We are in our tween years of technology. maybe not even that old. the speed of change, the megaflux of info is a large part of what has caused the ease at which tides can turn in public emotion because we all are in a state of mildly neurotic agitation. That is not to say we are all crazy, nor that its an obvious neurosis. Seeing as every system has in it entropy as an ingredient, the breakdown into diversity is natural and we are not outside of nature as much as technology can make us feel that way at times. It is impossible to say that it will be our savior or our ruin. Just as receiving that 200 million dollar lotto prize money made you leave you job to live comfortably financially but separated you from a jealous family(or conversely made all your family happy to now be living well financially due to your largess and your work has greater meaning because its not tied to financial matters). Until technology becomes more integrated into our every day lives it will be something that causes fear and unrest, in a way that is presented in the video might cause you a bit of "overwhelmed by the ideas". That middle aged comfort zone might be here sooner than we think. But then again, instead of reaching middle age and finding yourself fit and happy. You may be a dumpy loner living on the streets. I'm hoping we reach old age, find the fountain of youth that comes with a pill for happiness, where everything works the way it should for all, where information isn't the overwhelming creature that lurks and growls from the corners of our eyes. Better to move forward focusing and being open to a golden rule, an openness to a bigger something, than dwell on the demons of multiplicity and what might be, that speculation steeped in fear. Its so thrilling to live in our age. Please excuse my OVERUSE of analogy.

I'd agree with you if you were talking about John Stewart or Colbert, but Stern is known for hitting at the low end especially with those interviews. I followed/listened to him for years. And while I thoroughly enjoyed the queef queens, drunken dwarves and much of Stern's view on things...many/much of his public interview items were less about educating the public to the "truth" of things than for just serving up some humorous bits.

I don't know if I'd agree either that all the candidates are lying. They all play the politics game, and say things they don't fully believe or know that they won't ever be able to deliver but that has always been the case for those looking to gain power. Staying informed from as many sources as possible these days is the only way to gain a closer understanding of what is Really going on.

Not sure one can use the humorous interviews of Howard Stern to point towards any truths in the American public other than...he's good at making us laugh at ourselves and how some can be duped.

For so many reasons I think he will but a few:

1. He exhibits great leadership qualities.

2. He's not GWB

Oh and I like that he's not older than William Harrison was when elected and then died 30days later.

Because Palin was a beauty queen, heh. It's a far more interesting target and she's made it easy. Although I have heard about Biden's gaffes on NPR...but no, I know...not the same as the fun we've all been enjoying with Palin's remarks.

No. I want to believe that what we're being served isn't a "cowpie with a marshmallow in it"

What is the same destination we are seeking? I see it as a process not a destination, and its the process I address with the question above. I find it interesting you think it a lack of understanding. I think you walk a fence actually. How is a Liberal world view more polarized than a conservative? Where on the far left do they think the world will end soon? heh. You obviously are answering from an uninformed bias. But that's okay.

I'm not sure the history of a "conservative philosophical" outlook or party has shown it to be "practical"

Conservatiism by definition is "a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes" and why I ask is because of the portions of the definition "preservation" and "opposing radical change". Opposing radical change, if fear had been followed...would have kept women from the voting booths, many men in slavery, and really from the US from ever coming into being.

While fear is a human emotion not everyone is motivated by it, or has it as a root of their philosophy.

I agree with you however about the difficulty in believing in people in politics these days...or possibly ever. Chasing power in the ways that they do, one must wonder if corruption on some level is inevitable.

I think demanding order in a chaotic world suggests fear of that chaos...while going with the flow does not.

But yes it's often about balance...although that was not my question.

Limited government suggests fear of being controlled.

Keeping Traditions alive suggests desire for sameness or fear of the new.

While neither is necessarily wrong to have or want, both have fear as one of its roots.

I suppose I also asked the question because so much of the current administration has run on "fear" but largely because the majority of individuals I've met that call themselves conservatives come off as reacting to politics in ways that seem steeped in fear.

Still...thank you all for your responses.

Cheating...whether married or not...is wrong and points towards an individual who is willing to lie/deceive to do what they want. We all learned in the fourth grade that its wrong. It's about fear and weakness.

Sadly it does appear to be more acceptable in politicians and famous individuals although I can't understand why.

There is no difference between either. One from a bad marriage, one from the strain of dealing with disease. Both unworthy of respect for such actions and should not be fully trusted. It shows a type of character. Certainly it does not mean that either is incapable of doing good.

I've not read enough as I'd like about the history of Islam/Muhammed but I enjoyed your encapsulation. thanks.

It does, and I'm trying to stop.

Jesus may have lived, but the stories told of him passed by word of mouth through the decades before he was written about most likely altered anything "true".

Seems like a no-brainer. If we have trillions for war, and "obviously" government funded war is to help humanity. Why shouldnt govt fund science/medicine, especially something like Stem Cells that is so universally accepted as something that has and will benefit humanity.

I had this discussion (again) with a friend the other weekend. They say its stealing and so its wrong. I say its akin to leaving a candy dish out on Halloween and say take one, but you take a handful...basically. and add that people who have problems with downloading and say they won't because its stealing won't have an issue with speeding when that can easily cause more harm. He says its two different things. I say if you are going to pass moral judgment on an action then it should apply to all action in your life.

I don't mind being called a thief for it and don't think its wrong. I believe a new paradigm is called for. Such as giving out CDs for free and add adverts to the liner notes. I obviously don't have all the answers here but am curious to what others think.

an understanding of the mysteries of life

Reading through these one has to wonder, as I have in the past when others of the right have stood up to the majority of scientists, decrying what they propose, why individuals like turpificatus would not at least say something like "Certainly big business and humanity need to curb their emissions of harmful pollutants" or "Even if humans aren't creating the global warming we could try to better our polluting ways and clean things up, just in case because we know what we're doing isn't making our world 'better'." It often reeks of big business agendas, but I suppose could just be an instance of fear (fear that the evidence given is true and so ugly does not want to face) inducing contrary reactions.

bad idea.

Its work. Love is work. But anything worthwhile is, and my marriage even with its occasional annoyances is honestly wonderful.

First year was tough, first year with baby is not easy either.

I liked being single but I was always seeking to find that other.

I write in the pro here but I'd say both instances have their benefits. Doesn't make for a great debate but I'd say either is great depending upon the individual.

Obviously its Tiny Tim and his one man band.

All Dawkins has said is that there is no supernatural origin for life. He's given an example of aliens being those that seeded the planet as a way to say it could be something that could exist in the natural realm. They could have and would have to have evolved as well. He's never said for certain "Its aliens!" Which is the silliness that Stein is trying to say in his "want to capitalize on the fact that there is no right-wing Micheal Moore" movie. ID is laughable.

And with a little research by you on the internet you can find out all the contradictions in the bible and possibly learn even more about the bible's origins and why it would be "politically" that certain doctrines were adopted or not. For where would Christianity be if Constantine hadn't adopted it for political purposes and spread it throughout the Roman empire? I'll tell you where...right along side the rest of the early religions that Christianity adopted so many of its beliefs from.

So you are saying nothing is constant or knowable? And yet I bet you flip a switch to turn on a light and get in your car to work?

Somehow christians like yourself are happy to use science if it helps promote or "prove" your belief system but not if it calls it into question.

But to answer your question. Yes, dating mechanisms are observable and testable.

You rely on those systems that scientific method have provided in all walks of your life. That is...unless you are typing on a wifi laptop from a cave.

2+2=4 isn't always 4. Two halves plus two halves equal 2, heh.

So when you try to fit a belief in a supernatural unprovable realm as the same as scientific truth you have to use scientific rules. Your notion of god as "truth" is unprovable...and if you could, what would be the value of your faith?

Finally, how do you know that God would be able to understand about "constancy" and for that matter how do you know anything God knows or doesnt?

I'm certain those miracles in biblical writings are as real as Jesus was born from a virgin yet has biblical genealogy through his father's line. No sperm from Joseph yet traced back to Abraham so as to connect Jesus to biblical prophesy of the old testament.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/jesus_dad.html

In other words, I have no belief in miracles, in the same way that I have no belief in a god. The tales of them are from a culture that relied upon word of mouth. And had no concept of written truth. Meaning they could alter the actual facts of a story they were telling in order to promote whatever they were interested in at the time.

That is a great recipe for turning water into wine.

Why would God need a Jesus to speak with people at all?

Couldn't it have spoken directly or was it not all powerful?

You say God chose to give us free will. Did it love its creation...

no don't answer that, the old testament gives the answer.

Kaira,

You are right of course, Josephus,Suetonius and Tacitus wrote of him, but even if they could be proven authentic they weren't there, didn't run into him on the street, heh. Josephus born 5 yrs after the date given for the crucifixion. There is no credible evidence Jesus lived. Doesn't mean he didn't I suppose.

Cybrweez

- so you'd follow and find uneducated/unable to write/read leaders worth following/believing? I'm betting you'd vote for an alcoholic born again leader too(aka GWB). "Watch out the moon is going dark! A disk is sliding over it! Must be god turning out the lights!"

- the old contradictions line is old because people have seen it for a long time = well trod and worthy. Number of denoms show how ridiculous it is to point to Christianity as worth believing in. "We have so many ways to believe in the same god, and each of these ways are the one way to get to heaven, to follow correctly." or "I'm right, you're wrong in the way you believe" "no I'm right, no I'm right" echoes the crowd 38000 times who all say they believe in the same god.

What kind of inept god begins/creates a religion in its VAST universe in the uneducated section of a desert region of a tiny planet at a time where its "word" or "desires" must be passed from word of mouth and can be misinterpreted enough that 38000 denoms happen. Why not speak plainly to all throughout time? There are how many times where god is supposed to have spoken directly to people in the bible? Must be capable of it...must be a childish god who likes to jerk its creation around.

I have thought about the free will statement. It makes perfect sense. If a god can create any universe it wants, it could create one where misery and "evil" don't exist and still give its creation an understanding of free will. It could create anything, any way of thinking.

Is it worth investing in Vista OS or should people wait for Windows 7?

yup, religion is poison.

"very well documented man" ? - what little we know of the man was written down after decades of being passed word of mouth.
Morality or guidelines, would easily exist without faith, and I'd bet certain societies would rather that faith hadn't been a controlling force. ...but yes, its true, those that proselytize are annoying.