Yes what news really matters in the long run. A few hits here a few hits there..As long as it does not affect you...And what really matters in the long run. I mean everything is gonna dissolve anyways. In the end all matter is cold and scattered and the universe will start over once the emptiness is wast enough! Like in some's heads...!
One big flaw.. there's no shortage of food on this planet. We are overproducing already but the problem is no one is interested in giving it away for free to those who starve to death wich have no money to buy for. Profit always comes first..
Energy sources without the need for fuel or energy input exist ,But the Big corporations spend millions to ensure that information does not spread to the masses,Get a REAL working magnet motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Be the revolution!
this is the new age the age of reason and logic. in 10 years be have advance faster then the whole 20th century. one GB of today has more memory then the who Apollo space rocket. now imagine of we put a super computer inside a rocket and send it to the moon so easy that would be. theres only one thing stopping us.
@bboyloco3 As a space enthusiast and someone working in the astronautics industry, it's most certainly not religion stopping us. More than anything else, its the lack of funds and support from the general populace.
I stopped it at "Britain will starve without genetically modified crops"! Stick your propaganda up your ass! GMOs are destroying the planet. They do NOT using fewer pesticides, they are NOT feeding the hungry (more people are starving, since the introduction of GMOs) and they ARE the cause of the increase in many illnesses, such as Type 2 diabetes and many "new" allergies! Research is NOT that difficult.
this guy is just another globalist talking about the shit GMO food.
OFCOURSE NOONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT SHITTY NEWS, BUT THIS IS THE CORPORATE FASCIST SHIT RUNNING THINGS - THE SAME FUCKING GLOBALISTS THAT ARE FUCKING UP FARMERS AROUND THE WORLD FOR FUCK SAKE !!!!
TALK ABOUT FOOD SHORTAGE NOW YOU FUCKING DIP SHIT ZIONIST !!!!
@Shavarnarak You are right. The thing is that in Europe we are already beneath two children per family. The matter is that less developed societies will not stop having many kids, for example the muslims, who have about 8 kids per family. So the world will be muslim some day, and they will without any doubt destroy it.
@JUANMO94 Your ignorance shines through like a beacon bro...Muslims having 8 kids? What planet are you on? And why the pessimism about the religion or the democratic system you live in?
@TheLibraMo Yeah, maybe I exaggerated with the number. But it is true that Europe is being islamized, the most given name in Belgium is Mohammad, and in France, there are small zones where sharia law is used and police cannot get inside. Today, there are over 50 million muslims, and in less than two decades, it is expected to double. And if you look at islamic republics, you will understand why I am afraid of that.
unfortunately that's already set in stone. Try telling families in India who rely on their offspring to provide for them in the future, to stop having babies. It wont happen. And we can't enforce population control either. All we can do is educate, and plan for the worst.
I agree about how most "news" is a total waste of information but I totally disagree about Afghanistan's war being one of them. If people had a better view of the "long news" in that region we may have avoided this whole fiasco in the first place.
Just to make it all clear. earlier I mentioned courts' systems not courts' evidence. atheists are making a claim=non existance of god(which still is a claim). similar to any debate or court ruling to have no claim means you are indifferent. there has not been a decision on guilt(court example) nor has there been decision on whether or not God exists(debate example). so if you know your side on the debate, act it.
@nessunopassato Yes, but when entering a plea we atheists are simply saying "not guilty" which is to say for PRACTICAL certainty there is no god. We're not saying we're not ABSOLUTELY sure (or 'innocent' which is precisely why the legal term is not 'innocent'). Then we say, if you would like to PROVE your case (positive claim) good luck. So far it has been an epic failure to do so.
9/11 was an inside job. The human race woke up to defeat their elitist psychopathic psychological captors. They all went to jail, the rest of us lived in peace. There's some stories for you. How can anyone go through so much schooling and life experience and be so incredibly, evilly stupid?? GMO to save the world? Yeah, Nazi science is PRECISELY what we need. How about no more CONTROLLED ENGINEERED poverty by the IMF and world bank. Maybe then people won't starve, and won't over populate. Moron.
@TheGoodnessIsGood Overpopulation doesn't exist. Over 60 percent of the worlds population is over the age of forty. The die off of people that age begins to rise sharply after 10 years from cancer and heart disease. The world population should begin to shrink as long as the birth rate continues to slow down world wide. If birth rate drops and death rate increases world population will go down not up. So FU to the Malthusian Economist.
And Ted believes in the global govt. agenda too, he's an elitist just like the rest of the globalists, GMO is good? wrong, and letting a govt. choose an infant's career? wrong, ...FREEDOM and National Sovereignty matters
"In the long run some news stories are more important than others"
Sure - no doubt! However you can only realy know what was important in hindsight. As soon as someone say "-I want to filter information" I for one become sceptical.
3. "Also brush up on critical thinking and logical reasoning so you don't sound as ignorant as you have here." False I have not been ignorant , definition of ignorant "uneducated in general; lacking knowledge or sophistication;" Ignorant is about lacking knowledge but I have not lacked knowledge and have actually spreaded my knowledge to you.
Please stop repeating the word evidence as you do not know what evidence means as I told you from the definition it means knowledge
3. "Also brush up on critical thinking and logical reasoning so you don't sound as ignorant as you have here". False I have not been ignorant , definition of ignorant "uneducated in general; lacking knowledge or sophistication;" Ignorant is about lacking knowledge but I have not lacked knowledge and have actually spreaded my knowledge to you.
Please stop repeating the word evidence as you do not know what evidence means as I told you from the definition it means knowledge
Oh, try telling people that are involved in a war that it won't matter in 50 years. No matter what, wars have a huge impact on the future. What the fuck is this guy smoking? Another thing, we already knew there was water on the moon a long time ago, the recent mission was just so we could see how much. What a douchebag.
Deciding careers for children based on their DNA? What kind of a stupid idea is that?! Hopefully the kid will grow up, decide they don't like the career you chose for them, and tell you to go to hell. I think we have enough mind control as it is, we don't need more!
@CanadiaNecro1: you shouldn't forget that there are a lot of people who enjoy beeing told what to do.. reliefs them from the pressure of making decisions.
It's not just evil mind-control... sometimes when they tell you you can have a specific job and you actually can get that job is a lot better than beeing able to choose out of a thousand jobs, not getting any of them because others are cheaper.
there's always a good and a bad side. i agree that free will is important, but it isnt everything
LOL - Silly and very biased Kirk sneaks in the pro-Obama inaugaration comment during the slide presentation, calling it "cool." Fact is: It won't matter in 50 years. Unless you are a nostalgic liberal. Kirk is a giddy punch drunk.
What happens in Afghanistan won't matter in 50 or 100 years? Sure. It won't have any effect on history at all. And it's nice to know the combat I saw there was for nothing. Great Britain will starve without genetically modified food? Wow. That's a pretty bold assertion. I had no idea creating a global monoculture made our food supplies safer.
I'm a big fan of the Ted talks, but this has got to be the weakest one I've seen.
@RetroAndrew I am glad that smarter men then you made the decision to create the Freedom of Speech we so dutifully use here in this country. Taking away a persons ability to express an idea would be a far worse tragedy then you would ever know. Think if everyone censored Einstein or any Genius of merit. Good Ideas can be destroyed just as easily as bad Ideas if you begin killing and censoring people. It is better for ideas to compete then for them never to have existed and been spread out there.
LOL the answer is right there!!!A creator has to create the universe in order for it to exist! "Not knowing the answer to something" really?Because God is the only answer to that reply but the funny thing is you keep ignoring that. A nonliving thing can't create a nonliving thing such as the universe so a living thing had to create the universe. In fact do you even know what creator means? Creates anything that you think is impossible which is supernatural.
@Retro I don't know therefor god did it is a logical fallacy. Like "I don't know how lightning works therefor Zues does it". You make an assumption that I (in all my time of debating) never seen justified. The universe needs an intelligent creator. Why do you make that assumption? You might as well say magic did it. Not only that but it begs the question what created the creator? Saying it always existed is another unsupported claim of magic. What evidence do you have?
Supernatural makes life as there is nothing in nature that can create another natural object. How do you make atoms? You can't without supernatural powers to form atoms but you can't form atoms because your natural not supernatural. Natural is characteristics or essential qualities that is recognized. Supernatural makes life but nature plays the game of life. Supernatural is different than nature and life and it is a different essence than you can imagine because it's "super" natural. Study it.
@RetroAndrew What evidence do you have that the supernatural exists? Can't study something, as far as I can tell, that which there is no evidence for.
Prove that supernatural exists? It's common sense that supernatural has to exist because nature exists. If nature exists then supernatural made nature exists.Nature can't exist without being created. Where does nature come from?
@Retro You can't just claim it's common sense. And no, there is no reason to invoke the supernatural to explain the natural. Every answer we find turns out to be natural and if we don't know the answer to something we say 'I don't know' not 'Magic did it'. Beyond the Big Bang I don't know how 'nature' came to be. Unless you can provide evidence for the supernatural than you don't know either. How does the supernatural exist, wouldn't it have the same problem nature does according to your logic?
The definition of magic is supernatural and yes magic does exist for it created life that was too complexity. This should have been common sense because impossible became possible when life was made as if the universe was here by itself then it is impossible to appear without supernatural. "Every answer we find turns out to be natural" because your living in nature. Everything you see is nature but outside nature is complexity that no one can understand because it is not nature
@RetroAndrew Again you're making assumptions and you are avoiding to provide evidence. Why do you think it's impossible for there to be life without the supernatural? Again not knowing the answer to something doesn't mean you can posit whatever claim you like.
"no one can understand because it is not nature"
And yet you seem to know that it exists as well as so much of what it has done.
definition of evidence "your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief;" evidence is not about existence it is about knowledge as I have not avoided providing evidence but you should of have seen that I have been providing evidence the whole time. When a scientist says their is evidence for a situation do you believe the scientist or the evidence of what the nature of laws is telling you about the situation?
@Retro You're making a claim. Claims require evidence. If I claimed leprechauns exist I would need to show evidence for that. You aren't, you are making assumptions and calling them common sense. I can too, the supernatural doesn't exist. That's common sense. My evidence... it's readily apparent. That doesn't get us anywhere.
As for the scientist question I accept the evidence for a phenomena if the evidence was predicted by said phenomena. Now you play the scientist and provide your evidence.
" Now you play the scientist and provide your evidence" I already explained what evidence is as it is about knowledge but when you talked about leprechauns exist you must know the human being in nature who created the word leprechauns. It is already known who made the word "The name leprechaun is derived from the Irish word leipreachán, defined by Patrick Dinneen as "a pigmy, a sprite, or leprechaun"" Patrick Dinneen made leprechauns from words not nature itself.
When you said claim requires evidence your basically saying a claim requires knowledge. Who makes evidence? You believe that knowledge comes from man which is what makes up evidence for you but where does knowledge come from man?
@Retro "I already explained what evidence is" And I explained that that isn't a correct definition. That was the point of the leprechaun example and it was just that, an example. Replace leprechaun with anything including the supernatural and you'll see my point which was that claims require evidence. You missed the point entirely. Evidence is not knowledge. Evidence provides basis for belief. I couldn't really make sense out of your last question, can you rephrase it please?
"your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief" it says it in the dictionary right here unless your telling me the dictionary is a lie.Heres the definition of sense as well "the meaning of a word or expression" now the definition of meaning "the message that is intended or expressed or signified" It doesn't make sense because you can't think outside of simple laws because what you just heard was very complex.
@RetroAndrew No I'm saying dictionaries don't always allow the proper definition for all situations. Plus they aren't infallible, they used to define atheist as "amoral". But your definition agrees with me, I think you're reading it wrong. Please provide evidence for your claim. That is provide a basis for belief.
And your last statement is just condescension. Provide evidence, this is becoming a waste of time. I''ll help you start "The natural requires the supernatural because...."
The Dictionary is the official word vocabulary and if you were to disprove the dictionary then you are disproving the word itself ,the original definition did not agree with you however the custom definition you made did. Natural requires supernatural because nature has simple laws and supernatural is complex because it is unlimited that breaks it down itself into a simple instance called nature as whenever you try to think where does nature's laws come from it turns into complexity.
You also won't be able to figure this out because you don't have the knowledge to. Your knowledge only comes from things you see and learn off of it and that makes you limited but to be limited there has to be unlimited to break down unlimited into limits.
I'll just end it here , we don't have to talk anymore to each other as I will do my own stuff in life that I enjoy and you will do your stuff in life that you enjoy
but to make my question you wanted breaken down into less accurate information I said, you believe that knowledge comes from man because you believe that man makes up evidence in nature but where does the knowledge come from to make man receive knowledge?
@RetroAndrew You avoided again we're done here. I made it easy for you and defy providing evidence. Like I said you are making a claim, claims require evidence that is, something to base belief in the claim on. NO evidence, no belief. Try finishing that sentence I provided for you on your own and keep asking yourself why. Also brush up on critical thinking and logical reasoning so you don't sound as ignorant as you have here.
Evidence "your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief;" It says "knowledge". I also do not like it how you use ignorant towards me when you did a number of mistakes
1. "No I'm saying dictionaries don't always allow the proper definition for all situations"
false the dictionary is the official vocabulary of definitions
2."your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief;"I explained that that isn't a correct definition. Again false
I'm sorry to tell you though but all my knowledge shows that you have been ignorant. You said that the dictionary does not have proper words or definitions which it has to be because it is the official book of vocabs. I do not like it how your being close minded here on this subject and then having a fit about it not getting it your way. The real truth here is you don't accept anything you hear and study it , you destroy what you hate without knowledge of what you hear.
@RetroAndrew Actually CriticalAtheist is right. A definition can be different based on the situation. Common slang for sex for example is Screw, Pork and Diddle. Screw, Pork and Diddle do not have the same definition as Sex under them in the dictionary. Also some word definitions are changed in language based on context given. That is why biblical passages are often interpreted wrong(even by priest). Some times a thesaurus is better for understanding a words meaning then a dictionary.
@NoogLeader slang is not apart of any dictionary...therefore such words would still have only the original meaning world wide.slang is only useful in it's origin, like dialect. Sicilian dialect is only useful in Sicily, not Rome nor Tuscany.
@nessunopassato That sorta is the point. Dumb ass. You can't go just on dictionary to tell you what a word means. You need good understanding of the context and slang to get real meaning of what is said.
@CriticalAtheist you are making a claim as well. you are the ones who actually try to call falsehood, or in other words ... guilty. In court you must provide evidence towards the accused being guilty. where is your evidence? no evidence, no case, no court. That's basic court system piratically everywhere.
@NoogLeader Athestis don't have to provide proof. Faithful do. The faithful have made a positive claim regarding the existence of god. Atheists simply say "prove it". To date, we're still waiting for proof.
@captwasabi we are still waiting on you as well. truth, it could be argued that there is no proof on either side, and when it comes down to it, we still have Faith where you have to search for new reasons, new examinations every day. life of an atheist isn't care free, you have to prove to your self everyday what you are and why. so since you have had this conversation with yourself already, how bout sharing it with us?
Sorry, the argument from ignorance doesn't work. Science provides reproducible experiments which anyone can perform and verify, assuming one does not make an error, which is why we demand a person document thier procedures for review. While our scienfitic understanding of the universe is admittedly incomplete, it is a far better representative model than magic as espoused by religion.
@Grospoliner agree, argument from ignorance doesn't work. if any one has studied logic; it's "appeal to ignorance". guess what, "no evidence of" falls into the description. no matter what your trying to discuss about :) I merely ask that every one par take in the discussion instead of rule yourself out. Your also right on how much science can not explain. so if you can not fully explain dimension/etc. don't try to explain God
Not quite. "don't try to explain god" is still an appeal to ignorance, specifically God of the Gaps. While this might seem to be what science is doing, it's not the case. Science uses the best available model though better evidence might later be found. If such evidence arises, it is tested, and if found factual, it overrides previous interrations. This is why we now look to quantum mechanics rather than adhering to Newtonian mechanics.
@Grospoliner ha ha! just realized something.You have faith(trust).No not Faith, but you have faith that science is correct even when you know you may be wrong.Hope is future tense of faith,as you hope in the future more of science may be used to explain the unknown world around you.even you don't see it.haha.that's kind of funny.you remove your faith from God and put it in something else.
I have confidence in many things. I especially have confidence in science as it has never once failed me in my dealings with it. With science it is right there laid out clearly defined with established procedures on handling it. I don't have to trust that it is correct because I can test it for myself, though I still place my confidence in it. When it is wrong, it gets corrected as soon as possible.
It is much harder to place confidence in things that consistently are in error with your experiances or consistantly fail you and it is especially hard to trust anything which demands you to place your confidence in it without and sort of tangible evidence. This is the difference between positive and negative feedback and ultimately the differences in experiance which makes us individuals.
@Grospoliner harder? yes it is hard to have confidence in something without tangible evidence. to see and feel what is happening, to be able to test it and correct any mistake without it weighing heavy. sounds so nice (easy), but sounds like 'thinking inside the box'. so what is harder?
Mathmatics and science is hardly thinking in the box. That is an expression reserved exclusively for a lack of creativity. The level of creativity that men better than you and I is nothing short of astounding when it comes to both the discovery of previously unknown information and the application to create new and wonderful technologies. Fuel from algae, who would have though? No, science is nothing of the sort of constraining system that religion is.
The sciences expand our horizons, it opens new possibilities and forces us to acknowledge our potential. It forces us to reexamine ourselves and to choose careful paths lest we fall victim to our devices. Should we avoid destroying ourselves the universe will one day see our species across its entire width and breadth, though Earth will be a far memory gone in those days.
Additionally, no, we don't have to prove to ourselves everyday why we are here and what our purpose is. While cognition and existentialism try to reconsile our understanding of the self, purpose, and existance in a format which is logical and rational; it does not require us to constantly reassess our condtions or minor actions. The point we require ourselves to engage in introspection is during times we feel we may have made an error.
Even when put into a state of introspection, many of our questions are resovled by the simple fact that, I am who I am today, because of my past actions and experiences. So even when confronted by a realization it does not necessitate an alteration to the personality or belief system.
@nessunopassato Waiting on us for what? Atheists have made no claim Ness. theists have made the claim that god exists. Atheists have said "prove it". What proof do atheists need to provide? And I could care fuck all if you have faith or not. If you want to beleive in something that you cannot even prove exists thn you're the idiot, not I. As for proving to myself what I am I'll go with "cogito ergo sum." Gives me al the proof that I need.
@captwasabi I would suspect that there isn't anything to prove for. But We are trying to escape religious ideology that influences our ability to make rational decisions towards the future. Removal of religious power is the primary task of secular governments. The U.S. was created by Deist. Not Christians. Still not a secular form of government.
@captwasabi that's weird, your reply did not appear in my comments. anyways, the evidence could be anything. in court it's testifying(basically)that the individual claiming to be innocent is guilty, and in some cases(or most)lying.atheists think their always right, so they probably think about.."oh but there is no god and everyone's atheists born(untrue)so you have to prove it". however if you look at most discussions, it's the atheist proclaiming guilt/lie, therefore...
@ness-continue ...therefore it would be normal that since we are under the judgment that we would be given the evidence as to why we are wrong/lie/guilt.(similar to most courts). however, normally we don't receive anything cause there is nothing to receive. there is also the issue of what evidence is, so I may not have direct answer to what is "evidence" is when either side sees differently. what may be 'evidence' to one may not be to any other.
@nessunopassato When I throw a rock in the lake it makes ripples out to the end of the pond. If a friend walks by he can physically see the ripples left behind. Evidence is physically available for inspection by any and all available witnesses. For example a bloody knife would probably prove that a murder took place if you find the blood is human. A footprint in snow would indicate path, direction of travel and what had passed. The Cosmological Argument is often used by theist as evidence.
@nessunopassato Uh..no. Evidence in court is not simply testifying and saying whatever you want. It's being able to provide verifyable proof. Again, atheism is nothing more than the rejection of a belief of deities based on a LACK OF VERIFIABLE PROOF. This means that not one of your cute stories such as Genesis, Noah or Jesus has any ring of validity to it. Atheism does not proclaim any guilt or lies. We merely ask for proof. sorry if the facts bother you.
@captwasabi Im not saying atheism proclaims guilt, those were words to connect an argument with the courts as many atheists claim that the religious are make un truthful claims. in court you have the defense and persecutor.Defense says their innocent,where persecutor claims guilt.Religious proclaiming innocence(or existance)where atheists are claiming guilt(non-existance).The point being, in a debate BOTH sides provide statement, not just one. saying,"show me proof each time doesn't cut it.
@nessunopassato Not only is your arguement irrelevant as it's a straw man logical fallacy it's alos 100% wrong. In court the defendant has no burden whatsoever. The burden is on the Prosecution to prove guilt. As for the validity of your argument, athesists do not, in any way claim guilt. We simply demand proof of your claims. So using your example, you are the prosecution. You have made specific claims regarding the existance of god. We, as the innocent, are merely saying "Prove it."
@captwasabi my argument? can you tell me what that is,cause I don't think you know. now, let's just jump straight to it. 'prove it' means nothing. I already understand why I believe, and asking 'prove it' does nothing. i have my answers and their not the same for everyone.you can only find if you look, not sit around asking others to provide what you don't want to look at.
@nessunopassato You obviously don't understand anything which I have said. You have made a positive claim for the existence of god. Prove it. Until you can I will continue to believe that there is no god. End of story. Your comment that I can "find if I look" only proves that any "proof" you have is anecdotal at best ergo it is non-verifiable. Even pryer has been proven, scientifically, not to work.
@nessunopassato The cosmological argument hinges on the idea another idea of the Infinite Hotel. The problem is that infinite values are viewed as impossible by theist. The problem is that things may very well have an infinitely long causal chain. There may not be a primary first cause. First step in proving the theist argument is to prove that infinity is impossible. Though to me that would defeat the ideas of Omnipotence and Omniscience too. Seeing as they both represent infinities.
@NoogLeader FINALY! someone bloody explains what the crude an atheist is trying to say. instead of the same old same old crude on.. "prove it". to me that just sounds like, " I know you are but what am I". OR adding the word "not" to someone saying "does". OR ....well perhaps the point is made
@nessunopassato To know the world is to know that you truly know nothing and to accept that your very perceptions could be nothing but illusory and false. I spent some time thinking about this and come to the conclusion that the only thing I can be certain on is that I think and I can believe in what I am seeing and experiencing only because I have no other choice. I could very well be a simulation or envated brain for all I know. I don't have proof and I could never truly know. So I accept this
@nessunopassato You can only trust what you can sense because you have no other point of reference to know anything else. If a god would present itself to me there is no way of knowing if it is real or a figment of my mind. I would have to accept that the being exist to me. I wouldn't be able to claim the same for someone else. Assuming that they are real and not figments themselves. I would recommend looking up concepts of Philosophical Zombies and Simulacrum when you have a chance.
@NoogLeader well then what is trust? could we really trust anyone then? I wouldn't think so. I don't see the connection. I can trust more than what is to be sense as many should learn to do. otherwise you are limited to those senses and what happens when you lose them? your lost as well. also, there are countless situations that a person must experience that will require to think beyond senses. such as friends/loyalty/love/hate/enemies/ethical decisions/etc.
@captwasabi Another thing is Historical People and Places don't necessarily make the bible assumption of gods existence true. All it tells us is the authors awareness of political climate of the times when the events supposedly took place. For example spider man takes place in NEW YORK CITY a real place but Spider Man doesn't actually exist.
@NoogLeader your confusing someone writing about a fictional character in a real place with factual events written amongst multiple peoples/cultures in history. The Jews were really in Egypt and really were slaves and really were treated horribly. Moses did lead the people out. that's only few examples. if you'd like a link I think I could provide it, but send a p.m. otherwise it will just be deleted.
@NoogLeader if you care about facts, then it would be agreed that they were treated as slaves and were in fact slaves. that is the history of both the Jewish and Egyptian culture/people. that's why your foolish spiderman reference is goofed. there are tones of societies, cultures, peoples, etc. that interact with the Jewish people and through most events. much leaving behind evidence from trade and even documents.
@nessunopassato No historical evidence suggest that Jews were usually treated as travelling merchants and thugs. In fact the Jewish Culture didn't begin when the Old testament suggested it began or where it says it began. They were never Egyptian Slaves.
@NoogLeader are you serious? where did you get that lie from? it is Egyptian bloody history as it is Jewish history! The Tora was written both as a Divine and Historic work. that's part the reason for all the names and 'begets' within it. Just like the holocaust is apart of German history FOR EVER, Egypt will forever have that past. anything other is simple stupid hateful lie.
@nessunopassato There is no Egyptian record of the Jews. The bigger question is where did you get the idea that the Egyptians enslaved the Jews? Most of the Jewish Torah has parallels to ancient Sumerian Text. The Jews were not slaves to anyone. They were roaming merchants for a extremely long period. They were persecuted as being criminals and thugs throughout history. Not once was there any proof of them having a homeland or coming from anywhere even Egypt outside the Old Testament.
@NoogLeader yes they did wonder for a long period, most notably within the early ages before settling in current Israel, which was the Kingdom of David, among other kings. Invaded and conquered by Babylon as well as Rome. both societies make clear depictions about Jews. they were hated and looked down upon through out history. and the information I speak about was collected over the years through school. history does not change, just that spoken about it. I will not live in your 1984 society
@nessunopassato Your the one in support of the 1984 society. You are not looking into the facts. You avoid them like the plague. The Jewish People have been around far longer then Ancient Egypt. They were left over from the fall of Ancient Sumeria. They were never slaves.
@NoogLeader I did not say they came from Egypt nor existed merely in Egypt. I know they existed longer than* ancient Egypt, I never said opposite. the migrated there and worked. originally they were not slaves,however later enslaved.The facts have been in front of me since I was a young lad,and the truth in history will never change.simply because some punks with agenda's are trying to change things now,different from what has past been taught is b.s. propaganda=1984.
@nessunopassato The bible doesn't count as a history book. Artifacts like pottery and documents count as evidence of a peoples existence. Unfortunately there isn't proof of a Jewish presence in the Middle East showing they were slaves in Egypt. There isn't anything like a scroll allotting Jews into slavery or anything. In fact there is more proof of the Jews as being runners and facilitators of the slave trade back then. Even the Old Testament has rules for the proper management of slaves.
@NoogLeader YES THERE IS! the presence of Jewish people in EGYPT is very real and has been collected over the years. The Tora was written just as much a historical collection, ask the JEWISH people, of whom has taught as such. otherwise there is no need for every name given and who beget who. The Tora is a history of the Jewish people! As for evidence for slavery, their called the Pyramids! built by slaves (though mixed, included Jews)
@NoogLeader YES THERE IS! the presence of Jewish people in EGYPT is very real and has been collected over the years. The Tora was written just as much a historical collection, ask the JEWISH people, of whom has taught as such. otherwise there is no need for every name given and who beget who. The Tora is a history of the Jewish people! As for evidence for slavery, their called the Pyramids! built by slaves (though mixed, included Jews)
@nessunopassato You have it backwards. In a court they need to provide evidence that makes it reasonable to believe the claim that the person is guilty. Just as people need to provide evidence that makes it reasonable to belief the claim that the supernatural exists. In a court you don't prove someone innocent, you only say that there isn't sufficient evidence that they are guilty. Just as my position is there isn't sufficient evidence of the supernatural. The claimant must provide the evidence.
@nessunopassato Sorry this is continued from my last reply. I need to make it clear that I am not making any claim. I'm just not accepting the claims being made. If someone says trolls exist I don't have to accept that until evidence is provided. I don't need to prove it doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim and non-belief is the default position.
@CriticalAtheist Trolls do exist. I am one. IF you understand Net slang. The live under the bridge goat eating trolls don't exist unless you count the homeless as trolls.
@NoogLeader I'm well aware of internet slang. I also know I'm breaking a rule by responding to you; that is don't feed the trolls! So I better end it here.
@CriticalAtheist I am not one of the nasty ones. I agree with most of what you have said so far. I would consider myself a troll. But many may say I am more of a social commentator or something of that sort. If someone says something that isn't true though I call them on it. Even if that wasn't their intention.
@nessunopassato You are right, the basic system is indeed piratically everywhere. Everywhere you go, piratically they are conducting court, robbing, thieving, raping, pillaging. Aaaar. I don't agree with it.
@CriticalAtheist logic explains that is is a fallacy to simply make a decision when you do not have evidence. claim to ignorance. is that not what you are doing however?
@nessunopassato No it's not, I can't accept a claim until there is evidence for it. And extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence especially. I'm not making a claim so I have nothing to defend. God exists (defendant is guilty) is a claim that requires evidence. I have yet to see evidence for gods existence (I don't have enough evidence to say the defendant is guilty) is the default position (like not guilty is in a court) It's up to the theist (prosecutor) to provide the evidence.
@CriticalAtheist huh, yes it is. you picked a side. that is a claim. non-existance. that is the entire definition of an atheist. that is a claim if you were not going to make a claim than you would be indifferent!(Agnostic)Neither stating that God exists nor does not exist. both sides are a claim. what about that do you not understand? in an argument you have three positions. you claim pro, you claim anti, or you have no claim and pick neither side.claim to ignorance works for either side.
@ness You don't understand the definition of atheist or agnostic. It's not theist-agnostic-atheist nor do you have to make a claim. Theism/atheism deals with belief, gnosticism/agnosticism deals with knowledge. One can be agnostic (don't know) and be a theist (believe) or atheist (don't believe) Lack of belief is not a claim. I don't believe in giant pink space bunnies either and it's not up to me to prove they don't exist, it's up to the person claiming they exist to show they do. (continued..)
(continued....) @ness It's just like in the court room analogy. Belief that the person is guilty (god exists) is contingent on the evidence provided. If there isn't evidence of guilt (of god) then the court (me) can only say they don't have sufficient evidence to believe the person is guilty (that god exists) That's as clear as I can make it. A side by side comparison of the court room and our situation. So the question is, what are you not getting?
I have knowledge and believe that gravity keeps us down to the floor that is evidence
I have knowledge and believe that life exists which by exists means it is in nature which is evidence
You may have not notice but you have knowledge and believe from a scientist telling you nature and the laws of it which is evidence because the scientist told you so but you do not know if the evidence is true until nature speaks for itself.
The universe has a beginning and ending and we are inside the universe with laws that makes us think this way.Outside the universe is nothing that you can think of as nature because it's supernatural and has no laws. It is so complex that no laws exist for in order for a law to exist , it had to not be a law but became a law from supernatural powers. No one can understand what supernatural is but supernatural in other terms is the opposite of nature in complexity that has unlimited power.
I see value in a lot of the other efforts of The Long Now Foundation but I can't see how the "long news" concept is worthwhile. We can assume all we want about which of our actions will be of interest to future generation but who knows what people will care about in a 1,000 years. It could be that people will care more about this comment thread rather than early nanotech.
A major improvement such as water treatment has improved the quality of life immensely but now is now hardly mentioned.
Isn't it amazing that the majority of the stories he points out as being important barely got any attention (if any) and most people are unaware of them...
Yet I bet you can't find a person over the age of 10 in a non-third world country that doesn't know Michael Jackson died.
I read that that we have enough foof to feed the earths population 3 times over, and that the earths population could all live in texas and nevade. And we have peolpe that eat so much they can't even move so how are we running out of food?
@weredevil616 You are correct about food. Not sure about the texas/nevade thing. Will have to look that up. However we only have food shortages because of our limited methods of producing food. There are PROVEN ways to grow food anywhere. Even in a desert. The main problem with food isn't really how much of it we can make, its who can afford to buy it. We can feed the worlds population easily but we can't afford to do it. How sick and sad is that?
wow this guy has no idea of how bad the USA's economy is... when its all said and done this will be much bigger than the great depression, the currency crisis is coming! this news will be very important even 1000 years from now.
we'll see how the history books play out mate... maybe you should research austrian business cycle theory (and why the USA must necessarily be heading towards a dollar collapse in the coming years) before you go calling people truly retarded.. hah
@DaveC86 Name one financial crisis that is "very important 1000 years later". Even the great depression isn't important news 70s on, and its the biggst economic failure in modern history. Will it be remembered? Yes. Will it be important? No. This is why you are retarded.
the idea of sound money, free banking and free enterprise being truly the only way forward is of huge historical significance. do you think the founding of America was important? without that occurence, our living standards / scientific progress etc may still be where it was 200 years ago. in fact theres no reason to think otherwise, for 6000 years we lived with famines, disease and oppressive states stifling progress, until freedom was tried.
@DaveC86 I agree with you but money but you also have to take into account every negative those institutions has cased as well. If your system causes rewards only for a few but also causes suffering for a lot more, you can't justify it unless you only care about yourself. Last I looked at the world there is still a lot of disease and oppression which a lot of it comes from our selfish practices like shipping our toxic garbage and dumping it in underdeveloped countries and leaving it.
@quadeyquade - "Name one financial crisis that is "very important 1000 years later"
The one that medieval merchants created and then used to force king John to sign the magna carta in 1215. The magna carta established habeas corpus, the right to due process, etc, etc, it is seen by many historians as the birth of modern western democracy.
But I agree, I doubt such monumental change will arise from the current recession, very few truely historic moments are recognised at the time of the event.
@Tapecutter59 795years != 1000 years. But according to you, some country going into recession is the same as the birth modern society. Hardly comparable.
Yes what news really matters in the long run. A few hits here a few hits there..As long as it does not affect you...And what really matters in the long run. I mean everything is gonna dissolve anyways. In the end all matter is cold and scattered and the universe will start over once the emptiness is wast enough! Like in some's heads...!
TheoriginalGrumphy 1 week ago
One big flaw.. there's no shortage of food on this planet. We are overproducing already but the problem is no one is interested in giving it away for free to those who starve to death wich have no money to buy for. Profit always comes first..
kaxitaksi 1 week ago
Good Video!! Thanks for shared, Very Infomative.. Cool..
Spasatcom 1 month ago
wow awesome vid man
xtremetom180 1 month ago
all news are important. Weather old or new, bad or good...These will shape up the news in the future..
happinesson 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
in modern world, age of discovery and science has improve more
CostaRicaMarketing 3 months ago
interessant, danke für die Infos ...
klenovsky1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Energy sources without the need for fuel or energy input exist ,But the Big corporations spend millions to ensure that information does not spread to the masses,Get a REAL working magnet motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Be the revolution!
JCrim2398 1 year ago
this is the new age the age of reason and logic. in 10 years be have advance faster then the whole 20th century. one GB of today has more memory then the who Apollo space rocket. now imagine of we put a super computer inside a rocket and send it to the moon so easy that would be. theres only one thing stopping us.
"Religion"
bboyloco3 1 year ago 2
@bboyloco3 That and we don't have the political will to do it.
CalicoVall 1 year ago
@CalicoVall True today everything evolves around money and ignorant peoples beliefs.
bboyloco3 1 year ago
@bboyloco3 ANd when hasn't it? It's just that they finnally have time to voice their stupid opinions. ^_^
CalicoVall 1 year ago
@bboyloco3 As a space enthusiast and someone working in the astronautics industry, it's most certainly not religion stopping us. More than anything else, its the lack of funds and support from the general populace.
MatthewTheDoctor 1 month ago
I stopped it at "Britain will starve without genetically modified crops"! Stick your propaganda up your ass! GMOs are destroying the planet. They do NOT using fewer pesticides, they are NOT feeding the hungry (more people are starving, since the introduction of GMOs) and they ARE the cause of the increase in many illnesses, such as Type 2 diabetes and many "new" allergies! Research is NOT that difficult.
RandyBful1 1 year ago
this guy is just another globalist talking about the shit GMO food.
OFCOURSE NOONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT SHITTY NEWS, BUT THIS IS THE CORPORATE FASCIST SHIT RUNNING THINGS - THE SAME FUCKING GLOBALISTS THAT ARE FUCKING UP FARMERS AROUND THE WORLD FOR FUCK SAKE !!!!
TALK ABOUT FOOD SHORTAGE NOW YOU FUCKING DIP SHIT ZIONIST !!!!
HumanityWins 1 year ago
And where do I go to find that kind of news. I never heard any of those headlines.
fireincarnation2 1 year ago
How about we not let it GET to nine billion people. That'd solve a ton of problems.
Instead of just sitting on our asses, lets tax every third or subsequent kid. But make sterilization free.
It'll be better for both humanity and nature if there are less humans.
Shavarnarak 1 year ago
@Shavarnarak You are right. The thing is that in Europe we are already beneath two children per family. The matter is that less developed societies will not stop having many kids, for example the muslims, who have about 8 kids per family. So the world will be muslim some day, and they will without any doubt destroy it.
JUANMO94 1 year ago
@JUANMO94 Your ignorance shines through like a beacon bro...Muslims having 8 kids? What planet are you on? And why the pessimism about the religion or the democratic system you live in?
TheLibraMo 1 year ago
@TheLibraMo Yeah, maybe I exaggerated with the number. But it is true that Europe is being islamized, the most given name in Belgium is Mohammad, and in France, there are small zones where sharia law is used and police cannot get inside. Today, there are over 50 million muslims, and in less than two decades, it is expected to double. And if you look at islamic republics, you will understand why I am afraid of that.
JUANMO94 1 year ago
@Shavarnarak
unfortunately that's already set in stone. Try telling families in India who rely on their offspring to provide for them in the future, to stop having babies. It wont happen. And we can't enforce population control either. All we can do is educate, and plan for the worst.
Jools86 1 year ago
I agree about how most "news" is a total waste of information but I totally disagree about Afghanistan's war being one of them. If people had a better view of the "long news" in that region we may have avoided this whole fiasco in the first place.
SPORKvideos 1 year ago
Just to make it all clear. earlier I mentioned courts' systems not courts' evidence. atheists are making a claim=non existance of god(which still is a claim). similar to any debate or court ruling to have no claim means you are indifferent. there has not been a decision on guilt(court example) nor has there been decision on whether or not God exists(debate example). so if you know your side on the debate, act it.
nessunopassato 1 year ago
@nessunopassato Yes, but when entering a plea we atheists are simply saying "not guilty" which is to say for PRACTICAL certainty there is no god. We're not saying we're not ABSOLUTELY sure (or 'innocent' which is precisely why the legal term is not 'innocent'). Then we say, if you would like to PROVE your case (positive claim) good luck. So far it has been an epic failure to do so.
CerebralSimian 1 year ago
My channel, PigMine, collects stories that are worth archiving.
Browse my uploads and see what I mean.
Please subscribe to my channel, PigMine for the news you want to see.
PigMine 1 year ago
9/11 was an inside job. The human race woke up to defeat their elitist psychopathic psychological captors. They all went to jail, the rest of us lived in peace. There's some stories for you. How can anyone go through so much schooling and life experience and be so incredibly, evilly stupid?? GMO to save the world? Yeah, Nazi science is PRECISELY what we need. How about no more CONTROLLED ENGINEERED poverty by the IMF and world bank. Maybe then people won't starve, and won't over populate. Moron.
TheGoodnessIsGood 1 year ago
@TheGoodnessIsGood Overpopulation doesn't exist. Over 60 percent of the worlds population is over the age of forty. The die off of people that age begins to rise sharply after 10 years from cancer and heart disease. The world population should begin to shrink as long as the birth rate continues to slow down world wide. If birth rate drops and death rate increases world population will go down not up. So FU to the Malthusian Economist.
NoogLeader 1 year ago
And Ted believes in the global govt. agenda too, he's an elitist just like the rest of the globalists, GMO is good? wrong, and letting a govt. choose an infant's career? wrong, ...FREEDOM and National Sovereignty matters
undergroundbasement 1 year ago
"In the long run some news stories are more important than others"
Sure - no doubt! However you can only realy know what was important in hindsight. As soon as someone say "-I want to filter information" I for one become sceptical.
Faidros62 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3. "Also brush up on critical thinking and logical reasoning so you don't sound as ignorant as you have here." False I have not been ignorant , definition of ignorant "uneducated in general; lacking knowledge or sophistication;" Ignorant is about lacking knowledge but I have not lacked knowledge and have actually spreaded my knowledge to you.
Please stop repeating the word evidence as you do not know what evidence means as I told you from the definition it means knowledge
RetroAndrew 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3. "Also brush up on critical thinking and logical reasoning so you don't sound as ignorant as you have here". False I have not been ignorant , definition of ignorant "uneducated in general; lacking knowledge or sophistication;" Ignorant is about lacking knowledge but I have not lacked knowledge and have actually spreaded my knowledge to you.
Please stop repeating the word evidence as you do not know what evidence means as I told you from the definition it means knowledge
RetroAndrew 1 year ago
Comment removed
RetroAndrew 1 year ago
"Ok, that was kinda cool." No, it wasn't, tool.
Oh, try telling people that are involved in a war that it won't matter in 50 years. No matter what, wars have a huge impact on the future. What the fuck is this guy smoking? Another thing, we already knew there was water on the moon a long time ago, the recent mission was just so we could see how much. What a douchebag.
seanThree16 1 year ago
wars tend to be remembered for a very long time
spoddie 1 year ago
Importance as well as beauty are in the eye of the beholder.
hybeerian 1 year ago
1:00 The answer to his question is ALL OF THEM. None of those were particularly trivial, except for maybe the death of a pop singer.
scisex 1 year ago
Deciding careers for children based on their DNA? What kind of a stupid idea is that?! Hopefully the kid will grow up, decide they don't like the career you chose for them, and tell you to go to hell. I think we have enough mind control as it is, we don't need more!
CanadiaNecro1 1 year ago
@CanadiaNecro1: you shouldn't forget that there are a lot of people who enjoy beeing told what to do.. reliefs them from the pressure of making decisions.
It's not just evil mind-control... sometimes when they tell you you can have a specific job and you actually can get that job is a lot better than beeing able to choose out of a thousand jobs, not getting any of them because others are cheaper.
there's always a good and a bad side. i agree that free will is important, but it isnt everything
liquidminds 1 year ago
That is exactly why I don't listen to reuters news. Thanks, next video.
shashintokyo 1 year ago
Take the red pill
TheSafecracker777 1 year ago
Dude, you are an asshole ya mr. gates, ya obama, fuck you ted
Bulliam30 1 year ago
IBM - nothing more to say.
RebelRadius 1 year ago
LOL - Silly and very biased Kirk sneaks in the pro-Obama inaugaration comment during the slide presentation, calling it "cool." Fact is: It won't matter in 50 years. Unless you are a nostalgic liberal. Kirk is a giddy punch drunk.
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
Boring! I would rather see Hitchens debating a theist!
99minerkc 1 year ago
'some news stories are more important than others'... ahuh. and ?
isnt that a bit blatantly obvious ??
riiiiiight.
quosmo1 1 year ago
What happens in Afghanistan won't matter in 50 or 100 years? Sure. It won't have any effect on history at all. And it's nice to know the combat I saw there was for nothing. Great Britain will starve without genetically modified food? Wow. That's a pretty bold assertion. I had no idea creating a global monoculture made our food supplies safer.
I'm a big fan of the Ted talks, but this has got to be the weakest one I've seen.
Leehofooks 1 year ago
Meh.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
Of all TED talks, why upload this one? I found it to be one of the least impressive I've seen so far, and I watch TED almost daily.
DancingInChains 1 year ago 2
which means by anything can happen , any thought is allowed in life to proceed but we must all know some thoughts shouldn't happen in life
RetroAndrew 1 year ago
@RetroAndrew I am glad that smarter men then you made the decision to create the Freedom of Speech we so dutifully use here in this country. Taking away a persons ability to express an idea would be a far worse tragedy then you would ever know. Think if everyone censored Einstein or any Genius of merit. Good Ideas can be destroyed just as easily as bad Ideas if you begin killing and censoring people. It is better for ideas to compete then for them never to have existed and been spread out there.
NoogLeader 1 year ago
@NoogLeader
Smarter men? Prove to me who made life? Then you can proceed on with your answer as there is no smarter men until you explain who made life.
RetroAndrew 1 year ago
@RetroAndrew not knowing the answer to something doesn't mean you can posit what ever answer you like. And why do you assume it's a "who"?
CriticalAtheist 1 year ago
@CriticalAtheist
LOL the answer is right there!!!A creator has to create the universe in order for it to exist! "Not knowing the answer to something" really?Because God is the only answer to that reply but the funny thing is you keep ignoring that. A nonliving thing can't create a nonliving thing such as the universe so a living thing had to create the universe. In fact do you even know what creator means? Creates anything that you think is impossible which is supernatural.
RetroAndrew 1 year ago
@Retro I don't know therefor god did it is a logical fallacy. Like "I don't know how lightning works therefor Zues does it". You make an assumption that I (in all my time of debating) never seen justified. The universe needs an intelligent creator. Why do you make that assumption? You might as well say magic did it. Not only that but it begs the question what created the creator? Saying it always existed is another unsupported claim of magic. What evidence do you have?
CriticalAtheist 1 year ago
Supernatural makes life as there is nothing in nature that can create another natural object. How do you make atoms? You can't without supernatural powers to form atoms but you can't form atoms because your natural not supernatural. Natural is characteristics or essential qualities that is recognized. Supernatural makes life but nature plays the game of life. Supernatural is different than nature and life and it is a different essence than you can imagine because it's "super" natural. Study it.
RetroAndrew 1 year ago
@RetroAndrew What evidence do you have that the supernatural exists? Can't study something, as far as I can tell, that which there is no evidence for.
CriticalAtheist 1 year ago
@CriticalAtheist
Prove that supernatural exists? It's common sense that supernatural has to exist because nature exists. If nature exists then supernatural made nature exists.Nature can't exist without being created. Where does nature come from?
RetroAndrew 1 year ago
@Retro You can't just claim it's common sense. And no, there is no reason to invoke the supernatural to explain the natural. Every answer we find turns out to be natural and if we don't know the answer to something we say 'I don't know' not 'Magic did it'. Beyond the Big Bang I don't know how 'nature' came to be. Unless you can provide evidence for the supernatural than you don't know either. How does the supernatural exist, wouldn't it have the same problem nature does according to your logic?
CriticalAtheist 1 year ago
@CriticalAtheist
The definition of magic is supernatural and yes magic does exist for it created life that was too complexity. This should have been common sense because impossible became possible when life was made as if the universe was here by itself then it is impossible to appear without supernatural. "Every answer we find turns out to be natural" because your living in nature. Everything you see is nature but outside nature is complexity that no one can understand because it is not nature
RetroAndrew 1 year ago
@RetroAndrew Again you're making assumptions and you are avoiding to provide evidence. Why do you think it's impossible for there to be life without the supernatural? Again not knowing the answer to something doesn't mean you can posit whatever claim you like.
"no one can understand because it is not nature"
And yet you seem to know that it exists as well as so much of what it has done.
Please stop avoiding and present your evidence.
CriticalAtheist 1 year ago
@CriticalAtheist
definition of evidence "your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief;" evidence is not about existence it is about knowledge as I have not avoided providing evidence but you should of have seen that I have been providing evidence the whole time. When a scientist says their is evidence for a situation do you believe the scientist or the evidence of what the nature of laws is telling you about the situation?
RetroAndrew 1 year ago
@Retro You're making a claim. Claims require evidence. If I claimed leprechauns exist I would need to show evidence for that. You aren't, you are making assumptions and calling them common sense. I can too, the supernatural doesn't exist. That's common sense. My evidence... it's readily apparent. That doesn't get us anywhere.
As for the scientist question I accept the evidence for a phenomena if the evidence was predicted by said phenomena. Now you play the scientist and provide your evidence.
CriticalAtheist 1 year ago
@CriticalAtheist
" Now you play the scientist and provide your evidence" I already explained what evidence is as it is about knowledge but when you talked about leprechauns exist you must know the human being in nature who created the word leprechauns. It is already known who made the word "The name leprechaun is derived from the Irish word leipreachán, defined by Patrick Dinneen as "a pigmy, a sprite, or leprechaun"" Patrick Dinneen made leprechauns from words not nature itself.
RetroAndrew 1 year ago
When you said claim requires evidence your basically saying a claim requires knowledge. Who makes evidence? You believe that knowledge comes from man which is what makes up evidence for you but where does knowledge come from man?
RetroAndrew 1 year ago
@Retro "I already explained what evidence is" And I explained that that isn't a correct definition. That was the point of the leprechaun example and it was just that, an example. Replace leprechaun with anything including the supernatural and you'll see my point which was that claims require evidence. You missed the point entirely. Evidence is not knowledge. Evidence provides basis for belief. I couldn't really make sense out of your last question, can you rephrase it please?
CriticalAtheist 1 year ago
@CriticalAtheist
"your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief" it says it in the dictionary right here unless your telling me the dictionary is a lie.Heres the definition of sense as well "the meaning of a word or expression" now the definition of meaning "the message that is intended or expressed or signified" It doesn't make sense because you can't think outside of simple laws because what you just heard was very complex.
RetroAndrew 1 year ago
@RetroAndrew No I'm saying dictionaries don't always allow the proper definition for all situations. Plus they aren't infallible, they used to define atheist as "amoral". But your definition agrees with me, I think you're reading it wrong. Please provide evidence for your claim. That is provide a basis for belief.
And your last statement is just condescension. Provide evidence, this is becoming a waste of time. I''ll help you start "The natural requires the supernatural because...."
CriticalAtheist 1 year ago
The Dictionary is the official word vocabulary and if you were to disprove the dictionary then you are disproving the word itself ,the original definition did not agree with you however the custom definition you made did. Natural requires supernatural because nature has simple laws and supernatural is complex because it is unlimited that breaks it down itself into a simple instance called nature as whenever you try to think where does nature's laws come from it turns into complexity.
RetroAndrew 1 year ago
You also won't be able to figure this out because you don't have the knowledge to. Your knowledge only comes from things you see and learn off of it and that makes you limited but to be limited there has to be unlimited to break down unlimited into limits.
RetroAndrew 1 year ago
Comment removed
RetroAndrew 1 year ago
I'll just end it here , we don't have to talk anymore to each other as I will do my own stuff in life that I enjoy and you will do your stuff in life that you enjoy
RetroAndrew 1 year ago
but to make my question you wanted breaken down into less accurate information I said, you believe that knowledge comes from man because you believe that man makes up evidence in nature but where does the knowledge come from to make man receive knowledge?
RetroAndrew 1 year ago
You do not have to answer that question because to know that answer you have to know nature which is why bring up supernatural.
RetroAndrew 1 year ago
@RetroAndrew You avoided again we're done here. I made it easy for you and defy providing evidence. Like I said you are making a claim, claims require evidence that is, something to base belief in the claim on. NO evidence, no belief. Try finishing that sentence I provided for you on your own and keep asking yourself why. Also brush up on critical thinking and logical reasoning so you don't sound as ignorant as you have here.
CriticalAtheist 1 year ago
@CriticalAtheist
Evidence "your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief;" It says "knowledge". I also do not like it how you use ignorant towards me when you did a number of mistakes
1. "No I'm saying dictionaries don't always allow the proper definition for all situations"
false the dictionary is the official vocabulary of definitions
2."your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief;"I explained that that isn't a correct definition. Again false
RetroAndrew 1 year ago
I'm sorry to tell you though but all my knowledge shows that you have been ignorant. You said that the dictionary does not have proper words or definitions which it has to be because it is the official book of vocabs. I do not like it how your being close minded here on this subject and then having a fit about it not getting it your way. The real truth here is you don't accept anything you hear and study it , you destroy what you hate without knowledge of what you hear.
RetroAndrew 1 year ago
@RetroAndrew Actually CriticalAtheist is right. A definition can be different based on the situation. Common slang for sex for example is Screw, Pork and Diddle. Screw, Pork and Diddle do not have the same definition as Sex under them in the dictionary. Also some word definitions are changed in language based on context given. That is why biblical passages are often interpreted wrong(even by priest). Some times a thesaurus is better for understanding a words meaning then a dictionary.
NoogLeader 1 year ago
@NoogLeader slang is not apart of any dictionary...therefore such words would still have only the original meaning world wide.slang is only useful in it's origin, like dialect. Sicilian dialect is only useful in Sicily, not Rome nor Tuscany.
nessunopassato 1 year ago
@nessunopassato That sorta is the point. Dumb ass. You can't go just on dictionary to tell you what a word means. You need good understanding of the context and slang to get real meaning of what is said.
NoogLeader 1 year ago
@CriticalAtheist you are making a claim as well. you are the ones who actually try to call falsehood, or in other words ... guilty. In court you must provide evidence towards the accused being guilty. where is your evidence? no evidence, no case, no court. That's basic court system piratically everywhere.
nessunopassato 1 year ago
@nessunopassato Evidence of what?
captwasabi 1 year ago
@captwasabi Evidence for or against the existence of God or any Gods.
NoogLeader 1 year ago
@NoogLeader Athestis don't have to provide proof. Faithful do. The faithful have made a positive claim regarding the existence of god. Atheists simply say "prove it". To date, we're still waiting for proof.
captwasabi 1 year ago
@captwasabi we are still waiting on you as well. truth, it could be argued that there is no proof on either side, and when it comes down to it, we still have Faith where you have to search for new reasons, new examinations every day. life of an atheist isn't care free, you have to prove to your self everyday what you are and why. so since you have had this conversation with yourself already, how bout sharing it with us?
nessunopassato 1 year ago
Sorry, the argument from ignorance doesn't work. Science provides reproducible experiments which anyone can perform and verify, assuming one does not make an error, which is why we demand a person document thier procedures for review. While our scienfitic understanding of the universe is admittedly incomplete, it is a far better representative model than magic as espoused by religion.
Grospoliner 1 year ago
@Grospoliner agree, argument from ignorance doesn't work. if any one has studied logic; it's "appeal to ignorance". guess what, "no evidence of" falls into the description. no matter what your trying to discuss about :) I merely ask that every one par take in the discussion instead of rule yourself out. Your also right on how much science can not explain. so if you can not fully explain dimension/etc. don't try to explain God
nessunopassato 1 year ago
Not quite. "don't try to explain god" is still an appeal to ignorance, specifically God of the Gaps. While this might seem to be what science is doing, it's not the case. Science uses the best available model though better evidence might later be found. If such evidence arises, it is tested, and if found factual, it overrides previous interrations. This is why we now look to quantum mechanics rather than adhering to Newtonian mechanics.
Grospoliner 1 year ago
@Grospoliner ha ha! just realized something.You have faith(trust).No not Faith, but you have faith that science is correct even when you know you may be wrong.Hope is future tense of faith,as you hope in the future more of science may be used to explain the unknown world around you.even you don't see it.haha.that's kind of funny.you remove your faith from God and put it in something else.
nessunopassato 1 year ago
@nessunopassato even if you don't see it*************
nessunopassato 1 year ago
I have confidence in many things. I especially have confidence in science as it has never once failed me in my dealings with it. With science it is right there laid out clearly defined with established procedures on handling it. I don't have to trust that it is correct because I can test it for myself, though I still place my confidence in it. When it is wrong, it gets corrected as soon as possible.
Grospoliner 1 year ago
It is much harder to place confidence in things that consistently are in error with your experiances or consistantly fail you and it is especially hard to trust anything which demands you to place your confidence in it without and sort of tangible evidence. This is the difference between positive and negative feedback and ultimately the differences in experiance which makes us individuals.
Grospoliner 1 year ago
@Grospoliner harder? yes it is hard to have confidence in something without tangible evidence. to see and feel what is happening, to be able to test it and correct any mistake without it weighing heavy. sounds so nice (easy), but sounds like 'thinking inside the box'. so what is harder?
nessunopassato 1 year ago
Mathmatics and science is hardly thinking in the box. That is an expression reserved exclusively for a lack of creativity. The level of creativity that men better than you and I is nothing short of astounding when it comes to both the discovery of previously unknown information and the application to create new and wonderful technologies. Fuel from algae, who would have though? No, science is nothing of the sort of constraining system that religion is.
Grospoliner 1 year ago
The sciences expand our horizons, it opens new possibilities and forces us to acknowledge our potential. It forces us to reexamine ourselves and to choose careful paths lest we fall victim to our devices. Should we avoid destroying ourselves the universe will one day see our species across its entire width and breadth, though Earth will be a far memory gone in those days.
Grospoliner 1 year ago
Additionally, no, we don't have to prove to ourselves everyday why we are here and what our purpose is. While cognition and existentialism try to reconsile our understanding of the self, purpose, and existance in a format which is logical and rational; it does not require us to constantly reassess our condtions or minor actions. The point we require ourselves to engage in introspection is during times we feel we may have made an error.
Grospoliner 1 year ago
Even when put into a state of introspection, many of our questions are resovled by the simple fact that, I am who I am today, because of my past actions and experiences. So even when confronted by a realization it does not necessitate an alteration to the personality or belief system.
Grospoliner 1 year ago
@nessunopassato Waiting on us for what? Atheists have made no claim Ness. theists have made the claim that god exists. Atheists have said "prove it". What proof do atheists need to provide? And I could care fuck all if you have faith or not. If you want to beleive in something that you cannot even prove exists thn you're the idiot, not I. As for proving to myself what I am I'll go with "cogito ergo sum." Gives me al the proof that I need.
captwasabi 1 year ago
@captwasabi I would suspect that there isn't anything to prove for. But We are trying to escape religious ideology that influences our ability to make rational decisions towards the future. Removal of religious power is the primary task of secular governments. The U.S. was created by Deist. Not Christians. Still not a secular form of government.
NoogLeader 1 year ago
@captwasabi that's weird, your reply did not appear in my comments. anyways, the evidence could be anything. in court it's testifying(basically)that the individual claiming to be innocent is guilty, and in some cases(or most)lying.atheists think their always right, so they probably think about.."oh but there is no god and everyone's atheists born(untrue)so you have to prove it". however if you look at most discussions, it's the atheist proclaiming guilt/lie, therefore...
nessunopassato 1 year ago
@ness-continue ...therefore it would be normal that since we are under the judgment that we would be given the evidence as to why we are wrong/lie/guilt.(similar to most courts). however, normally we don't receive anything cause there is nothing to receive. there is also the issue of what evidence is, so I may not have direct answer to what is "evidence" is when either side sees differently. what may be 'evidence' to one may not be to any other.
nessunopassato 1 year ago
@nessunopassato When I throw a rock in the lake it makes ripples out to the end of the pond. If a friend walks by he can physically see the ripples left behind. Evidence is physically available for inspection by any and all available witnesses. For example a bloody knife would probably prove that a murder took place if you find the blood is human. A footprint in snow would indicate path, direction of travel and what had passed. The Cosmological Argument is often used by theist as evidence.
NoogLeader 1 year ago
@nessunopassato Uh..no. Evidence in court is not simply testifying and saying whatever you want. It's being able to provide verifyable proof. Again, atheism is nothing more than the rejection of a belief of deities based on a LACK OF VERIFIABLE PROOF. This means that not one of your cute stories such as Genesis, Noah or Jesus has any ring of validity to it. Atheism does not proclaim any guilt or lies. We merely ask for proof. sorry if the facts bother you.
captwasabi 1 year ago 13
@captwasabi Im not saying atheism proclaims guilt, those were words to connect an argument with the courts as many atheists claim that the religious are make un truthful claims. in court you have the defense and persecutor.Defense says their innocent,where persecutor claims guilt.Religious proclaiming innocence(or existance)where atheists are claiming guilt(non-existance).The point being, in a debate BOTH sides provide statement, not just one. saying,"show me proof each time doesn't cut it.
nessunopassato 1 year ago
@nessunopassato Not only is your arguement irrelevant as it's a straw man logical fallacy it's alos 100% wrong. In court the defendant has no burden whatsoever. The burden is on the Prosecution to prove guilt. As for the validity of your argument, athesists do not, in any way claim guilt. We simply demand proof of your claims. So using your example, you are the prosecution. You have made specific claims regarding the existance of god. We, as the innocent, are merely saying "Prove it."
captwasabi 1 year ago
@captwasabi my argument? can you tell me what that is,cause I don't think you know. now, let's just jump straight to it. 'prove it' means nothing. I already understand why I believe, and asking 'prove it' does nothing. i have my answers and their not the same for everyone.you can only find if you look, not sit around asking others to provide what you don't want to look at.
nessunopassato 1 year ago
@nessunopassato You obviously don't understand anything which I have said. You have made a positive claim for the existence of god. Prove it. Until you can I will continue to believe that there is no god. End of story. Your comment that I can "find if I look" only proves that any "proof" you have is anecdotal at best ergo it is non-verifiable. Even pryer has been proven, scientifically, not to work.
captwasabi 1 year ago
@nessunopassato The cosmological argument hinges on the idea another idea of the Infinite Hotel. The problem is that infinite values are viewed as impossible by theist. The problem is that things may very well have an infinitely long causal chain. There may not be a primary first cause. First step in proving the theist argument is to prove that infinity is impossible. Though to me that would defeat the ideas of Omnipotence and Omniscience too. Seeing as they both represent infinities.
NoogLeader 1 year ago
@NoogLeader FINALY! someone bloody explains what the crude an atheist is trying to say. instead of the same old same old crude on.. "prove it". to me that just sounds like, " I know you are but what am I". OR adding the word "not" to someone saying "does". OR ....well perhaps the point is made
nessunopassato 1 year ago
@nessunopassato To know the world is to know that you truly know nothing and to accept that your very perceptions could be nothing but illusory and false. I spent some time thinking about this and come to the conclusion that the only thing I can be certain on is that I think and I can believe in what I am seeing and experiencing only because I have no other choice. I could very well be a simulation or envated brain for all I know. I don't have proof and I could never truly know. So I accept this
NoogLeader 1 year ago
@nessunopassato You can only trust what you can sense because you have no other point of reference to know anything else. If a god would present itself to me there is no way of knowing if it is real or a figment of my mind. I would have to accept that the being exist to me. I wouldn't be able to claim the same for someone else. Assuming that they are real and not figments themselves. I would recommend looking up concepts of Philosophical Zombies and Simulacrum when you have a chance.
NoogLeader 1 year ago
@NoogLeader well then what is trust? could we really trust anyone then? I wouldn't think so. I don't see the connection. I can trust more than what is to be sense as many should learn to do. otherwise you are limited to those senses and what happens when you lose them? your lost as well. also, there are countless situations that a person must experience that will require to think beyond senses. such as friends/loyalty/love/hate/enemies/ethical decisions/etc.
nessunopassato 1 year ago
@captwasabi Another thing is Historical People and Places don't necessarily make the bible assumption of gods existence true. All it tells us is the authors awareness of political climate of the times when the events supposedly took place. For example spider man takes place in NEW YORK CITY a real place but Spider Man doesn't actually exist.
NoogLeader 1 year ago 7
@NoogLeader your confusing someone writing about a fictional character in a real place with factual events written amongst multiple peoples/cultures in history. The Jews were really in Egypt and really were slaves and really were treated horribly. Moses did lead the people out. that's only few examples. if you'd like a link I think I could provide it, but send a p.m. otherwise it will just be deleted.
nessunopassato 1 year ago
@nessunopassato Actually the Jews were never slaves. But that is only important if you believe little things called facts.
NoogLeader 1 year ago
@NoogLeader if you care about facts, then it would be agreed that they were treated as slaves and were in fact slaves. that is the history of both the Jewish and Egyptian culture/people. that's why your foolish spiderman reference is goofed. there are tones of societies, cultures, peoples, etc. that interact with the Jewish people and through most events. much leaving behind evidence from trade and even documents.
nessunopassato 1 year ago
@nessunopassato No historical evidence suggest that Jews were usually treated as travelling merchants and thugs. In fact the Jewish Culture didn't begin when the Old testament suggested it began or where it says it began. They were never Egyptian Slaves.
NoogLeader 1 year ago
@NoogLeader are you serious? where did you get that lie from? it is Egyptian bloody history as it is Jewish history! The Tora was written both as a Divine and Historic work. that's part the reason for all the names and 'begets' within it. Just like the holocaust is apart of German history FOR EVER, Egypt will forever have that past. anything other is simple stupid hateful lie.
nessunopassato 1 year ago
@nessunopassato There is no Egyptian record of the Jews. The bigger question is where did you get the idea that the Egyptians enslaved the Jews? Most of the Jewish Torah has parallels to ancient Sumerian Text. The Jews were not slaves to anyone. They were roaming merchants for a extremely long period. They were persecuted as being criminals and thugs throughout history. Not once was there any proof of them having a homeland or coming from anywhere even Egypt outside the Old Testament.
NoogLeader 1 year ago
@NoogLeader yes they did wonder for a long period, most notably within the early ages before settling in current Israel, which was the Kingdom of David, among other kings. Invaded and conquered by Babylon as well as Rome. both societies make clear depictions about Jews. they were hated and looked down upon through out history. and the information I speak about was collected over the years through school. history does not change, just that spoken about it. I will not live in your 1984 society
nessunopassato 1 year ago
@nessunopassato Your the one in support of the 1984 society. You are not looking into the facts. You avoid them like the plague. The Jewish People have been around far longer then Ancient Egypt. They were left over from the fall of Ancient Sumeria. They were never slaves.
NoogLeader 1 year ago
@NoogLeader I did not say they came from Egypt nor existed merely in Egypt. I know they existed longer than* ancient Egypt, I never said opposite. the migrated there and worked. originally they were not slaves,however later enslaved.The facts have been in front of me since I was a young lad,and the truth in history will never change.simply because some punks with agenda's are trying to change things now,different from what has past been taught is b.s. propaganda=1984.
nessunopassato 1 year ago
@nessunopassato The bible doesn't count as a history book. Artifacts like pottery and documents count as evidence of a peoples existence. Unfortunately there isn't proof of a Jewish presence in the Middle East showing they were slaves in Egypt. There isn't anything like a scroll allotting Jews into slavery or anything. In fact there is more proof of the Jews as being runners and facilitators of the slave trade back then. Even the Old Testament has rules for the proper management of slaves.
NoogLeader 1 year ago
@NoogLeader YES THERE IS! the presence of Jewish people in EGYPT is very real and has been collected over the years. The Tora was written just as much a historical collection, ask the JEWISH people, of whom has taught as such. otherwise there is no need for every name given and who beget who. The Tora is a history of the Jewish people! As for evidence for slavery, their called the Pyramids! built by slaves (though mixed, included Jews)
nessunopassato 1 year ago
@NoogLeader YES THERE IS! the presence of Jewish people in EGYPT is very real and has been collected over the years. The Tora was written just as much a historical collection, ask the JEWISH people, of whom has taught as such. otherwise there is no need for every name given and who beget who. The Tora is a history of the Jewish people! As for evidence for slavery, their called the Pyramids! built by slaves (though mixed, included Jews)
nessunopassato 1 year ago
@nessunopassato You have it backwards. In a court they need to provide evidence that makes it reasonable to believe the claim that the person is guilty. Just as people need to provide evidence that makes it reasonable to belief the claim that the supernatural exists. In a court you don't prove someone innocent, you only say that there isn't sufficient evidence that they are guilty. Just as my position is there isn't sufficient evidence of the supernatural. The claimant must provide the evidence.
CriticalAtheist 1 year ago
@nessunopassato Sorry this is continued from my last reply. I need to make it clear that I am not making any claim. I'm just not accepting the claims being made. If someone says trolls exist I don't have to accept that until evidence is provided. I don't need to prove it doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim and non-belief is the default position.
CriticalAtheist 1 year ago
@CriticalAtheist Trolls do exist. I am one. IF you understand Net slang. The live under the bridge goat eating trolls don't exist unless you count the homeless as trolls.
NoogLeader 1 year ago
@NoogLeader I'm well aware of internet slang. I also know I'm breaking a rule by responding to you; that is don't feed the trolls! So I better end it here.
CriticalAtheist 1 year ago
@CriticalAtheist I am not one of the nasty ones. I agree with most of what you have said so far. I would consider myself a troll. But many may say I am more of a social commentator or something of that sort. If someone says something that isn't true though I call them on it. Even if that wasn't their intention.
NoogLeader 1 year ago
@nessunopassato You are right, the basic system is indeed piratically everywhere. Everywhere you go, piratically they are conducting court, robbing, thieving, raping, pillaging. Aaaar. I don't agree with it.
TheGoodnessIsGood 1 year ago
@CriticalAtheist logic explains that is is a fallacy to simply make a decision when you do not have evidence. claim to ignorance. is that not what you are doing however?
nessunopassato 1 year ago
@nessunopassato No it's not, I can't accept a claim until there is evidence for it. And extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence especially. I'm not making a claim so I have nothing to defend. God exists (defendant is guilty) is a claim that requires evidence. I have yet to see evidence for gods existence (I don't have enough evidence to say the defendant is guilty) is the default position (like not guilty is in a court) It's up to the theist (prosecutor) to provide the evidence.
CriticalAtheist 1 year ago
@CriticalAtheist huh, yes it is. you picked a side. that is a claim. non-existance. that is the entire definition of an atheist. that is a claim if you were not going to make a claim than you would be indifferent!(Agnostic)Neither stating that God exists nor does not exist. both sides are a claim. what about that do you not understand? in an argument you have three positions. you claim pro, you claim anti, or you have no claim and pick neither side.claim to ignorance works for either side.
nessunopassato 1 year ago
@ness You don't understand the definition of atheist or agnostic. It's not theist-agnostic-atheist nor do you have to make a claim. Theism/atheism deals with belief, gnosticism/agnosticism deals with knowledge. One can be agnostic (don't know) and be a theist (believe) or atheist (don't believe) Lack of belief is not a claim. I don't believe in giant pink space bunnies either and it's not up to me to prove they don't exist, it's up to the person claiming they exist to show they do. (continued..)
CriticalAtheist 1 year ago
(continued....) @ness It's just like in the court room analogy. Belief that the person is guilty (god exists) is contingent on the evidence provided. If there isn't evidence of guilt (of god) then the court (me) can only say they don't have sufficient evidence to believe the person is guilty (that god exists) That's as clear as I can make it. A side by side comparison of the court room and our situation. So the question is, what are you not getting?
CriticalAtheist 1 year ago
I have knowledge and believe that gravity keeps us down to the floor that is evidence
I have knowledge and believe that life exists which by exists means it is in nature which is evidence
You may have not notice but you have knowledge and believe from a scientist telling you nature and the laws of it which is evidence because the scientist told you so but you do not know if the evidence is true until nature speaks for itself.
RetroAndrew 1 year ago
The universe has a beginning and ending and we are inside the universe with laws that makes us think this way.Outside the universe is nothing that you can think of as nature because it's supernatural and has no laws. It is so complex that no laws exist for in order for a law to exist , it had to not be a law but became a law from supernatural powers. No one can understand what supernatural is but supernatural in other terms is the opposite of nature in complexity that has unlimited power.
RetroAndrew 1 year ago
I see value in a lot of the other efforts of The Long Now Foundation but I can't see how the "long news" concept is worthwhile. We can assume all we want about which of our actions will be of interest to future generation but who knows what people will care about in a 1,000 years. It could be that people will care more about this comment thread rather than early nanotech.
A major improvement such as water treatment has improved the quality of life immensely but now is now hardly mentioned.
Ralajer 1 year ago
looks like steve jobbs....representing the ipad...not good
PyyhekumiKola 1 year ago
clap clap clap clap clap clap
srybicki7 1 year ago
Its all magic !!
hologuitar 1 year ago
ツ
adamb0000 1 year ago
Isn't it amazing that the majority of the stories he points out as being important barely got any attention (if any) and most people are unaware of them...
Yet I bet you can't find a person over the age of 10 in a non-third world country that doesn't know Michael Jackson died.
KingHeathen 1 year ago
Please continue to post these vids from TED, I haven't watched one yet that wasn't mind-blowingly interesting!
falxcerebri21 1 year ago 12
WTF How can you genetically test for careers :-/. Reminds me of Futurama XD
IRLpirate 1 year ago 2
what's the meaning of going to matter in the long runand matter
thank you！~
Jacklikesdog 1 year ago
I read that that we have enough foof to feed the earths population 3 times over, and that the earths population could all live in texas and nevade. And we have peolpe that eat so much they can't even move so how are we running out of food?
weredevil616 1 year ago
@weredevil616 You are correct about food. Not sure about the texas/nevade thing. Will have to look that up. However we only have food shortages because of our limited methods of producing food. There are PROVEN ways to grow food anywhere. Even in a desert. The main problem with food isn't really how much of it we can make, its who can afford to buy it. We can feed the worlds population easily but we can't afford to do it. How sick and sad is that?
moety2 1 year ago
This recession will probably not be old news, because the causes of this recession have not been eliminated.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
breaking news I just took a shit
Twitter, facebook, and 24 hour news networks are conditioning us for the exact opposite this was refreshing.
Leadman1989 1 year ago
MY FUCKING NON-EXISTENT DEITY... I have nothing else to say.
DasMustafah 1 year ago
I make it a point not to trust anyone in the advertising industry...the war in Afghanistan/Iraq doesn't matter? the economy doesn't matter?
Of course they matter, because they highlight the problems within out society that will fuck us up in the future if they are dealt with.
Seleucus84 1 year ago 2
China is already doing "it". Soon we will be "forced" to follow. Finally, the accelerated age of science and invention is commencing! ;-)
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago 14
wow this guy has no idea of how bad the USA's economy is... when its all said and done this will be much bigger than the great depression, the currency crisis is coming! this news will be very important even 1000 years from now.
DaveC86 1 year ago
@DaveC86 You are truly retarded.
quadeyquade 1 year ago
@quadeyquade
we'll see how the history books play out mate... maybe you should research austrian business cycle theory (and why the USA must necessarily be heading towards a dollar collapse in the coming years) before you go calling people truly retarded.. hah
DaveC86 1 year ago
@DaveC86 Name one financial crisis that is "very important 1000 years later". Even the great depression isn't important news 70s on, and its the biggst economic failure in modern history. Will it be remembered? Yes. Will it be important? No. This is why you are retarded.
quadeyquade 1 year ago
@quadeyquade
the idea of sound money, free banking and free enterprise being truly the only way forward is of huge historical significance. do you think the founding of America was important? without that occurence, our living standards / scientific progress etc may still be where it was 200 years ago. in fact theres no reason to think otherwise, for 6000 years we lived with famines, disease and oppressive states stifling progress, until freedom was tried.
DaveC86 1 year ago
@DaveC86 Oh look you ignored what I said, and just started rambling. I stand by my statement.
quadeyquade 1 year ago
@DaveC86 I agree with you but money but you also have to take into account every negative those institutions has cased as well. If your system causes rewards only for a few but also causes suffering for a lot more, you can't justify it unless you only care about yourself. Last I looked at the world there is still a lot of disease and oppression which a lot of it comes from our selfish practices like shipping our toxic garbage and dumping it in underdeveloped countries and leaving it.
moety2 1 year ago
@quadeyquade - "Name one financial crisis that is "very important 1000 years later"
The one that medieval merchants created and then used to force king John to sign the magna carta in 1215. The magna carta established habeas corpus, the right to due process, etc, etc, it is seen by many historians as the birth of modern western democracy.
But I agree, I doubt such monumental change will arise from the current recession, very few truely historic moments are recognised at the time of the event.
Tapecutter59 1 year ago
@Tapecutter59 795years != 1000 years. But according to you, some country going into recession is the same as the birth modern society. Hardly comparable.
quadeyquade 1 year ago