We're all young and naive still
We require certain skill
The motive changes like the wind
Hard to control when it begins

The bittersweet between my teeth
Trying to find the in-between
Fall back in love eventually
Yeah yeah yeah yeah

Can't help myself but count the flaws
Claw my way out through these walls
One temporary escape
Feel it start to permeate

We lie beneath the stars at night
Our hands gripping each other tight
You keep my secrets hope to die
Promises, swear them to the sky

The bittersweet between my teeth
Trying to find the in-between
Fall back in love eventually
Yeah yeah yeah yeah

As it withers
Brittle it shakes
Can you whisper
As it crumbles and breaks
As you shiver
Count up all your mistakes
Pair of forgivers
Let go before it's too late
Can you whisper
Can you whisper
Can you whisper
Can you whisper

The bittersweet between my teeth
Trying to find the in-between
Fall back in love eventually
Yeah yeah yeah yeah
The bittersweet between my teeth
Trying to find the in-between
Fall back in love eventually
Yeah yeah yeah yeah

Guys, most times companies *don't* hand out stock as a bonus/award and you get them the day they are announced.

There are different ways to award employees. For example, you sign a contract that in turn for meeting performance expectations for x amount of years, you get x amount of stock on this date X years in the future.

Another one is a stock option agreement. A larger and larger pool of stock options are available for purchase at a discount price as each year passes by.

These are policies that are in place before the crisis began. Both the company and the individual sign contracts such as these so they are legally binding.

Besides, *it's not YOUR money*, so you can't do a thing about it. Even with companies that got bailouts/lines of credit, once the money is out of our hands, we can yell and scream all we want, but they can do what they want.

This is unpopular, I know. But that's how it goes.

@dystopianfuturetoday

I think you go about prostylization the wrong way. I see you as kind of a digitized version of the guy who stands outside of bars with a megaphone and a sandwich board, passing judgement off on revelers that just don't care at best, and want to pick a fight with you at worst. Well intended, but not persuasive or well received.

I went about things the wrong way when I first arrived here, being somewhat of a neophyte to evangelism, which set the tone for the rest of my time here. Along the way, I've made some mistakes and said some things which further served to marginalize me, which the antitheists here have throughly capitalized on.

I was more hot blooded when I arrived, and cocky, being throughly schooled in all manner of philosophical argumentation, and having been *experienced* in the transcendent, I was more interested in dismantling arguments than showing the love of Christ. I regret that, but what's done is done. What's true is that God makes everything new.

My main failure was to take the bait of the innumerable insults that have been thrown my way. This was simply an immaturity in my faith, not really understanding what Jesus said about how I should react to them. He said to love that person, no matter how much they hate you. Pray for those who persecute you and despitefully use you. The insults are not as bothersome anymore. I'm more interested now in love than argument.

You write these large blocks of text filled with Bible verses, judgement and a good deal of fire and brimstone. FYI: Bible verses, judgement, fire and brimstone only work on people who already believe in and fear God, just as you probably have no fear of Xenu, Allah or Mitt "White Horse" Romney (google it - funny story)

I have a wide variety of conversations on the sift, many of them on historical, philosophical, and scientific topics. People ask me questions about nearly everything, and so I think it would be difficult to pigeonhole my comments this way. Certainly, I have witnessed the truth about Gods judgment, but this isn't my main focus. As far as fearing God goes, you're right, many do not, but their conscience is still witnessing against them.

I'll look up Mitt "white horse" Romney.

The Christians in my life that make me most sympathetic to Christianity are the ones who express their faith through actions, not words. I've only met a handful of these people in my life, but they've all made a positive impact on my life. These are the people who exude love, empathy, understanding and compassion. These are the people that say 'I love you' when you really need to hear 'I love you.' You feel it almost like an aura around them. And, in every case, I had to inquire about them to discover their faith - with none of that uncomfortable evangelizing that comes off more like used car sales pitch than deep expression of faith. And, unlike the used car sales pitch, when I did learn of their faith, I felt a genuine respect for it.

Certainly, Christians should be doing good works at every opportunity. Faith without works is dead. Scripture advises two approaches to reach people. It says some save with mercy, and others with fear. Some people are so hardhearted that the only way to pierce their armor is to make them realize that they will have to answer for their secret sins, the ones that people hide behind their masks of public purity. To let them know that they didn't actually get away with it, whatever it may be. That's kind of why it kind of amuses me when I hear someone say something like "If I saw God I would tell Him off", as if God doesn't have them dead to rights on a list of sins 5 miles long.

Others are like a fragile flower, which must be handled very carefully and gently. Ones who have been abused by the church, for instance. It is truly sad how common this actually is. Of course there are many situations inbetween these two approaches, but in general, it is some combination of the two, leaning towards one of them.

I appreciate what you're saying about your friends. Perhaps this is the way the Holy Spirit has called them to deal with you. They are most certainly praying for your salvation. Again, it depends on the situation. It depends on the kind of relationship, and how much time you have to invest in someone. It is usually expedient to share the gospel in most cases.

Ultimately, it is out of our hands. I can't save anyone; only the power of God can change someones heart. When someone is saved, it is a true miracle.

Of course you can't choose what you believe; what you believe chooses you, so none of these people have brought me any closer to God. But that's OK, because they've done something much more important, they've brought me closer to my fellow humans. They've shown me the power of empathy (not that I'm always the most empathetic person - I've a ways to go in that category) and how contagious just being a good person can really be.

You believe according to your experience, and how interested you are in what is actually true, versus what you appear to see. If you believe that you are generally right about everything, then you will never look beyond your preconceived notions. I only changed my mind about God because He showed me the spiritual reality. I could not logically believe in naturalistic materialism as being a legitimate description of reality after that.

It's wonderful that your friends have taught you something about life, especially concerning the love of God. What Jesus teaches is that every human being has intrinsic value and is worthy of respect and love. He teaches us to love unconditionally and sacrificially, disregarding our own preferences for the good of others. If you can move past all of the contentious issues that surround these topics, and look to the words of Jesus Christ, you will find a transcendent love superior to the wisdom of this world. He gives us a standard of behavior that is impossible for any human being to live up to (without His help). Jesus asks more of you than any other person, in this time or any other, ever will.

I'm not sure if this helps you, especially considering it's pretty hard to refute aggressive atheists if you don't talk a great deal about your faith. Maybe a better path would be to understand where these atheists are coming from and what you have in common. Mutual respect. I don't know.

It does help me, and I appreciate your advice. There is always a better path when there is an argument, although, there is simply no avoiding having to debate certain things, when certain misconceptions are presented as the truth about what Christianity is. Even though you may be predisposed to agree with religious criticism, you must notice the distortions that are bandied about in the atheist community about Christianity and religion in general. I hear the same ones, over and over and over again.

I mean you no offense by this comment, my religious spite phase has mostly passed. I'd like to see you have a little better time on the site and not be the subject of scorn. Many of the discussion you have with atheists seem like a waste of time for all parties, because it's just a clash of worldviews rather than an attempt to find common ground and make progress. Some of the atheists on this site can be very cruel. I don't really follow these long back and forth theological battles anymore, but if someone crosses that line and is cruel to you, I'd be happy to join in on your side. If that appeals to you, drop me a PM.

I'm glad to hear that you are no longer in the business of giving theists a hard time. There are certainly enough people working doubleshift on this that you can walk away with your head held high. Yes, I agree, common ground should be sought out as a matter of course, although it is not an exaggeration to say that convinced atheists and theists typically disagree on almost everything. It's also hard to approach this on a human level, being that this is the internet, and the medium is far inferior for interpersonal communication. It is good for certain kinds of communication, but when it comes to empathy for instance, much is lost.

In any case, I genuinely appreciate your offer. Thank you for your magnanimousness. I may take you up on it sometime. I might also ask you how you see humanity avoiding a dystopianfuturetomorrow.

>> ^Fantomas:

I too believe Neil puts too much emphasis on the 1% figure. It's true that this 1% has given us a reverse pelvis allowing us to walk on two legs, freeing our hands, and given us a relocated voice-box to allow us to vocalise language. But these are just biological tools, it's how we use them that is important. We are not born with a language built in or the ability to use our hands in a skilled way, these things must be taught and learned, which is what pushes us beyond this '1%'.


Actually, there has been an interview done with Chomsky in Discover magazine that would suggest that certain phonetic patterns similar to language are, in fact, inborn. There is evidence that there may be an instinct in humans to communicate through language with certain forms and rules common across all races and places. I thought that was a very interesting interview.

I too believe Neil puts too much emphasis on the 1% figure. It's true that this 1% has given us a reverse pelvis allowing us to walk on two legs, freeing our hands, and given us a relocated voice-box to allow us to vocalise language. But these are just biological tools, it's how we use them that is important. We are not born with a language built in or the ability to use our hands in a skilled way, these things must be taught and learned, which is what pushes us beyond this '1%'.

He outlines very valid points. Points you'd think any good script doctor could have incorporated and spotted. It's George's inability to take criticism and work with others that killed the prequels. It's as if he wanted to prove that he really could do it again, and that it had to be solely his doing, so HE had to write it all and HE had to direct it.

If HE had been able to create the first drafts and then let talented screenwriters work them over and then maybe go back over them and discuss.... then we might have had some fine films on our hands.

But as it is, I think it's time to just let go of the prequels.

Now, the originals.... THEY need to be released in unaltered, restored form... and there is one such project working on the original Star Wars that is going to create a STUNNING version... just STUNNING.

If it ever gets publicly released, it will be a happy, happy day.

Soon enough that dog will be walking on two legs. That's how we did it. When we ran out of trees and Eastern Africa started to dry out, it was time to head down from the trees and start looking for a new place. Only problem is that we were not tall enough to see over the grass and bushes across the land, as potential pray, we adopted the meerkat stance; which allowed us to use our hands for other things over time... and then came the iPhone and ruined our evolution process.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwaQ2-3ImdE

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The problem with Ron Paul is that his economic policy contradicts his foreign policy. He wants to further deregulate and cut taxes for the corporations that took us to war in the first place. It's like trying to extinguish a fire with gasoline.


You see contradicts, I see consistency. A position against against war is a position against meddling, same to regulating businesses. And not all corporations profit from war, that is a bold hyperbole. Would an entire internet of do-gooders regulate food imports better than a government agency? Who knows, I for one, would like to see it tried. A failure will precipitate more participation in solution finding then the flawed FDA's and its inadequacies. The same advances that advance all our modern technology are ignored when mired in the miasma of politics. Important things that have no real answers should be left in our hands, 300 million hands make light work of problems, but only if that problem is left for them to solve. The illusion of law and safety is worse than no law at all. I consider myself a caring person, so I don't advocate liberty as an excuse to do harm, but do good in the way and on the things I want to do good on. Outsourcing caring, justice, goodness to other people; to government people I believe is the cause of much of our selfish american culture. And as such, I don't think upping the ante of other people caring for us is the answer. Freedom is harder, its evil more plain and boldfaced. But boldfaced enemies are easier foes than powerful men hiding behind good sounding legislation. Basically, I am against all forms of force, be it forces of good or evil. The only force I believe in is personal force of will, and my ability to convince you without force. It would be evil for me to demand you give your time, money, and energy to habitat for humanity...even though what they do is an arguable good thing. I don't see how the case for any of the other social legislation is any different.


Edit some autocorrect typos

"This wild raccoon came in through the cat flap, curled up in the sink and basically domesticated himself!"

That's... what? Seriously? Wild-fucking-animal, let's stick our hands in it's mouth! And it's ears! And on it's belly! This defies explanation. What the hell is going on here? Other than the incredibly stupid woman.

>> ^Crosswords:

Lobbyists should only be able to make their case during official recorded meetings. None of those dinner, club or trips to a Scottish golf course meetings; including staff working for the politician. Plus former staff members should not be allowed to lobby, ever. Obviously way too much temptation for corruption.


Should the same be had of a citizen writing his congressman? What would the legal difference be between a lobby and a "normal" person. If you try and legislate this, it will only be a matter of time before normal people get caught in the cross-hairs. My solution would be to roll back the responsibility of the government to regulate those things we hold dear and do it ourselves. New technology and know how is making "outsourcing" of major responsibilities no longer necessary. All to often, government officials have no real expertise on the things we want them to look after anyway, how many 60 year old technology minded Senators exist currently or ever? Which understand the intricacies of the biological world of the cell? To great the cost for such ignorant people. Best in our hands, best by our means. The creative solutions of interesting people and communities would be fair more beneficial to all than one monolithic, solution managed by fools. This has problems of its own, but is a far cry from the corruption that an overly legal, federal understanding of life holds for us...ask Russia.

Hmm. A lot of people seem to get *very* different reads on Feynman from watching this than I do.

I don't read him as "smug" at all. The smiling? Defense mechanism, I say. He felt regret for his part in developing the bomb, hopeful pleasure in the idea that perhaps dropping the two bombs on Japan represented a net savings in lives both among the Japanese and allied forces (an invasion would have been catastrophic), and the mish-mash of conflicting emotions makes even his incredibly gifted mind go into meltdown.

I personally don't think that any of the Manhattan Project scientists "deserved" to be blamed for deaths caused by the two bombs that were actually dropped "in anger", nor for the near-disasters of the Cold War, etc. etc. I don't think they should even have lost any sleep over their involvement in developing the weapons, but I expect that all of them did in spades.

I think a better (bit still rather unfair) place to start second-guessing things is either with President Truman for giving the executive orders, or the committee that suggested the targets of the bombs (which did include Oppenheimer and other Manhattan Project scientists along with military leaders). I have always wanted to think along the lines of:

What if we had dropped the first bomb in a remote forest, where there would have been hopefully little to no loss of human life but still plenty of evidence as to the destructive power and effective radius of the weapon? We could then have communicated with the Japanese, told them the area to inspect, and said "surrender or next time we drop the same thing somewhere that you're really not going to want us to."

Maybe that would have worked, but it is a dicey way to play the cards we had in our hand. The Japanese might have read it as a sign of weakness, it would have made for another delay before we could develop more bombs and hopefully end the war (although we already had to bluff that we had plenty to use if it came down to it), etc. So basically, now I am just glad that I have never had to and hopefully never will have to make a decision that has anywhere near the magnitude of those made by the people in charge of that whole situation. Second guessing them decades after the fact and with the benefit of hindsight and information that they didn't have access to seems rather crass.

truth is, we've all got blood on our hands by acting like a bunch of complacent sheep following 9/11.

Wanna hear something fuckin crazy? My high school chemistry teacher (we called him six-pack Jack because he often seemed slightly lit while teaching) pulled out an uncapped vial of mercury and allowed us to pour it in our hands and whatnot. He did end the lesson saying that the stuff was highly toxic. Thanks, Jack. Thumbs up, pal.

Despite this unfortunate episode, I'm glad I went through public education in the mid-eighties rather than today.

I think it varies. I think some of you have more than a suspicion, but don't want to stop living the way you do so you're in denial. Others, like HQPQ are deliberately suppressing the truth.

Romans 1:18

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Meaning, that Gods eternal power and divine nature are revealed through the Creation itself. This is how I came to know there was a God, because it was clearly revealed to me that there is a higher power working in this world. Before that, I had no real opinion on it and wasn't even looking for an answer.

Perhaps God has yet to make it clear to you. If that is the case, if you ask God to reveal Himself to you He just might do it. It depends on what is in your heart, whether you are interested in the truth or comfortable with lies. Faith is a gift from God, and no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him near first, so the unrighteous remain blinded by their own wickedness.

John 3:19

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

btw, i have a star? Am I just an idiot because I'm not seeing one..







>> ^shuac:
>> ^shinyblurry:
You're not lucifer but occassionally you speak his mind. As far as what you hate, it's the same as anyone else who is in rebellion; you hate Gods authority over your life. You're obviously not secure in your beliefs, and the reason is..God has made His existence plain to you. Although you have supressed the truth, you know there is a God and that you are under His authority. What you hate is the fact that you will account to Him one day, but still you do what you do knowing the consequences. You said you were once some manner of Christian..which means that the truth has become common to you..you rejected the Holy Spirit so you no longer understand it, but in your eyes you think you understand it better than people who do have the Spirit. It's caused you to become supremely arrogant towards God, and thus it is unlikely you will realize your error. It's not hopeless..you're obviously still pretty young and might grow up one day..but as it stands now you are in serious trouble.
As far as what you really feel about me..who knows? You don't know me, and in any case the persona you project here is always putting on a sarcastic little show..nothing real to be seen as of yet so its impossible to tell.

Firstly, congrats on the star, sb. Sincerely. You might actually be on your way to acquiring your downvote powers. If that happens, fellas...watch out, we'll have another ant on our hands. <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/wink.gif">
Secondly, a serious question: Are you doing the whole "you're-just-angry-with-god" thing for hpqp's benefit or do you believe that is the case with all people who claim to be atheists?
In other words, do you accept the fact that there are people who are genuine non-believers for whom all these admonitions are moot? I realize they're real for you and that you think they're real for us too. But do you accept that we, that is to say: those of us who identify themselves as such, are genuine non-believers who do not lose a nanosecond of sleep worrying about whether we've made a terrible mistake?
Or is it your position that we're all secretly in denial?