to rediscover wonder you need to step outside of your teeny tiny safe place surrounded by your own certitude and look around at each other and realize....you dont know"
*promote

>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^enoch:
he also throws a little pascals wager which i have always found to be a weak argument.
i may be agreeing with many of his points because i have not encountered any true atheists.
i have encountered many who CLAIM to be atheists but are in actuality agnostics who abhor organized religion/fundamentalism and that is a wholly different discussion.
i really enjoyed the fact he didnt spiral into dogmatic speak.
but i found it a tad dismaying that he didnt first DEFINE god.you have to establish parameters otherwise people will use their own assumptions based on their own subjective reality and therefore your argument will fracture into a multitude of possible reactions.
meh../shrugs..maybe he covers that in his book.

Enoch, I absolutely respect you and your opinions. We see a lot of each other on the sift and I'm always curious what you have to say. But I want to get one thing straight:
I believe there is no evidence for a god. I do not believe or disbelieve.
I am an ATHEIST, NOT an agnostic.


fair enough my friend.
i am only speaking from personal experience and not offering empirical data based on anecdotal evidence.
but if i may point out that to say you do not believe NOR disbelieve is to not know.
which is the literal translation of the word "agnostic".
agnostic does not mean you are unsure.it means you dont know,one way or the other.
maybe you dont care, which would be indifference.
i see many religious people use the term agnostic in the wrong context implying that agnostics are unsure,wishy- washy, even indecisive.
i disagree with that usage.
in the end it doesn't really matter what term you wish to use.either works fine to convey your position.

YOU DONT KNOW WHAT MY JESUS TASTES LIKE !

Let me be the mediator between you two. The prime directive was indeed from the vulcans. But dismissing the outcry of a race can be simply heartless. Letting the person die in the fire just because you dont know them is just a grotesque out of sight and mind excuse. handing out to those in need the means help is always a good thing. but you have to remember it still has consequences. the replicator idea for instance. Who is to say that they will just replicate food? they can replicate weapons just as easily in theory. and it can certainly cause a culture clash if they are like the native american type species.

The problem is not about if the prime directive is unfair, SFdebris pointed out it turned unquestionable, dogmatic. there is no negotiation anylonger when it really needs ore of a middle ground between helpiging and ignoring.

no misunderstanding - i understood what your comment to rougy meant and that it wasn't related to me personally. i used it to close my comment in an attempt at solidarity and closure. in other words, you and rougy are both nice people who i'd rather get along with than argue endlessly (which is the only direction i see any further discussion on the topic heading, and thus my reluctance to continue).

In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by berticus:
I've done plenty in the past, rougy, and found the concepts were largely peddled by charlatans and fools. I'm sorry that my skepticism clearly offends you.

If you think I don't go against the 'common consensus' - you really don't know much about me at all. That's understandable, you have limited interaction with me here on VS, and it's usually over something you clearly believe in and I don't.

I considered offering a reply to both you and enoch (who left a charming message on my profile), but really—what's the point? It's obvious that your minds are, somewhat ironically, set. Clearly you both find this man's views insightful and truthful. I think they are not only untrue, they are dangerous—and these are topics I am academically invested in.

I suggest we leave it at that.

As enoch says, "right on, brother".

>> ^rougy:

>> ^berticus:
jesus fuck this is some grade A bullshit
sorry enoch

You haven't done much self exploration, have you Berti?
You don't go against the common consensus very often, either, do you?
What part of that video was "grade A bullshit" in your learned opinion?


i was sincere in my comment on your page.
maybe my comment on rougy's page made what i said to you seem insincere..i guess i can understand that but that is not how i meant it.
what i wrote to rougy was for rougy and had nothing to do with you.
i applaud his ability to speak his mind hence the "right on brother".
it was meant in that context and not in any way to disparage you.

maybe i read to much into what you posted but i do not like when there may be a misunderstanding based solely on comments.
as you so stated to rougy "you dont know me"..
you are right..i do not know you and the only thing i do know is that we disagree on some things.
while i do find some of the things this man proposes insightful,i would not go so far as call them truthful but rather seeking a different avenue to deal with a specific problem.

i would like to ask you where you got the idea that i would not be receptive to anything you have to say on this matter though,because i do not believe i have ever given you any indication that my ideas/philosophies are written in concrete and impervious to scrutiny.

yes..i am metaphysical but have i ever tried to convert you?or make you feel/believe/be anything than who you are at this point in your life?
i accept you for who you are,or at least who you portray here on VS and as i have already stated:i respect your keen mind and sharp wit and i truly..with all humbleness and sincerity..would like to hear your thoughts concerning this video and the dangers you see inherent within.

i think we could both find many and as i have stated in my previous comment to you..i found only one aspect of the video intriguing and for what reasons.
i would like to hear your thoughts though because i do not know everything and anecdotal evidence only goes so far.
i welcome your thoughts on this matter.
maybe you can get me to view this in a different light and perspective.

i shall leave this comment public.
i forgot how you dislike private messages and for that i apologize.
but my previous comment was sincere,
as is this one.
namaste.

In reply to this comment by berticus:
I've done plenty in the past, rougy, and found the concepts were largely peddled by charlatans and fools. I'm sorry that my skepticism clearly offends you.

If you think I don't go against the 'common consensus' - you really don't know much about me at all. That's understandable, you have limited interaction with me here on VS, and it's usually over something you clearly believe in and I don't.

I considered offering a reply to both you and enoch (who left a charming message on my profile), but really—what's the point? It's obvious that your minds are, somewhat ironically, set. Clearly you both find this man's views insightful and truthful. I think they are not only untrue, they are dangerous—and these are topics I am academically invested in.

I suggest we leave it at that.

As enoch says, "right on, brother".

>> ^rougy:

>> ^berticus:
jesus fuck this is some grade A bullshit
sorry enoch

You haven't done much self exploration, have you Berti?
You don't go against the common consensus very often, either, do you?
What part of that video was "grade A bullshit" in your learned opinion?


i was sincere in my comment on your page.
maybe my comment on rougy's page made what i said to you seem insincere..i guess i can understand that but that is not how i meant it.
what i wrote to rougy was for rougy and had nothing to do with you.
i applaud his ability to speak his mind hence the "right on brother".
it was meant in that context and not in any way to disparage you.

maybe i read to much into what you posted but i do not like when there may be a misunderstanding based solely on comments.
as you so stated to rougy "you dont know me"..
you are right..i do not know you and the only thing i do know is that we disagree on some things.
while i do find some of the things this man proposes insightful,i would not go so far as call them truthful but rather seeking a different avenue to deal with a specific problem.

i would like to ask you where you got the idea that i would not be receptive to anything you have to say on this matter though,because i do not believe i have ever given you any indication that my ideas/philosophies are written in concrete and impervious to scrutiny.

yes..i am metaphysical but have i ever tried to convert you?or make you feel/believe/be anything than who you are at this point in your life?
i accept you for who you are,or at least who you portray here on VS and as i have already stated:i respect your keen mind and sharp wit and i truly..with all humbleness and sincerity..would like to hear your thoughts concerning this video and the dangers you see inherent within.

i think we could both find many and as i have stated in my previous comment to you..i found only one aspect of the video intriguing and for what reasons.
i would like to hear your thoughts though because i do not know everything and anecdotal evidence only goes so far.
i welcome your thoughts on this matter.
maybe you can get me to view this in a different light and perspective.

i shall leave this comment public.
i forgot how you dislike private messages and for that i apologize.
but my previous comment was sincere,
as is this one.
namaste.

netrunner

wow..
no..really.
i am actually at my desk in ..i dont even know what to call it.
ya know netrunner.
i dont know you but i have never had a problem with you OR your posts.
go check and see who voted for them..i'll wait.
but since you called ME to the table..
allow me to retort.
you sir are one presumptuous piece of work.
do you know WHY i didnt use your name in my post?
because it was never directed at you nor intended to be a passive agressive swipe at you.
if i had a problem with YOU specifically..YOU would know about it and can you guess why?
because i am open,direct and most of all honest.
how dare you sir!
how dare you presume to know anything about me based on what?
what exactly do your base your premise on?
my profile?
my comments?
some magical crystal ball?
you dont fucking know me and to TELL ME my intentions and that i dont have the BALLS to confront you up close and personal?
boy..let me tell you somethin.you better check your pussy shit at the door.
i dont play that game.you wanna call me out?
fine.
but you better know what the fuck you are talking about before you do.
and by your comment above you dont know the first thing about me.
and to think i defended your presumptuous ass when talking with the chogster.
well dont i look like a douchebag now.
you just made his case.
choggie my hero?
what the fuck kind of surrealistic dali nonsense is that?
do you think i admired choggies tactics?
i told him all the time that was no way to get people to see a different view.
but..that was his choice and he paid the consequences.
choggie challenged popular and rigid thinking.
he did so by poking and prodding and yes..trolling.
he was colorful and vibrant,original and entertaining.
he made sense some of the time and babbled conspiratorial nonsense the rest..and even that was entertaining.
i was not privy nor did i FUCKING CARE about the two of you and your homoerotic little drama.
choggie pissed off a lot of people.
i may have understood his reasoning why,even agreed with it but i never agreed with his oftimes vitriolic verbosity.
and fuck you for assuming i did netrunner.
pffft..choggie my hero.are you fucking serious?
your post alone is my poster child for the very point i was making.
choggie challenged groupthink.
his tactics sucked balls but his heart was in the right place.
do you see it yet netrunner?
are ya starting to understand just a wee bit?
YOU..sir.thought you were RIGHT.
and convinced of your own intellectual superiority you stepped forward to make a claim.
a claim based on????
nothing.
and now you find yourself reading this and i hope..dear god i hope..you are starting to feel something.
lets call this new feeling "WRONG".
you dont know everything.
your intellect is not the end all-be all.
and sometimes people just step in it..knee-deep in it.
sometimes we are WRONG even though we were so cock sure we were RIGHT.
THIS is the fundamental reason i liked choggie.
he forced people to defend a position that they were so cock sure was RIGHT.
to defend a position we have to think it through and sometimes..not every time..we find the flaw in our own presumption.
and that is how choggie referred to you specifically.
a passive agressive know-it-all presumptuous prick.
now netrunner.
hear me well.
i am mighty pissed off right now.i dont take kindly to people calling me a pussy(you did it nicely.same deal though) but i will get over myself.
your deal is with choggie..not me.
but by your comment you have made a case for what choggie claimed you to be.
prove him wrong netrunner.
because i dont really think that is who you are.i think you assumed too much and too fast and you jumped without thinking.
prove him wrong.

I have written this post over and over, I am tired of deleting what I feel I need to say. Plain fact. You dont know what the fuck animals are thinking or have thought, you have no clue how they view mortality or even if they know of it. which personally I think it is ingrained in every living being as a reaction to survival, example, you prick me with your thorn, i'll back away... but the response you gave is just... just bullshit.

>> ^zomgunicorns:
I eat meat and I DON'T agree that meat is meat. When you trap a cat or dog with the purpose to kill it, it knows you're gonna kill it. Cows, chickens, pigs... they don't know they're gonna get slaughtered. And that's a huge difference and the reason why it is wrong to kill cats, dogs or any animal that understands it's own mortality just for meat.

so ive been reading chuck klostermann books lately, and im not sure why because im not sure that i even like chuck klostermann. chuck klostermann writes what i imagine to be the inner monologue of all men born between 1972 and 1980, and im really unsure whether or not this makes good literature. it probably doesnt.

anyhow, in sex drugs and cocoa puffs he makes an interesting assessment of woody allen and women. he credits woody allen for the success of nerdy dudes. he thinks woody allen is the reason that all women like nerdy dudes.

(i swear this is true, if you think youre a nerdy dude and you dont think girls like you, either they do and you dont know it, or you might actually just be kind of douchey)

apparently, women dont even have to be woody allen fans, or even actually see a woody allen movie, and of course women dont want woody allen because he is kind of pervy, but the success of woody allen movies and the whispers of woody allen in pop culture have left their imprint on society and made the neurotic nerd romantic and iconic. so thanks to woody allen, awkward neurotic slightly annoying dudes in ugly sweaters everywhere have a much better chance with women far out of their league.

in essence, i think what he is saying is that woody allen did for skinny nerds what john cusack did for sensitive hit men with huge record collections relatively whiny dispositions huge boom boxes and at least one peter gabriel cassette tape.

its cool, i have insomnia and the titties, ill take the night shift.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
lets make babies!
free, little critical thinkers who shall not be bound by the arbitrary laws of grammar!

In reply to this comment by enoch:
>> ^ajkido:
enoch, you can't teach history without a bunch of dates and names. If you want to talk about teaching problem solving, take a subject where there are actual problems to solve. Like mathematics or physics...
Knowing history is remembering who did what, when and where, and what was the impact on future events. Usually the point of history classes is to teach the bigger picture, but you can't exactly say "and then x and then y and then z..." without any timeframes etc.
And you yourself said that many of the teachers were poorly educated. I guess it's good to not let them teach their own bullshit but to follow the curriculum designed by smarter and better educated people. Also looking at your writing I suspect you're not very highly educated either.




wow.
your ignorance is only surpassed by your arrogance.
you go right ahead scooter and let people tell you what and how to think.
great job in missing my point then turning around and making it for me.
thanks buddy!

one small note on your little snide remark about my butchering the english language.
while i am a professional,here is something to think about:
if sentence structure and grammar are a sign of intelligence or a higher education ernest hemmingway would never have had one sentence published.

my POINT,
you know..the one you missed...
is that public education is set up to stagnate.
i was reprimanded for teaching in a way not according to NCLB guidelines.
tests are arbitrary and are an obtuse and vague determination of not only what you have learned by HOW you can or may apply it to other areas.
my job,in my opinion,was to get kids to THINK not memorize.
yet that was the very thing the school system was forcing me to do.
i rebelled,because thats what i do when faced with something so morally WRONG.
you say history is only names and dates.
realy?...REALLY?
because if what you say is true then you dont know history.
you may know names and dates but you dont UNDERSTAND and that was your teachers job.one in which im guessing they failed.
good god man!history,civics,the social sciences and literature all can teach you ways of thinking and viewing the world which can be hugely beneficial to you in the years to come.
names and dates.../shakes head..sheesh.
you want to judge my intelligence and knowledge by my sentence structure thats your choice.i really dont give a rats ass,but dont expect me to take you seriously when you regurgitate the same indoctrinational vomit thats been fed to you and tell me it is "education".
its not.
knowledge without mileage=bullshit.

with you?
my kids are grown but DAMN we would make not only pretty babies but wikkid smaht ones too!
ok..im in.
ill change diapers but good luck waking me at 3 in the morning.

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
lets make babies!
free, little critical thinkers who shall not be bound by the arbitrary laws of grammar!

In reply to this comment by enoch:
>> ^ajkido:
enoch, you can't teach history without a bunch of dates and names. If you want to talk about teaching problem solving, take a subject where there are actual problems to solve. Like mathematics or physics...
Knowing history is remembering who did what, when and where, and what was the impact on future events. Usually the point of history classes is to teach the bigger picture, but you can't exactly say "and then x and then y and then z..." without any timeframes etc.
And you yourself said that many of the teachers were poorly educated. I guess it's good to not let them teach their own bullshit but to follow the curriculum designed by smarter and better educated people. Also looking at your writing I suspect you're not very highly educated either.




wow.
your ignorance is only surpassed by your arrogance.
you go right ahead scooter and let people tell you what and how to think.
great job in missing my point then turning around and making it for me.
thanks buddy!

one small note on your little snide remark about my butchering the english language.
while i am a professional,here is something to think about:
if sentence structure and grammar are a sign of intelligence or a higher education ernest hemmingway would never have had one sentence published.

my POINT,
you know..the one you missed...
is that public education is set up to stagnate.
i was reprimanded for teaching in a way not according to NCLB guidelines.
tests are arbitrary and are an obtuse and vague determination of not only what you have learned by HOW you can or may apply it to other areas.
my job,in my opinion,was to get kids to THINK not memorize.
yet that was the very thing the school system was forcing me to do.
i rebelled,because thats what i do when faced with something so morally WRONG.
you say history is only names and dates.
realy?...REALLY?
because if what you say is true then you dont know history.
you may know names and dates but you dont UNDERSTAND and that was your teachers job.one in which im guessing they failed.
good god man!history,civics,the social sciences and literature all can teach you ways of thinking and viewing the world which can be hugely beneficial to you in the years to come.
names and dates.../shakes head..sheesh.
you want to judge my intelligence and knowledge by my sentence structure thats your choice.i really dont give a rats ass,but dont expect me to take you seriously when you regurgitate the same indoctrinational vomit thats been fed to you and tell me it is "education".
its not.
knowledge without mileage=bullshit.

with you?
my kids are grown but DAMN we would make not only pretty babies but wikkid smaht ones too!
ok..im in.
ill change diapers but good luck waking me at 3 in the morning.

lets make babies!
free, little critical thinkers who shall not be bound by the arbitrary laws of grammar!

In reply to this comment by enoch:
>> ^ajkido:
enoch, you can't teach history without a bunch of dates and names. If you want to talk about teaching problem solving, take a subject where there are actual problems to solve. Like mathematics or physics...
Knowing history is remembering who did what, when and where, and what was the impact on future events. Usually the point of history classes is to teach the bigger picture, but you can't exactly say "and then x and then y and then z..." without any timeframes etc.
And you yourself said that many of the teachers were poorly educated. I guess it's good to not let them teach their own bullshit but to follow the curriculum designed by smarter and better educated people. Also looking at your writing I suspect you're not very highly educated either.




wow.
your ignorance is only surpassed by your arrogance.
you go right ahead scooter and let people tell you what and how to think.
great job in missing my point then turning around and making it for me.
thanks buddy!

one small note on your little snide remark about my butchering the english language.
while i am a professional,here is something to think about:
if sentence structure and grammar are a sign of intelligence or a higher education ernest hemmingway would never have had one sentence published.

my POINT,
you know..the one you missed...
is that public education is set up to stagnate.
i was reprimanded for teaching in a way not according to NCLB guidelines.
tests are arbitrary and are an obtuse and vague determination of not only what you have learned by HOW you can or may apply it to other areas.
my job,in my opinion,was to get kids to THINK not memorize.
yet that was the very thing the school system was forcing me to do.
i rebelled,because thats what i do when faced with something so morally WRONG.
you say history is only names and dates.
realy?...REALLY?
because if what you say is true then you dont know history.
you may know names and dates but you dont UNDERSTAND and that was your teachers job.one in which im guessing they failed.
good god man!history,civics,the social sciences and literature all can teach you ways of thinking and viewing the world which can be hugely beneficial to you in the years to come.
names and dates.../shakes head..sheesh.
you want to judge my intelligence and knowledge by my sentence structure thats your choice.i really dont give a rats ass,but dont expect me to take you seriously when you regurgitate the same indoctrinational vomit thats been fed to you and tell me it is "education".
its not.
knowledge without mileage=bullshit.

>> ^ajkido:
enoch, you can't teach history without a bunch of dates and names. If you want to talk about teaching problem solving, take a subject where there are actual problems to solve. Like mathematics or physics...
Knowing history is remembering who did what, when and where, and what was the impact on future events. Usually the point of history classes is to teach the bigger picture, but you can't exactly say "and then x and then y and then z..." without any timeframes etc.
And you yourself said that many of the teachers were poorly educated. I guess it's good to not let them teach their own bullshit but to follow the curriculum designed by smarter and better educated people. Also looking at your writing I suspect you're not very highly educated either.




wow.
your ignorance is only surpassed by your arrogance.
you go right ahead scooter and let people tell you what and how to think.
great job in missing my point then turning around and making it for me.
thanks buddy!

one small note on your little snide remark about my butchering the english language.
while i am a professional,here is something to think about:
if sentence structure and grammar are a sign of intelligence or a higher education ernest hemmingway would never have had one sentence published.

my POINT,
you know..the one you missed...
is that public education is set up to stagnate.
i was reprimanded for teaching in a way not according to NCLB guidelines.
tests are arbitrary and are an obtuse and vague determination of not only what you have learned by HOW you can or may apply it to other areas.
my job,in my opinion,was to get kids to THINK not memorize.
yet that was the very thing the school system was forcing me to do.
i rebelled,because thats what i do when faced with something so morally WRONG.
you say history is only names and dates.
realy?...REALLY?
because if what you say is true then you dont know history.
you may know names and dates but you dont UNDERSTAND and that was your teachers job.one in which im guessing they failed.
good god man!history,civics,the social sciences and literature all can teach you ways of thinking and viewing the world which can be hugely beneficial to you in the years to come.
names and dates.../shakes head..sheesh.
you want to judge my intelligence and knowledge by my sentence structure thats your choice.i really dont give a rats ass,but dont expect me to take you seriously when you regurgitate the same indoctrinational vomit thats been fed to you and tell me it is "education".
its not.
knowledge without mileage=bullshit.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Enoch, what is the point of this video: http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2007/07/24/anti-atheist-christian-
tv-commerical/
To convince theists that without god the world is fucked? No, they already "know" that.
The point of these videos is three fold -
1. Present a compelling argument/message/premise
2. Assure the indivdual that there is a community that shares their belief
3. Catch the confused doubtful little fishes on the fringes
Could you explain how the producers are retarded for attempting to get a thoughtful reaction out of people?
Or if that just an ad hominem at work because you're offended?
>> ^enoch:
that makes no sense...
convince an atheist that there is no god and religion is bad...
if you are correct,and the point of this video is a "shock and awe factor for those on the fence"then these creators of this video are retarded.


you are coming at me from the wrong angle scooter...check yourself.
you dont know me,nor my beliefs,thoughts,dreams or visions.
so please dont leave your dick waggling in the breeze acting like you do.
i shall ignore the first part of your post,
not because i am "offended" but because it is irrelevant.

now the points you made,especially number 2.
i never thought about it from that perspective.that there would be people who no longer believe but may be surrounded by people who do.i know this occurs on an intellectual basis but did not think about that in this context concerning the video.
on that note i say thank you genji.
that not only answers my incredulity concerning this video but it's actual purpose.
i think thats what you were trying to say in your previous post but it made no sense.
now it does..thanks.
now concerning number 1 and 3..
meh../shrugs.
compelling argument?really? come on man..not even close.
and catch little fish?since when is atheism like scientology?or jehovas witness? mormons?
naw..if the video is to let people who no longer believe in god or religion know they are not alone then i am all for that and retract my retarded comment.
you can email them and let them know you defended their honor justly.

as for me being offended...well...i'll play nice.
i was not offended in the least.why would i be?
thats just a concentrated drop of pure silly.
and what i wrote was not an ad hominem.
if i had written ONLY that they were retarded,or satan spawn..blah blah blah..then you would be correct.
but i made a statement and ended it with an opinion on the producers mental capacity=not an ad hominem attack.

let me conclude with a hearty thank you genji.
but i still stand by my statement if the purpose of this video was to change the hearts and minds of religious folk,or convert in some bizarre way an atheist.but to let a person know they are not alone?
thats ok in my book.

We started living in an old house
My ma gave birth and we were checking it out
It was a baby boy
So we bought him a toy
It was a ray gun
And it was 1981
We named him Baby
He had a toothache
He started crying
It sounded like an earthquake
It didnt last long
Because I stopped it
I grabbed a rag doll
And stuck some little pins in it
Now were a family
And were alright now
We got money and a little place
To fight now
We dont know you
And we dont owe you
But if you see us around
I got something else to show you
Now its easy when you dont know better
You think its sleazy?
Then put it in a short letter
We keep warm
But theres just something wrong when you
Just feel like youre the hardest little button
To button
I had opinions
That didnt matter
I had a brain
That felt like pancake batter
I got a backyard
With nothing in it
Except a stick
A dog
And a box with something in it
The hardest button to button