AlexCrowley

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/ PBS actually has the entire show up in .mov (quicktime streaming) format, and a lot of background info. String theory is fun to play with. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

I may be missing the point of your post, but I wasnt trying to imply anything negative. Religions generally have multiple layers because some teachings are considered too complex for the layperson or unintiated. In these kinds of forums it can be tough to discuss xtianity because you'll have the 'bible is the exact word of god' guy and the agnostic and the guy who's done bible study and understands more about the context in which it was written. Fun stuff in general, certainly not something I consider manipulative from any religion, just basic common sense. Aliester Crowley once noted about his membership of the occult order of the Golden Dawn, that after a mystical initiation and much ceremony he was entrusted with the secret occult wisdom of the Hebrew alphabet. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

yes it does http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#beasts_in_ark How many kinds did Noah bring into the ark, two or seven? I love the apologists, makes me laugh my butt off. What I truly cannot fathom is that both believer and non-believer seem to insist in the integrity of the Bible. For the xtians it must be ABSOLUTELY FACTUALLY TRUE. For the non-believers any contradiction, regardless of triviality, makes the entire book null and void. Given the history of the KJV transaltion, the political history of the religion, the way the current selection of biblical books were chosen, I do not believe that a work that size is going to remain internally consistent at all times, but neither do I believe that it needs to be so. The catholic church knows that there is more to the Christian canon than the small fraction available within the Bible itself. Like most religions and cults - the Bible is the book for the uneducated and the neophyte, gaining wisdom within the discipline and attaining higher rank gets access to more of that religions mysteries. I really believe this is where the protestants got screwed out of a lot of knowledge and understanding, by rejecting catholicism they rejected a very large part of available christian wisdom and placed far too much emphasis on a book that is really just a primer and introduction to a much greater mystery. (disclaimer: I am not a christian) BTW the apologists 'answers to contradictions in the bible' are bogus, and I would be more than happy to debate each point when I have the time. As I said, I dont feel apologies are necessary anymore than I believe in a need for a 'perfect' bible. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

I understand and agree with your point. But this is like saying 'not all christians are hatemongers'. There is a significant percentage of people who follow the scientific faith with no more understanding than the worshipers of any faith who have never really examined the 'WHY'. "Finally, I have to laugh at christians who say I'm "evil," or I'm "miserable and sinful and need god." To this I reply: I don't need any guarantees of everlasting life (who the hell would want to live forever, anyway? Are you nuts?) When I die, I'm decomposing into dust, from which I evolved." - from a previous thread. I dont use this as an example of my above statement, but this attitude requires as much faith as thinking you're going to a heaven of some sort. Scripture provides the basic building blocks of faith, both science and religion leave us a lot of whys - yet, depending on our natural inclination, we tend to fill in the gaps with absolutes. The christian will go to heaven. The scientific believer will turn to dust. Neither has any doubt in their eventual end. Can both be correct? TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Ok, first things that this post is not: It is not about the existence or truth of any god or religion. It is not about the existence or truth of any branch of science or any concrete fact. What this post is: I am interested in peoples opinions about the reason we use various tools of belief. I watched the 'God is dead' threads and see the religious and the scientists argue the same thing from different sides. My question: Do we, as humans, have a need to create an overall framework of explanation to the universe around us? If we do, why do we choose the things we choose? It is easy for the religious person to discuss faith in God, this allows for that person to have a rigid structure to live within. The rules are defined, right and wrong is understood. society flourishes and we're all happy. It is easy for the scientific person to discuss faith in numbers and facts and the observable. It has rigid rules that are defined. The question is no longer about a moral right or wrong, only physics - cause and effect. Once you scratch any religions surface you are able to see the inconsistencies and contradictions. A religious person will argue that (any) God holds all the answers to creation, even in the face of scientific facts that directly contradict this. It requires faith in a god beyond rationality to believe that facts are false and that it all happens exactly as your particular system says so. Once you scratch away sciences veneer it can only really tell you how something observed happens, and even then that information is only as good as the testtube it was observed in. The scientists will argue this harder than a religious zealot, but science merely opens more doors of inquiry - it provides few revelations about existence, it requires faith in science to assume that it can answer all questions, it requires a quantum leap of faith to assume that science negates the existence of a higher power. Even nihilism requires a great deal of faith. The agnostic and the believer both voluntarily* adopt a blueprint of existence which creates a framework in which to function. We know historically that even the earliest man had religious beliefs by anthropomorphising those things it could not understand. We also know that when man rejects those methods of belief he gravitates to other ways to explain the universe around him. At the root of all fear there is the unknown. Without that mystery there can be no fear. Perhaps we're wired to reject uncertainty and for those questions larger than ourselves we reach out to gods and logic, some ordered system with which to make sense of the dark. Do you think that we'll move beyond a need for faith in things? (I realize for religious types this is an impossible question to answer) Do you think that at some point there will be a convergence of the scientific and spiritual? (I realize for the science only people this is an impossible question to answer) My personal belief is that certainty creates strife. If we were less certain of things we might find areas of inquiry we had never considered and solutions that we'd never have found. Contrary to the tone of the majority of my posts, I try to remain as uncertain of absolutes as humanly possible. Skydiving embodies this uncertainty to me, for all our science, all our planning, our logic, our preperation, and/or our prayers, we still leap out into the unknown on our first or our ten thousandth jump. Our equipment is the embodiment of science, our willingness to jump the embodiment of our faith of god or faith in science itself to protect us on this one jump. *to various degrees. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

One could easily argue that some parts of science do not agree either, especially once you start looking at quantum theory. Einsteins theory of relatively is certainly looking more and more shakey as we learn more at a subatomic level. I have more but i'm going to start another thread on this. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

I think there's an interesting point regarding Straussian philosophy and whether it really can be considered compatible with the traditional republican ideals. Liberalism has been so villified in the US that it's rarely going to play a part in the decision making process. There's a great comment I read somewhere: In the rest of the world the Democratic party would be considered a viable right wing opposition, the Republicans would be considered an extreme right wing organization with marginal support. I'll leave it to the citizens of other countries to weigh the truth of that statement. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Kathleen, as was mentioned before, you're not being attacked but your posts will be picked apart. Thats the nature of SC, we argue because we like to challenge each other and learn from each other. If person A says 'X = Y' then person B will ask 'why do you say that? X = Z because A + B = C', hopefully A comes back and says 'Ahhh C may be but E - F > G, which is why X = Y, but I take your point, perhaps it's clearer to say X = Y^C'. Your posts are merely being discussed the same as everyone elses. Personally I hate Descartes argument for the existence of God for the following reasons: I think the problem is that a believer is going to approach such an argument from such a different perspective than a non-believer that any middleground where communication can be agreed upon is going to be very difficult to find. ( I mentioned this earlier in the thread regarding conflicting ideologies, the 'BS theatre' post). What appears to be a totally rational and logical argument from one side sounds inane and weak from the other. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

As someone who works in a school I'm sure you're intelligent enough to understand the point. But lets follow you down the narrow avenue of your thoughts: Intentionally targeting civilians would be ONE way of meeting the definition of 'unlawful use of force and violence'. Now, my educated and intelligent friend, could you also say that blowing up a military installation is also 'unlawful use of force and violence'? You ignored my statement about the attack on the USS Cole, by your definition this was not a terrorist attack. If you can accept that it *was* a terrorist attack then logic dictates that attacking military targets can be considered terrorism when performed by a group of ideologically motivated individuals without a specific allegiance to a country (in otherwords, not part of some standing army). If you can accept that fact, then the original poster's comment about the US revolutionaries is also true, which was in regards to perspective. Now, lets examine the rest of your tutorial on warfare. Referring to A: Yes, suicide, so: if you know that outright war is suicide you dont fight a war on the battlefield. BTW What does this have to do with anything? only that the revolutionaries played fair for the most part? Um ok. Referring to b: It is very easy to argue that they used guerilla warfare and would have been considered terrorists by those in power and those who were happy with the status quo. Which brings us back to my original point, which you didn't understand. I hope that this post isnt too complex for you. To switch subjects: Bodycount is not the primary goal of terrorism, it is almost always incidental to the real motivation for the act. To bring it down to a level of violence misses the point entirely and leads to stupid thoughts like 'gutless murdering thugs' and 'mindless animals'. While an act of murder may also be an act of terrorism, murder itself is not terrorism. As for your comment "am I the only person in the world who believes spefcifically attacking civilian populations is without question an act of terrorism...". Of course not, but neither is it the ONLY kind of terrorist act, which is the argument that you're apparently promoting. Lets spin it around, during the Vietnam war there were many cases of civilians performing terrorist style attacks on US soldiers (women/kids with bombs strapped to them, bombing bars, etc, kinda like the stuff you mentioned above). Is this warfare or terrorism? Is it both? TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Pete the Porno puppet! These christian's are cool. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Does it count if you're a skydiving prowrestler? or a prowrestling skydiver? I think I know how to live :) (btw for the Freebirds fan: http://www.wrestlingmuseum.com/pages/bios/halloffame/freebirdbio.html I trained with Killer Kowalksi, whom some may remember from the 50s and 60s. He trained HHH and Big John Studd (and Albert/A-Train). Currently I work the New England circuit on a regular basis. My favorite wrestlers in no particular order: Eddie Gilbert, Ric Flair (his matches with Steamboat are incredible), Mick Foley (Cactus/Mankind are the reasons I learnt how to wrestle), Sean Michaels - Flair of the 90s, Kurt Angle, Eddie Guerrero, Benoit. Mainstream wrestling seems to be a slump, I try to watch it occasionally but it's worse than it used to be with little action in the ring and too much talking. Comparing skydiving to working in the ring........wrestling takes more thought and is more physical but not by much, skydiving is more immediate. Both are just as intense for me and the rasslin jump crew out here in MA. [plug] You can find me on www.necw.tv and at www.necwwrestling.com and www.alexcrowley.com (if its ever updated) [/plug] TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85) This would negate the conclusion of your post. We could choose a more interesting and difficult target: http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=68 The american civil war and the terrorist actions of the partisans. Select your side: north or south, both had their share of regular fighers and irregulars. Additionally, while your discussion of point B is questionable in it's conclusion (when placed alongside the description of terrorism I refer to and posted by Watlapel), to fit your model the Al Quiada attack on the USS Cole would not be considered an act of terrorism. We can play with semantics as much as you'd like, the original posters point was that terrorism is a matter of perspective. There are those who feel Palestine is doing the only thing it can in its war against an aggressive, well funded and well armed Israel. There are those who believe the IRA are selling out to the UK Government and who will continue to fight against the British. There is little difference between the position the US/UK troops in Iraq are facing vs the English troops during the revolutionary war. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

The concept of an all powerful creator who messes with peoples heads for the sake of it sounds like a cool concept for a religion. On some otherworldly plane I can see the headlines now: "Karl Rove blows Loki's cover by revealing him to be JudeoChristian God by Hunter S Thompson in Heaven. Today the Bush administration once again defended Rove over the controversy regarding Rove leaking information to Pat Robertson regarding the real identity of Jehovah. In an email to Rev Robertson Mr Rove sent the following: "Jehovah is in fact the husband of Sigyn and an enemy of Zeus, he's a bit of a prankster". While the mainstream religious groups are split there is a large number of people demanding that Rove resign. In his defense a number of people are claiming that Rove could not have unmasked Loki as Jehovah when historically it is clear that he outed himself by creating the platypus, Michael Jackson and flatulence. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

QuoteTwo tidbits from the FBI clicky: There is no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85) Walt[/reply Thanks Walt, that's the definition that I was referring to. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

I understand your point - it's pretty clear..I also happen to agree with you. I wondered why you'd felt compelled to answer an obviously rhetorical question that was created solely to provide a non-religious equivelent to 'God is dead' in response to Walt's original statement. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Thats awesome! Thanks for missing the point! TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Its interesting to me how it's common to choose an exception that makes sense to our own sense of morality. Personally I agree: Killing is never ok, except in cases where killing would be funny, or give a sense of personal satisfaction - kinda like masturbation, but involving someone else - in a non-sexual, more 'terminating life functions' way. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

In that case the attack on the USS Cole was not an act of terrorism. This holds true of any military target. Under the common definition of terrorism US revolutionaries would be considered terrorists, or at the very least: insurgents - more so than Iraqiis, since an insurgency is aggression against an official governing group, and the US have called iraqis insurgents from before there was any official governing going on. Either way, the original poster would be correct that its merely a matter of perspective. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Ok, your help please. I'm trying to buy some used gear from the classifieds here. It's a large investment. The owner is understandably nervous about selling his rig and I'm understandably nervous about sending a large sum of money to someone I dont know. I've already agreed to pay 50% of the escrow fees, after the seller got nervous about selling to someone on the opposite coast. Here's the impasse. I've requested the ability to return the gear if my rigger and my coach think it's not suitable (the components are perfect based on my requirements and suggestions from my coaches - it's really simply if there's something messed up on the gear). Because I'm in New England and the weather sucks, I've asked for two weekends to check it out (plus the reserve needs a repack). I would like my rigger to go through it and my coach to test jump it. The seller thinks this is an unreasonable request. Maybe it is. Will someone please give me some perspective on this? TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

I think the job description of Sniper is available in most standing armies across the world. There are some people who do it for fun. From my understanding you dont just answer a Wanted ad. You work in the infantry and when there's an opportunity you'll get the tap if you've demonstrated the skill and mentality for it. So that'd be a bad example, since you serve in the infantry first. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Please pass along regards to the good Senator, along with the usual case of Vodka. Please assure him that my residency status is no longer in question. The only thing holding up my citizenship status is my friends' and family's fear that I will finally be able to purchase the armory I've had my eye on for several years. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Say there Alex Crowley, how you doin' Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Very good, Senator. How are you, Sir? TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Is this like a dick size thing? It certainly isnt about having a sense of humor. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Exactly my point. I've tried hard to move past thinking that most people are brainwashed, instead I choose the PC term 'conditioned'. [;-)] I understand your alienation, I've felt the same way most of my life. On the flip side I've found people consider me to be amoral simply because I dont fit into their conditioning. I found relocating to a new society didnt increase that sense, but removed the anchors of any conditioning I'd recieved via osmosis. As a parent with a a career I find assimilating enough rules to function within acceptable boundaries to be a significant and interesting challenge. I think they call it Aspergers ;) Pretty much all the previous posts I've written on here have been related to conflicts of ideologies and the inability of most people (including myself) to rationally argue for or against them when faced with data that directly conflicts with them. Neither do I feel that it's related solely to religion, although these beliefs seem to be some of the most deeply rooted from childhood (which is why god is dead can be as powerful as 'your mom is a whore'). The creation of a mental map to navigate society is both a personal and societal construct, it delineates the boundaries of an acceptable reality and sets rules of behavior. Step outside of those and you will be a pariah, the other, the enemy. By necessity the map tends to be rigid. Until the industrial age wars were mostly border wars, where these maps would intersect and conflict. A war would be fought and a mentality would win. Winning hearts and minds has always been the aim of war - through force or propoganda. As communication and travel has become easier and the world becomes smaller the overlay becomes more pronounced. Which brings us to the modern day. Thank you for tuning into BS theatre :) TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Considering the anonymity of the medium I personally would never challenge another person's income, education or level of professional attainment for fear that I may end up looking like a fool if the information ever came up in conversation. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.