The December update highlighted an issue that has been driving me insane for years now, an issue that makes me want to punch my fellow citizens right in the kisser for not looking beyond the facade.

His illustration of the price you pay for a t-shirt can be applied, without alteration, to our energy sector in Germany. The old, centralised infrastructure, primarily coal/gas/nuclear power plants, were subsidized heavily over the years, both directly through interest-free public loans and the privatisation of the energy grid as well as through indirect means, such as tax/insurance exemptions, R&D financing. Hell, the clean-up at Sellafield in the UK alone is expected to cost just shy of £100B. All this outsourcing of costs made it possible to keep the price of energy comparably cheap.

Meanwhile, all the subsidies for renewable energy are added on top of the energy price for consumers. No smoke screens, no outsourcing, no legacy costs. You get the price tag on your energy bill. A decent level of transparency, at last. But now people get pissed at the high prices of energy and demand a stop to the renewable energy program, which ironically pushed prices to a record low on the energy exchange. On-shore wind and solar are now cheaper than heavily subsidized coal and gas. My home town in the middle of nowhere generates wind power at 0.08€ per kwh, all year long, with minimal operating costs. Even solar works splendidly, despite the abysmal central European weather.

I think I might just try his Walmart explanation on some people, it's much easier to understand.

So cheers again for pointing out this wonderful series of lectures.

When responsible people screw up, they make things right. Else, they really should not do anything in the first place. The UN and NGOs really have done more harm than good to Haiti and many have used the facade of doing good to enrich themselves: *related=http://videosift.com/video/How-did-the-Red-Cross-Spend-in-Haiti

Skyclad
Historically, Witches worked Naked, and there are many references to naked Witches standing on their clothes. In a few illustrations, the Witches are clothed in the clothing of their time, but examination of the drawings indicates that the artist rarely knew a real Witch.
Gardner introduced the term Skyclad into the Craft in the 1950's with the reference to "Witches worship naked which is called in the East (Indonesia), 'Skyclad'" and the term stuck as a poetic way to refer to ritual nudity. Witches worshipped Skyclad in 1950's and today, but in the 70s, the Welsh and American Celtic Witches began to wear robes, which became the standard way to worship for years. By the late '70s, the Feminist Witches began to experiment with Skyclad worship, so by the late 80’s about half of the American and European Witches worship Skyclad.
There are a number of reasons for nudity, the first being that in the Charge, which was written by Doreen Valiente from older sources, The Goddess said,
"And as a sign that ye be truly free, ye shall be naked in your rites."

This Charge is so beautiful that many Witches who reject the Gardnerian Traditions, retain the Charge as one of the few declamations that, if not directly from the Goddess, was unquestionably inspired by Her. Thus, the argument follows that we MUST worship naked because it is the will of the Goddess whom we love.

This argument is countered by a later version of the Charge that says,
"as a sign that ye be really free, ye shall be equal in your rites."
However, this is a later American version not as originally written.
A more convincing counter to the Charge is simply to reject the Charge outright.
Reject all Traditional and Gardnerian ideas, so it is then easy reject nudity as well.

A second reason for ritual nudity is the practical one. Witches all over the world often report that naked is safer.
In rites where I have been robed there have been accidents, incidents where a person stepping on the hem of another’s robe, and causes them to trip. In a nine-foot Circle, if one person goes down, usually all follow.  

Naked people are more aware of their surroundings, so you step more carefully and bang into the Altar and others less than clothed Witches.
You feel the heat of candles, as opposed to not detecting the heat until after your robe is in flames, so it is simply safer to be naked.
At Sabbat where we had three Covens worshipping together in Circle, some were from our Outer Court, so wore robes. During the rite, one woman stood too close to the West candle and set her robe on fire. She did manage to extinguish the flames with little disruption, but I did hear about the accident after the rite ended.

The magickal reason for nudity is that anything worn upon the body will interfere with and change the energy given off by the body. This includes clothes, make-up, perfumes, jewelry, glasses, contact lenses and so on.
This argument is quite logically countered by stating, “energy that can pass through a wall, cover miles of distance, and influence another person would not be stopped by a layer of cloth. “ Consider the greater awareness of your surroundings, being closer emotionally and physicality to the others in the circle. Being able to raise energy without the distraction of avoiding stepping on robes or pulling your sleeve up to keep in out of the candle flame.
Think of the Coven body, mind, and spirit that must generate a tremendous amount of power to send that spell over that distance. Once the Cone of Power is sent the spell won’t be deflected, but it can be deflected at the source by a relatively little. In other words, wearing clothing or non-craft jewelry or non-consecrated materials can easily deflect or alter the power that leaves the Circle. The spell, when it reaches its target, may be different or it may even reach a different target.
Nudity is rarely sexual, after ten minutes the naked Witch becomes bored with seeing bare breasts and genitals and is then free to work. A woman wearing a robe that cuts low in the front and is slit up the side to her hips will introduce into the Coven an attitude of sexual desire to the men as they try to see a nipple or thigh that, by being hidden, is desirable but when revealed by nudity is simply another body part. The men, in this situation, may have difficulty concentrating on the work in an effort to see what is barely hidden. Similar things occur in the female mind when the situation is reversed, though women are often trained to deny these thoughts to others and even to themselves.
There are Psychological factors to Nudity are that the people must accept themselves as they are or change themselves. It is difficult to put on a facade when you are denied a girdle, bra, wig, make-up, deodorant, aftershave, codpiece or other enhancements to your image. Once naked, the individual with their sags, and bulges shines and, becomes themselves and not a mask. 
When working magik, it is vital to know yourself and accept your own good and ill, for to attempt the path with false illusions will cause trouble when your subconscious rebels and forces your work to conform to a hidden truth.
To be naked indicates freedom from conventional mundane thought. When clothed in a suit or dress, you conform to societies expectations and become what they wish you to become. Your style of dress and hairstyle are a reflection, not of your own desires, but of what your peers wish you to be.
Equality between class and gender is assured when naked, as the rich no longer have jewels to show their class worth, and Women must face men as equals, both showing their inadequacies and realizing that the other sex is just as physically imperfect as you are. With this barrier down, men and women can accept each other as equals.
Once naked, you are free to place your mind into a sphere of magickal thought. A place between the worlds where the God and Goddess are not symbols hanging on a wall but REAL DIVINITIES, where all is possible.
It is necessary to be clothed at times; in public or when outdoors in winter it may be necessary to be clothed to allow the mind to concentrate on the goal and not to be thinking that the body is slowly freezing to death.
When this is necessary to wear a robe, it should be one that interferes with magik and mind as little as possible. It is best to wear a plain robe that is exactly the same as all others. To make a personal robe will introduce ego and class or sexual differences into the rite.
There are some uses to wearing robes. The simple act of putting on a robe that is reserved only for Ritual use causes the inner mind to awaken and to develop the attitude that "Now the mundane world is behind me, it is time for the magickal world to appear." This can be very effective to your working and will counter some of the physical drawbacks of wearing robes. If all are wearing identical robes, the attitude of equality within, 'the group' is enhanced, for there is nothing different between the people or sexes.
The robe must also be of a natural material such as cotton or wool since synthetics cause a great deal of interference with the power. A simple list of materials which will interfere with magickal power when worn from the least to the greatest effect is as follows: cotton, wool, conductive metals from silver, gold, copper, iron, synthetic materials such as nylon, or rayon, and Silk though a natural material is a strong magickal insulator.
In today’s world, you will find Witches who work Skyclad, robed, in costumes and even in their street clothes. Street clothes however; bring into the Circle all the influences that have become attached to those clothes over the day. These influences will affect your workings as well as your mind because the subconscious will see no difference between the mundane and the magickal, and as we spend most of our time in the mundane world, it is easy to see which will win.


"Nudity establishes a closeness and honesty among conveners and 'is a sign that a witches loyalty is to the truth before any ideology or any comforting illusions.” Starhawk.

Night photo of scene, Yellow Tarp is covering Trayvon's body.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/gallery/trayvon-martin-crime-scene-photos/slide_305143_2617618
_free.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mediaite.com/online/trayvon-martin-crime-scene-pictures-shown-to-jury-graphic-photos/&h=399&w=600&sz=78&tbnid=gTA2MCebV
ELF2M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=135&zoom=1&usg=__A7K2FL0q-9QTbs1LWEQMyT24-bk=&docid=lg7SLr3w8FMIgM&sa=X&ei=Mc_kUc3fHrKl4AP13YHACA&ved=0CDAQ9QEwAQ&dur=248


Daytime photo of scene:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://transferstation.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/spot-of-shooting.jpg&imgrefurl=http://marinadedave.com/journal/
2012/3/22/the-tragedy-of-trayvon-martin.html&h=1350&w=1800&sz=2038&tbnid=m1IKo5J0-675KM:&tbnh=94&tbnw=125&zoom=1&usg=__9IeX8ZPcjYhuuxVgrG-pvk6zszI=&do
cid=Qi5fmgt8p5KwWM&sa=X&ei=Mc_kUc3fHrKl4AP13YHACA&ved=0CE0Q9QEwCg&dur=16

So, not hedges blocking view on sides, but fences and building facades. Small trees to some degree blocking view. Generally and unlit walkway/footpath/alley overall.

As for definition of Alley: An alley or alleyway is a narrow lane found in urban areas, often for pedestrians only, which usually runs between or behind buildings

So I guess you can argue how narrow it has to be to be "narrow" and how "urban" this area is. The buildings aren't sky scrapers, but they rival the height of some of the buildings in the wiki pictures.

I'll take a few extra cookies for doing the looking up you could have done.

God, this thread....It's rather mind-numbing-

"And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird (and Wolf)." Rev: 18:12, choggiphrased

Let this 134rth comment go down on record as another reiteration of the fact that CNN is nothing more than a programming organization, with so-called "news" as a facade for an agenda to render it' s viewers cognitively sterile through stultifyingly, surfeited horseshit.

More please Blitzor, on that mother who held her daughter like a kite by the hair to keep her in the bathtub??

Wowwwwww. She fell down. I fell down once. We have Soooooooooo much in common. I can like, totally relate to her.

She does seem like a genuinely funny and sweet woman. Then again, she is an oscar winning actress so it could all be a facade.

Quite true, it's particularly chic for some people to go around telling everyone how much of a "Geek" they are these days, but both the video and the book it's based on (I've read it) state that nobody is 100% one or the other. There are probably lots of people out there who manage to function like an extrovert much of the time but in reality are pretty introverted in nature and maintaining that extroverted facade can be very exhausting.
I'd consider myself to be an introvert and I also suffer from social anxiety or even shyness in certain social circumstances, and I certainly don't consider myself "special", at least not in a good way.
The book does a pretty good job of not making judgements about either one being good or bad but does outline the pros and cons of each personality type.

People, people, people. Walmart is not the REASON the entire civilised world is finding itself in this situation - walmart is a symptom of the problem.

Walmart is an organisation motivated by profit just like any other.

I heard energy companies posting record profits year in and year out before the recession. There's people at the upper ends of those kinds of companies taking wages, bonuses, pensions and god-knows-what that some people couldn't make in 10 years. They don't deserve it, they don't work 10 times harder then the next person down, but there is a culture of taking what you can.

People don't need that kind of wealth, they just want it. Now, in times of hardship, energy companies are demanding more money for their services because they are no longer making the profit they used to. Instead of relying on the wealth that they have amassed during times of good, they rely on us to give them more.

So they cut a load of jobs to maximise their profits, but now the people they fired can't afford their energy bills. And this is going on all over the place - it isn't just the energy companies, it's also walmart with whatever schemes they've got. It's the oil companies and the politicians with whatever schemes they've got.

And all these schemes intermix, people losing jobs, people unable to afford this here and there because we've stagnated our money, there was no trickle down wealth, it's stagnated so much that there's not enough available anymore to share between the people that need it.

So now the government starts giving out handouts to the elderly or unemployed - £300 for your winter heating bill. But that's a huge amount of money so we need to raise taxes - which is a solution to nothing but puts the problem further ahead and maybe you can work harder later to make up for it.

Meanwhile, half the jobs that are getting taxed are now moved abroad because production is cheaper there. So entire markets of jobs no longer exist, we lost all of our car manufacturers, coal mines (it's cheaper from china), etc. which amounts to millions of jobs, and there's not a lot left to tax. What's the solution now? Which country do we bail out with borrowed money that is earning interest? If the untold billions in profit was returned to the customers back when times were good, we wouldn't be in this situation. But instead it went towards making let's say 30 individual people a lot richer.

Do you see where i'm going with this? It's a culture of greed, and each point down the line there is just enough intentional maneuverability for people to take more than you deserve and/or need; you either are in the clique, in the power scheme, taking cash - or you're not and you're holding up the facade. This isn't what a society is meant to be - it's meant to be a group of people working for their own common benefit because when we don't we all suffer and no one is happy.

This model has a short life-cycle; the eventual result is a few people having a lot of little bits of green paper that don't mean anything because they've forced everyone into abject poverty.

"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they will never sit in."
It doesn't get any simpler than that. Until these old men start planting some trees and giving a LOT back, we will stagnate and you don't want to learn this implied lesson the hard way.

OK, to be the advocate for sexism or whatever here (please forgive me)

As long as men continue to like sexy girls, or sexy things or girls or get turned on in the smallest way by girls and especially when they are sexy...

And as long as there are girls out there who want to be noticed, or get some attention, or feel admiration, or feel wanted, or seek the approval of others for one reason or another....

There will always be a market that uses and exploits that piece of human biological urgings to make money and sell stuff.

And in turn, as long as it continues to sell and make money, they will not only continue to do it, but increase it's existence in the market to the point where they influence society or they cause violent backlash. The fact is as long as there is the urge to seek out sexy/attractive women in hopes of finding a suitable mate, men will not be part of the backlash unless society shames all men for being who they biologically are.

The harm comes when men cease to look past the costuming and fail to see the real human being and emotions behind the facade. Any man who has been in a long-time relationship can identify with this. It's all fun and games until time passes and life gets serious, kids are made (and loved) and your relationship evolves past the "only for sex" attraction. Some women will continue to dress for or tease their man, but most get tired of the charade because they want to bee seen for something other than their body (which has gone through many life-changes and may no longer reflect who they are or want to be). Men in turn, have a hard time dealing with this because although they love full on, their hormones continue to rage, even after women mature and want something deeper - emotionally.

Although me do mature emotionally as well, our hormones still dictate to us. So my point is, like it or not, men are attracted to females, and if the females make themselves look more attractive, then our response doubles. Even if we don't act upon it, the biological attraction still exists.

...And there will almost always be someone there to exploit that.

How anyone could even imagine Afghanistan embracing the tenets of the west is beyond me. These are uneducated bronze age people with an, almost, surreal grasp on the past. They will resort back to their ancient doctrine, practices and inter faction feuding. The "Arab spring" revolts were looked on, by many, as a blow for democracy. But, looking at countries involved (Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, etc.) it seems clear that, though they want the wests help, they are clearly anti-west and will demonstrate their dislike once the extremist elements take charge. The facade of democratic intent is simply that. I always felt, and still do, that we involve ourselves in these countries at our peril. Of course I am not naive enough to not realise that the west have interests, but do the benefits outweigh the dangers?

>> ^Issykitty:

^Wow, @UsesProzac! That is sooo cool!


I like the Sift because here, Philip Glass is cool. I went by myself to that concert I was talking about earlier. Woe!

I think the way I'd put it is that I disagree that "Hegelian dialectic" is being appropriately used in the video. Here is a nice concise introduction to the concept. It's an alternative method for reasoning, and therefore is about trying to reach a better understanding of truth -- it has nothing to do with psychology, politics, or trying to control people.

The triadic structure of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis can, if you squint a bit, be re-purposed as a general theory about how political and scientific progress happens. First you have a thesis (e.g. "property is the only right"), then you have an antithesis ("property is theft"), and once people realize that while both positions contain insights, neither absolute position is fully correct, and so we generate a new thesis that combines the valid insights of each -- a synthesis ("a right to property is one of many rights, and without limits can and will infringe on those other rights"). But that's not a Hegelian Dialectic, that's just a slightly stilted way at looking at how "classical" reasoning sometimes plays out in the real world.

All that said, none of this serves to support the thesis that modern conceptions of the political left and right have been invented in order to achieve some sort of nefarious synthesis. Worse, if you think it's a Hegelian Dialectical synthesis we're heading for, then not only is it not a Reichstag fire, it's a giant leap forward in humanity's understanding of itself, because we will have figured out how to simultaneously resolve the left's criticisms of society (not enough equality in wealth and power), and the right's (too many people disputing the rightful distribution of wealth and power that arises from market action), though personally I don't think the resolution of that thesis/antithesis conflict will result in synthesis, just in the right's thesis being discarded. Again.

Long story short, if this is the foundation for a conspiracy theory, it's already gone way out into left field before it's even gotten started.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
The Shock Doctrine and disaster capitalism are a lot more precise concepts than this. The idea behind the Shock Doctrine isn't that all conceptions of left and right are a distraction from the so-called "real" issues, it's where you foment a series of national crises in order to subvert the mechanisms of democracy in order to implement radical policies that would only be acquiesced to when people were in a state of shock.

In the case of disaster capitalism, you actually get a nice feedback loop. Deregulate markets, newly deregulated markets crash and create an economic crisis, and new "reforms" which further deregulate markets are proposed as the solution to the crisis created by the last round of deregulation. See all economic policy proposed by Republicans since the 1980's for examples.

There's also a burden of proof fallacy at work here. 3 cherry-picked quotes from Bush and Kerry on Iraq does not a conspiracy make. The political divide in the country in 2004 over Iraq clearly had the "stay forever" and "get out now" poles to it. That the Democratic candidate was moderate and said merely "don't stay forever", is more a sign of there being a right-wing conspiracy rigging elections and corrupting the Democratic party, not that the very idea of left and right having policy disagreements is some sort of elaborate distraction.

The thing I'm sensing in a lot of liberals these days is the sense that even when we win elections, we're still pretty much getting Republican policies rammed down our throats. We're even doing this thing where we Occupy places in protest of the 1% corrupting our political process and subverting the will of the people...


hey man,
i cant tell if you are agreeing with the video or not.
i am going to guess on the negative.
which kind of confuses me because the video is really just laying out what the hegelian dialectic is and how it can be used to be a lever of control.(sans the ron paul filler at the end).
i found it a pretty short but succinct in its intended goal to educate.

your descriptions of "shock doctrine" and "disaster capitalism" are correct but your premise seems to ignore that both utilize the hegelian dialectic to execute properly in to a society.

example:
problem (thesis)<------------------> reaction (antithesis)

but what if the institution meant to execute the reaction is the very same institution which created the problem,and hence is in the position to offer a solution? a solution which may have been the very thing they were after in the first place?

see where i am going with this?
so while in one scenario the problem is a creation,a facade, (shock doctrine) and the other (disaster capitalism) is an opportunistic leap for control,BOTH utilize the hegelian dialectic to accomplish their goals.

i am not a huge admirer of hegel (ok,i think he is a cunt) but he did understand human beings and the societies they live in because his predictions have played out quite accurately,when placed in the right context.

my thinking behind posting that video was to help people become aware of those levers of control.the philosophy behind those who wish to dominate and control the masses.
the more you know and all that jazz.

once you understand the hegelian dialectic and HOW it is used,you will see it in places and used in ways that prior you would have thought impossible.
it is used by those in power often and extremely well.

anyways.i just wanted to drop a note to you because either i misunderstood your comment or i am just a tad retarded.
in either case my friend,know that i love your commentary and i especially love your optimism.
really..keep up the optimism.my cynicism needs a dose every now and then.
peace brother.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
The Shock Doctrine and disaster capitalism are a lot more precise concepts than this. The idea behind the Shock Doctrine isn't that all conceptions of left and right are a distraction from the so-called "real" issues, it's where you foment a series of national crises in order to subvert the mechanisms of democracy in order to implement radical policies that would only be acquiesced to when people were in a state of shock.

In the case of disaster capitalism, you actually get a nice feedback loop. Deregulate markets, newly deregulated markets crash and create an economic crisis, and new "reforms" which further deregulate markets are proposed as the solution to the crisis created by the last round of deregulation. See all economic policy proposed by Republicans since the 1980's for examples.

There's also a burden of proof fallacy at work here. 3 cherry-picked quotes from Bush and Kerry on Iraq does not a conspiracy make. The political divide in the country in 2004 over Iraq clearly had the "stay forever" and "get out now" poles to it. That the Democratic candidate was moderate and said merely "don't stay forever", is more a sign of there being a right-wing conspiracy rigging elections and corrupting the Democratic party, not that the very idea of left and right having policy disagreements is some sort of elaborate distraction.

The thing I'm sensing in a lot of liberals these days is the sense that even when we win elections, we're still pretty much getting Republican policies rammed down our throats. We're even doing this thing where we Occupy places in protest of the 1% corrupting our political process and subverting the will of the people...


hey man,
i cant tell if you are agreeing with the video or not.
i am going to guess on the negative.
which kind of confuses me because the video is really just laying out what the hegelian dialectic is and how it can be used to be a lever of control.(sans the ron paul filler at the end).
i found it a pretty short but succinct in its intended goal to educate.

your descriptions of "shock doctrine" and "disaster capitalism" are correct but your premise seems to ignore that both utilize the hegelian dialectic to execute properly in to a society.

example:
problem (thesis)<------------------> reaction (antithesis)

but what if the institution meant to execute the reaction is the very same institution which created the problem,and hence is in the position to offer a solution? a solution which may have been the very thing they were after in the first place?

see where i am going with this?
so while in one scenario the problem is a creation,a facade, (shock doctrine) and the other (disaster capitalism) is an opportunistic leap for control,BOTH utilize the hegelian dialectic to accomplish their goals.

i am not a huge admirer of hegel (ok,i think he is a cunt) but he did understand human beings and the societies they live in because his predictions have played out quite accurately,when placed in the right context.

my thinking behind posting that video was to help people become aware of those levers of control.the philosophy behind those who wish to dominate and control the masses.
the more you know and all that jazz.

once you understand the hegelian dialectic and HOW it is used,you will see it in places and used in ways that prior you would have thought impossible.
it is used by those in power often and extremely well.

anyways.i just wanted to drop a note to you because either i misunderstood your comment or i am just a tad retarded.
in either case my friend,know that i love your commentary and i especially love your optimism.
really..keep up the optimism.my cynicism needs a dose every now and then.
peace brother.

Too bad this is a pre-written, speech.
I though we were going to see the real person behind the facade but this comes off very static and posed (fake). I'm sure her sentiments are real, but the words sound like she is reading from a story book..

>> ^shinyblurry:

So you're okay with people searching for truth so long as they don't find any answers? Why is it okay for you to say there isn't one true God but it is not okay for me to say that there is? To say this is tolerance is a facade; your tolerance ends when what I believe says you are wrong. The truth is by nature exclusive; just as there is one right answer to 2+2 and an infinite number of wrong answers, it is the same way as to the question of who God is. There is only one right answer, so why should you be surprised, shocked or outraged that I claim it is Jesus Christ, and that His words are truth? And if I sincerely believe that truth, why should you be offended when I claim He is the only way? That is what you would expect a sincere Christian to say, just as a sincere atheist will deny it. We both believe we are right, so why are you more right than I am? Why don't you find people who deny there is one truth, abhorrant? Would you accept other answers to 2 + 2?
>> ^spoco2:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm surprised that atheists enjoy them, considering the explicitly spiritual and christian themes interwoven into their music

Because they are songs sung in general terms of 'A god' and 'A maker' and themes common to people who think and struggle with faith. They do not sing anything like 'Jesus is my lord, he will save me'.
It may be hard for you to fathom, but we have no issue with people searching for or finding solace in faith, what we find abhorrent is people like you who have decided that what they believe IS TRUE and that THEIR BELIEF states that other people are sinful persons bound for an eternity in hellfire.
Their songs are passionate and heartfelt... and I would be not at all surprised to find that in future they have ones that deal with a struggle with and perhaps disillusionment with faith... or not, don't mind either way.
If they become preachy, if they start trying to suggest that they know the one true lord, then they'll lose me.
Up until then I just love their music. As I'm sure you love many things in this world created by athiests



You THINK you know the truth of there even being a god, and you believe you know who this god is. But these are THOUGHTS and are not backed up by ANYTHING whatsoever. 2+2 = 4 is backed up by being able to SHOW it... you can take 2 beads, take another 2 beads, count them, and have 4 beads.

You cannot point at ANYTHING and say 'See, there's my proof that there is a god, he is the one in the bible, and that is true'.

And I said that it was fine for you to believe that there was one true god. Go right ahead and believe that you have found that 'truth'. It's your forcing of YOUR belief in this on others, this belief that cannot be shown to be true in any way. This belief of yours that a man who sleeps with another man is damned to hell forever and so should be feared and scorned is horrible.

My beliefs, those of science and observable phenomenon, do not say anything about how people choose to live their lives. My morals state that anyone is free to be with whoever they want to. They can live however they want, including believing in an invisible man in the sky with a long, flowing beard, as long as that way of living doesn't try to do harm to others.

You are doing harm to others. Mumford and Sons are not.