*related=http://videosift.com/video/War-Human-Nature-Crash-Course-World-History-204

*related=http://videosift.com/video/The-Cold-War-Crash-Course-World-History

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Crash-Course-World-War-II

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Crash-Course-World-War-I

I'm glad at least your salient points have some real significance and depth, but I still think you have an unrealistic view of humanity.

Human nature is what it has evolved to be, a complex system of values and emotions dictated by your genes, environment, and life experiences.

That's the origin of your philosophy and mine. As nice as it is to imagine that the world would be a wonderful place if they all had the same compassion you have, it's just not something that can or would ever be a reality because everyone, same as you and me, cannot just dictate their core beliefs to their subconscious.

Even if I agreed that I should think as you do (and I don't), would that mean whenever I have a natural, instinctive opinion about something that doesn't conform to your beliefs I'm supposed to pretend or go to a re-education camp until I really do believe?

There's a place called North Korea where they force everyone to think a specific way or pretend they do, and it just doesn't work. That's not human nature.

Here is a longer 18 minute video of more of Senator Burr's questions to the witnesses. I wish I could find the full hearing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1m0Gxtsz1A

It includes this little gem from Senator Burr, "The American system HAS access to healthcare for everybody, it's called the Emergency Room. Now we don't admit that because clearly we are lobbying for a particular angle, but every American can access healthcare."

Nice slight of hand there Senator, only difference is whenever I go to the emergency room (I live in Canada), I don't get a bill in the mail a few weeks later that I have to pay.

The average American ER visit costs $600 dollars in 2009, today it's probably well more than that, and that's just for simple problems. Anything more serious than a urinary tract infection and you are going to be paying thousands of dollars.

I'm a bit late to the party, but I'll give my 2 cents on my experiences with the Healthcare system in Quebec.

I use the public system and private system and constantly dabble between the two. Wait times can be long for sure. I've had a long running ankle problem since my teens, and to get my first appointment with an ankle specialist here took 1 year and 3 months!

My MRI was covered by private insurance, so it only took a couple days to have the scan done. I was put on a surgery waiting list for just over 2 years. The Dr let me know that he operated at a private clinic in Montreal. I could have had the surgery in only 2 weeks, at a cost of around $5000, but because my pain was minimal and I could still walk, I opted to wait.

Post surgery access to follow up appointments was swift. I could easily see the Dr in a week or two, with very little advanced notice. Follow up MRI's weren't covered by my new private insurance, so I had to wait for an MRI scan, which took around 2 months. I was supposed to have an MRI arthrogram, but the waiting list for that procedure is about twice as long, so the Dr just opted for a regular MRI. Cost for an MRI arthrogram is $875 in private. Again I just waited it out.

I've only needed to go to the emergency room twice, since I've been here, both times I was in and out in under an hour and a half.

I've been to many walk-in clinic's. These are a crapshoot, sometimes they're incredibly fast, sometimes incredibly slow.

I don't have a family Dr, so I opt to go to a Dr at a private clinic for my annual checkups. Even private clinics are a grey zone sometimes, as some services are covered by the provincial plans, so visits to the GP cost out of pocket, but visits to specialists within the same clinic are free.

Finding a family Dr is definitely plausible, it just involves phoning around every clinic and/or Dr in Montreal asking if they have space, but I just haven't invested the time yet. Some people get lucky this way, but even then, getting an appointment with your family Dr can take many weeks, appointment times can be inconvenient (mid afternoon, etc), so I'd rather make the investment of seeing someone at a private clinic, where I can have an appointment at 8:30am within a couple days.

I contrast all this with the fact that I was born and lived in South Africa well into my mid 20's. South Africa has abysmal public healthcare, and being born into a white middle class family, thanks to my parents I had access to private healthcare.

Private insurance in South Africa is less exploitative than in the U.S. Much less fighting with insurers to pay for coverage etc. Access to most Dr's is swift, and most procedure's are well covered. Obviously the overall experience compared to Canadian healthcare was much better, but the S.A private system only barely covers 20% of the population's needs and even with the disparity in wait times for service, the Canadian healthcare system at 100% coverage feels like an undeniable success, and a model that needs to be improved and iterated upon.

The debate around healthcare is tough here. Health issues and frustration with waiting can easily escalate the egocentric side of our human nature, but even with my negative experiences I would never denounce this system, because the broader social contract that has been written is valiant, and the price paid for this is worth it.

Nobody should be financially ruined because of health issues.

Firm agnostic here too. The most sane ideology to have today. Tomorrow it might be something else but i feel agnostics are the only ones to use diplomacy between godders and no-godders. Both groups can never understand each other, agnostics understand them both.

To anyone saying that agnosticism is simply just indecisiveness, and that is both sides: it is not. We simply don't think it's an issue you need to be on one side or the other. That's what you do. We accept both views and navigate between them trying to find what is real and what is not, since both sides try to manipulate true facts all the time according to your needs. We don't do that. If something, agnosticism is the true scientific approach; trying to find out what is true without any predisposition or beliefs...

It's ONLY that both sides are now so far apart that anything that contradicts them, is totally blasphemous/unscientific. There is no such thing as true agnosticism. There are people who are closer to believing in god and further away and no one cares how you think. People who belong to either of the marginal camps seems like idiots to me who are never going to be coaxed in either way; the more evidence you put on the table for one argument, you will oppose it even more. Its a futile discussion. We got much bigger problems to solve than if there's a god.

At the moment, there are more evidence pointing that there is no god. Nothing has been proven as a fact in either way. There would be same amount of violence with or without religion, the reasons would change superficially but nothing would change or will change if you abolish or religion. It takes about 10 years that new batch of believers arrive even if you eradicated all religion and all history: if you wipe people minds now, tomorrow someone believes in angels or goblins.. Or dragons.. It's inbuilt survival mechanism: you don't get it all, there must be a bigger plan etc.. it's human nature, not a part of our society. The feeling the presence of God is scientifically proven to be just a short circuit in our brain.. That alone makes it certain that belief in supernatural will go on.

His wording is chosen carefully ... "rule" instead of "pattern", etc. but still the way that he poses the initial setup and his sample sequence are very leading. Not at all surprised at the initial attempts he gets.

I would have said "16 32 64" first, and "3 9 27" next. Those both would be leading me further down the trap of thinking in terms of a sequence/pattern rather than just a 'rule'. In computer science it is actually important to test how an algorithm reacts to being fed just bizarre, off the wall inputs -- but you're going to test "sane" stuff first. Human nature.

Hi voodooV..sorry it took me so long to reply.

you're committing another logical fallacy here. Argument from ignorance. just because you can't think of any other reason for morality doesn't prove god did it.

The fallacy you mentioned doesn't apply. The argument isn't for Gods existence, the argument is that atheism is incoherent because it has no foundation for morality, among other reasons. Ravi asked the question, without God what are the Ontic referrants for reality?

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

To answer your question though. Survival...pure survival is pretty much the foundation of morality. what behavior ensures a long, prosperous and happy life? That's your morality right there. And it's all based on logic and reason, not an imaginary god.

is it better to be a dick to someone or is it better to work with other people. hrm...which ensures a higher probability of success in your endeavors.

is better in the long run to help or to hurt. Which ensures a greater likelyhood that people will be willing to help YOU out when you need it.

virtually everything that we consider moral today is the evolution (gasp) of instinctual rules we've learned over the millions (not thousands) of years that ensure a longer, happier life.

What you're talking about is pragmatism, which is to say that if it works then it is the best way to do things. Yet plenty of people have led long, prosperous and happy lives by exploiting other people for their gain. That's what works for them, so why shouldn't I emulate that standard of behavior instead of being self-sacrificing? Some of the most successful people who have ever lived got there by being terrible human beings. Basically, your standard of survival isn't about what is right, but what is right for me and that is entirely arbitrary. It also is an incoherent standard for morality.

Which is why only two of your commandments still hold up as secular laws.

I forget where I learned this but even biblical morality can be traced back to rules that made sense, at the time, that ensured survival. I think it has been shown that many of the biblical rules involving not eating certain foods can be traced back to diseases or some other logical reason, but hey, we didn't have an understanding of these pesky little things called bacteria and microorganisms back then so when you ate a certain food and died, that wasn't science, it was your imaginary sky god who was angry with you.

What's really interesting about that is that Moses was educated as an Egyptian prince, which was the most advanced country in the world at the time. He would have certainly been exposed to their medical knowledge, but you won't find a shred of that in the bible. The Egyptians were doing things like applying dung to peoples wounds, whereas the Laws of Moses detailed procedures for disease control, like hand washing and quarantine procedures, as well as public sanitation, and dietary laws which prevented the spread of parasites. They were thousands of years ahead of their time; we only started washing our hands to control disease in the past 200 years.

Even your fear and hatred of homosexuality and abortion can be easily explained by survival. When your village only numbered in the hundreds or maybe thousands and simple diseases and winters wiped out LOTS of people, discouraging homosexuality and abortion is actually a pretty good idea when the survival of your species is at stake. But when you've got advanced medicine and we've got the whole food and shelter thing dealt with and our population is now 7 billion. the whole "be fruitful and multiply" thing just isn't necessary anymore. In fact, it's becoming a problem. and Once again, survival will dictate our morality. If we do nothing to combat overpopulation and resources become an issue, I guarantee you that large families will eventually have a negative stigma attached to them until the situation is resolved.

You're talking to a former agnostic who once approved of homosexuality and abortion. I am not afraid of it, and I don't hate the people doing it. This is a clash of presuppositions; if there isn't a God then I couldn't give you an absolute reason why people cannot have homosexual relationships or murder their unborn children. If we're all just glorified apes contending for limited resources, then in that paradigm it may be necessary to cull the herd. I think the appropriate response though to someone contending we should eliminate vast swaths of the human populace to save the planet is, "you first".

But God is in control and this is His planet, and since He is still creating human beings, He will provide the resources to take care of them. It's the iniquity of mankind which is limiting the resources when the truth is that we have way more than enough to take care of everyone. Take for example the fact that over 30 thousand people starve to death every day. Is that because we don't have enough food? Actually, we have more than enough food yet we waste about 1/3 of the world food supply every year. The gross world product in 2012 was over 84 trillion dollars, more than enough to feed, clothe, house and vaccinate every single person on the planet. Those people die not because there isn't enough, but because the wickedness of man.

Don't ask me though, ask an anthropologist or sociologist. They've been studying this stuff for decades. I'm sure you could even find an anthropologist/sociologist that believes in god and they'd still say the same thing. our understanding of reality changes....as does morality. no one takes seriously the old biblical rules about stoning unruly kids, working the sabbath, and wearing clothing of two types of fabric anymore. So why should we listen other outdated biblical rules that don't apply anymore. As countless others of sifters have already informed you, you have the burden of proof and you haven't met it yet.

Call me when someone discovers a disease or some other problem that arises when you mix two fabrics and we'll revisit those rules k?

God has three kinds of laws, moral civil and cermonial. The rules you're referring to were civil and ceremonial laws for Israel and not for the rest of the world. They have no application today because they were connected to the Old Covenant God had with Israel. God has a New Covenant with the whole world that doesn't include those laws. The moral laws of God do not change with time, or ever. And although we fancy ourselves as more enlightened today, the reality of the world we live in tells us that human nature hasn't changed one bit. Human nature is every bit as ugly and self serving as it always has been. If you peel back the thin veneer of civility you will find a boiling pot of iniquity.

Stop committing basic logical fallacies and you might learn this stuff for yourself You haven't ever said anything that isn't easily invalidated by a simple logical fallacy or hasn't already been debunked long ago.

It's easy to speak in generalities; if I have committed a logical fallacy, then specifically point it out. The one that you detailed earlier did not apply.

Do you watch the Atheist Experience videos Shiny? because every time I watch one of the videos and listened to the same old tired theist "arguments" over and over again. I'm always reminded of you because you just aren't saying anything new. If you're serious about understanding why your ideas just don't pan out and you're not just trolling, you should seriously watch those.

I've watched the show, and again, I was a lifelong agnostic before becoming a Christian. I was pretty far left and would have probably fit in well with the lot of you not too many years ago. So, this is all to say that I understand where you're coming from and why you think and believe the way you do, because I used to think and believe in the same ways. Your mindset isn't a mystery to me. What I've learned about it is that God has to reveal Himself to a person before they will know anything about Him. Everyone gets some revelation and it is up to them to follow it. I received the revelation that there is a God and I pursued that for many years until He revealed Himself to me through His Son Jesus Christ. He has revealed Himself to you and everyone else on this website in some form or fashion. You would be shocked to hear some of the revelation people have received and turned away from, or rationalized away later. Statistics show that 10 percent of self professing atheists pray, and that is because they are unable to within themselves completely deny the revelation that they have received. I guarantee you there are atheists on this board who wrestle with all of this but since it isn't something atheists talk about (or would admit to publicly) you would never know it, that you're all keeping a lid on the truth.

It's called shaming. Look it up. And yes, it does work. Matter of fact, psychologically, it's one of the surest ways to endure behavior. Unfortunately, we've lost that in America with teachers barred from using red ink, giving bad grades and every little league athlete getting an award.

When 90% of the worlds population is making fun of you, you begin to rethink your stance. And conversely, it's the same tactic bullies use but only in a negative way. As you said, "human nature" is to conform with a little room for individualism. People want to fit into the crowd, and when you're the only one gay-bashing, you stand out in a very negative way when everyone is either ignoring you or calling you an idiot.

(Not to mention, ads like this cause those of us who support gay rights to cheer louder thus making it harder for those beating up LGBT's to get away with their acts feeling like they did the whim of society. It's called Mob Behavior. It's also very human . . .)

You seem to have, inadvertently, illustrated my misgivings about the ad. If you honestly believe that, metaphorically, "slapping someone in the face," or calling them a "dumbass" is likely to get them to change their opinion, you know little of human nature. Personally, were I "gay" and a participant in the games, I would, like Jesse Owens, respond to the ignorance with a dignified silence, and let my abilities talk for me. Rhetoric, such as yours, and rather pointless ads, simply inflame the situation.

You should go look up what this song is actually about. Not from Robin Thicke's point of view, but from Emily Ratajkowski. (Seriously, look it up)

Also the whole point Trance is trying to make that you're all missing, and actually exemplifying perfectly, is that no one cares if men are portrayed bad, because of the whole view of being manly man and not complaining.

I don't take either side in this so if you want to come back at me for something have fun, because frankly I don't give a shit about the media or how it portrays anyone. The media plays to the masses plain and simple. It will change when human nature does...good luck with that.

@bcglorf - That was the original intent of the 2nd amendment, to allow the people to keep the government in check. They wanted to mitigate the possibility of any heads of state from becoming overzealous and using their power against the people. The British tried to put an embargo on firearms and tried to disarm the colonies in order to leave them defenseless against the British military, and the revolutionaries didn't want that to happen to the people again.

Checks and balances were a major part of the planning of our government. If the three branches somehow failed to keep each other in check, it would be up to the people to defend themselves from tyranny.

Nowadays local government is more likely a threat to individual citizens than is a tyrannical dictator, but the constitution doesn't seem to help much on that front. The only thing that seems to keep police in check, for example, is the video camera. And even then, innocent people end up dead, and cops end up with relatively light or no punishment.

That's human nature for you.

I believe in Stateless society, but I don't believe in privatization under a capitalist system. We need to find a balance between profitability and equal compensation for provider and receiver.

There is a role for limited government, but I think it's limited to a nexus for regulation, and nothing more. Let everything else be privatized, but to a very limited extent. Honestly I really think that everything should be non-profit, but I don't actually know how to propose something that isn't leaning towards communism.

I will gladly read the essay you linked to tomorrow, but from my understanding of human nature and history, I don't think there is any way to balance a for-profit enterprise without succumbing to the evils of man.

Assuming this was created to convey a message, it disappoints me that they put the danger of the situation on some fantasy AI, rather than poor human judgement and human nature, which are the real criminals which have landed our society in this state.

It bothers me when people sum up human nature like they have all the answers. They don't, humans have seemingly endless capacities and they're quite unpredictable. We're not even close to being able to understand exactly why a bee acts in the way that it does, so why would we think we could easily analyze a human, or a whole human society?

That was really tame considering some of the terrible things... I can't even watch porn today, which sucks because I'm a pretty sexual person, but honestly, seriously, 90% of the stuff is like watching someone get violently raped. It's fucking terrible. There's an institution of abuse that's only matched by something like... Dunno, shouldn't say. Human nature though. Fuck it. (no pun intended).

This basically ends while dismissing, literally, the most important part of the discussion: "The long term problems with fracking our therefore, unseeable".

That's literally the pass card for corporations, because as stupid humans we will continue to trudge on ahead until the consequences are initially felt, then irreversible, and finally have impacted us to such an extreme point that finding an alternative is our only choice.

The future implications are absolutely not unforseeable, when you measure the history of human nature, the history of corporate behavior in this country, and the projected negative aspects of the process. It's a pretty clear-cut formula for understanding exactly what's going to happen.