Here we go, level 2.

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

"I can understand German as well as the maniac that invented it, but I talk it best through an interpreter."
- A Tramp Abroad

“Those who know nothing of foreign languages know nothing of their own.”
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Opera, Surprise' to 'Operetta, Surprise, Die Fledermaus, laughing song, Johann Strauss' - edited by therealblankman

Boise, you would love this hair raising article about Dubai:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/the-dark-side-of-dubai-1664368.html

For any that are wondering now that the spoilers are gone, this ends up being a drawing of Girl with a Pearl Earring by Johannes Vermeer.

Oh, okay, so you believe everything you read. That's not very intelligent, or at least it's not very SMART. The bible was written hundreds of years ago, and has since been translated and re-translated to and from dozens of different languages. Individuals and groups in power throughout different points in history have taken it upon themselves to modify the bible, adding and omitting pieces here and there to suit their agenda. They knew that gullible sheep, unable to think for themselves, are easily swayed by religion, and what better way to control a populace than by attacking their very basis for the way they live their lives?

God pre-exists everything. We know God exists because He lets us know, and He would let you know that if you sought Him out. The New Testament was written 2000 years ago. The Old Testament is at least 1000 years older than that. We have copies of the early manuscripts so we know what the original bibles looked like. So the translations today are accurate, and this idea that they are corrupt is just outright false. Yes, man has used the bible for evil ends, but this is no different from anything else man does. The very reason that Jesus Christ came to Earth is because man is so desperately wicked and needs Gods redemption.

Additionally, if one is intelligent, and they believe in ancient myths, obviously they're going to be some of the greatest minds the world has ever known, right? That's why all the geniuses of the world are devout Christians or whatever religion you want to name, right? WRONG.

NASA is not run by rocket scientists who go to church on Sunday. Great inventors and genius-level individuals such as Stephen Hawking are not religious specifically BECAUSE they are intelligent. They are able to think for themselves, not be told what to think.

Some of the greatest minds in history were devout Christians..and some of the greatest scientists:

Francis Bacon - Originated the scientific method
Johannes Kepler - Laws of Planetary motion
Galileo Galilei - Father of modern astronomy
Nicolaus Copernicus - Heliocentric Universe
James Clerk Maxwell - Electromagnetic field
Neils Bohr - the Atom
Louis Pasteur - germ theory of disease
Rene Descartes - Philosopher and mathematician
Issac Newton - Invented classical mechanics
Max Planck - Founder of quantum mechanics

A lot of modern science is built on the backs of Christian thinkers, as you can see, and that is just a short list. Today, around 10 percent of scientists believe in God. At least 50 nobel laureates believe in God. Now, if you want to talk about great thinkers, how about Albert Einstein? He believed in God. Although not a Christian, here is what he had to say about Jesus:

"To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"
"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."
"Have you read Emil Ludwig’s book on Jesus?"
"Emil Ludwig’s Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot!"
"You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"
"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."7

Of course, religion and science are completely unrelated topics, and one does not have to be non-secular in order to be a scientist, but typically, the two mindsets would conflict, as religionists base their beliefs off of emotion and other irrational concepts. Scientists use a thought process, experimentation, and ruling out possibilities in order to come to conclusions and figure out FACTS about the universe around us. There are scientists who believe in the possibility of a god, but it takes a different form than that of some all-seeing being that created everything. I'll never try to explain that to you, though, as you're too blinded by foolish nonsense that has been force-fed to you since childhood.

I will leave you with this though: Adam and Eve. Here's some fruit. I'm going to tempt you with it, and then create a snake to TALK to you and tell you you should eat some of it, and THEN I'm gunna come back and be all "OH SHIT WHAT THE FUCK?! I SMITE THEE FOR ALL ETERNITY!!!" just to fuck with humanity. Wow. You worship a pretty evil, and vindictive force. Why would you want to do that? The fucker's up there just fucking with us like a little kid with a magnifying glass over an ant hill. Jesus christ, you must really enjoy misery. I'll take the reality of humanity surviving on our own acquiescence and compassion over that bullshit any day!

I base my belief off of personal revelation. I was an agnostic my entire life and raised without religion, and I was a secular humanist and a strict materialist who didn't see any evidence for God or spirit. God woke me up to the truth and let me know He is real. If you want science facts, you only have to examine the first page of the bible:

In the beginning (TIME) God created the heavens (SPACE) and the earth (MATTER)

And God said, “Let there be light (ENERGY),” and there was light.

It took mankind 3000 years to catch up and figure out the Universes foundation is based on these principles. There is also no better description which uniquely fits the big bang theory. Creation ex-nihilio, which is creation from nothing.

The serpent you're referring to was Satan. God put the tree there because He gave mankind free will to follow His commands or not. He also warned them of the consequences if they ate of the fruit. Adam and Eve decided to disobey God and believe the lie because Satan promised them they would have Gods power if they did it. So, instead of trusting God, they lusted after His power and betrayed Him. That's why they were kicked out of the garden. Their sin brought death into the world.

No, God didn't damn us for eternity. It's the very reason God sent His son Jesus to die on the cross, to save us from this fate we created and redeem mankind. So we could have eternal life with God again in the Kingdom of Heaven. We are sinners, and the wages of sin is death. Gods gift of salvation is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

music at 1:43

Johann Johannsson - The Sun's Gone Dim and The Sky's Black from the album IBM 1401: A User's Manual

The music is "Sun's Gone Dim" by Johann Johannsson - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iv4CuIIspdE

>> ^Gallowflak:

I like him. But I think it's dense to imagine religion as being the root of all evil. Religion is a fabrication of man, and has to be a consequence of something else. It's the inadequacy of the human creature which is the root of all evil, filtering into the world through various delightful minty flavours.

Agreed. Christopher Hitchens put it with characteristic bluntness when he spoke of the inherent shortcomings of human beings.

"This kind of theocratic fascism will never die because we belong to a very poorly-evolved mammarian species. I'm a complete materialist in that sense. We're stuck with being the product of a very sluggish evolution. Our pre-frontal lobes are too small and our adrenaline glands are too big. Our fear of the dark and of death is very intense, and people will always be able to profit from that."

-Interview with Johann Hari, 2004

>> ^Sagemind:
The cowbell was Invented in 1688 by Johann Sebastian Rach. (Bach??)
http://www.chacha.com/question/who-invented-the-cowbell
>> ^ReverendTed:
>> ^residue:
Fun fact: The cowbell was actually invented by a blind man

I refuse to blindly accept this spurious claim.

I can see right through this patently obvious falsehood.

Fun fact: Johann Sebastian Rach was blind

The cowbell was Invented in 1688 by Johann Sebastian Rach. (Bach??)
http://www.chacha.com/question/who-invented-the-cowbell

>> ^ReverendTed:
>> ^residue:
Fun fact: The cowbell was actually invented by a blind man

I refuse to blindly accept this spurious claim.

But the thing about science is that you are supposed to give out information willy-nilly. A central ideal of the scientific method and scientific experimentation is repeatability. You make a hypothesis, design a controlled experiment to test that hypothesis, and publish in an extremely open way the steps and procedure of those experiments so that other people can repeat what you've done, perform the same tests and verify your results for themselves.

So much of global warming science comes from computer climate models. The problem with modeling something as complex as climate with computers is that it is nearly impossible to understand the whole system well enough that you can isolate one experimental variable to vary and compare to a control group. As time goes on, we keep learning about more and more variable inputs to the whole system of climate. Carbon Dioxide, Methane, and other gases create a greenhouse effect. The sun has a periodic sunspot cycle and other random (as near as we can figure) fluctuations.

Climate Science is a good thing, because we will gradually learn to understand more and more of those contributing variables. But before anything radical is done in reaction to computer models, those models have to be proven viable. One way that can be done is to feed old, recorded data into the model and see if it can accurately "predict" the past.

For that to be done, the system that the computer models use must be fully disclosed, open, and accepted.

Johannes Kepler came up with some scientific, mathematical equations to describe the physics of how bodies in space interact with gravitational pull. By applying those equations, we've sent men into space and to the moon, maintained orbits of satellites, and done all sorts of fantastically useful things. Until climate science can take data from 2 decades ago and accurately describe what happened 1 decade ago, I think it makes sense to be at least a little skeptical in our reactions to what those models say will happen 10-100 years from now.

In reply to this comment by paul4dirt:
that's actually Johann Strauss "An der Schönen, Blauen Donau" Op.314

You are of course completely correct, I feel the complete fool. Fixed tags and title.

As repentance I have posted this for your musical edification, thanks... http://www.videosift.com/video/Herbert-von-Karajan-conducts-Strauss-Blue-Danube-Waltz

>> ^paul4dirt:
that's actually Johann Strauss "An der Schönen, Blauen Donau" Op.314


You are of course completely correct, I feel the complete fool. Fixed tags and title.

As repentance I have posted this for your musical edification, thanks... http://www.videosift.com/video/Herbert-von-Karajan-conducts-Strauss-Blue-Danube-Waltz

that's actually Johann Strauss "An der Schönen, Blauen Donau" Op.314