>> ^hpqp:

If this doesn't give you the chills, there is something very wrong with you.


There's a reason that's so over the top.

From their website:
The "Hollywood Father/Daughter Purity Ball" is a feisty satire of the movement that has become a staple of evangelical communities in Bible Belt states.
– Los Angeles Times

Of course it's still fucked up. Just not quite as overt as the parody.

>> ^longde:

This is how insatiable sluts in college are made.


Wait, is that a downside?

>> ^grinter:

anyone got a key to the color codes?


There is a legend in the upper left hand corner.

On my ancient monitor with crappy color purity, it breaks down to:

source-dark blue
headers-aqua
audio-green
scripts-red
models-yellow
textures-orange
plans-darker blue
levels-fuscia
animation-pinkish red
misc-grey

@SDGundamX

There's clearly no point in arguing with you; you insist on attacking strawmen that you project as Harris' arguments and mine, disregard the statistical evidence (some of which could already be found in my html-mess post), refuse to comprehend that an ideology that regards women as only half as worthy of men - and that puts such high stakes on "purity" - will result in violence towards them, and continue to see things in an all-or-nothing way while accusing your opponents thereof and, cherry on the cake, provide the answer to your own arguments within them; I quote:

Radical fundamentalist Islam most certainly causes its followers to not just condone violence, but believe that violence is the only way to achieve the political aims for which radical Islam was created to achieve.

See this video on how it is not the fundamentalists that are a problem, but the fundamentals (thus the Qur'an quoting you keep disregarding). You keep trying to make it about some sort of homogeneous group called "the Muslims" that we are - according to you - unilaterally vilifying, but that only shows that the person who has a problem generalising is yourself.

If we were 700 years ago, Harris and the other "gnu atheists" would be arguing strongly against Christianity's effects on people's lives, not Islam's (not that Islam was any better, but it was hardly much worse).

You want evidence so badly? Why don't you go ask the Pakistani cops why they feel they have the right to rape and physical abuse their female visitors, see where that gets you.

The Pakistan vs. India stats come from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Pakistan

If you want to remain a virgin until the day of your wedding, it should be your choice to do so. Although personally I think it's absolutely stupid, and can cause severe sexual repressing issues.

BUT... don't do it for religion, that's just retarded.
And, geeez... That purity ball, with dads and daughters?? CREEEEEEEEPY x Infinity

>> ^Sagemind:

I don't get it - How dare they tarnish the purity - Pure Blasphemy!


I concur! Here, faithful ones, feast your eyes on the purity:

I don't get it - How dare they tarnish the purity - Pure Blasphemy!

Well written, but still factually biased. I don't dispute it takes a certain amount of faith to believe in something, but saying it takes more faith to believe in science over a religion is laughable, seeing as how most scientific processes can be duplicated in a lab, and the only time people see the immaculately concepted Jesus is in stale bread.

Calling them "errors" is an error, if you cant prove it so...

I don't even want to get started with your "#2" ...but I will touch on it:

"It is He [God] who sits above the circle of the Earth." Job also talked about the earth being round."
You mean to tell me that it wasn't the sun he probably was referring to? It is a very vague statement, loosely translated. I mean, wasn't the voyage of Christopher Columbus nearly defunded by the Queen of Spain due to the fact most of the Catholics believed the earth was flat? How could they possibly misinterpret such a factual document as the Bible then but not now, or at any other time?

#3 is also a gross interpretation of the bibles factuality, the closest thing people had to a science was alchemy if I'm mistaken, and there is a reason we don't teach Alchemy 101 these days. It was full of holes where we as a species didn't have an understanding of our own surroundings. Take beer brewing for example, even the German purity laws had to be amended to allow yeast as a viable and lawful ingredient to beer because the humans of the past flat out didn't understand or fathom its use/need in the brewing process because it had been introduced naturally to the unaware brewers since beer has been around. <-Thank you science, not the all knowing bible. External sources are just as unreliable then as they are now, if not more so, smart people expect some credibility, and aren't the type to blindly accept.
#4 "The history of the bible is made up, it is just mythology"
Most people don't dispute the correlation of events in the bible to that of actual history, its just obvious that either initially or over the years, the truth was embellished to that of an Aesop fable. The bible was meant to instill fear into the hearts of what are supposed to be "god fearing" people, what better way then writing about a hellish environment and 30 ft tall giants? (wait, was that part real, or no?) Oh and Nelson Glueck wrote that quote? Impressive... unless you consider the thousands of other scientists that have a slightly different opinion on the matter...

But I guess you can laugh at me while I burn in hell (decompose) and you are in heaven (decomposing) It would make much more sense if people would accept the fact that "God" no matter how you look at it, is just a manifestation of our own self righteousness as a species? That being said, please think "peace" and I to wish all of us a hearty blessing from "God."



>> ^shinyblurry:

It takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian. I'll point out some common errors and misconceptions that atheists have.
Atheist error #1 Translation upon translation has corrupted the original bible so now we don't know what it actually said
The truth: Today there survives more than 25,000 partial and complete, ancient handwritten manuscript copies of the New Testament alone, not to mention hundreds of Old Testament manuscripts that survive today dating back to as early as the third century B.C. These hand written manuscripts have allowed scholars and textual critics to go back and verify that the Bible we have in our possession today is the same Bible that the early church possessed 2,000 years ago.

Atheist error #2 The bible is only confirmed by the bible, there is no outside external verification
The truth: There are over 39 sources outside of the Bible that attest to more than 100 facts regarding Jesus’ life, teachings, crucifixion, and resurrection. External sources verify that at least 80 persons from the bible were actual historical figures, 50 people from the Old Testament and 30 people from the New Testament. This includes Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas the High priest, and King David.
Atheist error #3 The bible is unscientific
The truth: The bible contains no scientific errors. In fact, it reveals a number of facts about the Universe that simply were not known at the time. For instance, the bible states that the Sun is on a circuit through space, yet scientists at the time thought it was stationary. Even more amazing, the bible states the Earth is round when everyone else thought it was flat:
Isaiah 40:22 says, “It is He [God] who sits above the circle of the Earth." Job also talked about the earth being round.
This was 300 years before aristotle. The bible was over 2000 years ahead of its time. It was also widely thought at the time that the Earth was carried on the back of something else, like a turtle or the greek god Atlas. The bible taught the truth: Job 26:7 “He [God] hangs the Earth on nothing.” Scientists did not discover that the Earth hangs on nothing until 1650.
Another amazing fact that the bible uncovered far before man discovered the facts is that the number of stars is as the sand in sea.
Jeremiah 33:22 “The host of heaven [a reference to the stars] cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured.”
Before the telescope was invented, man was able to number the stars. The count was usually just over 1000. That was the prevailing scientific knowledge until the telescope was invented. The bible revealed though that there were more stars than anyone could count.
Atheist error #4 The history of the bible is made up, it is just mythology
The truth: In every instance where the Bible can be, or has been checked out archaeologically, it has been found to be 100% accurate. The Bible has proven so accurate that archaeologists often refer to it as a reliable guide when they go to dig in new areas.
Nelson Glueck, who appeared on the cover of Time magazine and who is considered one of the greatest archaeologists ever, wrote: “No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.”
The fact is there have been more than 25,000 discoveries within the region known as the "Bible Lands” that have confirmed the truthfulness of the Bible.
So there are just some of the common misconceptions atheists have concerning the bible. If you had any of these misconceptions then I venture that you must re-evaluate your position. God bless.


*Edited punctuation at 23:40 5/2/2011

^gwiz665 Troublesome topic to get into on a forum. But I will make a meager attempt to express myself on this matter.

Firstly, I greatly respect you as a person, and value your opinion. Please excuse any phrasing that seems belittling or disrespectful of your own personal experiences with Christianity; my purpose isn't to discredit your personal experience, but relay mine.

In the interests of full disclosure, I am not a practicing Christian, I am an agnostic atheist. My pursuit of truth and knowledge lead me away from my faith some time ago. However, it is the very pursuits Christianity grew up in me that lead to this second awakening in myself. Christianity saved me, twice. Let me explain.

Low self esteem has been the story of my whole life. I was bullied a lot as a child, and my week personality was unable to cope. I always was pretty good in school in terms of grades. But the scars of my low self esteem means I never tried to live up to my full potential. I sold myself short in everything, I gave up, gave in, quit trying. Always managing slightly above average marks, several shallow friendships, and anything else that wasn't to risky.

That all changed in high school. I met one of the most influential friends I had in my life. He radiated self confidence. He also happened to be a Christian. I formerly mocked Christians via the evangelists I saw on TV, it was my only real experience with Christians till that point. I eventually "converted" to Christianity and my life was forever changed. I felt good about myself. Felt I could actually be something, do something, affect something. I was encouraged not only in personality, but in mind. I read countless books on theology, philosophy, and science. I grew in ways that I couldn't fully appreciate until my second great awakening. I was forever a different person. Gone where the rational bounds I placed on myself. I was no longer constrained by the ordinary. It was light in my darkness. A cure to the miasma of my existence. It instilled in my the responcibility to myself for goodness, purity, kindness, and truth.

The pursuit of truth eventually lead me to realize that if there is a God, it can't be the God of the bible (I won't go into that here), and so ended that phase of my life. But I am forever indebted to Christianity. And while someone might rightly point out it was me saving me, it still wouldn't of happened (I believe) without those people in the place they were doing the things they were with the believe that they were, I wouldn't be where I am now (most likely would of killed myself). All things have their share of evils and goods. For my part, even though I am no longer a Christian, I can't ever call for its eradication, or even that it is a moral bad.

To me, the great evil that works in us is a 2 billion year old tail; that this world is a world of violence. 2 billion years of animals eating other animals can't be laid at the feet of Christianity, or Islam, or any other scapegoat. We are humans, a tragic creature able to understand its own tragic nature. We seek to pass the blame to something we created, but it is what 2 billion years of life has created working in us, through us. We are the result of that, not the result of ourselves...yet. Perhaps in time we will come to terms with ourselves, and deal with ourselves. To this day, we only at best manage ourselves. I can't stop feeling anger at someone for cutting me off in traffic, I can only manage it the best I can. And I guess that is my closing thought. Right now, the best person is just a manager of their human condition, our fate was determined long ago through the course of billions of years of ooze... perhaps; or maybe God did it all, I don't know.

(edit: grammar and spelling, ugh)

@ghark

Ok, so you are saying that Ron Paul is secretly working for the mainline Republican party? Interesting, I don't think he is doing a good job. Let us examine this. One, he has run as a third party candidate. This not only undermines the republican party entirely, logic dictates that his voter pool will come, by in large, from the republican pool... further undermining it.

And then you point out his voting record...the very evidence of him standing out against his party via decades of standing for his ideals. You twist that evidence to support a conclusion of indifference through effect. That, because what you are doing hasn't gotten the results you wanted, you have failed. In a certain since, this is true, but if it is the only fight you can fight, it is worth fighting for. That is an opinion of course, and one Dr. Paul obviously shares, as he has frequently said that he only ran for president because his pool of constituents said he should, he had no great desires to. Blaming Ron Paul for the 200 years of political development on capital hill is lunacy.

To me, it really seems like you have your heart set on hating Paul based in nothing, an irrational position based on emotion. If a man striving after his ideals for 20 years, never compromising, or throwing in the towel, and managing to come to moderate popularity against very entrenched powers working against you daily doesn't move you to sympathy, I don't know what will. Dennis Kucinich is such a man on the other side of the political equation from me, but I respect his purity. I don't understand how you can not. It seems sort of bigoted.

The reoccurring theme of your anger seems to be denoted at some of his comments on the oil spill. Here is a great interview of his giving his semi-support for Obama, like a true republican. He also talks about the moral hazard [government] created by totally dismissing the property rights of fisherman in the area, and the flaw of [government] limiting the liability of corporations responsible for the oil spill. From what I heard, he isn't defending BP anymore than he logically should for something that is, indeed, and accident. Do you think BP did the oil spill on purpose? Was this a plan by the Obama administration to have a great disaster to recover from.

His ideals have made HIM popular, not the republican mainstream. This is evident by republicans booing his victory in the CPAC during 2010 and 2011. While he might drive some to the republican party, they are people the main republican party doesn't like, he is causing a revolution within the party, changing the system from within. You asked how is this going to be fixed, this is how.

"If a country can't save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say : Let the damned thing go down the drain!" - Robert Heinlein

@GeeSussFreeK

I agree that it is a move in the right direction. It is a very important step to assist in harm reduction for citizens; however, it completely fails in some areas.

One area of harm reduction that it completely misses is the lack of quality control. Unless you do independent analysis of what you are buying (assuming you have some lab equipment, knowledge, time, and desire), you have no way of knowing the purity of the illegal(or decriminalized) substance is being bought. This is bad in two ways: (1) the can be cut with harmful (varying degrees) substances to increase overall profit and (2) this can greatly affect the strength of the substance - which leads to accidental overdoses.

The second area of fail for decriminalization is that it doesn't affect the criminal supply structure at all. It doesn't remove the drug dealers off the street and doesn't stop any money from being channeled back to the drug cartels.

The above two points (and I'm sure some other ones) are why you will find some people who strongly oppose decriminalization as a midstep towards full legalization and control. I think that some feel that decriminalization wouldn't be good enough or that it would be a false midstep (i.e. offered up to placate the people and kill the momentum for full legalization.)

Again, decriminalization is fantastic for helping those that are addicts. The government did a big study on veterans come back from Vietnam because a large percentage of them did various/multiple drugs while there because it was so stressful. They found that after a year of being home, less than half still used drugs. It was either 3 or 5 years later, a small percentage used recreationally and 1-3 percent still used them very frequently. I've read several studies on this phenomenon and it holds out that 1-3 percent of people that try a substance become an addict (varying degrees.) Most people just need a perceptual change if they start abandoning their responsibilities because of *insert object of obsession here* (i.e. kick in the pants.) Personally, I ran into this with NHL 2010 for the PS3. Seriously how much more fun can it get? But I started missing homework, missing deadlines from my personal projects, etc. I realized this and actually sold my TV and PS3 to some coworkers to get it out of my place. However because of brain chemistry or personality traits, addicts need professional help. Decriminalization can free a person from the criminal burden when seeking help for substance addiction. (Small side note to pre-address expected thoughts in some people's heads: most addicts get caught doing illegal things like breaking into houses, etc... The point is that most addicts get into this position to feed and because of their addiction. I'm not advocating ignoring the responsibility for those actions, but most reactions focus on dealing punishment instead of treating the root cause.) Over time, decriminalization can also help with removing the social stigmatization of seeking help for addiction. But to be honest, legalizing would be better at that.

I don't see decriminalization as very likely across the US. Fear is the daily diet here and drugs make great PR material for fear. Also there is a great deal of money and the government fighting it. Most government bodies get extra money in their budget to fight the "war on drugs" and don't want to give up that money. Lobbying efforts will mainly be against it: by pharma (why pay for something when you can just grow something that addresses your specific need?) and prisons (US's new slavery system - See how they learned! Now with less visibility and a few whites too! ^{I kid, I kid}) In this regard, I hope that California will take the lead in showing the nation that the world won't come crashing down when this happens. It will eventually as the older people die off. That sounds callous, but it reminds me of scientific advances. Typically a generation can only go so far because of the mental knowledge base that they grew up with. Future generations grew up build their knowledge foundation on the mid- to end-work of the previous generations and are able to look at it differently and advance it.

Well, that seems to be a subject that can make me type... I need to go some work done.

>> ^COriolanus:

what was the air pressure?


I'm guessing this took place at a relatively normal air pressure. If it were a vacuum then they would need to cool the water below ~0C to keep it from boiling (depending on purity).

Now I want to see what happens when the nanotubes are cold enough to form ice crystals within the droplets.

>> ^gwiz665:

>> ^gorillaman:
>> ^xxovercastxx:
There really aren't any good guys in WH40K, though I'd say the Eldar are the most innocent.
>> ^gorillaman:
Also, the Imperium are not the good guys.


Exactly, though the Eldar are as xenophobic and ruthless as anyone else. The Tau are the obvious candidates as heroes - they're young, innovative, and they've got that underdog thing going, almost an idealised, progressive human race; but look closer and they're an ultra-communist slave society, aggressive and coercive in getting other races to join their Empire. If any race can claim innocence it can only be the Orks. They just dig fighting, and don't understand that other people don't like having their limbs hacked off.

Necrons are the only good guys.
"You can die, or you can run then die."


Aw, all Necrons want is to regain their galaxy of simple purity. Or rather I should say, all the C'Tan want. At least they want to exterminate Chaos.

I'm confused, who is the victim of the crime this law is preventing?

Racial purity right?

>> ^entr0py:
This might be too cynical, but it seems like the anti-bottled water campaign is being driven by the same sort of people who bought all the bottled water in the first place.

Seems like a fair point -- it's exactly the kind of thing affluent liberals go for.

Ordinary product plus promise of extra purity = $$$

It's the fact that your money is buying more purity than other people know to that serves as the status symbol among the liberal elite snobs. Conspicuous consumption for its own sake is still more of a conservative thing.

I suspect we're going to go through the same thing with organic food, with people saying we should focus on sustainable food instead.