@Mordhaus @ChaosEngine
I knew about the 2012 referendum, and the lack of overwhelming support for the direct yes/no question to change the current status or stay with the status quo (about 55% wanted to change, 45% wanted to stay back then). Didn't know about the most recent vote on it -- thanks for the heads up.


Personally I'd like to see PR become the 51st state, but I think my opinion is drastically less important than that of the people actually living there. Basically, I think they should make the choice and the US government should honor it whichever way they choose.

I'm not in the know enough to have a good opinion on whether or not they would need some sort of payout / debt severance / whatever, but I'd be OK with it if it was deemed a good thing to do. On the other hand, if they went independent they'd have the right to set corporate tax rates etc. to pay off debts and/or chase out US based businesses that are taking unfair advantage. Maybe that'd be enough of an olive branch without requiring an additional "severance package", I dunno.

As depressing as it is, Trump might very well be the preferable outcome for people in the Maghreb. Clinton has been a major driver behind the clusterfuck that used to be Syria and Libya.

Also, if you browse through the economics commentaries outside the mainstream, you'll notice that the US-based crowd seems to be borrowing yet another word from German: Lumpenproletariat. Old Marx is back with a vengeance.

And if people like Clinton, Cameron, Hollande, Rajoy and Merkel piss on the Lumpenproletariat, you get your Farages, your le Pens, your Trumps, your Petrys. Treat the plebs like rats, and many will follow whatever rat-catcher comes along...

"I need to leave, but I'm not free of the world."

Amen, brother.

Too much credit is being given to the AI here. It constructed semi-comprehensible sentences, but what we're watching was interpreted through the human production, and the rest was put together by our own nature to find patterns and sense in the incomprehensible. (i.e. We see what we want to see, and manufacture the meanings that mean something to us based on our experiences and environment).

I quite enjoyed the talk, with the minor quibble that his example about WWII bombers was really referencing the work of Abraham Wald (who was US based by then) and the study was by the US Center for Naval Analyses rather than being British.

There will always be foolproof software alternatives for encryption but the aim of the FBI here is clearly to be able to decrypt the lowest common denominator. They know that most criminal or even terrorist suspects will simply have the default level of encryption.

The fight here is really against Apple turning on encryption by default which is something it only started doing after the Snowden NSA revelations. If I recall right, previously Apple would unlock iPhones at will for law enforcement. The change was to protect their reputation given the pervasive assumption that US based tech companies were all in collusion with the NSA. Also they would have probably been miffed that while co-operating with them, the NSA was also hacking trans-continental cables to get access to communications more directly.

I also think that Obama had a point when he recently said at a tech conference that it is likely some ugly law will be rammed through Congress with very little debate after the next major terrorist attack, and that it will be much more draconian than anything proposed now. However, that doesn't really get past the fact there is no good software solution here. Encryption is math. You can no more build a foolproof backdoor than you can make 1+1 equal 3.

Your video, How the FBI strategy is creating US-based terrorists, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 19 Badge!

Its a matter of chicken vs egg. They don't need huge military expenditures because security is provided by the US. But if they and all their neighbors had to provide sufficient defense, mostly against the people who are most likely to invade them (i.e. their neighbors), you get an arms race like you have with India/Pakistan, North/South Korea, Iran/Saudi Arabia. The indirect savings and the refocusing of capital and human resources away from the military in all of these allies countries makes the world a much safer place, since war no longer becomes the go to solution for states to resolve differences.

US bases do fall into 2 categories. Allies who don't want to get invaded again, and enemies who lost and became allies. As for Kuwait, that didn't work out well for Iraq, and Kuwait is still independent and an ally. Ukraine has no US bases, Russia would go ballistic if there were (surprisingly appropriate use of the word). ISIS is the anomaly, but right now you can put that down to the fact that Obama really, really doesn't want to put US troops on the ground (think he would hesitate if ISIS invaded England or Australia for example?), and that Iraq's military is trying to handle this as much as possible on their own and clearly having trouble.

I don't know if we need all 800 bases currently or if some are just vestigial. I'm not qualified to give an opinion on the necessity of them, though

Except almost all these bases are in allied countries, not as an occupying force (Guantanamo predates the Communist Revolution,so tough luck for Havana). These bases provide mutual defense and security.

Countries with US bases in them don't get invaded. How much do you think it would cost to have every single allied country try and run and maintain a truly effective military for their own defense instead of using the US as a strategic partner? Way more than $100b a year.

(P.S. loving the irony of the guy with the handle of Praetor and the avatar of the Emperor arguing he doesn't live in an empire, lol)

Nice, we are finally going to get that shitstorm i always knew we would get.. We all knew that USA collects all of our data, they don't even hide the fact but now that it's been fully revealed... Well, i for one will try to stay away from US based websites. Not that it matters. One thing is for sure, i'll be sending a LOT of keyword searches, might even do a bot. If they collect my data, i wan't it glow red and waste their time as much as possible.

This is a very ugly misconception that you seem to have. Except for several very vocal celebrities, Atheists aren't "against" religion... there certainly isn't some central creed or governing body telling us what to organize against.

What Atheists are against, in the western world, is having our government (and hence our lives) tainted by beliefs that we don't hold. In Muslim countries, there are harsh penalties (up to Death) for blasphemy... so you won't find many people speaking up. In the US, Muslims and Hindus aren't making laws to persecute us, hence why you don't hear us complaining about them.

There's no crusade to remove Religion... There's no attempt to persecute Christians, we just want the ability to go about our heathen lives in peace.

Here is a bunch of atheists who disagree with you: http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism

This is probably because the content in the video was a pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-philosophical sermon that made such astronomical leaps that it didn't need to be said.

Pretty harsh point for the people who enjoyed it. If that's true then make your case against it, since you have understood it so well as to completely dismiss it.

There wasn't an argument made for this. For some reason, you seem to believe that "the things we do in life have no meaning after we die" turns people into sociopaths... And since we're not all sociopaths, that proves that God exists. The first issue is that you assume that 'meaninglessness' leads to sociopathic behavior. Secondly, this is a textbook example of Denying the Antecedant fallacy.

Show me where anyone said this, or even implied it.

--Skipping the story--

Is this really your argument? 80% of the people you meet were raised Christian (even most of the Atheists)... This is confirmation bias... You can't say something is put there by God when Religion was preaching to them on a weekly basis. If there really were some sort of imperative planted by God... wouldn't there be far less religious wars?

Breaking news... people really do spend their entire lives 'waxing philosophically'... People do die for things that their religion has told them was wrong, but they felt was right (Anti-Gay Violence?).

That's what is called sitting in Gods lap to slap His face, or borrowing from my worldview to establish yours, and this really isn't an argument in your favor. Also, as far as sin goes, do you understand Christian theology?

This is news to me... I believe Mormons teach this, but all other denominations preach that when you accept the Holy Spirit, it moves you to do good deeds... that the good deeds aren't your own.

Revelation 22:12

And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding me here. I was very specifically using the definition of 'meaningless' that the speaker above uses... as in, 'meaning nothing after you die'.

But that isn't the definition he used. He applied it to past present and future.

My point exactly. The only thing that matters is that you've accepted Jesus as your Savior. NOTHING else matters... hence it is meaningless.

Where do you get the hence from? Meaning is meaning. Even if there was only one meaningful act you could ever do, it would still be meaningful. However, in the context of God, everything takes on its true meaning, attaining the purpose it was created for.

You completely ignored my point here. Except for the Mennonites, there are no other denominations (in the US) that take a hard stance against violence. None. Zero. This country is 80% Christian, and yet we've been at war for 209 of 235 years of our existence.

No ignored my point that religions don't matter, because the true church is the body of Christ. You want to blame an institution, and that's fine, but that isn't what the church is.

Let me be very clear on this: ALL CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS IN THE US ARE FALSE purely based on this one single fact (again, excluding Mennonites)... Granted, that doesn't prove that God doesn't exist... but it certainly does mean that I can't trust any US-based Christians...

I believe all denominations are false because they bring separation to the body of Christ.

What have you done to end discrimination (of ALL types)? Have you participated in any protests against wars, for Gay Marriage, for Women's Rights? Have you stood up in Church to let everyone know that you think it's wrong to discriminate against others, regardless of what they've done?

I'm against discrimination, flat out, and I would say something if I see it. I don't go to protests, no. I use my time to help people in many other ways.

I'd recommend reading up on philosophy, logical debate, and comparative religion... and finding a denomination that is above reproach. The reason Atheists always seem to have the same 'tired' arguments all the time is because we don't need to have new ones... the old arguments still come out in our favor.

I'd recommend the same to you, and the old arguments obviously are not coming out in your favor since atheism is in decline

http://www.sneps.net/RD/uploads/1-Shall%20the%20Religious%20Inherit%20the%20Earth.pdf

This is the point where most Atheists become seriously pissed... Simply stating that someone is wrong because they don't believe what you believe is not the way to have a discussion. Especially when what you believe isn't widely believed by your own fellow Christians. LCMS, Presbyterians and Seventh-Day Adventists are the only denominations that officially preach Young-Earth Creationism...

The whole point is, if it is an old earth, it doesn't make sense that Jesus would come after 198000 years of struggle. That doesn't really prove anything, but the entire point is invalidated if it is a young Earth. Do you see what I am saying? I didn't say he was wrong, I just said what I believe.

>> ^hatsix

Although, you cannot earn your salvation, there are rewards in Heaven based on what you did here on Earth.

This is news to me... I believe Mormons teach this, but all other denominations preach that when you accept the Holy Spirit, it moves you to do good deeds... that the good deeds aren't your own.

Neither is it meaningless to follow the two greatest commandments:
Love the Lord thy God with all of your heart, and all of your soul, and all of your mind, and with all of your strength.
and
Love thy neighbor as yourself
Unless you count loving God and your fellow man as meaningless, they are both a reward onto themselves and filled with meaning.

You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding me here. I was very specifically using the definition of 'meaningless' that the speaker above uses... as in, 'meaning nothing after you die'.

The judgment is about sin. Your friends, along with every Christian, have transgressed Gods laws, and the wages of sin is death. The difference is, Christians have received Gods pardon for their transgressions, whereas unbelievers have rejected it and thus have to face God on their own merits.

My point exactly. The only thing that matters is that you've accepted Jesus as your Savior. NOTHING else matters... hence it is meaningless.

Any branch of Christianity that doesn't take a hard stance against violence is twisting the Bible to their own selfish ends... which is, unfortunately, most of them.

A Christian is simply someone who has been born again, and has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and the true church is the body of Christ. Regardless of what a denomination might say, a Christian should consult the word of God:
Matthew 26:52
Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

You completely ignored my point here. Except for the Mennonites, there are no other denominations (in the US) that take a hard stance against violence. None. Zero. This country is 80% Christian, and yet we've been at war for 209 of 235 years of our existence.

Let me be very clear on this: ALL CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS IN THE US ARE FALSE purely based on this one single fact (again, excluding Mennonites)... Granted, that doesn't prove that God doesn't exist... but it certainly does mean that I can't trust any US-based Christians...

I agree with everything you're saying here. Christians are to love their enemies, bless those who curse them, and pray for those who despitefully use them. We are to unconditionally love everyone, because they are in the image of God, and because God so loved the world, He gave His only begotten Son. That is the model of behavior He has given us.

What have you done to end discrimination (of ALL types)? Have you participated in any protests against wars, for Gay Marriage, for Women's Rights? Have you stood up in Church to let everyone know that you think it's wrong to discriminate against others, regardless of what they've done?



I'd recommend reading up on philosophy, logical debate, and comparative religion... and finding a denomination that is above reproach. The reason Atheists always seem to have the same 'tired' arguments all the time is because we don't need to have new ones... the old arguments still come out in our favor.

If you reread my post, taking into account that when i say evidence i refer only to public evidences, not personal ones that can't be substantiated by the public, i.e. me, then i think my points might become clearer as to why i say faith is an assumption. This is not including personal evidences and felt that I covered that sufficiently enough near the base of my previous post. The basic gist is: if you have personally experienced God, this is in no way a defensible evidence in a discussion requiring objective evidence.

Hence, you have a trump card, one that is only truly valued by yourself and easily discarded by others.

Actually, no. The evidence I have (the internal witness of the Holy Spirit) is the result of a test of the validity of the claim that Jesus has risen from the dead. Jesus promised that after He had been raised from the dead that He would ascend to Heaven and send the Holy Spirit from the right hand of power to everyone who believes in Him. To receive the promised Holy Spirit is objective evidence of the validity of the claim of the resurrection, and Jesus' claim to be the Savior of the world. I cannot prove to you that this has happened to me, but it is something you can test on your own:

Which leads me to this:

It's my knowledge that the faith-claim or God-claim has been unsubstantiated to myself personally as well as others (based on hearing their testimonies and reasons for it being unsubstantiated for them). This is not an assumption on my behalf, you or other religious folk haven't proven anything to me, this I know.

What Jesus said is this:

John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me

Jesus said there was no other way to know anything about God except through Him. So far, your experience precisely matches His claim. You have no seen no evidence of God what so ever. Therefore, if Jesus' claim is true, you shouldn't be surprised to find a lack of evidence of Gods existence; it is in fact exactly what you would expect to see. Yet, you erroneously use this as evidence to rule out Jesus' claims, when He Himself claimed this would be the case if you tried to know God by any other means except through Him. So therefore, you fail to do the one thing that would provide you evidence, not understanding that the lack of evidence you have encountered actually validates His claim.

Additionally I do not believe that 'there IS NO God' as a true Atheist, i claim to be an Atheist because it's easier to define my position quickly as I'm a pin prick away from being one.

I know nothing as to whether God definitively exists or not, to claim otherwise would be an intellectual failure as one wouldn't be taking into consideration that they may be so delusional to the point of not realizing they could be delusional. To which both extreme's are something to ridicule as there is a trump card for both sides.
Theist trump card: God never shows him/her/itself, so can not be disproved.
Atheist trump card: One's so delusional that they can't comprehend that they're suffering from a delusion.

If you are that close to being an atheist, what is the practical difference? To maintain a hairbreadth of uncertainty so as to hold the "intellectual honesty" card is actually intellectually dishonest I think, no offense. I don't think being certain and being a hairsbreadth away from certainty is really much different. Where is the genuine humility about the limited capacity of mans ability to reason and his subjective and biased experiences? If you think you are merely matter, why would you trust the chemicals in your brain to be able to rationally determine that? Have you pondered that everything is equally unlikely? How would you know you were looking at a Universe that wasn't designed?

I very strongly doubt there is an intelligent-entity that cares about us based on biological and psychological survival drives such as the delusional properties of 'hope' and the chemical reactions that can occur in extreme scenarios having incredible benefits to over power paralytic levels of fear and keep us moving forward when logical-processing would hold us back or tell us to give up (these are live or die situations with extreme level's of emotion)

This is the standard reply of the atheist (the theist is too scared to face the big bad universe so he makes up an invisible friend to comfort him) but it doesn't apply to me. I grew up without religion and was agnostic until I came to believe in God. I wasn't afraid of death (I was resigned to it happening at some point)..I came to God because I wanted to know what the truth is. I was prepared to die even after finding God.

combined with my thoughts of the statistical probability being unlikely due to both the sheer size of the universe compared to how small God's favorite pet is and that science can explain reasonable theories on how stars and planetary bodies formed.. among many other psychology based reasons.

The medulla oblongata is a relatively small part of the body but you could not live without it. The size of the Universe has nothing to do with the relative importance of Earth. Scripture never says either way whether there is life elsewhere, either.

If you've read up on big bang theory then you would understand that there are some gigantic fudge factors in it (such as cosmic inflation), and understanding of stellar evolution is actually very primitive. Even if scientists understood this perfectly, what does that actually prove? The question, as it relates to God is, why is it in existence in the first place?

Did you know that scientists must make fundamental assumptions, such as a uniformity in nature, to even do science? Can you answer why there is a uniformity in nature?

PS: good on you for responding to all those posts, i like reading other peoples discussions about religion.

I enjoy talking with you guys..I am interested in your POV. Most of all, I want you to know the love of God.

EDIT: comment on your reply to Sagemind "If God is perfect, then He is the source of the highest good, and He is perfect love", ok, but by that logic he is also the source of the highest bad, and He is perfect hate.

Scripture says differently:

1 John 1:5

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

It would be less perfect for God to be a mixture of good and evil versus being perfectly good.

God stories involve good things yes, but they also involve bad things. To disregard all the bad because of some good is to review the subject lopsidedly.

I'm aware that some like to pluck things out of context from the bible and call some of Gods judgments evil. An atheist calling God evil is par for the course, but the real question is, were His judgments just? Some atheists seem unable to think past a superficial level about the nature of God, and His role in creation.

For instance, God is the giver of life. He gives everyone a body and soul, air to breathe, water to drink, and He even upholds the atoms that comprise your being. Life is only possible because of what God is doing for you in this very moment, and every moment.

So, if this is true, why is it wrong for God to take it away, at the time of His choosing?

Let's say someone is doing something terribly evil, and causing many people to greatly suffer. The evil he is doing is going to cause many people to miss the boat on what God had planned for them. Is God wrong for judging this person and taking away his life to serve the greater good? Now lets say this is a nation, which is causing many other nations to suffer in the same way. Is God wrong for judging that nation? Wouldn't God actually be evil for ignoring it and allowing people to suffer needlessly? How about if the entire world becomes corrupt? Wouldn't God be evil for allowing it to continue that way?

It is the combination of good and bad that would lead me to reply to God on my door step "Ok, now i believe you exist, but you're still a sociopath and i don't respect that given your incredible capability, why not be a humanitarian?.. and why give humans intelligence then condemn them for using it when they ask for reliably testable proof? ..please don't hurt me. Also if humans are made in your likeness, can you confirm to Christians that you do in fact have homosexual tendencies?".. naturally God would then proceed to kick my ass with his perfect love/hate

I think you are suffering from a lack of imagination. Here is the being that has created everything you have ever loved, appreciated, been in awe of, who is intimately familiar with your comings and goings, all of your thoughts and feelings. He gave you your family, your friends, your talents, your purposes. He understands you better than you understand yourself. All you can do is think to insult Him? I might call this evidence of a pathology in your thought process.




>> ^Sepacore:

@shinyblurry

Does this sum up your position?

^ No. I think you're getting lost in the gap between the types of evidences.

The twists and turns we make around 'evidence' can be clearly defined as either,
1. 'personal evidence' which is subjective and thus not subject to testing validity, and
2. 'scientific evidence' which is objective and thus is subject to testing validity.

You stand on a trump card that no one can ever take away if you simply refuse to let it be taken. I'm not going to argue whether or not you (or any Religious) genuinely feel/experience what you say you feel/experience whereby it provides you with subjective evidence, and I will instead take the assumption you do as i have little objective reason to state otherwise.. but at the same time I'm not going to give your provability-weak definition of 'evidence' (i.e. subjective) the same credit as i give to what i consider to be actual/public evidence, i.e. objective.

Note: when I speak about evidence without a specific definition on type of evidence, I'm speaking about the type that you can give to another human (usually a scientists within a relevant field) whereby they would, after a review, conclude that your evidence is supportable or not based on the results of predictions made in tests. I'll rarely include 'subjective evidences' in my term of the word 'evidence' as i would more likely refer to these as 'subjective experience'.

If you reread my post, taking into account that when i say evidence i refer only to public evidences, not personal ones that can't be substantiated by the public, i.e. me, then i think my points might become clearer as to why i say faith is an assumption. This is not including personal evidences and felt that I covered that sufficiently enough near the base of my previous post. The basic gist is: if you have personally experienced God, this is in no way a defensible evidence in a discussion requiring objective evidence.

Hence, you have a trump card, one that is only truly valued by yourself and easily discarded by others.


What test did you use to validate that these tests are reliable in the first place?

^ My statement is in relation to what is actually measurable, in this case stress level's is the better property to measure. How do i know if stress is being measured properly? The ability to predict the outcome prior to a test based on knowledge gained from previous tests relating to human behavior and chemical reactions giving clear indication that the results of the tests are based on something reliably true.


It's your assumption that faith is an unsubstantiated belief, based on your unsubstantiated belief that there is no God.

^ No, it's not.
It's my knowledge that the faith-claim or God-claim has been unsubstantiated to myself personally as well as others (based on hearing their testimonies and reasons for it being unsubstantiated for them). This is not an assumption on my behalf, you or other religious folk haven't proven anything to me, this I know.

Additionally I do not believe that 'there IS NO God' as a true Atheist, i claim to be an Atheist because it's easier to define my position quickly as I'm a pin prick away from being one. I very strongly doubt there is an intelligent-entity that cares about us based on biological and psychological survival drives such as the delusional properties of 'hope' and the chemical reactions that can occur in extreme scenarios having incredible benefits to over power paralytic levels of fear and keep us moving forward when logical-processing would hold us back or tell us to give up (these are live or die situations with extreme level's of emotion) combined with my thoughts of the statistical probability being unlikely due to both the sheer size of the universe compared to how small God's favorite pet is and that science can explain reasonable theories on how stars and planetary bodies formed.. among many other psychology based reasons.

I know nothing as to whether God definitively exists or not, to claim otherwise would be an intellectual failure as one wouldn't be taking into consideration that they may be so delusional to the point of not realizing they could be delusional. To which both extreme's are something to ridicule as there is a trump card for both sides.
Theist trump card: God never shows him/her/itself, so can not be disproved.
Atheist trump card: One's so delusional that they can't comprehend that they're suffering from a delusion.

PS: good on you for responding to all those posts, i like reading other peoples discussions about religion.

EDIT: comment on your reply to Sagemind "If God is perfect, then He is the source of the highest good, and He is perfect love", ok, but by that logic he is also the source of the highest bad, and He is perfect hate.
God stories involve good things yes, but they also involve bad things. To disregard all the bad because of some good is to review the subject lopsidedly. It is the combination of good and bad that would lead me to reply to God on my door step "Ok, now i believe you exist, but you're still a sociopath and i don't respect that given your incredible capability, why not be a humanitarian?.. and why give humans intelligence then condemn them for using it when they ask for reliably testable proof? ..please don't hurt me. Also if humans are made in your likeness, can you confirm to Christians that you do in fact have homosexual tendencies?".. naturally God would then proceed to kick my ass with his perfect love/hate.