Funny thing is, Santa is asking siri how to get to my house, but I don't live in DC. Stupid computer =\

You may not find him HA HA funny, but you can sure laugh AT him for being a complete tosser.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">

In reply to this comment by spoco2:
>> ^bobknight33:

So at what point was that funny?


Wow, really? Nothing?

Comedy is a funny thing isn't it (ha ha... pun very much intended)?

For instance. Andrew Dice Clay. I have never, ever, EVER seen a single thing he's done that would even slightly move me to laughter, and yet he sold out stadium shows. I SO don't get how he is funny. And yet people do (or at least did).

But people do find it funny.

Same with this, I found it to be quite hilarious, and yet you can't see the humour in it.

Strange.

Maybe you had to see the movies? The Girl With trilogy?

I haven't seen them. I also didn't think this was particularly funny, but I figured it was because of not knowing the references.

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^bobknight33:
So at what point was that funny?

Wow, really? Nothing?
Comedy is a funny thing isn't it (ha ha... pun very much intended)?
For instance. Andrew Dice Clay. I have never, ever, EVER seen a single thing he's done that would even slightly move me to laughter, and yet he sold out stadium shows. I SO don't get how he is funny. And yet people do (or at least did).
But people do find it funny.
Same with this, I found it to be quite hilarious, and yet you can't see the humour in it.
Strange.

>> ^bobknight33:

So at what point was that funny?


Wow, really? Nothing?

Comedy is a funny thing isn't it (ha ha... pun very much intended)?

For instance. Andrew Dice Clay. I have never, ever, EVER seen a single thing he's done that would even slightly move me to laughter, and yet he sold out stadium shows. I SO don't get how he is funny. And yet people do (or at least did).

But people do find it funny.

Same with this, I found it to be quite hilarious, and yet you can't see the humour in it.

Strange.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I'm always looking for an opportunity to quote the great Fagan. This seemed to fit. the funny thing is that a lot of people didn't realize that this song was dark sarcasm.>> ^Ornthoron:

>> ^dag:
Here at home we'll play in the city
Powered by the sun
Perfect weather for a streamlined world
There'll be spandex jackets one for everyone
What a beautiful world this will be
What a glorious time to be free

Yay! Donald Fagen quote! He didn't say in the song that all the spandex jackets would be white, though.

If he could afford $2400 for a camera in the first place, he can afford to replace it. Funny thing is, my $800 Canon can shoot video just as good.

How does a baby fair to the idea of a yes or no statement about a concept he has no idea of? Further, how can you say no to a concept than you don't understand to be true? Moreover, how is abstaining from a decision about something not a 3rd choice? For instance, what do you believe about the cardinality of infinities being infinite as they relate to the divisibility of finite sums? Huh? Not thought about it before? Need more information or time to form an opinion, I know I do. Abstaining from making a choice is not a no, yet, but nor is it a yes. Both yes and no require a justification, and for myself, that justification needs to be something more than just an inclining.

I agree; this is saying "I don't know", which I think is a legitimate answer, and the only intellectually honest one barring actual knowledge. This was my point that the atheist position is "no" to the proposition "does God exist?", which requires a justification.

As to belief, I think you are misusing the word here. Everything one thinks about something is a belief. Belief is the cognitive recognition of an idea. So yes, while the answer to the certain knowledge of God's existence is, indeed yes or no, the tribulation of the human experience is that we have few good ways of "knowing", and for the agnostic, we have no good way of "knowing" God's existence.

This was my position as an agnostic, so I understand what you mean. It was very difficult to even define what truth could be in that mode of thinking. When I understood that truth was a tangible concept that could be grasped, it blew me away. I will say that you have a good way of knowing whether God exists. If you prayed to Jesus and asked Him what the truth is, He would show it to you.

When I refer to knowing, I refer back to the Cartesian understanding of knowledge (which has been challenged rather unsuccessfully, imo, by Popper); justified, true, belief. True is uppercase true, belief is cognitively asserting the true belief, and justified is a more complex idea in that you need some way of asserting this IS the way it has to be and not some other, a possition that can't be reduced away froml by reductio ad absurdum, for example, or any other means.

The tension is between the objective and the subjective viewpoint. To define a universal concept such as truth, you would need an objective viewpoint. God is the only being which could have such a viewpoint, so therefore, unless God tells us, we have no way of knowing. Finite human beings are locked into their subjective bias. We cannot get outside of the Universe to look in and see what is really going on.

I do agree, however, that many atheists like to posit the position that God, indeed, does not exist. That would require some evidence as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Yes, they do like to posit that. When asked for that evidence however, they like to say they merely "lack belief", which is meaningless. Basically, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to say no to the question of whether God exists but escape the burden of proof. That is what this "lack of belief" is all about. It's not an "i don't know", it's a "no, but i dont have to provide any evidence for that".

There is no compelling reason, to me, to decide either way. So in that, I am an Atheist because there is no overwhelming compelling story, beyond all doubt, what the idea of God should even be. I am Agnostic because I don't think there is a way we will ever be able to know. This is one area I would hope to be wrong on. I would prefer there to be some order, some cause, some point to life beyond some cosmic hapistance, but so far, I have no real reason to believe either story; purpose or accident.

That you're interested in the truth, and you are open to what it could be, is a very good thing. When I was agnostic, I felt much the same way. When I found out God is real, I wasn't even specifically looking for Him. I was searching for that truth and it ended up finding me. God rewards that open mindedness, that curiosity and drive to know what is real. What I suggested above is the shortcut; just ask Him and He will show you.

By the way, there is a whole area of computer science based in this idea. Multi-valued logic is my current area of study for developing asynchronous computing systems. The Aristotelian view of logic; of values being true or false, is, like I mentioned before, still the ontological certain position of outcomes (if you don't consider Turing's halting problem that is), but many times, the certainty of outcomes isn't needed to continue process on some other value of computing (like waiting on the slow ass system clock, when the ram is ready for more data from the bus, which is also ready). In that same way, I realize the great value in answering the question of God, it forever consumes my thoughts, but this doesn't have to halt me to processed onto other thoughts without a current answer. Humans are, in fact, natures most amazing asymmetric processor after all

I agree, and I will submit to you that all other truths are relevant to this question, and in fact, their ultimate reality could only be determined by the answer to that question. The funny thing about it is, the answer to it could only ever be yes. If it is no, you will never hear about it. The only thing you will ever hear is yes.

Your work sounds highly interesting. Could you direct me to any resources which would describe it in more detail?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Hey @hpqp, I'd like to thank you for your reply and let you know I plan to have a furthering of that discussion when I get off work (on lunch break), but I had to address @shinyblurry rock argument.
How does a baby fair to the idea of a yes or no statement about a concept he has no idea of? Further, how can you say no to a concept than you don't understand to be true? Moreover, how is abstaining from a decision about something not a 3rd choice? For instance, what do you believe about the cardinality of infinities being infinite as they relate to the divisibility of finite sums? Huh? Not thought about it before? Need more information or time to form an opinion, I know I do. Abstaining from making a choice is not a no, yet, but nor is it a yes. Both yes and no require a justification, and for myself, that justification needs to be something more than just an inclining.
As to belief, I think you are misusing the word here. Everything one thinks about something is a belief. Belief is the cognitive recognition of an idea. So yes, while the answer to the certain knowledge of God's existence is, indeed yes or no, the tribulation of the human experience is that we have few good ways of "knowing", and for the agnostic, we have no good way of "knowing" God's existence.
When I refer to knowing, I refer back to the Cartesian understanding of knowledge (which has been challenged rather unsuccessfully, imo, by Popper); justified, true, belief. True is uppercase true, belief is cognitively asserting the true belief, and justified is a more complex idea in that you need some way of asserting this IS the way it has to be and not some other, a possition that can't be reduced away froml by reductio ad absurdum, for example, or any other means.
I do agree, however, that many atheists like to posit the position that God, indeed, does not exist. That would require some evidence as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no compelling reason, to me, to decide either way. So in that, I am an Atheist because there is no overwhelming compelling story, beyond all doubt, what the idea of God should even be. I am Agnostic because I don't think there is a way we will ever be able to know. This is one area I would hope to be wrong on. I would prefer there to be some order, some cause, some point to life beyond some cosmic hapistance, but so far, I have no real reason to believe either story; purpose or accident.
By the way, there is a whole area of computer science based in this idea. Multi-valued logic is my current area of study for developing asynchronous computing systems. The Aristotelian view of logic; of values being true or false, is, like I mentioned before, still the ontological certain position of outcomes (if you don't consider Turing's halting problem that is), but many times, the certainty of outcomes isn't needed to continue process on some other value of computing (like waiting on the slow ass system clock, when the ram is ready for more data from the bus, which is also ready). In that same way, I realize the great value in answering the question of God, it forever consumes my thoughts, but this doesn't have to halt me to processed onto other thoughts without a current answer. Humans are, in fact, natures most amazing asymmetric processor after all <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/teeth.gif">
Ok, rant over! Back to work, slave!

>> ^LooiXIV:

The funny thing is that the original point of the electoral college was so separate actual citizen voters from the actual decision process as much as possible. When the electoral college was first conceived and implemented voters actually voted for people who they thought would pick a good president, not the actual president. Eventually, voters were just voting for the representative that would choose the president that they wanted so the "middle man" was removed, and with a lil' hoocus povcus we have the electoral college we have today. The truth of the matter is that the "Founding Fathers" did not really trust commoners/the voters to make the best decisions; so they made things like the electoral college to try and remove voters away from the decision process. Whether or not this is actually a good idea, a moral idea, or even an effective to achieving their goals is an entirely different matter. I'm just saying the system that the United States has is miss-representative, and kind of shitty by design...


Well you got it mostly right, the fact is we're not suppose to be a democracy. We are suppose to be constitutional republic of individual sovereign states with democratic checks and balances. Democracy ≠ freedom.

The funny thing is that the original point of the electoral college was so separate actual citizen voters from the actual decision process as much as possible. When the electoral college was first conceived and implemented voters actually voted for people who they thought would pick a good president, not the actual president. Eventually, voters were just voting for the representative that would choose the president that they wanted so the "middle man" was removed, and with a lil' hoocus povcus we have the electoral college we have today. The truth of the matter is that the "Founding Fathers" did not really trust commoners/the voters to make the best decisions; so they made things like the electoral college to try and remove voters away from the decision process. Whether or not this is actually a good idea, a moral idea, or even an effective to achieving their goals is an entirely different matter. I'm just saying the system that the United States has is miss-representative, and kind of shitty by design...

>> ^ctrlaltbleach:

He actually kind of sounds like Hunter when he talks if you ask me.
>> ^alien_concept:
A comment on youtube asks why Depp has taken on the voice of John Lennon. It's weird, sometimes he really has! Guess it's doing so many British films and talking a lot of French at home, does funny things...



For the rest of the time, definitely!

He actually kind of sounds like Hunter when he talks if you ask me.
>> ^alien_concept:

A comment on youtube asks why Depp has taken on the voice of John Lennon. It's weird, sometimes he really has! Guess it's doing so many British films and talking a lot of French at home, does funny things...

A comment on youtube asks why Depp has taken on the voice of John Lennon. It's weird, sometimes he really has! Guess it's doing so many British films and talking a lot of French at home, does funny things...

Or I could quote a myriad of things Obama said when running for office and either didn't do or did the exact opposite. Promising change through appointing different people than those who had been there, but then appointing Summers, Geithner, etc. He needed guys who understood the economy to deal with the crisis, even if they wouldn't institute radical change to get us through the crisis.

It's called politics. Candidates say things to get elected, and they end up doing something else for a lot of reasons. Sometimes it's outright pandering, sometimes they realize their initial conceptions were wrong, etc.

And I don't mean this as an anti-Obama statement, because a lot of politicians have said things but did another, and they ended up being good presidents. Bush Sr. with his "read my lips, no new taxes" bit, got into office, realized he had to raise taxes for the good of the country, and he did it. I'd rather him reverse directions once he realized it was a bad idea than stick to his guns stubbornly.

But anyone who can read between the lines and isn't an ideologue knows Romney isn't looking to eradicate Medicare. And the funny thing is I don't particularly even like Romney! LOL...

I'm not cynical and hopeless. I'm ideally hoping of a return of the time when Americans would actually have honest, open debate instead of this crap. And I guess that's my point. There's too much activism and too little honest discussion in our society when it comes to politics.

P.S. Since you're obviously a big Obama supporter, we're well aware you're "all ears." BOOM! :-) (Sorry, had to beat qm to the punch.)

>> ^NetRunner:

Do I try to google Mitt Romney and medicare, and start linking it?

The funny thing is .. he has to get that thing out of there again...

The funny thing about the video, though, is that Freddiew pulls *back* on the stick (ie. towards himself/down) intending to control the helicopter to go up. Therefore, it's Freddiew who is actually the one playing inverted and Brandon is just an unwitting scapegoat for Freddiew's mistake. Oops! (: