I'm just going to go through this point for point.

There is no gulf between the result, there is no gulf for the family of the victim. It doesn't matter if he's dead, there is no going back from that.

Argument from consequences. As sad as the result is, that isn't on the police.

If you have ever been choked you would know that you can't help yourself but resist. Your body spasm, it's trying to get air and you'll do everything you can to survive. What this tactic does is insure that a person will fight back so you can keep harming that person.

That is simply untrue, and I can tell you that from experience (10 years of martial arts and been in a few fights in my time). If you're getting choked, you stop resisting, because you've already lost and you're just making it worse.

The police are absolutely in the wrong, this man is not a danger to anyone, even himself. They either talk him down, or use non lethal means to bring him under control. If they can't do that they leave him be, and if they need to follow him until they get backup. There is no reason to immediately attack him, it just makes this worse.

Again, we have no idea why the police are arresting this guy, because the video doesn't provide any context.

So no it is not unreasonable to call it murder at all. It is by definition a Murder because it is the Unlawful Killing of a Human Being.

Two problems with that:
1: Unlawful. It wasn't unlawful, they were arresting him which they have a legal right to do.
2: You're deliberately leaving out a crucial part of the definition: with malice aforethought. Again, are you saying the cops deliberatly set out to kill him?

They may have the legal right under this Nations laws to murder people with impunity but the laws are wrong.

The use of deadly force by police is governed by laws, and any use of said force results in an investigation. In fact, deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others." ( Tennessee v. Garner)

I completely agree that there have been cases of unjustified killing by police where they have escaped sanction (Diallo is the one that springs to mind), but to say that they can "murder people with impunity" is hyperbole and nonsense.

What you are doing is defending them using their Laws. Why would anyone ever accept that? If I could make the laws for myself I would and then I would never be guilty.

Because it's not "their laws". The police enforce the law, they don't make it. The laws are made by elected representatives.

There are huge problems with the justice system in the US (see john Olivers video on prisons for a start) and part of that is the police, but what you're doing is not helping.

It's akin to arguing that we should take action on climate change (a very real problem), because if we don't fairies will go extinct.

There is no gulf between the result, there is no gulf for the family of the victim. It doesn't matter if he's dead, there is no going back from that.

If you have ever been choked you would know that you can't help yourself but resist. Your body spasm, it's trying to get air and you'll do everything you can to survive. What this tactic does is insure that a person will fight back so you can keep harming that person.

The police are absolutely in the wrong, this man is not a danger to anyone, even himself. They either talk him down, or use non lethal means to bring him under control. If they can't do that they leave him be, and if they need to follow him until they get backup. There is no reason to immediately attack him, it just makes this worse.

So no it is not unreasonable to call it murder at all. It is by definition a Murder because it is the Unlawful Killing of a Human Being. They may have the legal right under this Nations laws to murder people with impunity but the laws are wrong.

What you are doing is defending them using their Laws. Why would anyone ever accept that? If I could make the laws for myself I would and then I would never be guilty.

"A handsomely paying job"?? Last time, I checked police weren't paid that well. Perhaps if they were, they might end up with better officers.

I really don't know what you're getting at here. He committed a crime. Yes, he should absolutely face charges for it, and of course he's entitled to due process and even more blatantly obviously, no, he shouldn't be violated in any way.

Being a cop is a shitty job. It's hard work, crap hours and IMHO underpaid.

At the same time, it should be a difficult job. In a modern society, the state has a monopoly on force and police are the civilian implementation of that concept. That is a huge responsibility, so it is not unreasonable to expect that police officers are held to a higher standard. While 90% of americans may make dipshit moves, the consequences of those moves are generally much less. So yeah, when you decide to abuse those powers for your own personal gain, you should face harsh sanctions.

@VoodooV Like I've been saying all along, your posts are mostly attempts at intimidation. I enjoy answering some of your questions, because it helps me question my beliefs, something I think is constructive and that you seriously shouldn't be afraid of. We are all supposedly looking for the truth anyways. All this could be settled by answering my simple question, whether you'd agree or not, it wouldn't even necessarily be an argument against gun control. I was pointing out the apparent conflict between wanting people to be more responsible by taking their freedoms away, when taking their freedoms away might not contribute to making them responsible people in the long run. An unpresumptuous suggestion meant to be taken as food for thought.

Instead, you resort to being juvenile and making fun of me, while writing huge posts with my entire posts quoted afterwards as an attempt at making me turn away in horror at the sight of a huge wall of text. Sure, it takes me time to sift through all of it to see what really matters. You're trying to muscle your way through, and it's a waste of everyone's time. I actually take the time to make my posts short and to the point, did you notice that? I happen to think it's a good habit to have some consideration for the reader, why am I not surprised you have none for me?

So, instead of appreciating that I don't waste your time by making an effort at being succinct, you accuse me of avoiding some of your arguments. It's true, I avoid a few of them because I think they're irrelevant, it's called being selective. Now I know that was a bad idea. I'm terribly sorry. I won't do it anymore. I will take the time to answer the most points I can to the best of my ability, and if that my makes my posts tiresomely long and wastes my time, so be it.

I bet you're trying to flood me with words because this isn't about any truth, is it? It's about discouraging and distracting me from something. Ever heard of picking your fights? It's about being reasonable about yours and other people's times. After all, I do assume you have a life outside of this internet topic on videosift, don't you? Anyway, let's get to it:

- About emotional manipulation, you FAILED to prove it, and here's why:

When you obey traffic laws, you are being coerced if there is coercion as consequence for not obeying them. Will you get arrested? Will you get your car, which is your property, impounded if you disobey? Then yes, they are coercive laws.

When you decide not kill someone because the law will coerce you if you do, you're being coerced into not killing, even if you freely decide not to kill out of good morals and empathy for fellow human beings, the option of killing is always there in reality (you can always kill anyone if you really want to), but not legally. If you kill, you're under the threat of going to prison. The positive or negative language seems completely irrelevant, what matters is what happens when you disobey the law. If coercion ensues, the law is coercive, or, more accurately, its enforcement. I'm not actually making the distinction right now if it's a rule related to coercion itself (a rule that makes coercion more or less likely to happen), just pointing out the irrelevance of your distinction between negative and positive language.

Now, I have to admit that there is divergence when it comes to defining coercion, but there is no emotional content here as far as I can tell. I'm using it in the sense that people have a right to their life, property and freedoms, and when you take or threaten to take away any of those things (and have the power to do so), THAT is coercion. There is no emotion here, I am offended that you would think that I would resort to that, because I don't even have to. Coercion has a meaning to me, I'm just using the concept as it is. If there is an emotional content, SHOW ME what emotion that is. Up until now, you have FAILED to do so.

- About requiring things before freedoms are granted, I think you FAILED to make your point, here's why:

To type boring senseless posts on the internet, you require a keyboard. Maybe, if you could type with voice recognition, like I do, you wouldn't need a keyboard, but what matters is that you use something to type or produce characters that will be submitted to the videosift website and become a useless post. So, for the sake of argument, let's call this an "actual physical requirement".

Now, with a gun to your head, if I require that you, VoodooV, jump through actual flaming hula-hoops positioned vertically on an intricate obstacle course before typing in your videosift comments, the world would be a better place (at least videosift would). However, my requirements would be arbitrary in the sense that it imposes something not actually physically necessary to enjoy the hypothetical "freedom to post inane ramblings on videosift" (we are assuming it's a right), can you spot the difference?

So, requiring things that are not necessary to enjoy a freedom is not something that makes the freedom better or is in any way justifiable just because history is littered with the precedent of assholes like kings and despots requiring stupid things before we can enjoy freedoms that we supposedly already have. When it comes to guns, a law says we have a right to bear them. Any laws that restrict that supposed right are infringing on the freedom that comes from having that right.

- About the claim that people will be less responsible if they have less freedom:

"If I made decisions for you, I could make you act more responsibly, but that's not the same thing as making you a more responsible person."

"Over time, when we take people's freedoms away, they tend to be less responsible about the decisions we're not letting them make. There's no way they can learn about any different (good or bad) outcomes related to decisions they couldn't make, and they can't be held responsible for them either, so they can hardly become more responsible."

- About your reduction to absurdity claim that removing all the rules would make us "SUPER-Responsible":

"I don't think rules inevitably destroys our freedoms, let's make a more refined distinction:

- If a rule is meant to stop people from infringing on each other's freedoms, if it's a rule that makes people less likely to coerce each other, it's a good rule because we end up with less coercion happening (even counting the coercion necessary to enforce the rule), we end up with a more civilized society. There are not many of those kinds of rules around.

- If it's a rule that imposes some regulation because we don't trust that people will be responsible enough to do what's best for them regarding something unrelated to coercion, we not only restrict their freedom by coercion (in this case, coercion by the government), it doesn't make coercion less likely, so it's likely a bad rule."

The problem with removing all rules is that, without rules related to coercion, people would be too subjected to the threat or actual coercion from other people around them, society would be less civilized. Would that make them more responsible? That's a good question. On one side, they would have a lot more responsibilities if they had to worry about their own lives and safety every frickin' day, and all the terrible worries that comes with the unstable chaos of anarchy. However, given that they would enjoy less freedoms due to the constant coercion of others, they would likely end up being a lot less responsible, because they would have far less choices.

That's why I took the time to explain the difference between rules related to coercion and rules that just infringe on freedoms.

- About your examples of requirements before freedoms and rights are granted, here's a list of your "numerous examples" and my reply to each of them:

VoodooV: "You have the freedom to go to college..."
VoodooV: "You have the freedom to have a certain job..."

"Going to college or getting a job are not things people are entitled to (supposedly), there are no rights involved, so no freedom is being denied."

VoodooV: "You have the freedom to imbibe alcohol....IF you are a certain age and can demonstrate that you can use it safely"

I don't know about using it safely (what does that mean?), but regarding age restriction, I don't agree with those laws. I know, very "liberal" of me, but I think children are the responsibility of their parents, so it's a law that steps into parenting territory.

VoodooV: "And according to the right, you have the freedom to vote..."

About voting, I don't know, I guess being registered is a requirement for the voting process? Like the right to life requires... being alive?

"The voting process, on the other hand, seems to be something that requires registration (again, I'm not an expert on voting, so forgive me if I'm wrong), otherwise we end up just shouting to ourselves, "I vote for X"!"

VoodooV: "And having a gun, or a car, has a significant risk to infringe upon other's freedoms so it's not unreasonable to ask that you demonstrate proficiency and safety before using said items."

A driver's license is not about owning or using a car, but about driving in public venues. I could be wrong, but we don't need a license to drive a car in our own backyards, do we?

Simply owning a gun, on the other hand, not only isn't a violation of anything, it supposedly provides protection against these violations.

- About me supposedly contradicting myself, saying "there are no rules for us talking", then proposing a dare:

Did I shoot you in the face when you failed my dare? So I guess it's not the kind of rule in the sense that I didn't threaten to coerce you if you failed it. Do you understand what kind of rule I was talking about? Do you even understand what a contradiction means, or are you just taking advantage that not everyone that reads your posts knows exactly what you're referring to make yourself look smart even though you can't point out a contradiction if it rested flat in your deepest held political beliefs?

On the subject of contradictions, strictly speaking, there's no contradiction between calling you juvenile and being juvenile myself, even if I did so afterwards, and in retaliation, to give you a taste of it.

Ooooooooh... must be very embarrassing for you not to know what a contradiction stands for.

Here's your entire post quoted, because, why not?

How exactly are they less free?

Am I taking people's freedom away if I have them pass a test before they can use a car?

Am I taking peoples' freedom away If I take away their license if they were driving drunk or doing something else stupid? Yes, but this is universally considered acceptable.

You guys love to compare guns to cars so I'm shoving the analogy down your throat.

Do people generally complain about taking away the freedom of criminals when they do a criminal act? nope. Again, it is universally accepted that it is OK to take rights away if someone is a demonstrated menace to society

These are the *choices* people make. Freedom isn't about unrestricted access, It's about the freedom to make choices. You can make any choice you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the freedom of choice of others and you are willing to accept the consequences of said choices.

Can you at least agree that there are certain responsibilities attached to owning a gun? So why is regulation of weapons to ensure those responsibilities are adhered to such a foreign concept to you? Even the NRA "claims" to be interested in firearm safety. Was the idiot in this video being safe?

You have the freedom to go to college...IF you have the grades and money.
You have the freedom to imbibe alcohol...IF you are a certain age and can demonstrate that you can use it safely
You have the freedom to have a certain job, IF you have the skills and education required.
And according to the right, you have the freedom to vote....IF you can provide an ID.

This is not exactly unprecedented to require certain things before a specific freedom is granted. Are people less responsible because of these restrictions? I think not, so how come guns are special?

Are we taking away someone's freedom if they're not qualified to have a certain job?

And having a gun, or a car, has a significant risk to infringe upon other's freedoms so it's not unreasonable to ask that you demonstrate proficiency and safety before using said items.

The idiot in this video has DEMONSTRATED that he is unsafe with a weapon. Where are the repercussions? When does he pay for his actions as you say.

Those are all good points. No "but" they're all just good points >> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^rottenseed:
Why do people shop at Walmart? Because it's cheap.
Why is it cheap? Low manufacturing costs, bulk purchase power, low wages and sub-par benefits
What happens if they increase wages/benefits? It won't be as cheap any longer
What will happen to Walmart? They'll have to downsize
What will happen to people that work at Walmart? Many will be laid-off or have hours cut.
This tug-of-war cannot be won by anybody working at Walmart. I'm sorry, I know in many cases people feel it's the only way they get work, and I am very happy that these are people willing to work rather than collect welfare without even trying, but there is no win for those employees (other than the rare case that one of them moves up the ladder).
It's sad really...
I know some say the solution is for Walmart to cut their profits, but as a publicly traded company they have a duty to maximize profit for their shareholders (see the downfall of facebook). Unionizing would drive the price up, but again Walmart has to make money and a union might lead to the potential of a mass exodus of employees which would mean a huge loss. The only chink in the armor here is that their jobs aren't very skilled. Meaning, anybody that wants a job can pretty much do it
I think the only real solution is consumer-side. Don't shop at Walmart, drive them out of existence, and give these small-business owners the ability to flourish again.

It's hard to disagree with much of this. But, being the intense competitor I am, I'll try.
Actually, there's only a couple of relatively small points.
First, Walmart is publicly traded, but it's wholly controlled by the Walton family...if they decide to pay livable wages and to change the culture of worker abuse, it can be changed. There is no conflict with any duty to maximize profits. Unless you're an investment bank, there really is no such duty. Even if there was, it's not unreasonable to consider a move like investing in your employee relationships to be a long-term method of maximizing profits. Especially when public sympathy for the company has been dropping for years.
Second, they used to operate on a much lower margin, they sold mostly made-in-the-USA products, and somehow still managed to make enough money to become huge. So it seems like they -could- share a tiny portion of the profits with those who make the stores run. Costco manages to pay significantly better and offer most of its employees insurance, and yet still be competitive.
If they don't stop offloading their employment costs onto the rest of us (remember that less than half of the employees at Walmart have health insurance, even now), society is well within its rights to charge them for the welfare the company gets, one way or another. It's probably better for the company to offer at least minimal cooperation with a union than to be at the mercy of public perception.
But overall, you're probably still right.

>> ^rottenseed:

Why do people shop at Walmart? Because it's cheap.
Why is it cheap? Low manufacturing costs, bulk purchase power, low wages and sub-par benefits
What happens if they increase wages/benefits? It won't be as cheap any longer
What will happen to Walmart? They'll have to downsize
What will happen to people that work at Walmart? Many will be laid-off or have hours cut.

This tug-of-war cannot be won by anybody working at Walmart. I'm sorry, I know in many cases people feel it's the only way they get work, and I am very happy that these are people willing to work rather than collect welfare without even trying, but there is no win for those employees (other than the rare case that one of them moves up the ladder).

It's sad really...

I know some say the solution is for Walmart to cut their profits, but as a publicly traded company they have a duty to maximize profit for their shareholders (see the downfall of facebook). Unionizing would drive the price up, but again Walmart has to make money and a union might lead to the potential of a mass exodus of employees which would mean a huge loss. The only chink in the armor here is that their jobs aren't very skilled. Meaning, anybody that wants a job can pretty much do it

I think the only real solution is consumer-side. Don't shop at Walmart, drive them out of existence, and give these small-business owners the ability to flourish again.

It's hard to disagree with much of this. But, being the intense competitor I am, I'll try.

Actually, there's only a couple of relatively small points.

First, Walmart is publicly traded, but it's wholly controlled by the Walton family...if they decide to pay livable wages and to change the culture of worker abuse, it can be changed. There is no conflict with any duty to maximize profits. Unless you're an investment bank, there really is no such duty. Even if there was, it's not unreasonable to consider a move like investing in your employee relationships to be a long-term method of maximizing profits. Especially when public sympathy for the company has been dropping for years.

Second, they used to operate on a much lower margin, they sold mostly made-in-the-USA products, and somehow still managed to make enough money to become huge. So it seems like they -could- share a tiny portion of the profits with those who make the stores run. Costco manages to pay significantly better and offer most of its employees insurance, and yet still be competitive.

If they don't stop offloading their employment costs onto the rest of us (remember that less than half of the employees at Walmart have health insurance, even now), society is well within its rights to charge them for the welfare the company gets, one way or another. It's probably better for the company to offer at least minimal cooperation with a union than to be at the mercy of public perception.

But overall, you're probably still right.

I concead your points.

As for your points here, none of them are against gun control. I'm not remotely for banning guns. Not for hunting, sport or even your paranoid home defence fantasies. I am against two self-entitled little gobshites parading a weapon that looks like an automatic assault rifle in the hopes of making some brave stand that they can post on youtube. Hell, I don't even think what they did should be illegal, I just think they're pathetic assholes.
On the other hand, I think that it's not unreasonable to exert a certain level of control over tools designed to kill.
BTW, I love this line:>> ^Buck:
Trying to persuade others to view the world as you do is the essence of debating, however, forcing your ideals upon another human being is the essence of tyranny. Irregardless of how honorable the intentions
Yeah, sorry to break it to you, but the real world does not work that way. Ideals are forced on people all the time. No-one is 100% free, but it's not tyranny, it's society. Otherwise we'd still have slavery, a wife could not accuse her husband of rape or any one of hundreds of ideals we enforce through laws.
Frankly, when I read bullshit like this, it makes me glad I don't live in a society where people are so fucking selfish that they think this kind of behaviour is even remotely ok.

>> ^Buck:

You are a troll who has no idea of what you are talking about.


Actually, I'm not and I do.

Your argument, that gun control takes guns out of the hands of citizens and into the arms of criminals has nothing to do with what's happening here.

As for your points here, none of them are against gun control. I'm not remotely for banning guns. Not for hunting, sport or even your paranoid home defence fantasies. I am against two self-entitled little gobshites parading a weapon that looks like an automatic assault rifle in the hopes of making some brave stand that they can post on youtube. Hell, I don't even think what they did should be illegal, I just think they're pathetic assholes.

On the other hand, I think that it's not unreasonable to exert a certain level of control over tools designed to kill.

BTW, I love this line:>> ^Buck:

Trying to persuade others to view the world as you do is the essence of debating, however, forcing your ideals upon another human being is the essence of tyranny. Irregardless of how honorable the intentions

Yeah, sorry to break it to you, but the real world does not work that way. Ideals are forced on people all the time. No-one is 100% free, but it's not tyranny, it's society. Otherwise we'd still have slavery, a wife could not accuse her husband of rape or any one of hundreds of ideals we enforce through laws.

Frankly, when I read bullshit like this, it makes me glad I don't live in a society where people are so fucking selfish that they think this kind of behaviour is even remotely ok.

>> ^bmacs27:

Brains are unnecessary for experiencing pain. I'm assuming happiness is inversely correlated with the experience of pain.>> ^Lolthien:
Well, to be fair, clams don't have brains.. so it's likely not 'unhappy'.



That is not unreasonable. For what it's worth, I do agree this is cruel in a 'little-kid-doesn't-know-better-and-mom-doesn't-either' sort of way.

Hard one to vote on. I don't believe any of those and the first two aren't an answer (ie. how does a fridge work? magic. - that's not good enough to be an answer for me). Evolution is a fact - we've actually used natural selection to breed better hunting dogs etc for years. It was exploited during the slave trade too so we know natural selection works for humans too (at a terrible human cost, of course). Evolution doesn't say where life came from, only how life progressed.

An extra terrestrial source of life? Well we've been hit countless times by countless objects from space, it's not unreasonable. Or do you mean ONLY sentient beings visiting earth and causing life? Either way, we have definitely evolved.

I think the only way we'll ever get closer to answering a question like this is finding out just how abundant "life" is in the universe, or at least our local region of the galaxy. If it's abundant, then either it formed here or it was extra terrestrial. And if we reach that point i won't care which it was

>> ^steroidg:

Fake? My logic is: other than to film the "epic" recovery skill, why else would you put a butt cam on a bike?


Your logic is not unreasonable, but this style of camera placement is used by professional racers (I know I have seen Valentino Rossi racing with a "butt cam"). Here's an example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIL1_q2fShA

>> ^Ryjkyj:


It's really just a matter of perspective though. Compare a bee with a slug. Bees are way ahead of slugs as far as visible complexity, yet to us, they're complete idiots. Even if we do rely on them.
And humans have been around for what? Maybe fifty-thousand years? Yeah, we've done A LOT in that time. But what could we do with another fifty-thousand? What about a million? (If for some reason we overcome the astronomical probability that we'll destroy ourselves) I don't really think there's any telling what we could do.
Not to mention the fact that everyone just assumes that aliens will be some sort of humanoid or even just act human or share any of our characteristics at all. Sure, here on Earth, life is carbon-based. But then why does everybody just assume that if we encounter life, it will also be carbon based? Answer: because we can't possibly understand how it could work any other way. And not because we just assume, but because we looked and it seems impossible according to the laws of chemistry. But that doesn't mean we're right just because we can't see the answer.
What about this: math is an abstract concept like you say. But the system most of us use is based on the power of ten. The digit repeats and a new one is added at the tenth place. Could that have something to do with the amount of fingers we have? Well what if the alien in question used a system that repeated at the ninth place? Their whole system would follow different rules. What if they used a system that had an individual symbol for every number up to two-hundred fifty million, seven hundred sixty-seven thousand, eight-hundred and fifty-three? What if they were so evolved that powers didn't even make a difference and they could fill a quadratic equation with numbers that were all based in different powers?
And if they were a race (another human term) whose individual bodies consisted of different, interchangeable parts, then math would be essential to their existence. It would be as natural as eating. To a species like that, we would look like childish morons playing with our own snot. Even though we use separate, distinct powers to program computers.
And that's just assuming that our aliens only understand things as far as the three dimensions we live in. What about a fourth dimensional alien that only communicates through careful waves of sulfur emission? To us, it might just be a giant blur that smelled like shit. You know what we'd do? That's right, we'd light it on fire.


I will admit that a species that has absolutely no comparable experience with us would be a problem. There's a mad, wonderful chapter in Greg Egans Diaspora that discusses the idea of complex creatures that have evolved in multi-dimensional space. I don't recall the exact maths, but they essentially live "rotated" into extra dimensions. I'll grant they will pose a challenge.

But it's not unreasonable to assume that some life forms would have evolved on a similar ecosystem to ours. We're already comfortable in working outside base 10, and there are some smart people who are working out establishing common symbol patterns based on fundamental mathematical principles. I don't care if you can interchange your head with your elbow, or you reproduce by thought, 1+1 =2. That does not change. Same for Pythagoras' theorem, prime numbers and so on.

My overall point is that something that is smart enough to figure out all the problems of going out into space will figure out how to communicate with us.

Or more likely, simply harvest the planet for resources. They're bound to be low on food and fuel by then

Again, I understand from your perspective that it seems we can know nothing about God. However, it is not unreasonable to think that if there is a God, He is perfectly capable of revealing Himself to us. In fact, a Deist type God who doesn't get involved I would say is immoral.

Now you seem to think that, as per the popular argument, that the Christian God is simply a reflection of man. I can tell you that in answer to that, God did reveal Himself as a man in the person of Jesus Christ. Really, it comes down to the facts about Christianity. Was Jesus who He said He was? Is He risen? If He did and He is still alive, then everything He said was true. Although I have personal revelation, I think the evidence is very convincing. We could discuss that if you like.

>> ^criticalthud:
@shinyblurry
ok, you've avoided the question. I do admire your spunk tho.
if you follow the logical conclusion of the question, you will find that your conception of god that you have been worshiping is really a projection of the self.
the arrogance of an atheist who says that there is absolutely no god is equaled by the arrogance of religious folk who claim they "know" god.
And the truth is that we don't know shit about shit. let alone "know" god.
there might be some god stuff out there...we're barely touching into the collective intelligence of this planet. but to stick a human name and face on it and endow it with your own values is jerking off at its finest. It is a self-centered activity, and it's is crippling to non-self centered activity.
and thinking that some old mythology book has all the answers is a cop out, plain and simple.
good luck!