I must confess that I actually thought I hated this man and everything he was about until I started experiencing an overload of inaccurate and fictitious information the USG keeps pounding out and calling it the truth … so I decided to try an independent review of what I thought I knew and didn’t really. So I never watched or read anything Moore was involved with but I was more than willing to tell you how screwed up he was. So I rented the movie from Netflix and watched it … and I was amazed.
I have watched it twice now and I cannot find one shred of much information that is not factual or accurate. Beyond some idiosyncrasies in his sense of humor (they are funny); he presents very valid arguments and backs them up with documentation and interviews. He brings to light many of the things I have discovered in my own research into deceit, terrorism and the USG.
When I was a liberal (before I knew better) the only accurate information had to come from another liberal else it was a lie??? Later when I made my second mistake and became a conservative I learned the error of my ways … the truth could only be had from like ilk … so imagine my confusion when I called the neolibs and neocons for what they are and went independent. Suddenly, I have no source of valid information at all now (seemingly hehehe). I have had no success at all trying to walk the moderate tightrope between all the sharks without one side or the other dragging me down, go figure.
As far as Democrats/Republicans are concerned, their only care about the independent majority is how many they can acquire each election. But no matter which side is the best recruiter or who gets most independent votes … matters that concern the moderates will largely be ignored or sidelined and the neo-politicians will go their own course virtually unrestricted and completely unaccountable.
Oh, I'm not going to try. I'm simply submitting my opinion.
Please resubmit your post, as it makes little grammatical sense.
Aside from the fact that I was simply submitting my opinion, you will, naturally, provide proof that the Bible has been changed and/or rewritten. OTOH, I'll of course note that the standards used for other ancient texts isn't applied to the Bible.
Double standard FTW /sarcasm.
EDIT: CRAP, I think I just became a terrorist.
Does all this mean the Obama Administration's non-truths are all lies? Just aksin.
Solution? I think the solution is an educated populace taught to critically think. The more the merrier.
Absent acknowledgement of those two bullet points honest debate is meaningless imho. We live in a version of the Matrix - where propaganda and democracy (i.e. two wolves and a sheep voting what to have for dinner) is the rule of the day. People regurgitate pundit arguments (both conservative and liberal). Those in charge of democracy (government, money creators/destroyers, news media, Hollywood, TV, etc) control information and propagandize to sway the majority. Edward Bernays, Noam Chomsky, and others have very insightful input on this. When you know your opponent is intellectually dishonest and is just trying to "win", regardless of the facts, it's eye opening.
Bottom line: it's difficult for us peons to truly know what is going on nationally or internationally due to the lack of or control of information. We do not experience these national/international events ourselves - they are shown and explained to us via different methods. Just as an attorney/judge can help sway a jury by making arguments to toss out or withhold evidence, the powers at be can control/manipulate information to sway us masses about any number of issues.
Bernays says this about us peons:
"In theory, every citizen makes up his mind on public questions and matters of private conduct. In practice, if all men had to study for themselves the abstruse economic, political, and ethical data involved in every question, they would find it impossible to come to a conclusion about anything. We have voluntarily agreed to let an invisible government sift the data and high-spot the outstanding issues so that our field of choice shall be narrowed to practical proportions. From our leaders and the media they use to reach the public, we accept the evidence and the demarcation of issues bearing upon public questions; from some ethical teacher, be it a minister, a favorite essayist, or merely prevailing opinion, we accept a standardized code of social conduct to which we conform most of the time."
I highly recommend reading the book, who Edward Bernays was, and his impact to this day. Amazing stuff.
Bernay is a very interesting person.
And I do actually agree with your two bullet points.... but what about personal bias that clouds soooo many people's minds?
Why do people always treat science, theology and religion as enemies? All they do is ask a different question about life.
Science - How it works?
Theology - Why does it matter?
Religion - What is my role?
This quote demonstrates that you have not done sufficient research into the writing and preservation of ancient texts. Your personal take on what it contains and its message aside.... One must accept the Bible as it is and has been, or determine all other historical written artifacts as irrelevant.
LoL myfist0! a terrorizing... terrorist
Well, there is a word to describe a multitude of truth's and lies along with an endless volume of smoke and mirrors making it virtually impossible to prove anything either way.... That word is 'politics'!
Solution... Keep your intuition keenly sharpened and your mind open!!
Edit: and trust no expert or group or individual or established fact.... well you can trust them but not with 'absolute' trust.... which comes under keeping an open mind.
There IS a movie version of the book Fahrenheit 451....
if i refered to the wrong person / post, I (conditionally) apologize. I have a very limited amount of time to read here until I return home from IL. I wonder how you know my intentions since you labeled them as "conviently ignoring." The ONLY intent of my post was to point the discussion away from personalities (which contributes very little) and back to content. But you labelmy post as 'conviently ignoring." You must know my thoughts, intentions, feelings better than I do. I commend you on your super- knowledge....
Quite a lively discussion going. I had nothing to add until SivCorp made this comment #147:
Elanahova posts 127:
Well said.
BT posts 130
This is true however, it's not only politics that bespeaks of strife, criminality, lies, deceit. etc.
Fr. Owen Francis Dudley's (1882-1952) book, "YOU and thousands like you" is a very good and profitable read. He looks at life in the atomic era and sees the world bent on destruction. The following are his ideas and I have to agree.
The present ordering of the world is materialistic and the supreme acheivement of materialsim is the nuclear bomb. We are sliding toward a suicidal end and no government, no policy or military power, in fact there is nothing in the present materialistic ordering to avert final catastrophe.
People aren't made just to exist but to live, truly live to what the US Constitution calls pursuit of happiness. To me, this happiness is in the end eternal happiness. To live is to live for God, Who is life and the source of all life and its End.
SivCorp,
According to Dudley and I quite agree, we change the world by changing ourselves. Only you and I, and thousands of other ordinary people can change that ordering and we can only change it by changing ourselves.
Bias is a constant battle. All we can do is acknowledge that each of us see the world through our own unique rose-colored glasses... and continue to try to be as objective as possible.
I think theology and religion are generally considered to be antithetical to science. For whatever reason this Creation is full of dualities: right/wrong, left/right, up/down, Sun/Moon, liberal/conservative, Heaven/Hell, positive/negative, plus/minus, etc. Religion/theology is considered to be strictly faith-based, thus the opposite of science's methods of observation and experiment.
In the end are they mutually exclusive? I don't think so. I might derail this thread if I elaborate my own personal beliefs so I'll quit while I'm ahead.
And, most importantly, revision of your beliefs in light of new evidence. I personally think that they are polar opposites, but I would be interested in hearing your opinion as well.
Ok, lets look at this list then, and see what I see here.
1 - stands for what?
2 - morality, what does one stand for? If you can't defend the innocent and unborn you have no business procreating.
3 - not going there....
4 - If you can not live under a countries founding documents, then you should leave that country for one that you agree with.
5,6 - war and peace are simple conflict resolutions
7 - what rights do you want to have? what rights will you give up? and who decides? Do you really want to go there?
8 - same as above
9 - still same as above
10 - the problem is in the definition.... going against the natural order of things is obviously a problem.
11 - slime? I suppose it is good to be responsible with what we have, isn't it?
12 - I have none, just experience.
13 - A country without any law will degrade into lawlessness
14 - same as above
15 - politics should not influence the free market, period.
16 - same as above
I don't see how protecting a nations people is non-political. I don't see how having law to protect the people i non-political. I don't see how providing a free market for productivity to thrive is non-political.
And I don't see how you can be taken seriously when you make these obviously flawed statements.
So many statements above are just so, well, American. Love it or leave it!!!! 'If you cannot live under a country's founding documents, then you should leave that country for one that you agree with.'
We need to return to our g-d given constitution: let us live under the founding fathers' views; Blacks may be enslaved and become chattel. Women may not vote, nor may they hold public office,. nor in many states even own property or sign contracts. The original owners of the land, the nations here before european-americans, should be pushed into the pacific, hunted for scalps, to collect the bounty european american governments placed on their heads, or killed with smallpox infected blankets given to them by european-americans. Anyone who supports any abortion should "... not be allowed to procreate..." but be sent back to what ever heathen / non-christian country they came from,or killed./ imprisioned. The constitution OBVIOUSLY supports the g-d given truth that human life begins the nano-second the sperm and egg meet. It is vitally importent that no one be allowed to go against the 'natural order of things.' I mean, all my co-religionists, and allies / real friends, know, for a fact, exactly what the 'natural order of things' is... and those who disagree are definately believing / understanding / reasoning wrong.... (They probably don't believe the crristian bible is g-d's word.) 'Politics should not influence the free market, period.' So, true, there are just too many goverment intrusions into the free market... it makes it so difficult for corporations and the ultra rich to accumulate... General Electric just might be hurt if those damn liberals / fake christians keep intruding into the free market! The best way for the people to deal with dangerious products, tainted food, is to allow the market to destribute it, and when people get sick, die,etc., word of mouth /news will tell everyone else, they will stop buying that company's tainted food,etc. Same with mortage funds, etc., when a few million people see their investments swindled (re-invested) out from under them, others will stop investing in those products, and stock brokers will stop placing ther clients money in those products: the free market will correct this error! Stop the government from intruding. And when the giants in the free market rig the game against the common people, well, thats free market as well.
Lets get back to the founding principles that made this country great! Too bad most of the founding fathers were really Dietists, and not christers. Jefferson published an edition of the gospels that editied out all the (supposed) referernces to jesus' diety, and the 'miracalious' events. Franklin had no use for religion in almost any form. Adams, was a member of a congregation that would, today, bnest be described as unitarian (jesus not divine,etc.). Most of the founders held to the newtonian view that g-d created the world / universe, like a mechenical watch, wound it up,and let it be / walked away. So many people today read their christian / free market ideology back into the founding fathers and use it as a whip to try to get the goverment to enact and enforce their 'moral' views (natural order of things - law based on their interpretation of the christian bible - wrapped in the US flag and words like'heritage,' and 'family.'
I really hope the folks who actually believe that the founding fathers were evangelical-fundy-christians AND die hard supporters of Adam Smith-Ricardo's free market ideologues don't get the USA they are dreaming of. If they do, the corporations will, when done with them ,throw them out like a piece of garbage. Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' (that orders the free market) will reduce their persons to a mere commodity to be used and then thrown away, just like a soiled napkin, or other used up paper product. Capitalism, as an econoomic system is 'savage.' Corporations separate individual profit taking from individual responsibility. I got rich becuase my corporation fired workers, lowered wages, eliminated benefits, health care, pensions, etc., but I did not do it personally, its the corporation that did it. I just collected even more dividends, and looked the other way when my corp raided pension funds,or took other's investments and re-invested/swindled them. Its not personal, it business, (apologies to the g-d father) and its exactly what the founding fathers would do. Its exactly what Jesus would do - totally, yes?
In short, here goes my basic assumptions:
Now personally I find it fascinating that we can observe and experiment things such as gravity, the speed of light, etc. but have no idea why the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second vs. a much slower 2 mph. We can deduce that we wouldn't exist (at least in present form) if light traveled at 2 mph but we don't know why the sandbox is organized that way (either from random chance from a Big Bang or outside will). In the end we may see the rules giving the Universe structure but never be able to prove why the structure is the way it is.
In the end I truly have no idea. I came up with this stuff long ago smokin' while playing Master of Magic.
This has already been noted and has been dismissed as irrelevance to the topic at hand, due primarily to my (initially) mistaking this thread as discussing the book Fahrenheit 451 and the terribadness (or so I've heard) of the movie.
I label your post as "conveniently ignoring" because you ignore the fact that BoobzTwo has been dismissing the arguments of her opposition on the basis that they hold opposing views and are, therefore, simpletons.
OTOH, I've just been insulting her and trying to force her to actually prove that her view is correct, as well as that those who hold an opposing view are "simpletons" for doing so.
First, fantastic, you are a man after my own my own heart. But... a couple things I'd like to say.
1) What do you think about the arguement that might suggest that: what you have said presupposes a Creator and then looks for clues to support that idea? 2) Who is to say that life would be impossible (although possibly very different) if the Universe's fundamental values took different values?3) What is to be said about a Creator that defines the variables of his world and then leaves that world to its own devices?4) To use another analogy, what would you say about a father that has a bunch of kids, boots them out of the house leaving only a handbook on how to live, and says: "I'm not going to have any part of actually raising you, but if you misbehave, I'm going to come back and spank your asses raw one day." Would you call child services?
I'll point out that you can't really use said analogy; if there is a Creator (which I believe so), then said being is so immensely powerful and different that their motives would be fairly inscrutable to mankind.
Put another way: who are we, the created, to judge the One who created us?
Oh, interesting post!
but i think it will eventually be possible to scientifically prove God exists despite the fact that God has set things up so that he cannot be detected scientifically (for various reasons of faith free will, and probably some aspect of Startreks Prime directive thrown in as well??!!). But God for obvious reasons cannot hide the fact that life exists, and i feel that it is life that must eventually scientifically prove God exists. Despite all the scientific work on Evolution, and despite all the discoveries from what is dug up from beneath the earth, i reckon DNA will eventually be the key to fast traking a proper understanding of Evolution, its limitations with regard to the origins of species (what God built and what changed naturally thereafter) and its utter failure to explain the beginning of life. DNA is basically a recorded history of everything we want to know right under our noses, all we have to do is figure out how to access all that hidden information! Oh wait, i hope God didn't do anything sneaky with DNA such as something along the lines of 'source code'???
As for Gravity and the speed of light etc etc well were seeing it from the perspective of our dimention, but i have a theory that our dimension operates as a reflection of a primary dimension...well reflection is not quite the right word? (continued later i'm busy at work)
Ahh, hell I don't know. Just throwin' this out there around the Fahrenheit 9/11 campfire. Maybe we're all really plugged into the Matrix and Energizer batteries for robots. Puff puff give!
To continue with my philosophy of only addressing posters that are willing to engage at a more than superficial level:
Also, what about the dinosaurs? If the Bible had said: "You won't believe this right away, but, one day you will discover that before I tried creating Man, I messed around with giant lizards. You'll find their bones eventually," then I wouldn't have any problem with believing.
It's some food for thought.
I can sum up Fahrenheit 9/11 in one word: joke.
OK, maybe it needs two words: sick joke.
Good stuff. I've always wondered this too: what does the surface of an electron look like and could some form of "life" exist on it? Are both "small" and "large" infinite? What if the smaller space becomes, the slower time interaction becomes? What if the larger space becomes, the faster time interaction becomes? In a way this makes sense because our interaction with Creation is dependent on how fast signals travel to our brain via nerve endings. The smaller distance in space, teh faster said signals travel. What if our measurement of time, a year (revolution of our planet around the Sun), is equivalent to 1 trillion electron years (I have no idea how many times an electron revolves around the nucleus in a year or even a second). Are there little Brad's coding EWOM AI on the surface of little electrons and little dudes like me reporting bugs and crash reports? Dunno but far out nonetheless. LOL.
[Edit] Apparently a hydrogen electron rotates at around 2,200 kilometers per second. Hell if I know how many orbits that is over that short distance. It must be in the billions or trillions.
http://education.jlab.org/qa/electron_01.html
It's possible, as with any good public speaker, the message limited in scope and tailored to the audience of the time. On the flip side of the argument the book could say "one day you'll figure out how to fly in the air like birds or travel to land on that big circle you call the moon." That statement wouldn't mean much to the people of the time I gather.
I guess what I'm saying is tailoring a message to fit the "age" of the audience - kind of like not trying to teach calculus to my 2 year old son. It would be pointless, he's not ready.
An excellent way to visualize it. I guess sometimes smoking will unlock ones prejudice and catch a glimmer of light.
I have my own view on those points.....
1) unprovable, therefor faith.
2) the fundamentals of "life" could have been anyway the Creator wanted, but this is what He set up, so this is all we can see and test.
3) Who said He left?
4) I think the answer lies in one area that you are all missing.... Love.
I see the Creator not as a scientist or old man, but like a child. Now, follow this line of thought... A child wants to be loved, wants to be in contact with love. This is the way God is. He made a creation that could love Him. Free will gave that possibility to His creation. If we were all robots, then that is not love, that is slavery. No one can be loved by a robot.
Well God wants companions, not slaves, so that is why only one "sentient" being is on this planet, in this realm. He made us to be that companion.
He also gave us this AMAZING sandbox! It impresses me every time when we find out more about this world that we never thought possible. And what is amusing is this, the more we discover, the closer we come to the truth.... The truth that this universe COULDN'T have been random, that there necessitates a start, a Creator. And this creation is in conflict, conflict with free will, and the consequences therein.
/preaching.... sorry, I get carried away sometimes.
Well may we wonder things about electrons/atoms but what i wonder is what is an atom if there is no time?
If you look at a standard 30cm ruler, you will see that it has two ends, an a centre. Also the ruler has different mathematical points of measure relative to its centre and its ends, you can identify different locations, 12cm, 23cm etc etc How long is your finger, 8cm, there is the point it connects to the body and there is where it finishes. All matter throughout the universe has mathematical statistics about it's size and location that you can measure. Now assuming the universe extends forever and has no ends, therefore it has no centre either. And if the universe has no ends or no centre then therefore how is it possible to have a fixed location in space where say a planet is located? or a solar system? or a galaxy? or even your finger?? I'm not quite sure how, but to me this seems to indicate that it is impossible for any matter as we perceive it, to exist! Or am i just crazy? And assuming for a moment that I'm not crazy, then the only possible explanation is that time dos not really exist, since if you eliminate time from the equation, then the paradox of location within infinity is solved, ,,, i think???
Edit: i just Googled the paradox of location within infinity and got nothing? hmmm, perhaps i am just crazy?
lol know what I find funny... lots of people call the creator a HE, HE could actually be a SHE
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
