"I need to leave, but I'm not free of the world."

Amen, brother.

Too much credit is being given to the AI here. It constructed semi-comprehensible sentences, but what we're watching was interpreted through the human production, and the rest was put together by our own nature to find patterns and sense in the incomprehensible. (i.e. We see what we want to see, and manufacture the meanings that mean something to us based on our experiences and environment).

I'm sorry your Mom died, but what you have is an anecdote.

I'm sure your perceived experience means a lot to you, but the most probable answer is pretty simple: you imagined it. Human memory is incredibly fallible and at times of emotional stress even more so. There have been numerous studies that have shown this.

And yes, science can't explain everything.... yet. But that doesn't mean we just get to fill in the blanks.

There is no "fact" that there is "something beyond us". In fact, everything we know has shown that there almost certainly isn't anything beyond us (at least in a supernatural sense).

Meanwhile, where's our resident young earther? Cmon @shinyblurry. Bill Nye is calling you out.

I grew up in a nonreligious household. My mom died a week after I graduated HS. ( It was 1980- before cell phones.) I had left the house that day and was out all day. Late in the afternoon I heard my mom say "goodby" . It was her voice and she was not there but still I heard it clear as day.

I got home late that evening and my dad was waiting in the living room to tell me that mom died.

Bill Nye and others like him have a point but still can not answer experiences like I and others have had. There is no evolution theory that explains supernatural events.

Yes I believe in GOD. There is something out there that science can't explain. Yes there are a lot of nut job preachers and followers. It does not change the fact there is something beyond us.


We will all find out on our deathbed.

I'm utterly unconvinced by your assertion that the public did not think his rape conviction devalued his endorsement. Why do you think that? Because you did? As soon as i understood the story (there's no description) my immediate reaction was, "well if an ear biting rapist ex-boxer endorses you...."

I'm not saying that the broadcaster definitely had heard people saying that, but i think it's naive to think that his rape conviction went unnoticed by everyone who heard about his endorsement - i noticed. I take the way people act very seriously and mike tyson has shown himself to be a dangerous and troubled individual so my ONLY reaction to the endorsement news is "why should i care what that person thinks, given his record?"

Furthermore what responsibility are you referring to that requires him to name the persons who suggested the question to him? I thought media people have the right to protect their sources? This isn't an investigation and we're not his jury, so why would he need to name his source?

I think you're dead wrong on this one, for example if he had said "Some people are saying this is mike tyson's big come back! What do you have to say to them?" I don't think you'd be demanding that he name his individual sources.

Now if mike tyson were on tv to give his opinion on who was going to win the next football/baseball season then i'd say his past wasn't relevant. But if he's going to offer his endorsement to what seems to be a political interest, then his character and therefore his past is the only relevant issue. Mike tyson had a good opportunity here to talk about how his life has turned around, and what he believes in now. He's a very eloquent man when he wants to be, and he could have knocked that question out of the park, made a viral hit, made the endorsement 10x stronger. But you know what he did instead? He acted like a thug and spat abuse at the guy, swearing and being childish and making his endorsement 10x weaker.

Am i going crazy here? Surely publicly presenting your approval to something requires us to place a value on your approval, and allows your character to be questioned? And i can only see good reason to protect the anonymity of the person who wanted the question asked (even if it was the interviewer!) judging by tyson's childish, aggressive reaction! I mean i liked mike on charlie sheen's roast too, but this isn't a comedy show and that question was fair. Mike could have knocked this one out of the park if he had thought about it.

I love how insane these things are. And how there's schools and churches and tv shows in the US talking about the same stuff about Muslims. You can imagine how bad the propaganda would be if Muslims controlled Mexico or something. The US might just go insane and nuke them.

The ideas some people have, and then trying to rope children into it. It's disgusting.

Your video, Bird Dancing across Road to Daft Punk’s Something About Us, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^budzos:

Netrunner don't know if you read sci-fi but there is a great book co-authored by Arthur C Clarke about this concept. It's called The Light of Other Days and is all about wormholes. Highly recommend if you've any interest.

I've probably still read more sci-fi books than anything else. In fact, my reaction to reading that was "holy shit, there's an Arthur C. Clarke book I haven't read?"

But yeah, various forms of FTL communication show up all over the place in sci-fi, and the (somewhat obvious) common thread is that they all rely on something that us 21st century people don't know how to detect.

My other thought is that maybe we do know how to detect it, but all we see is noise because they're using encryption that's millions of years more advanced than ours. Vacuum energy fluctuations are my (and several sci-fi authors') favorite place to imagine this might be happening.

Quite funny but "guys have Jenna Jameson"? Ah no, that's not something for us to be proud of, could have picked a more modern and not horrifically disfigured porn star.

Yeah, while I understand why creationists like ID (as a stealth attack), it confuses me that they'd subscribe to a theory that is wholly incompatible with creationism.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
>> ^ShakaUVM:

Wonderfully interesting, but it actually makes the case for ID instead of evolution. Think about it -- the code has a teleological goal set to make clocks. As the machines evolve, they will always eventually end up as people (sorry, clocks) even though the underlying processes appear to be random.

Not that you're really around anymore to respond to me, but you're hitting on a point that really confuses me about the people who seem upset about and/or opposed to the theory of evolution.

That is to say, there's nothing about evolution that's incompatible with the idea of having a divine designer, provided you're willing to concede exactly the ground you do -- that the Designer didn't draw up the blueprint for human beings specifically, so much as the Designer drew up a universe with natural laws that inevitably lead to something like us coming about.

To some degree I understand creationism more than I do "intelligent design". Creationism is clearly based on some desire to interpret Biblical texts as some sort of literal, historical account of how things came to be as they are. I don't understand what niche "intelligent design" fills, either from the POV of scientific reasoning (e.g. does it provide for better prediction of any phenomena?), nor from a theological one, especially since it's supposedly not a theological artifice.

To someone like me, it seems like its only purpose is to try to create political pretext for teaching students religion in science classrooms.

>> ^ShakaUVM:

Wonderfully interesting, but it actually makes the case for ID instead of evolution. Think about it -- the code has a teleological goal set to make clocks. As the machines evolve, they will always eventually end up as people (sorry, clocks) even though the underlying processes appear to be random.

Not that you're really around anymore to respond to me, but you're hitting on a point that really confuses me about the people who seem upset about and/or opposed to the theory of evolution.

That is to say, there's nothing about evolution that's incompatible with the idea of having a divine designer, provided you're willing to concede exactly the ground you do -- that the Designer didn't draw up the blueprint for human beings specifically, so much as the Designer drew up a universe with natural laws that inevitably lead to something like us coming about.

To some degree I understand creationism more than I do "intelligent design". Creationism is clearly based on some desire to interpret Biblical texts as some sort of literal, historical account of how things came to be as they are. I don't understand what niche "intelligent design" fills, either from the POV of scientific reasoning (e.g. does it provide for better prediction of any phenomena?), nor from a theological one, especially since it's supposedly not a theological artifice.

To someone like me, it seems like its only purpose is to try to create political pretext for teaching students religion in science classrooms.

>> ^Munchound:
I think the anger with most people (Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc...) is that their really is no reason why not to believe in God. People need proof of a lot of things. I for one believe in God, but don't take the bible literally. I mean, obviously something created the universal. Something caused the big bang. We evolved and so did many creatures, something kept us moving. Point being, I think the mother in the video be it fake or not, is that the reason is why not believe. I can live my whole life, and when I die I find out that God or heaven or whatever is not real. It would not be a waste, because it at least comforted me at times when I needed it, and made me stronger then most that have nothing or feel there is nothing helping them. Everything just seems to fit perfectly, let it be science, or an answer, but their will never be answer to what created everything (especially an atom).





The primary reason why not to believe is WHY BELIEVE IN ANYTHING THAT HAS NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE at best its a waist of time at worse its dangerous due to people then believing aditoinal things that's attached to that fictional thing that could or could not exists.

why not believe in invisible pink elephants that you cannot see BUT THEY DO EXIST because I read it in a book. also they watch you to make sure you are good and if you are bad then they trample on you when you die. the pink elephants also trample on you if you masturbate or if you don't cut off the skin on the end of your penis. they also trample on you and give you cancer if you talk about them in a negative way.
Now if i write that down into a 300 page book and then hide it in a cave for 2k years whalst spreding it as an idea , im sure manny people could take it serouse in the future if i replaced pink eliphant for almighty gods that created the world. I mean look at Scientology and how that has spred to some exstent despite the fact its blatently obsurd.


I have written down some other points for you to consider


1) granted annything could have created the universe or it could have always existed.

2) even if it was created by a intelligent entity that would not be "god" as described by the major religions.

3) the god of the major religoins is one tha knows you cares what you do and judges you

4) all the information you have on that god is assertaind from a book that was most probably written by
people

5) when you are chooseing a god you are realy choosing which book do you think is most likely "real"

6) there is no way to know if One book is more likely the word of god than another

7) if you don't believe in the whole book litrally then how do you know the bits about god are true how are you deciding which bits to belive and which bits not to ? i know that the bible and the quran both contain contradictoins there is no way to actualy know what would be the write thing to do.


from a universe creation stand point MOST THINGS START OFF SIMPLE A allmighty powerfull creator is not simple , evan if the universe was started by some supper inteligence it would not be a god but it would just be a super inteligent life form, for example if we created life 10k years from now we are not Gods in the biblical sence. as an example of how things start of simple A planet for example starts off as dust and debry that colects together due to gravity untill its so large its core becomes hot and other systems and chemical reactoins can accour.

9) if you believe everything needs to be created by something who or what creates god by saying god did it your left with the same problem.


10) belive me things do not fit together perfectly , for example humans are cosntantly braking , we have to go around inflicting pain on other cretures just for us to stay alive , 90% of creatures live by killing other creatures that are all pritty mutch inosent but all have to suffer horable deths or freeze and stare to death.

11) granted it might seem like slim ods that we would come to exist but thats because we are looking at it after the fact We are an accident not a planned event, for example ,

If I specify that I have to roll a dice and get the nimbers , 6 ,3,2 , 6 ,6 4 ,3 ,2 , 5, 1, 5, 6, 3 ,2 ,1 3 ,4 ,5 ,6 all in a row the ods would be mind boggling but say I didn't specify that i had to get anything and I was just aimlessly rolling the dice and the numbers that came out were 3,2,6,4,3,2,5,1,5,6,3,2,1,3,4,5,6 IT would be stupid for me to look back on that and say THAT'S UNBELIEVABLE what were the ods of me getting those.

Its like sum one wining the lottery and then attributing it to skill , they just happened to pick 6 random numbers that then happened to be the ones that occoured, Just because the numbers happened dose not then mean that person used skill to get them , or actually knew they were going to be the numbers that were picked.


Its far more likely that we are just a random occurrence than the creation of one of the gods of , Islam, Christianity, Mormonism, Scientology , flying spagetih monster .

The anti-war left doesn't exist anymore? You haven't been in Washington in the last week or so have you Paul?

(I shouldn't say anti-war, thats a misnomer and a republican buzzword, like pro-abortion. More accurately its people who are simply 'against this war.')

I think that Obama will get us out of Afganistan, but he's not stupid, he knows that pulling out immediately does nothing for us. We are in this war BECAUSE we pulled out of a war there to fast last time. When Russia was at war with the country we backed the 'freedom fighters' there. They called themselves Taliban. We armed them, we put them in power and after we built a few bases there we left with hardly a word. This is something the US has done time and time again throughout US history. I once had a history teacher who said basically 'The US is great at fighting wars, but we are terrible at ending them and negotiating after the war has ended.' I disagreed with him then but I absolutely agree with him today.

Besides that I don't think America will ever be without some battle going on somewhere or bombing somewhere or some war (legal or not,) simply because for a solid portion of this country, being at war is a national past time. But largely because we have this 4th wing of government in this country called the Pentagon and US Military Industrial Complex.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
At the cost of weakening their own currency, only a matter of time before that doesn't work anymore, cause we sure in hell ain't paying any of that debt back. We can hardly pay interest.

Exactly, those bonds are worthless, and we're running out of suckers to buy them, fast.

>> ^yaroslavvb:
I wouldn't lend money as a restaraunt owner, which shows how different the decision-making process is made at the country level.

To me it just shows you had trouble understanding my analogy. Yes, you would lend money as a restaurant owner, even to your own customers, if you thought that they will pay you back. Ever heard of a tab?

There is no absurdity in lending money to your customers, it's only absurd to keep doing it once you realize they can't pay you back. Then you're faced with a tough decision: Whether to lose your customer and all that money they owe you or keep wasting more money hoping you'll see any of it again. Eventually, their spending becomes just an expense, because they're spending your money.

On a country level it actually makes sense for China to keep buying US bonds despite the trade deficit because it drives up employment inside the country.

Employment is good because it leads to production. China produces enough to finance our debt, but that is in no way desirable to them, consuming is not a big favor the US is doing the world. Anyone can be a consumer, hell, hand me 1 million dollars and I'll consume it real fast for you. What you want is for consumers to PAY you, something the US hasn't done for a while now.

The first step to determining if any god exists is to clearly define this god. In these times, when someone says 'god', they're probably talking about something which pretty closely resembles the Christian God, but not necessarily.

Some of the defining characteristics of the Christian God I was raised with are:
- Benevolent
- Omnipotent
- Omniscient

(abbreviated "BO&O" below)

There are others, of course, but I can comfortably say that any god definition which includes these 3 is immediately invalid due to the reality in which we live. If God doesn't have the power to end suffering, then he is not omnipotent. If God doesn't have the will or desire to end suffering, then he is not benevolent. If God isn't aware of suffering, then he is not omniscient. It's an old argument, but the only rebuttal I've ever heard is "God works in mysterious ways."

This doesn't have to be taken to the extreme of saying God would create a utopia for us if he was BO&O. The argument can be made that the trials and tribulations of life make us better people. I'm not talking about trials and tribulations, I'm talking about starvation, disease & famine.

Take away any of those 3 attributes and you've got yourself a non-conflicting god definition, at least for this particular problem.

MINK used to rattle on about how retarded everyone was when... actually it didn't matter what the topic was... but in the case of (a)theism, he would generally state that "God is everything" and so all arguments against were futile. Without knowing exactly what he meant by that, no argument can really be made. If he literally meant that God is the sum of all matter then, yeah, I'd have to conclude that God does exist, but that would seem to have zero value scientifically, morally or philosophically.

Speaking of philosophy, questions have been posed as to why a BO&O God would create existence, the universe, life, etc. Any answer is only opinion, but it's worth contemplating.

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
If a god or this "something" did exist, why not God? It couldn't possibly be a personal being who interacts with us? If this were possible, why not the Christian God (not as he is defined by modern Christianity, but as Jesus described him)? Rather, it must necessarily be something that is impersonal, not conscious, or takes no interest in us? I don't know why you so positively reject that definition of the "something."

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
The reason that we have need for a Savior is because we have been given agency and will make mistakes. This agency provides us an opportunity to learn and grow because we are free to make mistakes. (We lived with God before we were given mortal bodies, but we were like children, and God wished to see us progress. This life is a stage in our progression.) God provided a Savior so that we could return to live with him, because no unclean thing can dwell in his presence.

How does sending his son to be brutally executed better equip God to forgive us? Even if it does, how is that a moral thing to do? Did everyone that died before 1AD go to hell? If not, then what made Jesus necessary later?

We are not born on the path to hell. We are born innocent and perfect and are not held accountable for Adam's sin. Only our own. God does require something of us. I'm sorry if you find that offensive. I believe that the faith, repentance, good works, and morality he requires not only lead us back to him, but they make us happy in this life. If God provided proof of his existence, faith and sacrifice (which test us and make us better) would not be necessary.

Does this not seem the slightest bit like jumping through hoops? I agree, on one hand, that we grow as people as we face adversity and obstacles. We can grow as people without faith and worship. Why does God want us to pass a test that he won't tell us we're taking, let alone what the rules are?

Ahh ok, you are at least being reasonable and putting forth arguments, I will continue this thread.

First, we are confusing language here I believe. Let us try it a different way.

Making something a law OBLIGATES you do to it. That obligation has to come from something, some kind of reasonable position. In the US, it was understood from the start that the powers not spelled out in the constitution were reserved for the people. Some people didn't trust the government with that, and the bill or rights came to being. All of that is just to say that there was a real concern from the start about the government sticking their nose in where it didn't belong.

So, to make a law promising health care is out of place. It has no foundational presence in the federal charter of the land, it is merely something a large group of people want. As such, there is no place for it as a federal system. Just because a bunch of people want something doesn't mean that is should be so, if it violates the main tenants of the land, it should not be. So one has to ask, what are those main tenants? What are those core, foundational rights that we signed up for when we accepted this social charter. Simple, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Any law that isn't trying to uphold those tenants is invalid.

However, as a legislative body, what you are trying to do is not promote those things, merely stop others from robing people of them. For instance, murder violates those core ideals, slavery violates those ideals. Any arrangement made that violates those shall be void or not enforced.

In other words, laws are for negative rights. The right from something, as has always been their nature for thousands of years. However, in recent moments, we have moved away from preventative, to causative laws. So, instead of you having a right of something not done to you, now it is a right TO something...a very drastic shift. Now, people are owed things. This type of right systems is not something the US was setup for...it violates the idea of freedom.

How so? Well, if you have the right to something, it has to be provided somehow, and as we don't yet have robot slaves doing our every bidding, those things have to be provided at the cost of others. This basic notion undermines liberty and freedom. This is so because there is no real prove of natural rights; of what you are entitled to. The list grows as your own personal convictions change, and they change from person to person; they are completely subjective.

What you end up is in an argument over 60% vs 40% with both having only subjective reasons to back their side up. One side wants prayer in schools, or one side wants free toothbrushes proved for all, or one side wants TV's as a minimum standard of living for all, the list of personal moral convictions is endless. And moreover, all those come at the cost of someone else's personal moral convictions. If I am forced to pay for federal health care you, me and everyone else, then I am forced not to give to a selection of charitable organizations that I find to be better. Maybe I don't believe that the body is all there is to a person, so healing it without some spiritual message is futile to me...however, I am unable to practice that as the state can't have anything to do with religion. So I am forced to do something in a way I don't do it.

However, with voluntarism, people can choose to do what they want, both the 60% AND the 40% are free to do with their monies as the see fit. It is free, it is fair, and it isn't morally dubious.

THAT is the problem I see with ALL social legislation's, they only cater to a portion of the populations moral convictions at the cost of the others. It violates the ideas of freedom...and hell, of charity. As a person, I believe in Universal truths, however, I don't think they can be shown in a logical way as to what they are...is it life, is it justice, is it freedom, who is to say? One thing is for sure, I don't want the government, and visa vi, you telling me what is the most important thing in life. (and by telling, I mean forcing me to pay taxes to fund things of the sort)

Sorry this is long winded, I just think we were chasing each other around in circles Thanks for the reasonable conversation, they are harder to get now a days, if you would however, like me to address directly what you mentioned in your comment, I can, just ask

(up-voted your comments for peacefulness

edit: I would like to add I don't believe in perfect systems. People suck, it is one of my core ideals in viewing a system that is the most free of government as the better of systems you can choose from. People who expound about "greater goods" are the utopia builders, I am trying to say those ideals are foolish (I means this as a form of ignorance, not stupidity) and come at the price of peoples own personal utopias they want to build for themselves, or/and their families. When considering a system, I want it to enforce fairness (lets call it justice) and consistent. As such, it can't cater to the whims of the majority...no matter how "Good" it may be. The realm of "the good" has to be a personal affair and not a government one; it is what it means to be free to determine what it means to be good.