This laser-like focus on election fraud should be centered on Illinois, where it turns out some of the dead people voting three times or more aren't even American citizens!

You really haven't been paying attention if you think I'm not open to the idea of a god @shinyblurry. The very fact that I'm arguing I don't know, directly implies that I'm an agnostic, not an atheist.

I've seen that you have an openness to the idea, but you're also quick to take an adversarial position. Are you truly open to who God is? Are you okay with the idea of a God so long as it isn't Jesus?

I can also say that as a former agnostic, I understand where you're coming from.

There could be a god. But 1) there has to be proof of the it's existence

Logically, if there is a God, the entire Universe is proof of His existence. I don't know about you, but personally I find the idea of Universes spontaneously creating themselves to be an absurdity.

Imagine a painting with three black lines on it. You could come to all sorts of conclusions about what that is supposed to represent. You could draw philosophical ideas from it. You could see it as a social commentary, or a mathematical representation. You could measure it, sample the paint and paper, run many different tests. You could count the number of brushstrokes. You could do all of this and more, subject it to every sort of empirical inquiry, and you would be no closer to finding about the intention of the painter than you were when you started.

The only way you are going to see the signature of the Creator is if you realize you are looking at His Creation. The evidence is *everywhere*. Neither is poking and prodding it and subjecting it to tests going to tell you anything about what He intended. This is the only real question.

and 2) Religion and god are two separate things, just because a creator exists doesn't give any more credibility to religion.

I agree, and I've made this point to atheists in the past, mainly when I believed that no religion was the correct one. If you consider that everything is equally unlikely, then you are looking at 50/50 odds for special creation versus naturalistic means.

There are many many religions out there. Assuming one is right, that means many are wrong More than likely, all are wrong.

Why is it more likely that all are wrong rather than one being right? The question is, has God revealed Himself to the world, or not. If not, then all are wrong. If so, then one is right.

In all likelihood, odds are better that a creator would be more like Cthulhu then some caucasian, gun loving republican. You claim god made us in his image, when in reality, it's far more likely that you made god in our image.

The stereotype you are presenting does not represent anything Christians believe. Maybe some Christians act that way, but that isn't what scripture says about God. It says that as the Heavens are higher than the Earth, so are His ways above our ways.

If we were created, humans are the Creators crowning achievement. The "odds" are better that He made us like Him.

The simple truth though is that god is academic. Either he's always been here and it's all part of some ridiculously elaborate pre-destination plan so it doesn't matter what we do as it's all part of the plan, or he doesn't care, or he does, but he doesn't intervene. In each of those cases. The alleged fact of a creator's existence does not affect our lives, at least not any way we're aware of. Nor does a creator suddenly make any of the religions right or true.

Or, it does matter what we do, because God does intervene in His creation, and He has given us a standard of behavior which He is going to judge us by. The existence of God does not make any of the religions true, but it is positive evidence that one of them is true.

Or god doesn't exist and never has. Again...nothing changes. religion still exists in spite of this, they still get together and do their thing and that's fine. Religion is not inherently bad, it's what you DO with religion that is hurtful or helpful. Even if you removed religion from humanity forever. Humanity still has a ton of other things that we do that are part of our lives that have no rational basis in fact but we do it anyway. That's fine...it's part of what makes us human.

Man corrupts everything he touches because our nature is inherently sinful. Man can use anything as an excuse to do evil.

The dilemma is not for me to believe, the dilemma is for you and/or your god to prove why I should believe. Especially if you want public policy to be influenced. When public policy is not involved, you have the same freedoms everyone else does. And you can't use the bible to prove you're right. You do know what circular reasoning is and that' it's a fallacy right? You quoting the bible does absolutely nothing other than to show you don't really understand what reasoning and logic is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Except there is evidence in the bible which proves the bible is Gods word, such as the fulfilled prophecy. It may not prove that I am right, to you, but the evidence has convinced over 1/3 of the worlds population. That isn't even the question, in any case. I'm not trying to prove I am right to you. I don't believe there is anything I can do to ever convince you that God exists, or that His name is Jesus Christ. That's the work of the Holy Spirit.

That is what I was explaining to you earlier. It's not an evidence problem, it's a heart problem. God has already given you sufficient evidence to know that He is, and who He is. Only God can change your heart. What He charged me with is to tell you the gospel and give you an answer for the faith that I have.

Religion wants to say they're right and everyone else is wrong. That's nice. A lot of people think they're right and everyone else is wrong. I think I'm right and my supervisor is wrong. The onus is on me to show why I'm right.

I'm glad you've found happiness in your religion. I've found happiness in the way I live which does not require a god or a religion. Who is right? Maybe none of us are right. Maybe we both are right. The lesson is just simply that there are many ways to happiness. There is no single way. Your happiness is not better than my happiness and vice versa. Your happiness does not get to infringe on my happiness and vice versa. This is how we live and get along in the great melting pot. You don't get dominion. you never will. History is quite clear on what happens when a group of people come along and say, live our way..or else. Believe in the same things we believe...or else.

Christians are not called to have dominion. I will of course strongly disagree with immoral laws, but people have the right to govern themselves as they wish. Although this is still a strongly Christian nation, we have a strong secular influence in our government. I accept that as being the reality.

your happiness does not get to trump someone else's happiness. If you let people steal and kill you have a lot of unhappy, and dead people. That's not sustainable and you can't really survive that way. Again, simple morality that does not require a creator. Next question?


You said that it isn't sustainable yet if you look at history you will see that stealing and killing is what we have been doing all along. The point is this..Let's say that the Nazis won the war and conquered the world. Eventually, they won everyone over to their philosophy, and now there is peace on the Earth. The glue that holds everything together is that once a year, they torture a jewish baby to death on camera, which brings great happiness and unity to the entire world. One year the baby died before they could torture it, and there were riots and many, many people were killed. Is it therefore moral to torture that baby to death, since it brings peace and happiness to the entire world?

>> ^VoodooV

You really haven't been paying attention if you think I'm not open to the idea of a god @shinyblurry. The very fact that I'm arguing I don't know, directly implies that I'm an agnostic, not an atheist.

There could be a god. But 1) there has to be proof of the it's existence and 2) Religion and god are two separate things, just because a creator exists doesn't give any more credibility to religion. There are many many religions out there. Assuming one is right, that means many are wrong More than likely, all are wrong. In all likelihood, odds are better that a creator would be more like Cthulhu then some caucasian, gun loving republican. You claim god made us in his image, when in reality, it's far more likely that you made god in our image. The simple truth though is that god is academic. Either he's always been here and it's all part of some ridiculously elaborate pre-destination plan so it doesn't matter what we do as it's all part of the plan, or he doesn't care, or he does, but he doesn't intervene. In each of those cases. The alleged fact of a creator's existence does not affect our lives, at least not any way we're aware of. Nor does a creator suddenly make any of the religions right or true.

Or god doesn't exist and never has. Again...nothing changes. religion still exists in spite of this, they still get together and do their thing and that's fine. Religion is not inherently bad, it's what you DO with religion that is hurtful or helpful. Even if you removed religion from humanity forever. Humanity still has a ton of other things that we do that are part of our lives that have no rational basis in fact but we do it anyway. That's fine...it's part of what makes us human.

The dilemma is not for me to believe, the dilemma is for you and/or your god to prove why I should believe. Especially if you want public policy to be influenced. When public policy is not involved, you have the same freedoms everyone else does. And you can't use the bible to prove you're right. You do know what circular reasoning is and that' it's a fallacy right? You quoting the bible does absolutely nothing other than to show you don't really understand what reasoning and logic is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Religion wants to say they're right and everyone else is wrong. That's nice. A lot of people think they're right and everyone else is wrong. I think I'm right and my supervisor is wrong. The onus is on me to show why I'm right.

I'm glad you've found happiness in your religion. I've found happiness in the way I live which does not require a god or a religion. Who is right? Maybe none of us are right. Maybe we both are right. The lesson is just simply that there are many ways to happiness. There is no single way. Your happiness is not better than my happiness and vice versa. Your happiness does not get to infringe on my happiness and vice versa. This is how we live and get along in the great melting pot. You don't get dominion. you never will. History is quite clear on what happens when a group of people come along and say, live our way..or else. Believe in the same things we believe...or else.

Some people feel it is happier and more productive to steal from or kill each other. Who is right?
your happiness does not get to trump someone else's happiness. If you let people steal and kill you have a lot of unhappy, and dead people. That's not sustainable and you can't really survive that way. Again, simple morality that does not require a creator. Next question?

I wear my seatbelt because the last 3 cars I've bought beep at my constantly until I put the damn thing on.

Also I have to point out that this paints death in a very negative light...surely there are some dead people who would like to speak up at these disparaging images of death...it's purely discriminatory.

>> ^volumptuous:

Wondering when the last time anyone here's been to the symphony or ballet. Other than an occassional one-off cheap/free show for poor kids, tickets are still in the 100's of dollars, especially at Disney Hall. So, tax breaks for organizations who still charge outrageous prices to hear music written by dead people, is very odd.


The only symphonies I've ever attended have been the free ones provided by the San Francisco Symphony. To see why people deserve a tax break for contributing to them, check out the fact sheet about them here that demonstrates some of the great things they do with the money. Note that their concert hall, Davies Symphony Hall was constructed entirely through donations and is owned by the city of San Francisco (which contributed $10 million to the construction).

Wondering when the last time anyone here's been to the symphony or ballet. Other than an occassional one-off cheap/free show for poor kids, tickets are still in the 100's of dollars, especially at Disney Hall. So, tax breaks for organizations who still charge outrageous prices to hear music written by dead people, is very odd.

Yes, of course. I ever so much prefer to get revenge for being poisoned, rather than prevent the poisoning beforehand. Your solutions make the former the only possible approach. Not a world -I- care to live in... The oligarchs have repeatedly proven they are more than willing to inflict any amount of damage on us, if it'll make them a buck or two. Dead people can't sue, you see.

This is why I use the term lunacy to describe libertarianism. The loons ignore all of history and claim that replacing law with civil suits would make everything grand. I suppose I could be more generous and call it naivete, but the result is the same. You ignore history and human nature...just like all utopians, be they capitalist, libertarian, communist or whatever. Utopias only work if human nature changes.

I think Shiny could have said something WAY worse than the link he posted. Not that I'm excusing it. It just seems a little harsh to compare it to the WBC. Although, it's almost more insulting than calling Hitchens a fag, considering that it's not just something said to make people angry, but a reflection of what Shiny actually believes. Hitchens would probably have just brushed it off as sophomoric and one more example of religion having to make fun of dead people rather than doing something Jesus might have done.

The more I debate religion, the more I come around to the conclusion that we all have just had different experiences with it. I was sort of "counter-religion" for years. As a person who was raised Lutheran, my experience with it was pretty positive, except for all the boring afternoons I had to sit in church. I'm a little more tolerant now than I used to be but it did take me almost a decade of religion bashing before I started to feel comfortable with it again. I imagine the recovery is worse for many others. And some people don't really have any experience at all except for what they see and hear from other people.

Now, I'm married to a girl who is still a practicing Lutheran, and we're both OK with each others ideas. We've had some arguments as far as raising our son, but if she wants to take him to church, so be it. No other Lutherans ever told me I was going to hell when I was growing up. They mostly just sang hymns, gave thanks and then sat around drinking coffee and eating cookies.

People are always going to believe crazy shit, religious or not. I think I've learned over the course of my short life that most people are wrong about most things. Every day that passes we learn a little more and every little bit we learn makes us more wrong about many other things. Worrying all the time about who's wrong or right shouldn't be the issue anymore. Just taking ideas and people one at a time, and exploring the value they might contain. Even too much of the best thing is bad (except for god of course, in Shiny's opinion), so we have to be careful about getting hung up of what the worst things are. Because even the worst things usually have a "silver lining" somewhere.

So I say tolerance is the best course of action here. Shiny can't hurt your feelings unless you let him. And he most certainly can't do anything worse.

>> ^Yogi:

Occupy Oakland and Portland have been shut down...the crackdown is on so lets fight back!


That's just fuckn' dumb.

The establishment has already used unrelated violence (suicide and murder) to shut down occupations. All they need now is some dumb shit to start hitting (or worse--by far--shooting at) the cops.

What do you want? Change to the system--or really cool, mass violence.

Non-violent peaceful non-cooperation and resistance will always win in the end. Any try at violent rebellion will bring brutal suppression and the loss of the good will that the majority of Americans feel toward the movement--not to mention many dead people.

@A10anis

Agnosticism is an epistemological position of the uncertainty of knowledge of things. In other words, the nature of knowledge about God, or knowledge in general really, as many above have pointed out (I'm taking it you did read the nice chart above!). Theism or Atheism is a position, either knowingly or unknowing rejecting or accepting the idea of God; one can be explicitly or implicitly atheist (like all children not exposed to the idea are implicitly atheist). Agnostic Atheist is the most common position, but few people have complete understanding of all the concepts involved, or have their own private understandings of what they mean; making any unilateral criticism troublesome. As to the foundations of science and Mathematics, Kurt Gödel had had a great role to play in the destruction of what most peoples concept of certain systems are. And the o so smart Karl Popper ideas on falsifiability has thrown the antique notion of certain truth from science against the wall, in which modern Philosophers of Science, like Hilary Putnam have found intractable to solve, except to say that very little separates, currently, the foundations of science form the foundations of any other dabble of the imagination. Einstein talked about this as well, that wonderment is really the pursuit of all great scientists...not certainty.

As to my original claim, that science has truths it can not rectify, I leave it to better minds to explain the problems of induction. David Hume, Nelson Goodman, and Kurt Gödel drastically changed any view of certain knowledge from science and maths that I had. The untenable nature of the empirical evaluation of reality is just as uncertain as Abrahamic codifications being real.

I close with this, some of the greatest minds in the history of science and philosophy had no problem, nay, drew power from the deep richness they gathered from their faith. It drove them to the limits of the thoughts of their day, René Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, Blaise Pascal, Alan Turing (who kept some vestibules of faith even after what happened to him), Georg Cantor, and countless others all had some "irrational" faith was more than just a ideal system of commands by some dead people, it drove them to greatness, and in many cases to rejection and madness of their "rational" peers. Georg Cantor, the father of the REAL infinite, died in a mental institution only to have his ideas lite a fire in the minds of the next generation of mathematicians.

It is my believe that we all want to have issue with x number of people, and make peace with y number. We elevate the slightest difference, or conversely, ignore a great flaw to peg this mark just right for us. Perhaps my y is just bigger than your x, or most peoples x as I find this debate I have is a common one; for tolerance, peace, and consideration. If you still think what I am saying is non-sense, then I guess we have nothing more to say to one another. I hope I cleared up my thoughts a bit more, I am not very good at communicating things that are more than just the average amount of esoteric.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

You didn't respond to main thrust of my comment. I'll take that to mean you have no coherent response. Instead you've given me a hodgepodge of political slogans.
(I know I shouldn't lavish you with undeserved attention, but I've got a debate jones to satisfy.)
"Tax the rich" All those record profits are doing the economy no good stagnating in corporate coffers. Take that money and pump it into the economy. Use it to create jobs, to repair our crumbling infrastructure, to provide health care. Tax revenue can create jobs when markets fail. It worked in the last great depression. It will work in this depression too.
"Socialism" Nice of you to put words in my mouth. I don't want extreme socialism anymore than I want extreme capitalism. A balanced system that takes advantage of the best of both systems is the wisest.
"Founding fathers" I find it funny that when conservatives come up short in the argument department, that they put words in the mouths of the founding fathers. If your argument cannot stand on it's own then don't make it. Putting words into the mouths of dead people is no more acceptable than putting them into the mouths of the living.
"Tyranny of the majority/Cover for oligarchs" These two stock arguments you've chosen to regurgitate contradict one another. Clearly oligarchs and the people can't both be in charge. You've got to pick one or the other. These types of contradictions reinforce my belief that you are unable to think things through for yourself.


Keep the personal attacks coming, it shows how pathetic your position really is. Debate jones, is that what this is? More like your satisfying your flaming jones, which makes me really question your psychological health.

Fraud and corruption caused the last depression, this depression, and future depressions if left to you. Instead of trying to fight and prevent the fraud, you try to present the problem as a partisan one. And offer solutions sponsored by Wall Street politicians.

You didn't respond to main thrust of my comment. I'll take that to mean you have no coherent response. Instead you've given me a hodgepodge of political slogans.

(I know I shouldn't lavish you with undeserved attention, but I've got a debate jones to satisfy.)

"Tax the rich" All those record profits are doing the economy no good stagnating in corporate coffers. Take that money and pump it into the economy. Use it to create jobs, to repair our crumbling infrastructure, to provide health care. Tax revenue can create jobs when markets fail. It worked in the last great depression. It will work in this depression too.

"Socialism" Nice of you to put words in my mouth. I don't want extreme socialism anymore than I want extreme capitalism. A balanced system that takes advantage of the best of both systems is the wisest.

"Founding fathers" I find it funny that when conservatives come up short in the argument department, that they put words in the mouths of the founding fathers. If your argument cannot stand on it's own then don't make it. Putting words into the mouths of dead people is no more acceptable than putting them into the mouths of the living.

"Tyranny of the majority/Cover for oligarchs" These two stock arguments you've chosen to regurgitate contradict one another. Clearly oligarchs and the people can't both be in charge. You've got to pick one or the other. These types of contradictions reinforce my belief that you are unable to think things through for yourself.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I think my comment was pretty clear. I know further clarification is probably a waste of breath, but so be it. The 'job creator-trickle down' spiel goes like this: If you lower taxes for wealthy people, they make lots of money which they then pump back into the economy in the form of jobs (among other benefits to society).
Well, we've now lived under this assumption for 3 decades now, and while it is clear that cutting taxes does give the wealthy more money, it has failed to produce the promised jobs. On the contrary, it seems to actually have the effect of killing good jobs, either by automating them or sending them overseas to third world slaves. This is probably because the extra money is used to lobby the government, rather that create new jobs.
Another big problem with the 'job creator' argument is that from a business standpoint, you generally only hire as many employees as you need to maximize profits, regardless of how much money you have stagnating in their bank accounts. Hiring more or less help than you need makes little sense.
This is how 'we got here'. We've let business take control of our democracy. With this power, big business has taken us to war, filled it's coffers with public money, given itself all manner of no-bid contracts, subsidies, bail outs and trade deals, has eroded our civil rights, corrupted our courts, monopolized our media, among other horrors. They've deregulated and privatized the financial sector as to allow themselves the freedom to pollute, exploit and swindle.
Capiche?

>> ^marbles:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
The problem with the 'job creators' stratagem is that, with record high wealth/corporate earnings, record low taxes and record high unemployment, it has no obvious basis in reality. It is also delightful to see these protesters dodge his obvious trap, forcing him to awkwardly offer up the payoff without an organic set up. His karma ran over his dogma.

You seem to be oblivious to how we got here. Your argument/position has no obvious basis in reality. Raising taxes doesn't fix anything. It doesn't break up the big banks, stop corporatism, or end the magic money tree called the federal reserve.
It's a delight to frame these serious problems into false partisan arguments?
Nice joke though. But the 90s called and want to know wtf you're talking about.


So let's raise taxes on the rich! That'll teach 'em! And our problems will be fixed.
The most most glaring error in your analysis is that "democracy" got us here.
Socialism is not a remedy. Socialism always has and always will always be a mechanism to consolidate the wealth of the people before looting it.
Our founders didn't set up a "democracy". They recognized the fundamental flaw to "group think". The minority is always at the tyranny of the majority. Protecting the rights of the minority is the only way to preserve the rule of law, and the smallest minority is the individual.
And just like socialism is used to deceive the people, so is democracy. It's political cover for oligarchs. It's not about taking "control of our democracy", for that's the entire point. Democracy is either a false perception or tyranny of the majority. The people lose either way.

Doesn't it bother any of you that you are often listening to dead people laugh? (see link from @JiggaJonson).

BoneRemake's comment pretty much sums up what I think about them too.

at the request of BoneRemake (because my "m night shyalaman is an idiot" rebuttal wasnt long winded enough =P):

sixth sense was "meh" for the following reasons:
"These souls who for whatever reason are not at rest are also not aware that they have passed on. Theyre not part of consciousness as we know it. they linger in a perpetual dream state; a nightmare from which they cannot wake." this may sound familiar. it may sound familiar as the general premise of The Sixth Sense and central to the "twist" (if you could even call it that) ending.

it may also sound familiar as a line from Poltergeist, and also being the central premise of the conflict resolution.
speaking of poltergeist, the open cabinet drawers scene in sixth sense is directly lifted from the moving chairs scene in poltergeist. you may call this an homage, i call it half-assed hackery.

his color reference as hints are just too obvious. theyre vague and ambiguous at first, but once you start noticing em it becomes plainly clear. as for the whole "twist" BRUCE WILLIS IS DEAD OMG YOU FOOLED ME YOU OLD TOSSER i felt it took away from the movie. when i originally went to see the sixth sense with my dad i went to see a tense psychological thriller that would chill me. and for the first 20-30 minutes or so, it did not disappoint..... until my dad and i figured out willis was dead (the "i see dead people" scene gave it away for us). we were dumbfounded at first, wondering what in the hell this had to do with furthering the plot, but we didnt need to wonder anymore once the movie became about bruce willis being all emo about being dead. and the big reveal at the end, considering we already knew, really just made us both scoff. simply put, it was a pretty scare and intense movie when it was about the boy, then it became boring and stupid when it does a 180 and becomes about bruce willis. thats my opinion anyway, tomaytoe-tomawtoe

now having said all of that, there is one, and only one thing, i like about shyalaman: his vision as a director. He's not a genius or anything, but he's pretty damn good. he has a real knack for framing, tone, and pacing. probably the only thing i like about sixth sense was his ability to add tangible tension through masterful pacing and mood setting.
....i take that back. theres two things i liked about sixth sense. the overall directing, and the anniversary dinner scene. that scene really did add an ambiguity to the whole dilemma of willis being dead. on one hand the scene must play out as an emotionally drained wife frustrated (and even pissed off) at her husbands increasing distance. simultaneously she must convey a mournful widow still in grief over her husbands death on their anniversary (and the anniversary of his death if im not mistaken). that scene is legit. but credit must be given to the actress and her portrayal more so than shyalaman because she nailed it beautifully.

whether he makes shitty films or not, sixth sense rocked the boxoffice and gave him some arguably deserved limelight. but his subsequent films proved that he is a one trick pony. his movies became exponentially more and more transparent, more and more boring, and more and more stale, lacking anything of substance. (with the exception of Signs arguably. i personally didnt love it, but i kind of liked it and its a solid enough film if you disregard the shit ending) the fact that his handle of "the twist ending filmmaker" is a passive aggressive insult shows this.

m night shyalaman as a filmmaker just.......sucks. theres really not a better or more concise way to put it. as a director, however, he really does shine......which brings us to devil, a movie in which he wrote and produced but did not direct. so basically the one thing he's actually good at, he didnt fucking do in that movie........and it shows.....its utter shite. at the risk of sounding pretentious, the twist ending (cuz you know theres fucking gonna be one, its a shyalaman movie for christ sake) is so limp and stupid, you can figure it out just from watching the damn trailer (i did).

and as far as the michael bay (barf) comparisons, i think the only difference is this: michael bay knows what he is. he knows exactly what kind of movies he makes. In cinema, motion pictures come in two forms: Films (art form) and movies (entertainment). Michael bay makes the latter, and he knows it, and everyone who watches his movies knows it. shyalaman makes movies masquerading as film. seriously, when your go to device is the plot twist, and you have one in each and every one of your god awful movies, they really lose the "surprise" appeal which utterly defeats the purpose of it in the first place and thus, deserves to be mocked

there, that a thorough enough rebuttal for ya, you crusty bastard? =P

How did this angry ballerina get elected? Chicago must have a surplus of stupid dead people casting votes.

No sane politician would send his kids to a government school, even taxocrats dependent on teacher union votes.