>> ^spoco2:
Exactly... this is why 99.9999999999999999999% of all conspiracy theories are absolute bunk.


So only one in a sextillion is true?

(and therefore you're saying it's effectively certain that no-one who has ever lived participated in any kind of conspiracy)

>> ^spoco2:

Exactly... this is why 99.9999999999999999999% of all conspiracy theories are absolute bunk.
All this shit that people think they 'know' about 9/11, and how it MUST have been thermite, MUST have been re-rigged to demolish.
They really need to get their heads around the fact that what they've come up with is something that is maybe, possible plausible but in NO WAY the most likely, the most reasonable, or even probable... they just come up with convoluted ways that things could conceivably occur and then decide that that MUST be fact.


Speaking of the Kennedy assassination there was no reason to kill him. None. People think it's because he was going to pull the troops out of Vietnam but he was never going to do that, they took one quote and turned it into a promise of his to pull them out like he was fighting more powerful interests. He was a bastard like all the other bastards. His historian even had to rewrite the books to make it look like he was a big pacifist.

No riskier than lethally high doses of gamma radiation or being bitten by radioactive spiders I suppose.
Walking through a rain storm covered in the stuff would be interesting, I could imagine a spray-on umbrella would be pretty cool.

>> ^VoodooV:
Ditto. Agnostic is the only sane choice. Fuck Atheists who want to put agnostics under their "umbrella"


If you're not agnostic, you're either a liar (falwell, robertson, et al) or insane (bush, shinyblurry).
>> ^VoodooV:

two sides of the same coin. different beliefs...same fanaticism.

Good to know that your position is "the only sane choice" but somehow it's the rest of us are the fanatics.

I'm an atheist, can I be under YOUR umbrella? I think both theists and atheists are under the agnostic umbrella. You can't know...hence why there's still a debate. Theists claim something that cannot be proved false. Russell's teapot and all...>> ^VoodooV:

Ditto. Agnostic is the only sane choice. Fuck Atheists who want to put agnostics under their "umbrella"

With so many agreeable comments, i taught myself how to quote properly * pats himself on the back *

>> ^ChaosEngine:
If Yahweh showed up tomorrow, I'd start looking to form a resistance.
^ I'm in and have a bunch of analytical minded friends who would be gearing up before they even heard the word 'resistance'.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
pineapple on pizza is an unholy abomination
^ /agree re pineapple. It belongs on my pizza's as much as i belong in churches, it ruins the experience.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

There is another position on this: anti-theist. Most strongly evinced by Christopher Hitchens.

>> ^volumptuous:

Richard Dawkins' approach to this is the term "non-theist".

^ The terms 'Anti-Theist' and 'Non-Theist' are more sensible/respectable than 'Atheist' imo (more so after hearing Dawkins mention Afairyist), but i accept the latter as it requires less side-track debating over terminology.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

I really, really hope that Videosift5 gives the ability to spend a PP on a "super upvote" for comments. (or something similar).
@Sepacore would get mine!! (above)

^ Cheers

>> ^Boise_Lib:
I'm absolutely against anyone, or thing, that shows the pettiness, jealousy, and just plan babyishness of Yahweh having any control over human beings.


^ /agree

>> ^Boise_Lib:
But, what about something (this is why I don't use the word "god"), which is benevolently seeking knowledge through it's extrusions--(that's us)--into this space-time we inhabit.
If we are all part of this thing can it really be abhorrent?


^ .. make duck bills with your fingers, put them to your temples and open them up as you pull your hands away: you're blowing my mind.

>> ^Boise_Lib:
My point is if there is something else out there, we--as a species--have no idea what that might be (all religions are wrong).

^ /agree

>> ^Boise_Lib:
[Sidepoint: The mixture of taste sensations evinced by the salty, savory ham and the sweet, sour pineapple enmeshed in melty cheese is a glorious thing.]

^ * slumps down in a corner and cries softly while singing Amy Grant's 'Innocence Lost' (Christian music, lol Google FTW) *

I can't relive my life
I can't retrace my tracks
I can't undo what's done
There is no going back

I chased a selfish dream
Did not survey the cost
Illusions disappeared
I've found my innocence lost

Some say it's lessons learned
Some say it's a living life
I say it's choices made
Knowing wrong from right

>> ^ChaosEngine:
What I do have to contend with is mainstream religion (and while we're at it, faulty thinking around astrology, homoeopathy, etc).
^ worked in offices for past 5 years.. don't get me started on astrology and homeopathy. The girls and 1 guy don't care what i say about religions and Gods.. but the moment i open my mouth about those other 2.. (think it's because i kept showing them proofs against the practices)


@Lawdeedaw
I see the points you're making, but there's a lot more to an Agnostic position than there is to either of the extremes. For 1, there's room to fluctuate to either end of the extremes without having to make an incredible claim that simply can't be backup in any scientific way as there are always 'trump cards' for this subject.

Better than Physics, Cosmology, Chemistry and Biology, imo Psychology has the greatest chance of proving God doesn't exist, but unfortunately it's not going to be an actual 'proof', at best (and it irritates/pains me to say) it will only be a really good reason to 'believe' or suggest that Gods are most likely figments of our imaginations off of our preferences. Easily ignored when in the face of 'faith'.

Call it 'safe' or even 'fence sitting' if need be, but i call it the result of thinking about the subject and being honest enough to accept 'i, nor anyone, actually knows.. but i think X due to Y'.

I used to think an Atheistic position for scientists was logical off of the point of 'no proof, don't believe'. But the reality is that scientists do believe things without evidence, they work their butts off to prove the idea, and either succeed or prove the opposite, sometimes even discovering things they had no intention of or even an idea that they were close to.. point being there are stages where they have reason to believe but don't have proof and these stages can make getting funding quite difficult.

For a Scientist, publicly and privately resting on an agnostic position somewhere between the 2 ends of the scale is more reasonable/justifiable and less arrogant/distracting.

If you can't honestly state "I know there is no God" in any/every debate/discussion, then technically you're Agnostic (unless stating the complete opposite).. but like me would take up a stance a pin prick away from 1 of the 2 disingenuous and arrogant extremes (specifically the good one, that doesn't 'justify' us not caring about others).

>> ^VoodooV:

Ditto. Agnostic is the only sane choice. Fuck Atheists who want to put agnostics under their "umbrella"

^ If it ever started raining/reigning in the way and with the unforgiving dedications a number of religions have in the past, i hazard the guess you would likely jump under my umbrella quick smart when it was the only place that gave us both the option to state 'i don't know/care' and live to tell about it.

/Agree re the disapproval of Atheists disregarding the line.. but to this day, I've never met an 'Atheist' that definitively stated when pushed 'i know God doesn't exist'.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^VoodooV:
Ditto. Agnostic is the only sane choice. Fuck Atheists who want to put agnostics under their "umbrella"

Sigh... I won't put you under the atheist umbrella but to put it that I am not making a sane choice is rather petty.
But since we are being petty, here is a my argument. He (Neil) says he is a scientist but isn't going to make a claim either way. Okay, so he doesn't know if God exists and won't deny (take a stand) about something if it hasn't been unproven (So un-scientist-like; no leap of faith here...)
In other words he doesn't even know if science works at all. After all, God could snap his fingers and science could be turned on its head and cease to function. Neil is saying this is 100% possible that science is fucking useless and God is all important. He is also saying that this scenario may not be the case...
How scientific of him to take this position. Now you might argue my point is more hyperbole or illogical but really it isn't. It is just that the "safe" route is ridiculed for a reason... George Carlin I miss your jokes old man


We're talking about who or what created life, the universe, and everything. So yeah, I don't think I'm going out on a limb much when I say, "I don't know." However, asserting that you do know what did, or didn't does seem to be quite insane. Someday maybe we will know, but that day isn't today.

If you want to think that's petty, fine, but you seem to be projecting, IMO. Same with your "insights" into NDT's thought process. You seem to be putting a lot of words and thoughts into NDT's head that he didn't make...or assert to. These assertions that NDT and agnostics are cowardly is insulting and unfounded and again, if I dare say so, seem to be projecting your own insecurities onto NDT. And again, you're conflating the idea of god with religion. Atheists continue to make this flawed claim that if god does somehow exists, that obviously the theists are correct on religion and that god is this petty douchebag that likes to play with peoples lives and do shit like changing the laws of science for shits and grins. If god does exist, I'm going to go out on a limb and assert that god is nothing like Q from Star Trek.

I think it's quite the opposite of being cowardly and "not taking a stand" when one comes out publicly "takes a stand" to correct atheists that he is not an atheist. Obviously, if agnostics are the cowards you claim them to be, NDT wouldn't be coming out on this issue. Talk about being petty. Again, you doth protest too much. Atheists like to throw accusations of cowardice a lot for some reason....I'm sure that would be an interesting psychological study.

"It is just that the "safe" route is ridiculed for a reason..." I don't understand why you feel the need to ridicule it in the first place. You can't really cry foul about being petty when you make a statement like this. Again...no better than theists in this regard, you're one and the same. And really, if agnostic is subject to ridicule. Is it really the safe route? I'm sorry you feel you have to crush those who blaspheme against YOUR religion.

@Boise_Lib is quite right on this. Atheists really need to take a chill pill. The defensiveness, and quite frankly anger, when it comes to the atheist reaction to agnostics only serve to illustrate that you're no better than theists. Atheism always seemed to be more about getting revenge on theists instead of being logical and rational.

Try loving instead of hating, you'll live longer.

>> ^VoodooV:

Ditto. Agnostic is the only sane choice. Fuck Atheists who want to put agnostics under their "umbrella"


Sigh... I won't put you under the atheist umbrella but to put it that I am not making a sane choice is rather petty.

But since we are being petty, here is a my argument. He (Neil) says he is a scientist but isn't going to make a claim either way. Okay, so he doesn't know if God exists and won't deny (take a stand) about something if it hasn't been unproven (So un-scientist-like; no leap of faith here...)

In other words he doesn't even know if science works at all. After all, God could snap his fingers and science could be turned on its head and cease to function. Neil is saying this is 100% possible that science is fucking useless and God is all important. He is also saying that this scenario may not be the case...

How scientific of him to take this position. Now you might argue my point is more hyperbole or illogical but really it isn't. It is just that the "safe" route is ridiculed for a reason... George Carlin I miss your jokes old man

Ditto. Agnostic is the only sane choice. Fuck Atheists who want to put agnostics under their "umbrella"

the patio umbrella adds a certain je ne sais quoi

Those little legs will make a fine umbrella stand one day.

A word to those who insist that remaining silent during police questioning is being "rude" or an "a$$hole" to the questioner need to take a civics class. In the United States of America, our forefathers fought and died to secure our rights to remain silent and not incriminate ourselves. Using those rights is not rude. NOT using those rights is being a rude a$$hole to those thousands of patriots that died to secure them for you. Railing against those who exercise their rights is unpatriotic, rude, and the act of cowardly a$$holes. Try living somewhere you have no right to silence, they exist, see how it suits you. You are free to leave your freedom and rights at the door on your way out, but do not try to remove mine.
If you are not a citizen of the USA but are commenting on the rudeness of the silent 'offender', I submit my opinion that you are speaking about (and condemning) things you do not understand. Again, this seems to be an act of the rude and misinformed.
As an aside, I also question them...in what way is being politely and calmly silent rude? Also, do you not see that being asked questions that imply you were doing something untoward is rude in itself, even when asked under the umbrella of 'public safety'? Perhaps not, or perhaps you had not considered that. (Asking a driver "How much have you had to drink tonight" certainly implies that the questioner believes the driver has been drinking and driving, which to law abiding citizens should be insulting....I see that they did not ask this exact question this time, but most checkpoints/officers do word it that way.)
This person did exactly what any citizen of the USA should do any time they are questioned by police, identify yourself if asked (and some would say that even that is going too far), and that is all. There is no legal obligation to self incriminate yourself by answering questions designed to get you to do so, conversely there is a moral and civic obligation to exercise your rights or we may all lose them.

BRAVO SIR!!! I commend you and wish there were more like you!

The New York Times published a fascinating video about this a few months ago, too:

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2011/11/21/opinion/100000001183275/the-umbrella-man.html

Some of that may fit under a "detestable" umbrella...>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

What about:
working - workers and the work they do, labor struggles, working class heroes, job anecdotes, labor law and history, labor strikes and protests, sweatshops, ows, the 99% etc.
?

Ultimately, the service they would provide would be content before any of the knock offs. Plenty of companies have tried to make knockoffs of wow, some even with otherwise very compelling universes in the baggage (lord of the rings online, warhammer online), but no one has come close yet. Star Wars the Old Republic might, but I doubt it. A rose by any other name is still WoW. And right now they have a critical mass of users, which is all they need. They could shit in a shoebox and call it Mist of Pandaria and millions will buy it on the release day.

Sure, there exists private servers of Wow at this point too, and some people like to play on them, but for me? I wouldn't even want to. There's no challenge when everything is possible. I'm certain that even if a joint effort between developers of all sorts banded together to copy and create an MMO like wow, it would likely be crap, because they have no other incentive to make it than "because we can". Design decisions based on that are not good - look at linux. Even Mozilla is a company nowadays. A command structure is essential in creating a massive work of art in a reasonable time.

Making a copy of WoW isn't "just" making a copy of WoW, it's enormous. By the time someone has copied it to the finer details, the game will have moved on to something else; systems change all the time.

A good example of something happening like you say is Vampires: Bloodlines where the community made a huge amount of "community patches" to fix the game, after the developer went bankrupt. I like that, but they could do it because the things they were fixing were straight forward. If they wanted to make entirely new things, who decides which things are good and bad? Like wikipedia, they would need custodians. A private company like Blizzard does not have that problem.

I was certainly a little too broad when I said all intellectual property is bunk. First of all I have a problem with the umbrella term of IP. I don't think it's helpful. Different types of IP have different solutions and problems. Some are more bunk than others. (Wtf is with they way rights to music works? What is it now, 100 years after the artist dies? Crazy.)

Like you I am philosophically on the "you can't own ideas, man"-wagon, but practically I'm more loose with my morals - hell, morals are fluid baby.

I'll say this. I would rather have 50000 people playing my game and 50 people paying for it, than I would have 50 people playing my game and paying for it any day.

>> ^NetRunner:

I think this is the most plausible way I've seen anyone square this circle. I'm just not sure it really holds up to scrutiny.
Philosophically, I'm in the "information isn't property" camp, but I also put food on the table by creating intellectual property.
The confluence of my own philosophical tastes on this topic would be that not only should "making copies" be legalized, it should actually be criminal to withhold any sort of scientific or engineering advance from the broader public, especially for selfish gain.
But, I think that would essentially destroy software companies as we know them. I think Blizzard & WoW would have trouble making the case to people that their service is worth $140/yr. That's especially true in the kind of world in which any content they generate can just be copied by a knockoff service provider just as easily as the original copy of WoW was in the first place.
I have trouble even imagining what sort of service they'd be able to compete on in that world. Uptime? In-game customer service? Best policing of player misbehavior? It can't be bugfixes (copyable), and it can't be content (also copyable).
I think ultimately WoW would have to become something more like an open source project -- the community provides all bugfixes and content gratis. Blizzard ultimately would have to give up any kind of creative or engineering control at that point, and also give up on having a revenue stream of millions of dollars a month, too. They'd just be a glorified hosting company. Companies like Microsoft probably wouldn't even be that.
It'd probably be better for the whole world that way, but not so awesome for incumbents in the industry.
You know, people like you and me.
>> ^gwiz665:
Essentially you couldn't. You would not be able to provide a better service without spending a very very large amount of money and effort into doing it. An MMO is a service, and you have to provide more than just stable servers for it to work, you also have to create new content, bug fixes etc to maintain the integrity of the product.
You can design your way out of it easily. Free to play is one way of doing it, which we have a lot of success with on iOS and the big shots on PC are waking up to as well, finally. Apple in general have their app rejection policy which keeps the most things at bay, but of course there is jailbreaks, which I don't much care for.
I don't have a problem with people copying, although I would of course prefer they give me lots of money. If they corrupt our product however, with map hacks, cheats etc. then it's a much different issue.
I think it's a problem that many different types of media is lumped together under "intellectual property", because I do think things like Art, music etc should be protected from forgeries and that the original artist should be compensated for his time, otherwise we would have no art at all.
The industry is changing to provide a better service still though. Look at music - who buys CDs anymore? We have things like Spotify and Grooveshark who stream just about any music easily supported by commercials.
Any Blizzard game, and all their future games, will need a persistent internet connection, both for piracy issues but also for better service - instant patching, social networking etc. Same with steam.