is actually somehow tragic. Do honestly believe that given the choice between Gaddafi and the Nato(and Arab league) backed opposition that Libyans will be worse for Gaddafi's defeat?

What is wrong with you people? Gaddafi has been defeated. Tell me, is that good or bad for the civilians in Libya?

@bcglorf

You're jumping to conclusions my friend. I never said I supported Gaddafi, the people deserve their revolution, however the revolution has not been delivered by the people or for the people. Marbles has already covered that though, so all I will suggest is that it may do you some good to keep an open mind on issues, all that matters is the truth, and you don't always get that from the regular sources.

>> ^shinyblurry:

An open mind is a saving grace if you use it to follow the evidence. I believe that the truth is accessible on all levels to all people, if they subliminate their need to be right and follow it where ever it may lead. One thing leads to another..
>> ^Drax:
@shinyblurry I don't see that particular claim made by myself, actually. I have my own opinions and beliefs on most things, but I generally acknowledge that anything's possible.



I come to conclusions of my own about many things, mostly I never come to a dead end however.. There's always the possibility the road continues on, but that's another point all together. The thing is I rarely, if ever, will agree that there is absolutely no chance that I'm wrong on anything.

Just like, there's a chance all of reality is actually a dream of a celestial penguin (that would so rock), and I'm some sort of residual self-image of the penguin within that dream. I don't think that's true at all, but anything is possible (For the record - I give that one about the same odds as most of your beliefs).

And that's why I, at least, clash with you.. I don't have a problem with your beliefs, I respect your right to have them (as long as it doesn't cause others harm <- general rule).. I dislike that it seems you don't believe there's *any* chance that your strong views may be wrong. And you really really like to remind us all here of that.
I guess that's just how it's going to be though, but hey.. I keep an open mind about it. : )

(note: And I'm dead serious.. this is not in any way meant to imply I think you're unwelcome on the Sift. One, that's not my.. or pretty much anyone's call to make unless you do something wrong here.. and two, the more interesting people here the better, imo)

I've tried to keep an open mind and asked questions, and read and read, because I wanted to know why someone wants philosophically to be a libertarian. But for now, I've closed my mind for 99% to the idea. I cannot see how a libertarian state would not end in many many dead and/or poor people. Lodges and Mutual Aid are not good systems for welfare. Welfare saves people's lives. To my mind, libertarianism as an end is unrealistic. Maybe I just like Daniel Bell too much (Adjusted to historic reality).


But keep posting articles here, I'll keep reading them. Mostly because I try to understand why people would think this to be a feasible system.

Perhaps they aren't reading the right books or watching the right documentaries. There's a lot on the subject. History Channel runs a series called Ancient Aliens. Though some of the theories presented are far fetched, it's still interesting to watch. You see, I like to keep an open mind on the subject. You obviously don't, and that's your prerogative. But I'm no more nuts than you I can assure you that. Besides, I never said we have been visited by ufo's, or aliens. I only said that assuming we are the only intelligent life in the universe is both ignorant and arrogant. You assumed I was referring to visitations for some reason. That subject is debatable, and depends on who you talk to. Just like religion.

In reply to this comment by teebeenz:
I know a few million would love to hear from them...

In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
Zero data? I know of a few scientists who would beg to differ.

In reply to this comment by teebeenz:
In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
>> ^teebeenz:

As you can imagine the ytufo nuts think its real, even tho the photo among other things was tracked down in minutes after it was released. Thats what you get when you base your reality on a belief system and not fact.


I'm pretty sure it's a fact that we are not the only intelligent life in the universe. If you think otherwise you are both ignorant and arrogant.

Actually, the chance of alien "life" in the universe, having, currently, or yet to exist is high. But that doesn't mean intelligent life, as we simply have no data on how likely it is that intelligent life would arise. But one thing is certain, we have zero data to indicate any life has contacted us.

@chtierna

I think maybe you confused my points a little bit. I wasn't saying atrocities don't happen anymore. I was saying that people use religion to justify atrocities but that doesn't automatically mean religion is the cause of the atrocity. So to take your AIDS example, I don't think AIDS is spreading rampantly in Africa due to the Catholic Church's disapproval of condoms. I think the price and availability of condoms along with cultural attitudes and a lack of education have a lot more to do with it. As evidence of this, you don't see the epidemic of AIDS in other Catholic countries that do have cheap and readily available condoms as well as education about the risks of unprotected sex.

And the Church's attitude towards condoms is not "Hey we hope everybody gets AIDS." They've repeatedly stated their stance that sex should be for procreation only. Some of their faithful (a good deal I would wager ) choose to engage in sex for pleasure rather than procreation. The Church feels that condoms promote sex for reasons other than procreation and therefore are against condoms on those grounds. The Pope recently clarified that if people are going to choose to engage in "sin" (as defined by the Catholic church i.e. recreational sex) then using a condom may be considered the lesser of two evils if there is a risk of the transmission of disease. But they haven't altered their fundamental viewpoint that sex should be for procreation only between two (heterosexual) married adults.

So I hope that clarifies a bit what I was talking about with atrocities. To sum it up, someone doing something in the name of religion doesn't resolve them of their personal responsibility for their actions. In many cases those actions are motivated by reasons other than religious reasons (in other words, people are just using religion as the excuse). In other cases, their narrow interpretation of the religions teachings are what I would call "extreme" (suicide bombers for instance).

This brings us to your other point, which is what to do about people who have extreme views? I wasn't offended by this video because of the religion it was attacking. I was offended by this video because it is tacitly approving disrespecting people because of their beliefs. It approves of belittling people and treating them with condescension for their beliefs. I still hold that even people with extreme views need to be treated with respect--they are no less human beings despite their misguided views. We need to separate the views from the person. We can and should point out the problems with extreme or misguided beliefs. We need to be patient but persistent. And we need to keep an open mind. It's far to easy to take the attitude "I'm right and my opponent is wrong" and miss out on areas where you both agree.

So yes, I still would have downvoted if the video called followers of Zeus idiots. That isn't going to accomplish anything but to add more intolerance and hatred to a world that is already seething with both. You said:

Realizing someone is making claims based on flawed arguments we owe it to voice our opinions and concerns

I absolutely agree with that, but I disagree with your sentiment that we should call them idiots. If the followers of Zeus are advocating human sacrifices then by all means we need to criticize the idea. We can do that, though, without being intentionally disrespectful to the people involved. However, as @mgittle pointed out, some people may feel disrespected anyway because their beliefs are tied so closely to their identity.