Depends on what your standards of "complex" are, and if they are, then god would be even more complex, thus requiring a creator, itself. If your argument is complexity cannot come about without consciousness, then what about your precious "god"? Where did it come from?
"All you have proven here is that you don't like to be wrong and you are far too married to a single view to ever really or effectively debate."
I'm the only one making actual arguments, genius; you're just saying "read this article and you'll see I'm right". Haven't made one valid argument so far. I'm perfectly okay with being wrong, but you have to make a good case first. Can't just expect me to say, "Well, she says I'm wrong, so I guess I am." Doesn't work like that in a debate.
"Long-winded statistic gamers are not the same as effective debaters"
The only reason I was sarcastic was because you were so initially - if you want to forgo intellectual, respectful debate, fine. And you think you're an effective debater? PROVE IT.
"It is pure preference, without any address of differing perspectives or even rebuttal in relation to them."
How about you make an argument so I can make a rebuttal in the first place, genius? I already addressed your article and as many implied points as I could discern from your ambiguous writing. You're the one showing pure preference, since you can't address my perspective whatsoever.
"You make the same mistake in your original post as you complain about my making here."
No, I actually make arguments based on facts, while you don't make ANY arguments at all. Big difference.
"you'll get to a point where you can realize that the very last thing contributing to the rising oil prices in America is "geo-political factors"."
This is a debate; you have to PROVE your allegation. Have you ever been in a debate before? Ever?
"I do realize that it is hard to admit you've been gulled by yet another savvy bit of propaganda"
I could say the same for you; you haven't addressed any one of my counter arguments. Obviously it's you who have been gulled, since you are incapable of refuting anything I've said.
"You see, it would be worth the time to create rebuttal were the target someone who had demonstrated the ability to actually consider opinions other than their own"
DID YOU NOT READ MY COMMENT? I specifically said I don't DENY speculation's involvement with oil price increase! And you think you're an effective debater?! Come on! Twice now you've demonstrated you don't even read my comments fully before vomiting a useless and utterly substance-less response. If this is your idea of effective debate I'd hate to see you slacking off.
"but it's more a sign of your own arrogance than any reality."
Once more, this is a debate. It's your job to prove your allegations, not to just throw one out there and say, "You're wrong, I'm right. But I'm not going to say how you're wrong, I'm just going to make that clear and have you find out why." That's not how a debate works.
Make some counter-arguments or don't respond. You can't expect me to suddenly abandon my position just because you say so without any backing information or argumentation to convince me to. Also, I find it funny how you keep voting down my comments yet can't make a single rebuttal against my arguments; you just resort to personal attacks. Obviously you don't know what you're talking about.
"the Beatles were the first to popularize having the band themselves write the songs"
No they weren't.
"the first to do a theme album"
You mean a concept album? No they weren't.
"the first to wear long hair"
No they weren't... wait, what long hair? Even though the Androgynous image most of us associate with being "long hair" became popular with the heavy metal movement, there were still rock groups before the Beatles' popularity that had long hair, and many at the same time of the Beatles that had longer hair.
"the first to take rock outside of the tight restraints of the blues progression"
No they weren't.
"the first to do backmasking"
Backmasking was in use LONG before the Beatles; they just popularized it.
"the first to do a psychodelic [sic] album"
Actually, they received a lot of heat for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band because there already was a psychedelic musical movement in the U.S., and some die-hard fans saw them doing a psychedelic album as kind of selling out. Though it was nonetheless an extremely influential album.
"What has Tool done that can compete with those credentials?"
How can you expect a progressive rock group to gain as much popularity with general audiences as a pop rock group? Also, Tool wasn't around at the time of the Beatles, so there's no reason to say, "Well, they weren't the first ones to do this!" if one came decades before the other. I personally agree that there can't be one band that's considered the "greatest", since music is an art, but I just wanted to correct a few things.
Oh no! Not a sarcastic rebuttal lacking any solid argumentation and doesn't even address the facts in my post that I base my contention on! Alas the day, what ever am I to do?!
(Note: I'm going to have fun with this one; you want to forgo intellectual discourse and make it a pissing contest in sardonicism, I'm game.)
"Er, you kind of forgot about that oversupply from 2006."
Er, that has no relevance to the data I posted, nor does it, er, have any effect on what, er, I was, er, saying. Er.
You know, it would help if you made an argument and explained the relevance of the aforementioned "oversupply" so I can make a proper rebuttal, because as it stands it doesn't further any point. Er.
"And the video of the OPEC meeting that leaked."
Very ambiguous; how about you actually extrapolate information from your source and form an argument for a change, rather than referencing something and assuming I can read your mind to understand whatever point you're trying to make? I know, what mind-blowing concept.
"And the statements by the various talking heads (with backing) who make it clear the speculator market is responsible for these spikes."
Oh, the esteemed and highly credible "various talking heads" said so, huh? Well, can't argue with those guys; I mean, I don't even know who they are... how can I argue against their wise "statements" that you fail to post or link to your argument if they're so secretive? I guess I'll have to take your word for it at face value then. Not.
"And the weakness of the dollar."
Already mentioned that; kudos for not reading my comments before voting them down and belting out a poorly stated reply.
"Not to mention the herring of China and India will want more oil, oh my!"
I assumed it's common sense that China and India will want more oil. I mean, they're both increasing in oil consumption each year, at a rate much faster than most Western countries. If you have some kind of argument that they DON'T want oil, I'd love to hear it.
"Erm, maybe you missed it, but China is already active in the market as is India... and neither are going to suddenly or exponentially unbalance things."
Erm, have you even done research on this subject before blowing your load on this piss-poor response? No? Didn't think so; how about I enlighten you with some figures, eh? As of 2007, China's oil consumption was 6.93 million barrels per day. Their oil production was 3.73 million barrels a day. Therefore it was importing roughly 3.2 million barrels of oil a day. In the next two decades its consumption is expected to grow at a rate of 7.5% per year (compared to 1% growth for industrialized countries). In the January to April period of this year, imports for China rose 10% from last year. While China's oil production is on a steady rise, it's demand has already far surpassed it, therefore warranting more oil imports.
And as far as India is concerned, it produces 834,600 barrels per day, and consumes 2.4 million barrels per day; it consumes two thirds more oil than it produces. "But", you might say, "India is 'active in the market'! That must mean it doesn't need to import oil!" ERM, no - the numbers are right there, you do the math. Here's another figure: From 2001 to 2006, India's oil consumption increased by 11.9 percent. It's the ninth-largest importer of oil, and by 2030 (if oil is still around by then; this is a mathematical estimate not taking into account oil depletion) it is predicted oil demand would reach 5.6 million barrels per day. Erm, make sense?
For more reading on this subject (notice how I made my argument first, then posted links?), read these articles:
Now to put the final nail in this issue's coffin: Erm, maybe you missed it, but the fact that China and India are in the market doesn't mean they don't import oil. So, ERM, at their current growth rate, they WILL "suddenly or exponentially unbalance things", as you say. Both nations already import a great deal of oil, and their oil consumption is growing faster than any Western country. It stands to reason that they will import oil to satisfy their needs, and they will demand more and more oil as development continues. Remember: We consume a massive amount of oil, more than 25% of the world's total consumption (this a figure from 2000, so obviously it's much higher now). When India and China become developed, there will doubtlessly be some competition for oil to meet domestic demands. If you think you can contest this, I'd love to hear your logic.
"Maybe you should read the link I gave in my previous post."
Maybe you should actually make an argument rather than dropping ultimatums and parroting slogans, ignoring all the facts and points I make, and essentially say, "I'm right, you're wrong. Haw haw." Are you familiar with "debating" at all?
I read the article. It goes under the assumption that peak oil is non-existent, which is a completely ignorant position to take. You haven't even debunked all the information I posted relating to falling oil production, and you're assuming off the bat it's all bunk and your proposition is correct? Your article doesn't even go into detail how oil depletion is not an issue; it primarily focuses on proving speculation increases prices, nothing further - so how the hell can you just say, "read dat article, yo" and expect me to be blown away and admit defeat? I actually agree that speculation influences prices - that's why I didn't post a rebuttal to your previous post - but to assume declining oil production has nothing to do with this increase is basically arguing with your head up your ass.
One line in your article caught my eye: ". . .given the unchanged equilibrium in global oil supply and demand over recent months. . ." Doesn't explain what this equilibrium is or what this assumption is based on. And it ignores the chaos among the largest oil producing nations in their production levels - this whole article goes under the assumption that peak oil is non-existent, when the data clearly show otherwise. Marion King Hubbert's theory on Peak Oil reflects the reality of oil field production - as production increases, it hits a peak where the most it will ever produce is extracted, and subsequently production falls into terminal decline. His three methods of predicting peak for certain oil fields accurately prophesied the US's oil peak in the 1970s, and oil peaks have been observed in fields around the world, such as the Cantarell supergiant field and the North Sea field, as well as total oil production in countries such as Venezuela, Germany, Tobago, France, Egypt, Iran, Russia, and Canada (not including bitumen).
Here's another line from your article: "Compelling evidence also suggests that the oft-cited geopolitical, economic, and natural factors do not explain the recent rise in energy prices can be seen in the actual data on crude oil supply and demand." Doesn't cite the "compelling evidence", doesn't say what the hell it is, and doesn't give one statistic from the "actual data" that is so decisive... how convenient. "Although demand has significantly increased over the past few years, so have supplies." A nice helping of bullshit; "supplies" have not increased whatsoever; oil PRODUCTION increases with increased development of fields that have not hit peak yet (as well as pumping sea water into oil wells to increase pressure and obtaining oil from "heavy" sources like bitumen, which is more costly than light oil), however the amount of oil in the ground is not increasing, but decreasing. Obviously they know jack shit about retrieving oil, hence their denial of the trends in oil fields and countries to peak then slide in a recession. Even the discovery of oil peaked in 1965; since then we've never discovered a field as massive as Guhwar. On average, the fields we discover are smaller and smaller.
"The conclusion that it's scarcity and demand (aside from inflation) is over-simplified and mis-informed."
You're the one who hasn't made a single damn argument against all the facts I've given. You voted both my comments down, so obviously what I said was wrong, but you don't even try to prove me wrong. I never said I rejected speculation's involvement with rising oil prices, however you have dismissed all other probabilities and embraced that alone, as can be seen by you claiming all other standpoints are too simplistic or misinformed. You make the assumption it's all the speculative market that's behind the price increase, and that's it (apart from inflation, which is the only other possibility you embrace)? You're the one over-simplifying things, not I.
Also, just saying "you're misinformed" doesn't make it the case. You actually have to... I don't know... offer an ARGUMENT or two to prove that allegation, maybe? Is it so hard to request that you actually debate my points rather than dismissing them and making ultimatums? It is? Well, get the hell off this debate site then.
Now that was fun (despite the fact I wasted 2 hours worth of research on a response to a person who can't formulate an argument). Oh, and one more thing: ERM!!!!!
"I would rather risk the extinction of a few animal species than continue to enrich and rely upon middle east oil."
ANWAR drilling won't do anything to solve that problem, sorry. You'd just be making a few species extinct while not even lightening our dependence on foreign oil.
"All that would do is bring our enemies closer to nuclear capabilities"
Which "enemies" are you talking about? None of the countries in the Middle East that have showed hostility to us, such as Libya, aren't even among the top 10 or even top 20 oil exporters to the U.S. And Iran, the big, bad country everyone fears will get nukes yet doesn't even have the infrastructure to delve into weapons research, doesn't sell oil to us in the first place, so a dependence on "Middle Eastern oil" has nothing to do with it. WHAT enemies are getting close to nuclear capabilities, and of these, which ones do we import substantial quantities of oil from?
While I do agree we should stop relying on Saudi oil, the whole thing about nuclear capabilities is a load of BS.
We've been drilling in Alaska for decades. Hell, Prudhoe Bay already passed peak in 1987.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
If you're talking about ANWAR, that's a different story. Drilling will be allowed if oil reaches $125 a barrel, according to the US Senate. We still have a few months until we get there. Now, if we were to reach that point, it would take at least a decade to get even a drop of oil out of that reserve. Why? Because it's spread out over 1.5 million acres of land (just 10.5 billion barrels, mind you), not in one field but scattered about. A large quantity of pipelines and facilities would need to be constructed all over this area to get the oil flowing, and that would take years to build and operate. And by the time we do get it operational, the rewards won't be all that spectacular.
Here are the facts: Currently we are importing around 12,604,000 barrels a day of foreign oil. ANWAR, at peak production (when it produces the largest quantity before it falls into terminal decline) will give us 870,000 barrels a day. You do the math.
"yeah, we need to stop buying foreign oil."
I have an idea - tell me if this is crazy or not - but how about we... I don't know... invest in alternative sources of energy so we don't NEED oil in the first place? Wouldn't that get us to stop buying foreign oil a lot faster than drilling in Alaska (which wouldn't do anything to reduce our dependence on foreign oil)? Trying to suck every last drop of oil out of the crust is just delaying the inevitable: oil will run out. It's a finite resource, and once the peak of a certain field is reached (when half the oil is depleted), production fails, so we don't even get all 10 billion barrels of oil because it'll reach a point where it's not cost-effective to continue to pump the oil if production is too low.
Should we drill for oil in Alaska? No, how about we invest in alternative sources of energy and eliminate our dependence on oil altogether? Because if our reliance on foreign oil is what you're worried about, then you'll be sad to hear that drilling in ANWAR won't help that at all.
"The Neumann's were silly to depend solely on prayers to restore their daughter's health."
Why not? You KNOW for a fact that god "helps" you, yes? Why wouldn't he "help" the Neumann's? If god is so all loving and wonderful as you claim, why take away that which the parents love so dear, when they were so loyal and respectful to him?
"trust his decision to take their daughter from them, in his infinite wisdom."
You have no reason to assume a god has infinite wisdom (you are assuming this, just like his very existence), and you certainly have no reason to respect the will of something that wants to kill your own child when you beg and plead for it not to, and it doesn't even tell you why the death is necessary. Instead of learning from the horror of the loss and donating to organizations helping other kids with diabetes, you'd rather just say, "well, god must have intended this to happen, so I guess all kids with diabetes deserve to die." I really hope you're not a parent, if you think children are so expendable.
"‘Prayers work’"
Still waiting for you to prove it. Come on, I don't have all eternity, now.
"you can’t always understand how so with your limited understanding of the universe"
You have just as limited an understanding of the universe as I. You're in no better position. Thus I play it safe and don't make assumptions about what might exist beyond our perception because I'll never be able to prove its existence. You, on the other hand, gleefully assume away and presume plenty of details outside our "limited understanding of the universe", even though you have no reason to whatsoever. Your whole belief is based on nothing but assumptions. They are erroneous, they are unwarranted, they are unfounded. And you even admit it.
"It would be unrealistic to try and prove it"
If you can't prove it, then WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IT? Are you familiar with the term, "intellectual dishonesty", by any chance?
"the same way as you can’t make a blind man see"
Not at all. A person with functional vision cannot make a blind man see the world, however that person HAS seen the world clearly, he knows for a fact it exists with his functional sensory organs. You even admit that your contention is based on faith alone, so you don't know any more than I do (yet you're the one making presuppositions of existence). So, no, I'm not blind, and you're no better sighted than I in this universe.
Also, I'd like to point out that it's not "in America" that prices of oil are increasing. Global prices for oil are rising, and while it's true that the inflation of the US dollar affects this, certain OPEC countries are now beginning to sell oil in Euros instead of the once-standard USD. Simply because the Euro is more stable in value than the US dollar - yet oil prices are still increasing, no matter what exchange standard is being used.
In fact, there is wide speculation that the Euro will replace the dollar as a global currency (such as Vladimir Putin suggesting Russia trade in Euros and not dollars). Losing out to the Euro as the global standard currency will cost us greatly in the long run - when our currency was the global standard, we were able to control commodities and resources much easier because it was our banks that had the power. Prices will inevitably go up, since we will no longer have that buying power.
So really it's a total [maelstrom of crappy circumstances] that causes oil prices to go up: The soon-to-be loss of global economic presence to the Euro, inflation of our dollar, peak oil, a growing demand for oil with a shrinking supply, and instability in the oil industries around the world.
Apart from an absurd level of inflation that has been occurring, the terminal decline in oil production in many countries can also be linked to rising oil prices. Geopolitics also play a hefty role, of course. Let's take a look at the data.
Top 10 US oil imports (as of Feb 08), in thousands of barrels per month:
1. Canada: 71,446
2. Saudi Arabia: 47,186
3. Mexico: 38,484
4. Venezuela: 32,810
5. Nigeria: 29,711
6. Iraq: 22,634
7. Russia: 13,083
8. Algeria: 11,135
9. Virgin Islands: 10,170
10. Angola: 10,148
(Taken from: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/
5 of the top 10 importers are OPEC nations; the 12 OPEC nations account for over 46% of US oil imports (compared to the 105 non-OPEC nations importing oil into the US). The Persian Gulf alone contributes 21% of imports.
Let's take a look our oil import buddies and see if we can find any cause, geopolitical or otherwise, that would affect gasoline prices:
Canada: Conventional oil production peaked in 1973, causing a gradual drop in conventional oil production - however, this was not noticed much because processing bitumen from oil sands has been making up for the loss. Today production of nonconventional oil from bitumen make up 20% of total oil production in Canada. In fact, 95 percent of Canada's proven oil reserves (which is second only to Saudi Arabia's) are made from oil sand deposits. Processing bitumen is a very costly process, requiring far more refinery work than conventional oil. For example, it takes $25 dollars per barrel to produce crude oil from oil sands - this compared to $5 for producing crude in the Middle East.
Saudi Arabia: Home of the largest oilfield in the world, Ghawar, producing 4.5 million barrels per day (the bulk of Saudi Arabia's oil supply comes from 8 massive fields - out of 80 total fields, and no more giant fields have been discovered since the 1970's). However, Ghawar's production has been declining as well - from 5.7 million barrels per day in 1981 to 4.5 million in 2001. Engineers who have worked on Ghawar have stated this decade will see Ghawar's peak (reports indicate 30-55% water cut, meaning that percentage of what comes from the well is water). The decline rate as of July 29, 2004, was 8%.
Mexico: On march 18, 2006, it was made public that the number two oilfield in the world (second to Ghawar), Mexico's mammoth Cantarell, had peaked. In 2004 it reached its highest output, 2.13 millions of barrels per day, and by 2006 it was at 1.9 mb/d, and in 2007 it was down to 1.5 mb/d.
Venezuela: Peaked in production in 1970, but increasing output by processing large oil sands reserves. In 2005, Hugo Chavez announced a plan to reduce his country's dependence on the U.S. oil market, after the Bush administration supported a failed coup against Chavez. Economic relations between the U.S. and Venezuela have suffered as a result. The recent dispute between Chavez and Exxon Mobil have prompted Chavez to cut off oil exports to the U.S. altogether (although he has not followed through with this threat as of yet).
Nigeria: A militant insurgency has lately lashed out in an attempt to cripple Nigeria's oil industry, in a war on foreign oil companies, reducing oil exports (such as when Chevron, Texaco, and Shell suspended production in 2006 following the murders and kidnappings of industry personnel). Nigeria's Delta province is estimated to hold vast reserves, however due to political instability, projects to capitalize on them remain under-developed.
Iraq: The economy remains unstable due to the ongoing conflict, and oil production is hindered as a result. Oil facilities have been targeted by insurgents throughout the operation (282 attacks total between April 2003 and October 2005). Production has declined to around 1.9 mb/d, and refineries are operating at half capacity, necessitating large refined oil imports of 200,000 barrels per day.
Russia: Production peaked in 1987, sharply dropped after the Soviet Union collapsed, but rose as investment increased in the industry. A second production peak has been predicted to hit in 2010. A lack of modern technology and many aging oil fields is hindering Russia's ability to maintain and expand production levels.
Algeria: A tax on oil was passed by Algeria's Parliament. This "excess" profits tax could vary from 5% to 50% on Algerian profits of foreign companies, thus increases the pice of oil to its buyers. They also passed a provision that Sonatratch, the country's oil monopoly, take a 51% controlling interest in all future production and refining contracts.
Virgin Islands: Couldn't find a lot of crises facing them, geopolitical or otherwise. Cool.
Angola: Once the civil war ended in 2002, Angola has stabilized and is steadily increasing its oil output. In the next 10 years, production will increase by 2 mp/d to 3.4 mp/d. However, there are signs it could turn into the next Algeria. Angola's most productive and future oil fields are within the exclave province of Cabinda. The huge royalties derived from Cabinda's oil production goes directly to Angola's capital, Luanda, with little returning in development funds for the province. The people of Cabinda recognize they should be some of the wealthiest people in Africa (with only 300,000 people in the province), and there is a long history of armed struggle for independence in that province (such as the Cabinda Liberation Front and Armed Forces of Cabinda). Angola might not be in a crisis at the moment, however there is a strong possibility of a Nigeria redux with insurgents striking against the country's oil industry.
So, I guess my answer to why oil prices are increasing are that, aside from inflation, the oil production of 8 of our top 10 oil imports is being hampered or even crippled in one fashion or another, affecting prices worldwide. Also remember that oil consumption is increasing globally as well. China and India are also developing at an accelerated rate, and their enormous populations will require an equally enormous amount of oil if development continues.
Increased demand + Decreased production = Increased prices.
"Told you it would get you squawking mad!"
You obviously haven't seen me on Stickam.
"'YOU WIN'"
It's not about winning, it's about the intellectual exchange of ideas. Gaining knowledge and new perspectives supersede any concept of "winning"; I'd much rather have you prove your point to me so I can learn something new, rather than say I "won".
"I don't expect you to be able to grasp anything that science can't prove"
You must have incentive to consider something is feasible before you get anywhere near proving it. The existence of the soul has no such incentive; it is an assumption, pure and simple.
"Neither do I expect you to be able to accept there’s a universe out there waiting to be discovered"
That I do accept.
"such as spirituality, religion, metaphysics, philosophy and the likes"
All are based on conjecture, not any empirical evidence (except for philosophy, but that's not pseudoscience; it's social science).
"I guess I am pretty simple compared to your superior intellect and reasoning"
Never said I had superior intellect, never intended to imply such. This isn't about trying to prove who's smarter, it's about proving which position is the most valid. Being concerned with personal ego issues like who's smarter is being "out for yourself", as you like to say, while I'm out for the truth (or the closest thing there is to it).
"Now will you please go away and get on someone else’s case?"
Getting on someone's "case" is not the point. Debating is the point (go figure). If you make a comment that another person objects to, don't be surprised to find said person challenging your position. It's perfectly legitimate to argue against your position if I find it to be complete BS. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Whoops, there I go writing another essay. But this'll be my last comment on this topic, if you really wish to cease the debate. Just wanted to clarify a few things.
"Told you it would get you squawking mad!"
You obviously haven't seen me on Stickam.
"'YOU WIN'"
It's not about winning, it's about the intellectual exchange of ideas. Gaining knowledge and new perspectives supersede any concept of "winning"; I'd much rather have you prove your point to me so I can learn something new, rather than say I "won".
"I don't expect you to be able to grasp anything that science can't prove"
You must have incentive to consider something is feasible before you get anywhere near proving it. The existence of the soul has no such incentive; it is an assumption, pure and simple.
"Neither do I expect you to be able to accept there’s a universe out there waiting to be discovered"
That I do accept.
"such as spirituality, religion, metaphysics, philosophy and the likes"
All are based on conjecture, not any empirical evidence (except for philosophy, but that's not pseudoscience; it's social science).
"I guess I am pretty simple compared to your superior intellect and reasoning"
Never said I had superior intellect, never intended to imply such. This isn't about trying to prove who's smarter, it's about proving which position is the most valid. Being concerned with personal ego issues like who's smarter is being "out for yourself", as you like to say, while I'm out for the truth (or the closest thing there is to it).
"Now will you please go away and get on someone else’s case?"
Getting on someone's "case" is not the point. Debating is the point (go figure). If you make a comment that another person objects to, don't be surprised to find said person challenging your position. It's perfectly legitimate to argue against your position if I find it to be complete BS. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Whoops, there I go writing another essay. But this'll be my last comment on this topic, if you really wish to cease the debate. Just wanted to clarify a few things.
"The memory itself, or the instance, did not oringinate [sic] from yer [sic] brain, which is what I'm sayin [sic]."
The "instance" was perceived by our brain, the memory originates from our brain because it is there where it was created. If you have proof that memory is somehow created outside our brain then implanted in, I'd love to hear it. It'd be nice to have some actual FACTS to argue instead of your baseless conjecture.
"I think I got that even if I can't take out time to read through each of your repetetive [sic] lines and the links you send."
So you are aware that memories are CREATED IN THE BRAIN, thus your previous point that memories somehow exist separately from the brain is moot, thus your claim that the self exists beyond the physical body just became all the weaker. Thanks for making my job a lot easier.
"I'm talking about a state of being that obviously doesn't need a body, or a brain to create or process memories."
Before you can even discuss that you have to establish what a "state of being" is. That implies that "we" are separate from our physical bodies, thus can exist elsewhere. However, we have seen that a sense of self is produced by the functions of the brain as a culmination of sensory input. Without a brain, there is nothing to gain sensory input from the environment to experience the physical world, thus have awareness, let alone self-awareness. And if you contend that awareness can be possible, you'd have to provide a lot of argumentation as to how awareness is even possible without the organic functions of a brain. So why don't you explain, in detail, how an entity can exist without a physical body. While you're at it, explain how it can maintain any kind of identity since the brain's chemical processes generate one's unique personality.
"I don't have the motivation to post detailed discussions that invlove [sic] my personal research"
Don't worry; based on your track record I wasn't expecting otherwise.
"May be I'll share it sometime, but its futile if you're thick as a walnut."
I don't know if you've been reading your own comments with a critical eye, but if we were to look at one of our exchanges, what do we see? I attempt to press points, give counter-arguments, be as thorough as possible with stating the logic behind my arguments, and post links to reference material to back up my allegations. You often take one or two quotes that aren't even dealing with the real meat of a comment and offer weak arguments against it, make claims and allegations with nothing more than pure conjecture to back it up, refuse to address points brought up by cited material, make broad assumptions, and ignore any valid points the opposition makes. This, coupled with your inability to read properly (especially reference material), shows that you might have the whole "thick as a walnut" line (which was another claim made without any stated reasons) backwards.
"I can use the same to argue that the brain is just an organ that allows you to process the memory into your physical form, not the memory itself, which exists in history regardless of whether your brain has lost its ability to recall it."
Scientists have identified how memories are recorded, registered, and stored in the brain, physically. The brain creates memory, it does not merely process it. Also, clarify on what you mean by "which exists in history". What history? And how does exist? The memory encoded within your brain exists, yes, even if certain faculties are disabled to inhibit accessing that memory. However, it still exists within the brain. If you can somehow prove it exists outside the brain (in some fashion or another), I'm sure the neurologist community would shower you with awards and praise.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/
"You're out to prove that God doesn't exist."
Read my post before responding.
"Not the same, as I argued from a psychological perspective aside from religious views."
Once more, read my post. I offered a counter-argument from the psychological perspective as well. Did you read that part at all? Obviously not.
"God helps me with that, so my prayers aren't futile in any case."
Prove god is involved with prayer in any way, shape or form, before judging whether praying is effective or not. If your contention is that your prayers are effective because god helps you, that is not a solid statement since the idea of god is conjecture, not an established fact. Therefore, you're basing your contention on a false premise.
"However, I do trust in God."
Irrelevant to the issue.
"your objectives come before your beleifs [sic], it seems (since you don't have any)."
Not speaking for myself - there are plenty of other examples of unanswered prayers, many of them from devout religious people (such as the Neumann's). Did you even read the article I posted in the other column on the effectiveness of prayer?
Also, are you implying I have no "objectives" or I have no "beleifs [sic]"? Either way, you have no idea to tell for certain; you've never met me in person, the only time we've interacted was on this website, you don't know who I am, yet you somehow are able to ascertain that I have no "beleifs [sic]" or "objectives"? How does that work?
"You can be sure you'll get exactly what you deserve."
So you're saying Madeline Neumann's parents were not good, obedient followers of god, even though they were evangelicals and let religion practically run their life? Somehow they were not worthy enough to have their daughter saved? Read my post in the other column for a more detailed argument. If you believe you can refute my position by debunking the research and argumentation presented there, please do so.
I know you said you wouldn't continue in this forum, Mumin; however you've deleted my comments on your page asking for evidence to prove that my position is false (as you have claimed multiple times without producing documents or records refuting me), and now that you have declared me an enemy, I cannot comment on your page anymore. So hopefully this time you'll put your money where your mouth is.
I'll take the initiative in providing a source supporting my position. In Islam's very own scripture, the Sahih Bukhari Hadiths, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64, it is written:
"that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years..." This is also restated in the following verse, Number 65.
Here are a few online translations of the Hadith concurring on this interpretation (also, these are not atheist, Christian, or Jewish websites, so don't try to claim they are biased):
(http://www.ikfm.se/ig/albukhari/
(http://www.luvu4luv.com/
(http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/
(http://www.ummah.net/Al_adaab/hadith/
Now it's your turn, Mumin. Since you're so confident that I am wrong, you must have a bounty of contrary information with reputable sources to back it all up with, correct? Let's hear it.
"God answers prayers"
Prove it.
http://www.livescience.com/health/
"the power of vocalizing your ultimate objectives that you want to see through would definitely improve your efforts"
The psychological benefits you mention are by no means exclusive to prayer itself. Seeking counsel with trusted friends or family members offers the same confidence and vocalizes your objectives. In fact, I think speaking to other humans is even more reassuring because there's no doubt that they are listening. Psychologists also can give counsel. Whereas you make a request to the idea of god and don't get any response back confirming that he heard you, other humans give affirmations. Also, there are people who do mistake prayer as being the solution to all their problems, and their faith in prayer can erode their sense of responsibility. Not saying this is always the case, but I've known a few theists who put too much faith in an unknown entity to run their life.
I'm not denying prayer has its benefits, psychologically (although these can easily be gained through other methods); I just deny that god answers prayers because it's not even known whether a god exists or not, and even if it was known, there's still no evidence indicating it answers prayers. It may be that the self-confidence some achieve through prayer is what helps them achieve their goals - not divine influence. This would explain the inconsistency in prayer answering much better than the cop-outs generally used by theists.
"he same way as you aren't a religious scholar, a philosopher or a sea monkey"
You used the phrase "I'd say" when speaking about what the brain's function is. That's much more daring than anything I've said; I actually try to take information from external sources.
You don't seem to comprehend that consciousness and self-awareness are not independent of the brain, they are PRODUCED by the brain. Therefore your argument that they continue to exist after we die is moot.
"using this organic machinery to operate in the physical realm"
You're using backwards logic; we have observed consciousness and self-awareness to be tied directly to the brain. This indicates consciousness is produced by the brain - you say that the consciousness existed before it happened to possess the body or something to that effect. You have no evidence to this claim whatsoever and therefore that argument is moot as well.
Prayers have a number of logical flaws inherent in their very design, the foremost of which is lack of evidence that they are even answered. While some people claim their prayers have been answered in the past, obviously there is a multitude of other people who have not had their requests fulfilled, often for vital issues. Here are two extreme examples:
1. President George Bush praying for the people of New Orleans right after they were hit by hurricane Katrina, displacing thousands of people. Great load of good that did.
2. Madeline Neumann, an 11-year old girl, died of diabetes. Her parents opted for prayer instead of taking her to the hospital when she showed very noticeable signs of illness and weakening. For 30 days her insulin level dropped, dying as her parents prayed (knowing that she had diabetes).
Here's an article with some research done on the effectiveness of prayer: http://www.livescience.com/health/
Naturally, religious people have rushed to generate excuses for unanswered prayers. The most common excuses are:
1) There is no unanswered prayer; God just answers them in different ways than we expect them. If that is the case, what is the point of praying in the first place, especially if fatal consequences result? And even if you believe that God had answered the prayer in such a way that it appears he didn't do anything for you, HOW is that any proof that prayer is effective, in any way?
2) God chooses not to answer them. Obviously a convenient cop-out; if your prayer is not answered, why doubt the validity or effectiveness of praying when you can just assume God simply chose not to answer it? This also produces the problem that you essentially get a 50/50 chance at your prayer being fulfilled. That's the same chance you get if you were to just hope for something to happen, or carry a lucky object with you to somehow increase the chances of something good happening to you. This in no way indicates a divine power.
3) You don't believe deeply enough/ didn't pray hard enough/ lacked faith in the baby Jeebus/ etc. So only believers are able to use prayer, and if their prayers are unanswered then they just didn't pray hard enough? You think Madeline Neuman's parents prayed hard enough, considering they did so for 30 days straight? Once more, a cop-out.
For a bit of scientific research on how effective prayer is (yes, those pesky scientists are foiling religious dogma once more), check out this article: http://www.livescience.com/health/
There is no evidence that prayer does help. It's a 50/50 chance to get what you want, which are the odds you have if you do nothing. Thus, there's no reason to believe prayer works in the first place. If prayer worked for you, bravo, now explain how my prayers were never answered (back when I was a Christian and did have faith), or why Neuman's parents didn't have their prayers answer. Hell, tell me what makes you so special that the being who CREATED THE UNIVERSE spends his time and attention catering to your need?
Prayer is good for people who have nothing else to turn to and need comfort. Hoping that this theoretical being will take care of you does provide some solace (at least, to those who don't mind the possibility of it not existing in the first place). Then again, talking with a close friend or family member does the same. And one detrimental effect of prayer is that is erode's a person's self-reliance, putting his or her life in the hands of some unknown force, rather than taking control and responsibility themselves. For more on self-reliance, here's an interesting article from a book on Theosophy:
Before prayer can be considered valid, we need some powerful evidence, such as multiple prayers being answered of things that were incredibly unlikely if not impossible to have occurred otherwise (without any human influence). As it stands, prayer is indeed nonsense.
The majority of your comment is pure conjecture, until you put forth your only concrete evidence: "official letters from Jesus' apostles of the time period". Could you perhaps post a link or two detailing the nature of these letters, when they were written, what they said, who they were addressed to, etc.?
Also, there have been plenty of people who willingly die for their beliefs - doesn't make their convictions any more tangible than anyone else's. Suicide bombers do this on a daily basis. Is that proof that their god is real? No. Same goes for Jesus' apostles.
And finally... do you think it's appropriate to explain what Jesus was to you when you haven't even proven his existence yet? You kind of have to do the argumentation first, then your opinion second.
"his argument and the one above it clearly show the authors have so self respect, or respect for others."
How the hell did you manage to deduce that? You don't think that a person who feels they have a right to control their life can possibly respect themselves, or respect other people? Please explain to me how it "shows" that I have no self respect or respect for others. I'd love to hear your logic behind that utterly inept accusation. Especially with the "respect for others" part - affirming my right to die if I'm in incredible amounts of pain is somehow not respecting other people? How so?
Personally I'm more into R&B;-based rock than I am in pop rock. They both were very influential bands in their own right, and I like the more political nature of the Beatles' later songs, however I personally like the Rolling Stones' music better. You just can't beat Paint It Black (which was one of the first well-known rock songs in a Natural Minor key, which was a huge development in having more varied rock sounds and feels).
Tests just measure your ability to memorize facts or formulas. Homework and classwork reinforce learning so students can retain the information they are exposed to. If you pass a final exam, you could either know the material very well or studied like hell for a few days for that one test while slacking off an all other classwork.
Having the final exam being the only important assignment to passing a class will undoubtedly encourage students to not even attempt homework assignments or other classwork, or study for other tests. Not a very efficient system of education (if imparting knowledge is the actual goal, rather than receiving a piece of paper to show off and get a better job, whether or not competence was required to obtain said piece of paper).
That said, I don't think students should automatically fail the class if they don't pass the final; if grades really did reflect the learning progress of a particular student, I think the overall grade should be important. Though grades don't always ensure a student getting the most out of an education. Back when I was in high school, I passed Geometry with flying colors (class rank 1), but subsequently forgot 70% of what we learned in that class over the summer. Not very good when a year and a half later I took the SAT's. That sucked.
