Ok, you clearly didn't understand what i said because you responded exactly how I warned.

"Oil Production" does not equal "Domestic Energy"
"Oil Production" does not equal "Domestic Energy"

Solar power doesn't fuel my car. We could triple our "domestic energy" production with nuclear power plants, but that wouldn't do shit for my car and gas prices. Do you not understand that? He is responding intentionally with misleading points.

I'm sorry you are such a hater of Fox News and that you don't understand that all Fox News did was match CNN, MSNBC, NY Times and every other liberal media with conservative media. You ever heard the phrase "liberal media" its been around for almost 100 years. But the first Conservative media pops up and you all start crying.

Hell there have been so many cover up of democratic representive.

Example: Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA] was on a council that was awarding all military contracts to a company her husband was the primary share holder in. (Illegal) Once someone found this out, she resigned and the media refused to write on it.


>> ^messenger:

You've got to be kidding me. In his opening statement, Cenk says (1)Republicans are accusing Obama of ignoring domestic energy production, and (2)they are publicly linking this failure with increased gas prices. Cenk then responds that not only is Obama doing more domestic energy production than Bush (point 1), but there isn't even a causal relationship between the two stats (point 2). That's good journalism, as long as his opening statement is true about what Republicans are saying. If he had only said, "We're not drilling enough!! (without mentioning domestic energy) and then gone on with the domestic energy fact as a counterpoint, that would be misleading.
Even if he had fudged it like that --which he does on rare occasion, but not here-- comparing him with FOX is the news integrity equivalent of Godwin's Law. Fox are so bad, so reprehensible, so intentionally misleading, so ideologically driven that Cenk on his worst day couldn't even approach their level of deceit. [Edit: to your second point, without doing the background research, I'll just accept that you're right, and say this IS one of the times that Cenk fudges things a wee bit. But seriously, if the worst you can say about him is that he tars all Republicans with the same brush, that's not that serious.]
But if you still think you're right, if you can remember any time TYT did anything as corrupt as some of Fox's worst moments --and remember that they've been caught intentionally manipulating stories-- tell us about it here, even if you can't find the link. I bet you've got nothing. Check your hyperbole.>> ^ptrcklgrs:
TYT is a manipulative as Fox News. On 2 Counts
1: He says "Fact we are at a 8 year high for domestic energy production in this country". Ok, I believe that fact but its a stat based on domestic energy production. Not domestic oil drilling. Oil is one piece of energy. We've gone nuts in the last few years with solar, wind, fracking energy as going green. So that stat looks quite misleading.
2: When he says "Republicans" yes there is a hand full of republicans pushing this point. But by the vast majority it is held as not true. Why doesn't he name names. He is just finding any issue he can to dig deeper trenches between lines and make his money.
TYT = Fox News Opionists

You've got to be kidding me. In his opening statement, Cenk says (1)Republicans are accusing Obama of ignoring domestic energy production, and (2)they are publicly linking this failure with increased gas prices. Cenk then responds that not only is Obama doing more domestic energy production than Bush (point 1), but there isn't even a causal relationship between the two stats (point 2). That's good journalism, as long as his opening statement is true about what Republicans are saying. If he had only said, "We're not drilling enough!! (without mentioning domestic energy) and then gone on with the domestic energy fact as a counterpoint, that would be misleading.

Even if he had fudged it like that --which he does on rare occasion, but not here-- comparing him with FOX is the news integrity equivalent of Godwin's Law. Fox are so bad, so reprehensible, so intentionally misleading, so ideologically driven that Cenk on his worst day couldn't even approach their level of deceit. [Edit: to your second point, without doing the background research, I'll just accept that you're right, and say this IS one of the times that Cenk fudges things a wee bit. But seriously, if the worst you can say about him is that he tars all Republicans with the same brush, that's not that serious.]

But if you still think you're right, if you can remember any time TYT did anything as corrupt as some of Fox's worst moments --and remember that they've been caught intentionally manipulating stories-- tell us about it here, even if you can't find the link. I bet you've got nothing. Check your hyperbole.>> ^ptrcklgrs:

TYT is a manipulative as Fox News. On 2 Counts
1: He says "Fact we are at a 8 year high for domestic energy production in this country". Ok, I believe that fact but its a stat based on domestic energy production. Not domestic oil drilling. Oil is one piece of energy. We've gone nuts in the last few years with solar, wind, fracking energy as going green. So that stat looks quite misleading.
2: When he says "Republicans" yes there is a hand full of republicans pushing this point. But by the vast majority it is held as not true. Why doesn't he name names. He is just finding any issue he can to dig deeper trenches between lines and make his money.
TYT = Fox News Opionists

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

New Millenium Cyanide Christ

I'M A CARNAL, ORGANIC ANAGRAM. HUMAN FLESH INSTEAD OF WRITTEN LETTERS.
I REARRANGE MY PATHETIC TISSUE. I INCISE. I REPLACE. I'M REFORMED.
I ERADICATE THE FAKE PRE-PRESENT ME. ELEVATE ME TO A HIGHER HUMAN FORM.
THE CHARACTERS I AM, MADE INTO A WORD COMPLETE, THEN I'LL BE THE NEW NORM.

SELF INFLICTED FRACTURES. I REPLACE MY BONES WITH BARS;
ALUMINUM BLEEDING OXIDE; THE DRUG OF GODS INTO MY POUNDING VEINS

(A HUMAN PUZZLE FOR ALL TO SCORN. NO FACE. NO BACK. DIRECTIONLESS.
MY SCARRED EDITION I'LL DISPLAY; THE ORGANIC WORD FOR NOTHINGNESS)

MY RECEIVING EYES EXCHANGED WITH FUSES; BLINDNESS INDUCED TO PREVENT DESTRUCTION.
CERAMIC BLADES IMPLANTED PAST MY RIBS TO SAVE ME FROM THE DUES OF INHALATION.
I TEAR MY WORLDLY USELESS SKIN. STAPLES TO PIN IT OVER MY EARS.
NON-RECEPTIVE OF UNGODLY SOUNDS - I DISABLE THE AUDIO-GENERATORS OF FEAR.

HEXAGONAL BOLTS TO FILL MY MOUTH, SHARPENED TO DEPLETE THE CREATOR OF ALL VIOLENCE;
WITHOUT SPEECH THERE WILL BE NO DECEIT

(MY FEET I CRUSH. THE FLESH I CUT AWAY, SO AS TO NOT PRODUCE THE SOUND OF THEIR PRESENCE ON ROTTEN GROUND)

BAPTIZED IN VITRIOLIC ACID. A FINAL TOUCH. A SMOOTHING OF FEATURES.
COMPLETION OF THE GREATEST ART; TO CAST THE GODLY CREATURES.
HUMANS, ONCE ASTRAY; MADE DIVINE. STRIPPED OF CONGENITAL FLAWS.
WE'RE INCANDESCENT REVELATIONS IN A WORLD OF DARKENED FORMS.

(CONFIDE IN MY NEW AGE DOGMA. SWALLOW THE INDOCTRINATION. YOU'LL COME TO LOVE IT HERE,
THE SUICIDAL ATMOSPHERE. LET ME INTO YOUR COMMON MIND. I'LL PLANT MY THOUGHTS INTO ITS SOIL.
WALK AMONG US SELF-MADE GODS, DEIFIED THROUGH THE PAINS OF SELF TORTURE)

DISCIPLES, COME JOIN WITH ME TO SAVE A FAILED HUMANITY. FOLLOW THE GOD OF CYANIDE INTO THE NEW ETERNITY.
BEHOLD; A SACRIFICIAL RASE A CLEANSING WORSHIPPING OF PAIN.
THE NEW MILLENIUM CHRIST HERE TO REDEEM ALL FROM LIES

(I'VE COME TO SAVE YOU ALL. I'VE COME TO LIGHT YOUR WAY)

i am loathe to respond in bullet form,maybe because i find it the weakest and laziest form of debate in a text format,but let me address a glaring misconception you seem to have concerning the occupy movement.you seem to be under the impression that its driving force is against rich folk.

now lets put that aside for a second and i shall not deal with just how utterly inaccurate that statement is because what REALLY intrigues me is this: how did you formulate that opinion when so much information is already out there revealing a totally different animal?how did you derive this conclusion and by what information did you base it on?
now THAT is a far more interesting conversation.

Its driving force is against the powers that be. "They". They say money runs the government, and they are right. Money is at the root of all evil. Who controls all the money? The "1 percent", although it's really more the ".001" percent. So it is essentially against the rich and powerful, the income divide they have engineered, and the entrenched power structure they orchaestrate.

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

Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is an ongoing series of demonstrations initiated by the Canadian activist group Adbusters which began September 17, 2011 in Zuccotti Park, located in New York City's Wall Street financial district. The protests are against social and economic inequality, high unemployment, greed, as well as corruption, and the undue influence of corporations—particularly that of the financial services sector—on government. The protesters' slogan We are the 99% refers to the growing difference in wealth in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population.

you also put forth that your main premise was that the students were warned that they would be removed,by force if need be.
maybe i am misunderstanding your thinking but it appears that if there is an announcement then any use of force is justified.
yet in your previous paragraph you stated you understood the necessity to disobey then turn around and become an apologetic for police force.
these two premises are in conflict.

I was merely countering the assertion that they were sprayed without warning, which was a lie. I do believe police have the right to use force, however, I think they could have handled that situation a little better. I do believe we should disobey authority when it runs contrary to what God has commanded, but then and only then.

then in the next paragraph you continue with a verbal denigration of the people of occupy using tried and true tactics of any powerful institution.you literally have just regurgitated state propaganda and i dont think for a second you even realized that fact.do you even know what a marxist,anarchist or socialist actually is? i ask that sincerely not as a slight towards you,because it doesnt appear that you do.

I am not on the side of the state, I am on the side of God. Governments tend towards corruption and unless they adhere to biblical principles they will fall into decay and injustice will be the normative state of the land. So I do not prefer the state at all, but neither do I favor removing it, at least until Jesus returns. It is, as the founders believed, a necessary evil.

Yes, I know what they represent, and their positions are often interchangable. They were out in force waving their communist flags, talking about income redistribution and private property rights, distributing their anti-capitalist propaganda. Here is a quick portrait:

http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2011/11/zuccotti-utopia-portraits-of-revolutionaries/comment-page-1/#comment-22376

They even had maoists:



again i find your premise in conflict.
on the one hand you agree and are aware of the corruption gnawing at our democracy and then turn around and dismiss those who are protesting that VERY corruption you just acknowledged as somehow being unworthy.
i even posted the playbook that powerful institutions use and you fell into lock step with that message.

then lastly you again use a perjorative to describe the occupy movement with obvious disdain and then chastise me for comparing occupy with the civil rights movement.
either you dont understand my point or didnt think it through.
i was not comparing them as being similar in intentions.i was comparing them to how the power of the people are the ONLY way to enact change.
and if you truly agree that this government is corrupt and has been purchased by corporations who use their immense wealth to further their own profit margin at the expense of the average american citizen then i do not understand why your premise is so diametrically opposed in thought and in reason.

your argument is a contradiction.

The fundemental disagreement is this. What I recognize is the corruption gnawing at all of mankind. Everyone is looking at this catastrophe called civilization and thinking "how can we rearrange this so a utopia emerges?" Some people think the inequitable distribution of resources is the source of eivl, and believe that if we just set up a system to share the resources equitably then all goodness will follow from that. Other people think that just having a system is the source of corruption and want to eliminate it altogether and live without any central authority. The issue is that these schemes are all predicated upon the assumption that human beings are generally good. The reality is, human beings are generally sinful and tend towards corruption and not goodness. It isn't the system, or lack thereof that is the problem, it is the human heart:

Jeremiah 17:9

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

If you wiped out everything and started with a blank slate, putting the population of the world into an instant utopia, it would only be a matter of time before the whole thing was rotten to the core. The problem isn't the system, it is us. The only solution to this problem is Jesus Christ. Humans are incapable of governing themselves equitably. The founders recognized this, which is why they instituted checks and balances into the constitution, to try to offset mans sinful nature. They knew no man could be trusted with power. In the same way, to switch systems we would simply just be trading one polished turd for another. When Jesus returns and sets up His kingdom, only then will there be peace upon this Earth.

one last thing and while i hope you know .i shall state openly here.
what i am about to ask i ask in all sincerity and humility.
where do you think jesus would be sitting on this issue?
would he be on capitol hill with the plutocrats and corporate lobbyists?
think about it.

What Jesus is interested in is our salvation. Neither the plutocrats or the protesters are doing anything to reach or to further His Kingdom. They both outside of His will and are following man-centered doctrines and philosophies which glorify themselves and give God no acknowledgement what-so-ever. Jesus wouldn't be happy with any of them.

Luke 11:28

But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

Luke 18:8

I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

>> ^enoch:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Making a foray into politics?

so it appears and not a very impressive one.
@shinyblurry
i.

He takes a phone call in the middle of that?? What a douchebag!

Grover G?? WTF??

It's just mind blowing how Grover rewrites history in his mind. So many of the things we enjoy as a society now are because of government funding and the mentality that some things are more important than profit margins.

There is utterly no sense of rationality or that this guy operates in good faith. He's selling ideaology, he's selling an agenda. If this ideaology fit reality AT ALL he wouldn't have to attempt to "convince" so many people. It would be self evident. He wouldn't have to "sell" anything. The evidence would be there, but he doesn't present evidence, he presents rhetoric and wraps himself in the flag of freedom when it has absolutely ZERO to do with freedom.

This notion that wealthy people are having their freedoms infringed upon is a fantasy at best, outright deceitful at worst.

@SDGundamX

just a short addendum: your citation of the "40 year atheist" is misleading at best, deceitful at worst (while the author you link to is plain old deceitful, suggesting to the reader that he's an atheist when in fact he is not). If you knew, then your wording is highly questionable, and if you didn't, all can say is what I've said to you before: check your sources.

I'll check out the documentries. I agree, not everyone in the movement is like those people, but it really just seems like a mess. The coverage I've seen is a bunch of people slumming around, hawking their pet causes. I also don't see any coherent solution being offered. Do they want us to put all the rich people on a boat and sink it? I've seen people marching with communist flags and other who seem to think socialism is a good idea, which it isn't. Capitalism has flaws, that is undeniable, but it also has done a lot to spread personal freedom around the world. Capitalism is flawed, just like other system, because people are flawed. Anytime you have people entrusted with money and power, they find a way to screw it up, and good people get punished while bad people get rewarded. It's not the system which is the problem. It's the human heart:

Jeremiah 17:9

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

>> ^westy:
A couple of crazies does not invalidate an argument , I have yet to see these hippie/anarchist type people repress anyone to the extent that the banks/cooperate owners and mega rich have (even if intentional or not) .
"I can't get behind a bunch of whiny entitled anarchists"
Don't then I certainly am not behind Whiny entitled anarchists. I think the whiny entitled types are very much in the minority in these protests , the main point of the protests is to draw attention to the fact that the super rich are controlling the policy and are affectively steeling from the majority of people and getting away with it.
Another affect the protests have had is that people are FINALY talking about how fundamental aspects of capitalism are flawed and its not necessaries 1 political party or another that's at fault ( although you can attribute deregulation of the markets to some people more than others)
If you have not seen it already and want a good over view of things watch these documentaries.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt-FyuuWlWQ
http://www.archive.org/details/AdamCurtis_PandorasBox
http://www.archive.org/details/AdamCurtis_TheTrap

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Duckman33:
I've dug plenty deep. I already know that people were trying to warn of the attacks coming, that's old news. So then why lie about it in a press conference? You know, that part where we were lied to by Condie Rice, etc. When they knew fair and well they had conceived that very scenario?
President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other White House officials have consistently denied knowing about the 9/11 plot or receiving information that (or even imagining that) commercial aircraft could be used as weapons. For example, Bush said repeatedly there were no warnings of any kind ... “Never in anybody’s thought process ... about how to protect America did we ever think the evil doers would fly not one but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets ... never.”
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that “the President did not – not – receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers ... Until this attack took place, I think it’s fair to say that no one envisioned that as a possibility.”
Then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said: “I don’t think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile ... even in retrospect there was nothing to suggest that.”
I don't care about the buildings anymore, that's all been "debunked" for the most part.
Like I've said to you before, you can quote all you want from information you find on the interwebs, that doesn't make it any more or less true than anything I can Google and quote. There's a lot more to 9/11 than just the buildings coming down, there's a lot of lies, repeated lies in fact. A lot of denial and finger pointing. And a lot of convenient "failures of the system". Whether you like it or not, or want to admit it or not there is something fishy going on here. But hey, I'm just a crackpot, loonie conspiracy theorist. What do I know, right? I should be a good robot and always implicitly trust people that lie to me on a continual basis, that way I don't have to face an ugly truth, or facts, or think for myself.

Oh for heavens sakes, your acting like discovering that politicians spin things and choose their wording carefully and to their own benefit is a discovery you've made through some stroke of genius.
Politicians will use the truth to deceive and trick the public as long as it's in their own interest, and if it's better to lie they'll do that to. That's not news, it's not a conspiracy, it's common knowledge.
So you seem to accept that an Afghan leader was warning of a 'major attack'(no mention of airplanes, just a major attack) leading up to 9/11. You don't act like his assassination on the 10th of September was a surprise either. What is surprising is your quotes you throw out thinking that officials were unaware or lying about this. EVERY quote you gave specifically states there was no idea that civilian aircraft would be used as missiles in an attack. Remembering that politicians are deceitful monsters, you'll notice they do NOT deny having warnings of an impending Al Qaeda attack. In fact, multiple official reports, investigations, and even Bin Laden's own public statements all make it very clear there were warnings of pending attack from Bin Laden's organization. The only denial in your quotes is specifically to the method.
Sorry, your whole act depends on people being either ignorant of the facts or shocked that politicians might hedge and be dodgy in their answers on a massively political topic...


No I'm not, I'm questioning why they felt had to lie about this. That is all. Don't put words in my mouth, or even try to think you know what motivates me please.

So, if you think that collaborating to bend the truth to deceive and trick the public to achieve a common goal is not a conspiracy I suggest you read up on the definition of what a conspiracy is. Just because I use the word "conspiracy" does not mean I'm referring to some wild, far fetched and unbelievable scenario. That's not always what a conspiracy is, that's what the general public has come to think of what a conspiracy is due to people like you that apply the most extreme definition to the word. Just like a UFO is not necessarily an alien space craft. It's that due to society, and per-conceived notions, most people automatically think of alien space ships when someone refers to seeing a UFO.

Sorry, you're smug little, "I know all the facts, and you are delusional" act is a joke. Yeah, you are far more superior to us "conspiracy nuts".

Oh, where did I say anything about Bush being in bed with Bin Laden or planting explosives in the towers? Why is it that once someone talks about a conspiracy they are automatically "crazy"? Not all of us believe what the fringe is trying to sell, my friend. But we also don't believe what is being force fed down our throats either.

>> ^Duckman33:

I've dug plenty deep. I already know that people were trying to warn of the attacks coming, that's old news. So then why lie about it in a press conference? You know, that part where we were lied to by Condie Rice, etc. When they knew fair and well they had conceived that very scenario?
President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other White House officials have consistently denied knowing about the 9/11 plot or receiving information that (or even imagining that) commercial aircraft could be used as weapons. For example, Bush said repeatedly there were no warnings of any kind ... “Never in anybody’s thought process ... about how to protect America did we ever think the evil doers would fly not one but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets ... never.”
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that “the President did not – not – receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers ... Until this attack took place, I think it’s fair to say that no one envisioned that as a possibility.”
Then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said: “I don’t think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile ... even in retrospect there was nothing to suggest that.”
I don't care about the buildings anymore, that's all been "debunked" for the most part.
Like I've said to you before, you can quote all you want from information you find on the interwebs, that doesn't make it any more or less true than anything I can Google and quote. There's a lot more to 9/11 than just the buildings coming down, there's a lot of lies, repeated lies in fact. A lot of denial and finger pointing. And a lot of convenient "failures of the system". Whether you like it or not, or want to admit it or not there is something fishy going on here. But hey, I'm just a crackpot, loonie conspiracy theorist. What do I know, right? I should be a good robot and always implicitly trust people that lie to me on a continual basis, that way I don't have to face an ugly truth, or facts, or think for myself.


Oh for heavens sakes, your acting like discovering that politicians spin things and choose their wording carefully and to their own benefit is a discovery you've made through some stroke of genius.

Politicians will use the truth to deceive and trick the public as long as it's in their own interest, and if it's better to lie they'll do that to. That's not news, it's not a conspiracy, it's common knowledge.

So you seem to accept that an Afghan leader was warning of a 'major attack'(no mention of airplanes, just a major attack) leading up to 9/11. You don't act like his assassination on the 10th of September was a surprise either. What is surprising is your quotes you throw out thinking that officials were unaware or lying about this. EVERY quote you gave specifically states there was no idea that civilian aircraft would be used as missiles in an attack. Remembering that politicians are deceitful monsters, you'll notice they do NOT deny having warnings of an impending Al Qaeda attack. In fact, multiple official reports, investigations, and even Bin Laden's own public statements all make it very clear there were warnings of pending attack from Bin Laden's organization. The only denial in your quotes is specifically to the method.

Sorry, your whole act depends on people being either ignorant of the facts or shocked that politicians might hedge and be dodgy in their answers on a massively political topic...

>> ^shinyblurry:

Perhaps some people use religion as a means of control, but that isn't the goal or interest of christians. It is merely to preach the good news of Jesus Christ our Lord. I can't save anyone, that is Gods work. I would call your anger here misplaced and quite irrational. You seem to have extremely strong opinions on Christianity which are not very well researched. Have you ever actually read the bible? If not, how can you hate something you know nothing about?
“The way is not in the sky. The way is in the heart.” - Buddha
Jeremiah 17:9
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
>> ^rougy:
God, I hate the Bible. It has to be one of the most evil books ever written. I don't have one in my home, and every time I stay in a motel I'm tempted to toss the one that the Jesus freaks always pack in the nightstand.
The only thing worse than the Bible are the Bible beaters, because 90% of them don't want to help you, they just want to control you; they just want to make you feel bad about being a human being who isn't under their control
God knows how many people's lives were ruined by the Bible beaters foisting their ugly, depraved, mean-spirited and ultimately shallow beliefs on folks who were doing just fine until they came along.
“The way is not in the sky. The way is in the heart.” - Buddha



You don't know about God any better than anybody else. It's your hubris that annoys me. You do much more harm than good. It is your heart that is deceitful, and desperately wicked. You should reconsider laying your hangups and shortcomings on other people.

Why did Dawkin's cross the street?

Because God said he couldn't.

*****

“Where ones treasure is, there also is his heart.” - Jesus Christ

Perhaps some people use religion as a means of control, but that isn't the goal or interest of christians. It is merely to preach the good news of Jesus Christ our Lord. I can't save anyone, that is Gods work. I would call your anger here misplaced and quite irrational. You seem to have extremely strong opinions on Christianity which are not very well researched. Have you ever actually read the bible? If not, how can you hate something you know nothing about?

“The way is not in the sky. The way is in the heart.” - Buddha

Jeremiah 17:9

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

>> ^rougy:
God, I hate the Bible. It has to be one of the most evil books ever written. I don't have one in my home, and every time I stay in a motel I'm tempted to toss the one that the Jesus freaks always pack in the nightstand.
The only thing worse than the Bible are the Bible beaters, because 90% of them don't want to help you, they just want to control you; they just want to make you feel bad about being a human being who isn't under their control
God knows how many people's lives were ruined by the Bible beaters foisting their ugly, depraved, mean-spirited and ultimately shallow beliefs on folks who were doing just fine until they came along.
“The way is not in the sky. The way is in the heart.” - Buddha

Sociopaths are a vanishingly small percentage of the population. I was talking about scientific studies with large samples which statistically tend to show that there are certain behaviors that are encouraged by our genes and some that are discouraged by our genes. Emotions are defined as the automatic programs that are executed in an animal in response to certain stimuli. Your life experience can certainly skew the triggers but our nature as social animals and the evolutionary advantage of cooperating with each other means and history has shown that culture corrects and steadily moves towards something that matches our nature. Why nature through evolution has led to nature being what it is currently is where your God or my "mind of the All" or the great mystery enters the picture.

-Karl
>> ^shinyblurry:

Some people feel good when they hurt people..I would say the reward systems of human beings is one of the most suspect things in existence. If it feels good do it is not a basis for morality. Popular culture says to follow your heart. The bible says in contrast:
Jeremiah 17:9
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

>> ^swedishfriend:
Well, it is in our nature as a social animal to share and to help each other, etc. There are built-in reward systems that make you feel good when you give something to someone else (you feel better than if you kept it for yourself). You feel bad when you hurt someone else. You could base your morality around your natural emotional system that has been built by evolution to ensure the survival of the species. Why nature produces life in ever more complex forms is the big question but I think it is scientifically clear that all animals have evolved emotional responses to help the species survive and that we are a social animal like many other animal species who, like us, go out of their way to help and protect each other.
-Karl
PS. edited for rushed grammar.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Whether or not there is actually a higher power that is divinely judicial is irrelevant if everything we do here on earth, on a collective level, is consensus based.
Well, as I said before I believe everyone has a God given conscience which tells them right from wrong, so morality is not determined by concensus but rather Gods standard. Whether humans choose to obey that standard is their personal choice.
>> ^rougy:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'll ignore all your bait and just ask you this: tell me how in a concensus based morality anything could truly be right and wrong?

But a consensus based "morality" is based on a consensus based "reality", and that's all we have to go on.
Every religion is consensus-based.
Whether or not there is actually a higher power that is divinely judicial is irrelevant if everything we do here on earth, on a collective level, is consensus based.
It may matter on the individual level, but even that is based on a personal belief and not knowledge.

Some people feel good when they hurt people..I would say the reward systems of human beings is one of the most suspect things in existence. If it feels good do it is not a basis for morality. Popular culture says to follow your heart. The bible says in contrast:

Jeremiah 17:9

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?


>> ^swedishfriend:
Well, it is in our nature as a social animal to share and to help each other, etc. There are built-in reward systems that make you feel good when you give something to someone else (you feel better than if you kept it for yourself). You feel bad when you hurt someone else. You could base your morality around your natural emotional system that has been built by evolution to ensure the survival of the species. Why nature produces life in ever more complex forms is the big question but I think it is scientifically clear that all animals have evolved emotional responses to help the species survive and that we are a social animal like many other animal species who, like us, go out of their way to help and protect each other.
-Karl
PS. edited for rushed grammar.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Whether or not there is actually a higher power that is divinely judicial is irrelevant if everything we do here on earth, on a collective level, is consensus based.
Well, as I said before I believe everyone has a God given conscience which tells them right from wrong, so morality is not determined by concensus but rather Gods standard. Whether humans choose to obey that standard is their personal choice.
>> ^rougy:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'll ignore all your bait and just ask you this: tell me how in a concensus based morality anything could truly be right and wrong?

But a consensus based "morality" is based on a consensus based "reality", and that's all we have to go on.
Every religion is consensus-based.
Whether or not there is actually a higher power that is divinely judicial is irrelevant if everything we do here on earth, on a collective level, is consensus based.
It may matter on the individual level, but even that is based on a personal belief and not knowledge.

Sin is the cause of evil. It causes a derangement and moral depravity in the heart and mind. From this, wicked intentions and desires arise. Sin is also the cause of death. We are born predisposed towards sin because our nature is inherently corrupt.

Jeremiah 17:9

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?


>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Sin is an immoral act which transgresses Gods law. It isn't an absence of God, it is disobedience against His laws.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^kir_mokum:
and according to your myth, who created evil and lucifer?

This is where you get the fascinating explanation that "evil" is the absence of god. But god didn't create evil and there was nothing in the universe before god. But god didn't create evil.
Get it? Simple right?


I didn't say sin did I? Quit changing the subject.