Fair enough, looking forward to your responses.

I honestly think Obama is so fearful of being labeled racially biased that he hasn't stepped up and helped the black community enough. Although he has rolled back alot of the harmful DOJ policies that the Bush folks enacted.

Economically, this recession has hit black americans way harder than other segments. While I think some of the policies Obama has put in place to stem the recession has lifted all ships, I think there are things he could do to have a higher impact on a community that has twice the unemployment of white americans.>> ^quantumushroom:

Fair questions. Answers will require...a little digging. I can tell you right off that while 'workfare' in the 90s was a success, overall Newt was/is a blustery Big Talker, and the Rs barely changed things.
In the meantime, since Obama has been Prez for 4 years and Congress has been controlled by majority liberals (and still is) since 2006, what has been the net gain (or loss) for Black Americans? Hint: it can't ALL be Bush's fault.
>> ^longde:
@quantumushroom So get rid of welfare and food stamps, despite the fact that it helps a shitload of unemployed white people maintain the semblance of "middle class" living. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Every program that helps blacks that white people hate, helps whites many times more; that includes affirmative action. That's why the politicians who have been railing against these programs for your votes will never get rid of them; the backlash would be overwhelming.
QM, please answer this: Can you point to the gains that black Americans made as a result of the policy prescriptions put in place by the republicans when they had power, since the Newt House and the Bush administration? Even if they were race neutral policies. What has compassionate conservatism and the Contract with America yielded for African Americans? Newt's pretty silent about it, given his famous loquacity.
Hell, can you point the gains that white americans made, for that matter (1% excepted of course)?

Fair questions. Answers will require...a little digging. I can tell you right off that while 'workfare' in the 90s was a success, overall Newt was/is a blustery Big Talker, and the Rs barely changed things.

In the meantime, since Obama has been Prez for 4 years and Congress has been controlled by majority liberals (and still is) since 2006, what has been the net gain (or loss) for Black Americans? Hint: it can't ALL be Bush's fault.

>> ^longde:

@quantumushroom So get rid of welfare and food stamps, despite the fact that it helps a shitload of unemployed white people maintain the semblance of "middle class" living. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Every program that helps blacks that white people hate, helps whites many times more; that includes affirmative action. That's why the politicians who have been railing against these programs for your votes will never get rid of them; the backlash would be overwhelming.
QM, please answer this: Can you point to the gains that black Americans made as a result of the policy prescriptions put in place by the republicans when they had power, since the Newt House and the Bush administration? Even if they were race neutral policies. What has compassionate conservatism and the Contract with America yielded for African Americans? Newt's pretty silent about it, given his famous loquacity.
Hell, can you point the gains that white americans made, for that matter (1% excepted of course)?

Me neither - we just have to wait around 'til a gallant and privileged gold star comes around. Meantime we can still upvote - the votes get combined with the original.

Looks cool. Won't be playing unless/until there is an offline crack. In the meantime, woohoo -- more hours of Skyrim!

>> ^taranimator:

I dunno... While I appreciate all the flashier leaps and bounds made in robotics as you mention, the most exciting developments can often be more subtle. The little squid-like creature that moves by injecting air into its limbs and can fit under doors, for example, looks like nothing to most people but it actually has huge possibilities for future applications.
http://videosift.com/video/Robot-Without-a-Skeleton-Inspir
ed-by-Squid-Crawls-On-Land
Facial recognition, object recognition, all that jazz will take a long time to develop into something practical. In the meantime I think it's ok just to be amused by something so basic as not knowing how to decipher a mirror image. Remember back when Big Dog's precursors and other walking bots were hilariously inept? They're getting better all the time. The progression is what makes it cool.



yeah the projects you mentioned are all the things that I think are worth while , my point is really that there is no benefit taking this project out of a desktop pc might as well spend the time developing the software rather than arsing around sending it to a small pc in a shit robot.

My guess would be that he is developing some sort of kids toy with it which could work out ok.

the other video title is a perfect example of what annoys me "Robot becoming self aware?" just because its in a case with eyes and it can move around people and the media often think of it as a massive thing , where as certain things like Google are doing with there AI back end or the AI in some games is infinetly more intelligent and "aware" ( although obviously not aware at all) yet that gets ignored because its not in a cute plastic case.

I dunno... While I appreciate all the flashier leaps and bounds made in robotics as you mention, the most exciting developments can often be more subtle. The little squid-like creature that moves by injecting air into its limbs and can fit under doors, for example, looks like nothing to most people but it actually has huge possibilities for future applications.
http://videosift.com/video/Robot-Without-a-Skeleton-Inspired-by-Squid-Crawls-On-Land

Facial recognition, object recognition, all that jazz will take a long time to develop into something practical. In the meantime I think it's ok just to be amused by something so basic as not knowing how to decipher a mirror image. Remember back when Big Dog's precursors and other walking bots were hilariously inept? They're getting better all the time. The progression is what makes it cool.

remember i am a gnostic so i read the gospels...differently.
i also include ALL the gospels not just those conveniently canonized by the council of nicea.
which is the direction my comment was pointing at.

Ahh, yes, I remember. Before I became a Christian I had gnostic beliefs. I believed in the demiurge for instance, and considered the gospels found in the dead sea scrolls authoratative. However, after much research and some spiritual experience, I have changed my mind. I could bring up objections as to their dates, as many were written far after the fact in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, but my main objection is that I do not believe they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

What gnosticism does is turn Christianity into a dualistic system, with matter being called evil and spirit being good. It recasts the Father as the "demiurge", a petty and evil tyrant who totally bungled the creation. It subtly shifts the blame for the fall from mankind to God. So now man is no longer to blame for sin, but is just a victim to the brute fact of being born in the material world that an evil demigod created. So naturally, rebellion against all his authority is justified.

Futher, the saving work of Christ is turned on its head. Rather than defeating death and sin on the cross, he came to defeat ignorance of the spiritual realities as teacher of secret knowledge (gnosis). Rather than being saved through substitutionary atonement and spiritual rebirth, we must save ourselves by climbing the ladder of spiritual truths and illuminating our "divine spark". All systems of morality and ethics are perceived as relative truths governing the material reality and irrelevent to the true salvation of gnosis.

So, if I could sum up: God is the devil, rebellion is good, man saves himself (enlightenment), death is a release, and do whatever you want. I think I've heard that somewhere, before..

This is in contrast to what Jesus said:

John 19:30

When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Meaning, the work is done. There is nothing more any human can do, or ever could do. He got us the victory, and God put everything under His feet:

Matthew 28:18

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

It is only through Him, and His finished work, that we are liberated

simply put:
the powerful institution known as the church (be it catholic or baptist) have co-opted and twisted the message to fit a narrative which empowers the institution and keeps them relevant.this translates into wealth and political power and influence.
this is the absolute antithesis of christs teachings.
christ held the key.he offered it openly and freely.
THIS disempowered those who desired control and was exactly the point.
those who held seats of power saw this threat clearly and if you cant beat em....co-opt them

While I agree the catholic church perverted the message for their own gain, I think your idea of what the message actually says is a far cry from what the disciples or the early church fathers knew it to say. The baptist church is very much in line with that message. John, for instance, wrote against gnostic teaching when he said:

1 John 4:3

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

He wrote this because of gnostic claims that Jesus was not united to a body but only appeared that way.

for centuries the catholic church has been the greatest offender but in the past 50 years other institutions have wrestled their way to prominent control and espouse a contradictory and perverted message in order to manipulate their own people in order to gain more influence and power.all in the name of god.

i counsel many,MANY a people who were former fundamentalist,catholics,methodists,lutheran who found themselves in a crisis of faith due to this very perversion.
lets remember that for centuries the bible was an incomplete text (still is imo)and was written in languages the common man could not read (hell,most people were illiterate at that time).it was the printing press and the translation into english (and many many other languages) that freed the common man to read the very thing his entire belief system was based on.
this is a good thing.

Yes, I agree, it is a very good thing that everyone is able to read the word of God; the catholic church definitely engineered that situation of massive ignorance when they banned all translations except the latin vulgate. I also agree that the massive apostacy in the church is leading many people to reject the church altogether. This is very sad and unfortunate, and many of us have much to answer for. It is written that in the last days, many would fall away and believe false doctrines, and because of the increase of sin, the love of many would grow cold.

I must ask you though, what are you teaching these people? Are you telling them there is no such thing as sin and they need to save themselves?

you have a unique starting point in understanding the bible.simply by the fact you were not indoctrinated as a child and can study,research and formulate your own understanding of biblical teachings based solely on your own studies.

This has been an advantage, in that I can better relate to the secular world than most Christians. Even more of an advantage was my spiritual journey of about 8 years before becoming a Christian, where I explored all of the various religions and belief systems.

i have witnessed over a fairly short amount of time an evolution in your comments and responses pertaining to faith and belief.
this is such a good thing to see for it tells me your ravenous curiosity has driven you to attempt to understand.
the path is long and never truly ends but at least you ask the questions and do not blindly follow.
i am interested in seeing where you are in a year...or two..or twenty.
because nothing saddens me more than to discuss religion with someone who is incurious and seeks to be told what to think or how to feel in regards to faith and belief.

I am not incurious, no. I have followed God without any doctrine at all, so it isn't a frightening prospect to consider things from many different angles. One of the reason I do so much witnessing to atheists is because their questions bring me to many different areas of inquiry, and serve to illuminate and enhance my understanding.

I understand the objections people have, because I've had them too. My experience, especially my spiritual experience, has confirmed to me the truth of the word of God, which is universally applicable and experiential in nature. The Holy Spirit guides into all truth, and through Christ, I lack nothing. So, God has answered my objections. This is the truth I recognize:

Proverbs 3:5

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

When you shift the basis of your reason from God to man, you have made yourself Lord over Him. If it only by trusting God to provide the answers that you can understand anything.

if christianity had more people like you and less people like pat robertson or ted haggard,the discussion would be so much more..interesting.
you seek to KNOW.you seek wisdom.that is a very very arduous path and can be a solitary one.
i encounter so many people who seem to conflate the ability to recite biblical chapter and verse as somehow translating to wisdom.
this is a falsehood and the epitome of lazy and is also the reason why they become enraged and will many times resort to the most intellectually dishonest trap of deeming the person who revealed their laziness as coming from the devil.

Christianity has many people like me, but too many who are half-hearted in their faith. What I am interested in is the truth, and not something that merely comforts me. I would rather die than live out a comfortable lie. All wisdom comes from God, it is something He gives freely. Whatever understanding I have is from Him, and not something I accomplished by myself. A lot of Christians are content with a superficial understanding of their faith, but this is mostly due to sin. They take what they want from the message and ignore the parts that command that they change their ways. This leads to much error and ignorance.

What I believe about the devil is that he is the father of all lies. I do not think that someone who believes a lie worships the devil, but I do believe that all those who sin are a slave to sin. There is a difference between worshipping the devil and being fooled by him. Some people do worship him knowingly, but most are simply following doctrines that he created to lead people away from the truth.

so i applaud the path you have chosen.
does this mean you will come to the same conclusions as i?
hehe..probably not.we will most likely still disagree but that does not mean i will not appreciate you as a human being nor dismiss your insights simply due to our disagreeing.

as always,
your brother.

Thanks bro. Neither would I throw out your observations based on our disagreement. I believe Jesus is the only way to know God, and I hope you will come to this conclusion as well, but in the meantime I am sure there is a lot of fruitful dialogue to be had. I have learned a few things from investigating various point you have brought up, and appreciate your insight. I respect your right to believe as you want, and I extend my hand to you as a fellow human being in the image of our Creator.

>> ^enoch

This is definitely a "double-edged sword" maneuver by whoever is using the Anonymous persona. This does have the potential to be very bad-but, as has been said above if the right things are done and this induces more fear and apprehension... It has the chance to potentially make many of the police realize that they have more of a stake in this other than just another day at the job, always obeying the bosses calls and shots.

The only reason I think it may be time to see something like this is that the media, who has the power to end this type of issue if they decide to actually be investigative and not wag their tail when the police chief or mayor calls. They can find out who these policeman are. They can use societies' moral inaction and their own judgment as a huge tool for change by demanding for that police officer to quit or be fired. This happened in the past, but the media has seemingly joined forces with the easiest source of money and they do not willingly put themselves at risk anymore. Journalism is all but dead except at the edges.

So when the people are trying to make a point via demonstrations and protesting and in turn they are unfairly being silenced by: batons, gas cannisters, rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper spray, and even the media tries to lie about them--to shut them down. Yet the people still fight on. That is when you begin to see these type of actions; like Anonymous. An attempt to regain power when they have lost almost all of it. As sad as it is, every major media outlet is acting in the best interests of what Fox News would serve. They do not answer and show the story; they speak of it in hushed tones and they implicate OWS and Occupy at every available point they can that they use drugs, they don't actually know what they want, they are violent, etc... Occupy and OWS do need to make a point; but it does need to be made carefully. Maybe it's better that Anonymous decides to be the heavy arm.

We'll see what happens. In the meantime make sure you spread all of the indie media outlets out there that ARE covering this in great detail.

Semantically this doesn't contradict the possibility of OMVs, but doesn't logically prove anything either. So Premise 2 remains unproven. As long as it's unproven, Craig cannot claim his conclusion proven, even if you both know in your minds that it's true. Even if you're right in your knowledge that god is real, you have to admit that this particular formulation of the argument fails to prove it.

The argument does not just rest upon the fact that there are UMVs, although their existence is actually positive evidence for OMVs. The reason being, UMVs are exactly what you should expect to find if OMVs do exist. You're acting like OMVs are removed from human experience, and that is not true; although they are objectively determined (by God), they are subjectively experienced. They would be in fact ingrained into human beings. Which leads to the other part of the argument, which is that we all have an innate sense of right and wrong. I apprehend an objective moral realm which imposes itself upon my moral choices. It tells me that some things are absolutely wrong, and this sense precedes my opinions. So the reason why there are UMVs is because of this innate sense of right and wrong that everyone has, which aren't determined by mere opinion. This is sufficient evidence in my opinion to establish that UMVs are OMVs, in which case premise 2 stands.

You've misread my statements. I first said that disproven beliefs/theories are not on par with unproven beliefs/theories. Demonstrating that my theories aren't proven (or even provable) doesn't make them equal with beliefs that cannot be rationally held. Then I said that many believers annoyingly think it's a victory to point out that my beliefs aren't provable in response to my doing the same to theirs, when I had never made any claim that mine were absolutely true, but they had.

This isn't a relevant issue in this discussion. I have good reasons for what I believe, which I can sufficiently demonstrate. Remember, I used to hold the same beliefs you do, or near to them, about origins and so forth. And when I became a Christian, I was willing to integrate them into my faith. I was convinced to change my mind based on the shockingly weak evidence they are founded on, not because of a leap of faith.

And by "evidence", I'm going to infer from the context that you mean "proof". Scientific theories are not proven, and most are unprovable, but there's mountains of objective evidence that "suggests" scientific theories are true, but none whatsoever to suggest any single religious belief is true. Sometimes the theories change too as their early incarnations are proven incorrect or incomplete, as Einstein did to Newton, and as the folks at CERN may be doing to Einstein right now. That's the way of science, and it's the strength of science, not the weakenss. What I'm not comfortable with is religious beliefs/theories that are internally unchallengeable due to a part of the theory itself -- it's own infallibility. Imagine if science was based on the premise that by definition none of it's theories are false. Laughable, right? That's what I think of religion.

There is plenty of evidence which suggests that God created the universe. Before the big bang theory, scientists believed in the steady state theory which postulated a static and eternal universe. Because it was accepted as fact, they would use it to scoff and ridicule anyone who dared to suggest the Universe had a beginning. Yet, they were all wrong and the creationists were right. If they had listened to them, they would have made the discovery much earlier. Robert Wilson, one of people who discovered the CMBR that confirmed the theory, said this:

"Certainly there was something that set it all off. Certainly, if you are religious, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis"

This isn't science evidence and creation evidence. It's all the same evidence. The difference is that we are interpreting it differently, and that is through the lens of our respective worldviews.

You also miss out on the fact that the ultimate goal of science is to discover a theory of everything. It is seeking towards that very notion of infallibility that you are scoffing at. That Christians already claim to have it is no mark against Christianity; it would only actually be evidence of the superiority of its truth, or not. Consider this quote by Robert Jastrow, a noted Astronomer:

"Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world....the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same. Consider the enormousness of the problem : Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: 'What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe?' And science cannot answer these questions. "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Your beliefs lack proof. But you claim yours have proof. I claim yours don't. This is the main issue raised by this video, and the only one I'm interested in laying to rest. Everything else in the other several comment threads you and I have going is just conjecture, an exchange of ideas. It's not logically sound of me to say that your beliefs are unproven simply because I have different ones. Mine might be total crap and not stand up to any scrutiny, so I don't present them here.

Well, I am sure we will come to your beliefs eventually. In the meantime, I am happy to provide evidence for what I believe, and you can evaluate it as we go along.

>>

>> ^messenger>> ^shinyblurry:
<comment reference link>

you're exactly right. Cain is running for self-promotion and he's selling millions of books and such in the meantime.

This poor guy, Mark Block, seems to be a victim of the strategy, tho -- considering that he seems to truly believe that Cain actually has a shot at the Presidency. >> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^jmzero:
There is a lot of people in the US. Surely there's lots of them that could do a better job running a campaign than these guys?
I mean, uh, just look at this. This would be embarrassing for someone running for Student Union Treasurer. Perry can just barely talk. Paul and Romney are doomed. Bachmann's campaign is moving into full meltdown (saints be praised for that - she's such an idiot).
Look, I understand if some candidates won't agree with me on policies and what not. Lots of Americans don't agree with me on policies. I get that. But you'd think the people rising to the top would at least be charismatic; good talkers, good lookers, and good leaders. Instead, they seem to just be all-around failures.

Herman Cain is not running for President--he's running for a job at Fox News.

As antitheist as I am, I just can't bring myself to have a problem with her saying that. If you've been brought up to thank God whenever something good happens, that's just what you're going to say, especially immediately after such a shocking change to one's life. I can only hope she comes 'round to thanking the doctors who helped her, and learn that it was science and not the invisible sky-daddy that brought her hearing back.


In the meantime, I'm going to watch the video again and bask in the happiness.




_{(I'd be much more pissed at commentator's saying "praise God" when they have the critical and emotional distance allowing them to realise that this is the result of scientific research.)}>> ^EMPIRE:

>> ^Sarzy:
On how clearly she speaks, the poster wrote: "My whole life I've been complimented on how well I speak. I don't really have an answer for you other than I have always had a passion for reading, grammar, and English. My hearing loss was/is considered severe to profound. I've worked very hard to be able to interact and blend in.....only thing I can say is 'God is good'."

I really enjoyed the video. It was great. Then... she had to say something as stupid as God is Good. Yes.. God is SOOOO good, he let you be born a deaf. Then, not content with his/it own doucheness, he just let you carry on your life not reverting the deafness. God IS GREAT......... sure.
I'm getting really tired of this kind of attitude.

I have a prediction to make about the Mormon beliefs, that I have shared with my uber Mormon relatives --

As soon as the church starts losing members because of the church's rejection of homosexuals -- the homosexuals and their families both leaving the church -- as soon as it hits them in the pocketbook -- then the President will hear from God that it is okay to be gay.

Just like it was suddenly okay to be black after the Civil Rights movement.

May take a decade or so more, but it's coming. I have no doubt. Lots of suffering in the meantime, but the arc of history and all that.

I hope these asshats are better at analysing American issues than this drivel. The 'looters' weren't protesting shit, we've had lecturers and uni students and kids of bankers as well as the usual suspects... Simple fact is the police lost control and people realised there was a chance for free stuff, mostly dumb kids who will now stand a small chance of getting nailed. In the meantime the wanker bankers keep driving the economy forward, not a great idea to kill them then. Shit it must be nice to see everything in 2 dimensions.

In the meantime, this is some *quality *femme (Kathy, not Michelle).

@hpqp

Thanks for the heads-up about the post. And thanks for clearly detailing your position on the matter. If I may, I’d like to explain my opinion on the topic.

Is it wrong to “criticize Islam?” In a civilized society that values free speech, clearly the answer is no. But free speech is a two-way street. If it is acceptable to criticize Islam, then clearly it is just as acceptable that such criticism be open to criticism in return. In short, just because a person thinks their opinion on a particular matter is correct doesn’t make it so. And if a person can’t handle someone disagreeing with their opinion… well we all know the adage about people who live in glass houses.

My major objection to people like Sam Harris is not that I believe religion or in particular Islam is some off-limit topic of criticism. No. My major objection to Sam Harris is that rather than criticize Islam he instead tries to inspire fear of it—and, by association, Muslims as well (i.e. No one lies awake at night worrying about the Amish—but those Muslims on the other hand…). Many of his arguments seem to be based on fear, misunderstanding, exaggeration, oversimplification, and in of some cases apparent intentional misrepresentation of not only Islam but other religions such as Jainism as well. They often lack any sort of evidence (i.e. Islam is the religion causing the greatest amount of suffering in the world) yet we are expected to swallow their truth without doubt. And when someone raises these criticisms of his supposed criticism? Rather than actually defend his claims and provide solid evidence in support of them he instead insinuates we’re just too “liberal”—too culturally relativistic— to see the danger that he sees.

Sam Harris is free to criticize Islam. In fact, I’m eagerly looking forward to the day when he actually starts doing so (in the dictionary sense of the term). In the meantime, I dismiss his arguments as both unsupported and intended to intentionally stir up both fear and prejudice against Islam and its followers.

Next, I’d like to address the issue of Islamophobia—prejudice against, hatred, or fear of Islam and Muslims. Islamophobia doesn’t exist? I think the 200,000 Muslims killed and 50,000 Muslim women raped during the Bosnian Genocide would disagree with that statement. So would Iranian-American Zohreh Assemik, who was sliced with a boxcutter, kicked, had her hand smashed with a hammer, and had anti-Muslim slurs written on the mirrors of her nail and facial salon. So would pretty much anyone who played Muslim Massacre: The Game of Modern Religious Genocide in which you get to kill not only terrorists but Muslim civilians as well.

Frankly, @hpqp, I’m surprised. All of our conversations on the Sift have been reasonable, if a bit passionate at times. I think you would be just as shocked if I were to suddenly proclaim there is no such thing as Antisemitism as I was to read your statement in this thread. Islamophobia (as defined above) is quite real. No, claims of Islamophobia should not be used to shut down criticism of Islam (any more than claims of Antisemitism should be used to squelch criticism of Israeli policies). But that’s a far cry from claiming Islamophobia doesn’t exist, isn’t it?

You seem like a reasonable guy. I know you’ve tried your best to explain it to me but I still don’t understand why you believe so strongly that Islam itself—and not particular interpretations of Islam—are such a threat. So let's do something different. I’ve asked you this before, but you didn’t reply, so I’ll ask you again—what do you/Harris hope to achieve with all of this vitriol? What’s the goal? What do you hope to see happen? What’s the endgame? I ask these questions because I think the answers will really help me see where you are coming from and to understand your point of view.