Isn't it all just perception and impressions??? The debate gets a bit mixed up!!

What is your impression if you see an article like so:??

http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/rnr/964514051.html

Not sure this fits all but it's a good impression to leave??

I completely missed one of your responses to me, the one entitled "I think this will be the last one for you on this thread". I guess it was just buried too deep in the thread and I overlooked it. I just finished reading it this second. My apologies for that.

>>"Many people observed the cival war... based on the evidence of the mass bloody battlefields of the cival war, can you tell me who was right? The north or the south?"

War is horrible, but as you know sometimes it is inevitable that the time will come for people to fight for what is right. Clearly slavery is wrong. The study of humans bears this out in numerous ways. The question in the past has been whether people from the African continent were human or not, the idea being that if they were not human, then it didn't matter if they were enslaved. I have observed from reading history that characterizing people as less than human is has been a surefire way to get your subjects to overlook their natural reluctance to enslave and mistreat others. It is very hard to get people to feel enthusiastic about slaughtering or enslaving those they feel any similarity to or empathy for. I think that supports my point that we have a natural respect for other people's lives and freedom, a respect which I see no reason to suppose did not exist well before the advent of Judaism. The difference between then and now is that in their ignorance it was far easier for people to believe that men of neighboring tribes were not human, and therefore were not worthy of the same respect you should accord to a member of your own tribe.

The great moral advancement of the last century has been to extend the circle of who we consider to be humans like us. Clearly Christianity had failed in this respect, if after 1800 years Christians still considered people from the African continent to be inferior to people from the European continent. Enlightenment philosophy provided a great push forward, as did the technology that enabled people to see and communicate with others around the world. The science of DNA has been central to this shift in understanding in recent years as well.

Regarding your NWO question as it relates to this issue, I would say that any authority which uses racism to promote genocide has had their task made a lot more difficult by the combination of advances in philosophy, science, technology the understanding of history, and just a greater understanding of the world generally.

>>"I am in high accordance with Milton Friedman on most issues."

Good. So am I. Does Friedman appeal to the Bible to make his points? Doesn't he refer to historical and real world evidence to make his points? I'm sorry, but I just don't understand what Milton Friedman has to do with any of this, except to support the idea that it is better to argue from evidence than from authority.

>>"No ma'am. Look at what you just posted. Read it carefully. This is exactly what you did earlier. It's circular reasoning. Humans should exist because they were free. So... why were they free? Your answer: Because they evolved. So why did they evolve? Your answer: Because they were free. That's clearly circular reasoning. "We're here... and that proves we're here... and that proves we're free.""

Good point. I was sloppy in expressing myself there, and perhaps sloppy in my reasoning as well. I would say that in evolutionary terms, freedom was adaptive, that is that it was one of the things that facilitated survival and reproduction. But of course there had to be life before there were any beings to experience freedom. I think that freedom emerged alongside life, that they are part and parcel of one another, that you can't separate freedom from life any more than you can separate metabolism or reproduction from life.

Do I know all this for a fact? No, but I would call this an educated guess, because it is consistent with everything we know about the world of today-- unlike Genesis, which would have us believe that complex mammals can appear one day out of thin air.

Remember when I objected to using the Bible as evidence that God exists, saying that was a circular argument, and you said that you had archaeological evidence that the Bible is true? What that tells me is that empirical evidence is central to your case that God exists. But in what way is your empirical evidence any more definitive than mine or Milton Friedman's. In what sense is it more than just an interpretation? You are the one that said that empirical evidence is of limited value because it can be interpreted in different ways-- and yet it appears to me that without it your argument for God is indeed circular. So which is it, kainestolkyn? Is empirical evidence a good way to know things, or is it not? If it is, what do you say to all my real world evidence that freedom is what is best for humans? If it is not, how do you defend the truth of the Bible and the existence of God without resorting to a circular argument?

>>"People just suck up resources, and since the strongest survive, the weakest should die off right? The only people that lose hope and initiative are those at the bottom, not the ones at the top. They seem to enjoy the life they get and the 'smarter' ones that came up with the plan to rule over the others. If you just die and nothing happens, why do you need self-respect? You just work hard to save the species and allow the strongest at the top to breed and evolve new species of humans. Is there any higher calling than improving your own species?"

I have already admitted that I have taken it as self-evident that the life of human beings is the ultimate good, because without that basic precondition none of us would be here to have this discussion. I don't understand these people who dream of the human race being extinguished so that bears and birds and trees and cockroaches can thrive. That makes absolutely no sense to me. But that is a bit off topic. It was your reference to resources that made me think of it.

My comment about hope and initiative was with regard to statism. I think statism destroys hope and initiative for many at the top as well. It makes people less productive and less fulfilled across the board. A person that benefits from plundering others generally enjoys his life less than someone who earns his wealth honestly, and is also less productive. A free society is very welcoming to people of all levels of ability. Certain jobs that would bore a very intelligent person, for example, can be very satisfying to someone with a lower IQ, who needs less mental stimulation from their employment. I don't think it is ideal in any sense for us all to be supermen. It is mainly in collectivist societies, where everyone is scrapping over a limited amount of resources that are supposed to be held in common, and those of limited ability are seen to be a drain on society that people start looking askance at one another with thoughts of eugenic elimination. Freedom solves the problem of "social darwinism" on its own. No need for a God to intervene there.

>>"believing in God requires faith, but believing that we all evolved from rocks 4 billion years ago, that came from an explosion, that came from literally nothing doesn't require faith?"

Believing that a giraffe or a zebra could appear out of thin air one day requires a lot of faith. Believing that life evolved gradually from simple chemicals requires a lot less faith, and makes a lot more sense, in my opinion. If God can make things appear out of nowhere, why don't we see things appearing out of nowhere more often? Is God on vacation? In my view the first cause happened once, eons ago, and from that point on the universe took shape, and life emerged from the elements that composed it. Why is that so hard for you to believe?

I'll give you the point that perception does not necessarily determine truth...but it may.

I suppose I should have clarified a bit more of what I mean. Perception: the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding
We find facts through perception, for example: Grand Canyon exists. We know it, we see it. Now, how did it get there? The evolutionist says the Colorado river formed it over millions of years. The Creationist says, the waters from the Flood of Noah formed that in a matter of hours.
So perception cannot always determine truth, but you can look at the perception, and the evidence for them, and see which one gives you logic. I don't intend for this section to start conflict over the Grand Canyon, lol... it's just an example. I'll cover that in my next article.

Before I answer your question lets get a couple of fundamental assumptions on the table:

1) "...these people..." are individuals here of their own volition sharing ideas and thoughts freely and in most cases openly.
2) Each retains his/her discretion when participating in a conversation at BTM. They may provide or withold any information they choose.
3) genuine disinterested knowledge seeking is a noble pursuit; adolescent bickering and chiding won't do.
4) It may be easier to get "an answer" by being forthcoming with your thoughts along the line of questioning.

1) I agree. That's why I was hoping for someone to be able to answer my question. I couldn't very well ask that and get an answer from a website where no one was willing to answer my question would I? But, nonetheless, that's a good observation.
2) I never came on here demanding that people give up all their rights to privacy. But would you agree that it would be safe to assume, since this movement has been going on for years now, and people have a focus in mind, that they would have a REASON for what they're doing? I apologize if someone thinks that's unreasonable, but I don't see the logic in that.
3) "disinterested knowledge seeking is noble" Umm... let me see if I've got what you're saying. No one's interested in a purpose for their freedom movement, therefore it's noble of you to pursue it? Wow?
I agree with you: If the atheists would stop bickering and chiding, and just answer the question, this would go a lot smoother. I'm trying to slow them down from running in circles so hard... maybe they're dizzy and need time to recover before answering it? I don't know, but I can see why they're so tired of talking about it. Circular reasoning can wear out the mind. I wouldn't want to attempt to answer it from their point of view either. So yes, I can understand why many are backing off.
4) Here was my question: Can you convince me of a reason why the NWO would not be justified in wiping every person in this movement from the face of the planet for the good of the people? I'm just asking them to tell me why the NWO is wrong. The answers I've received have been mostly, "I'm right because I'm right." "I believe this because I believe it." My point is... the NWO people say the exact same thing. So what makes you guys different from them? They use the same arguments.

So your question was "What makes your believe in freedom better and right over the NWO belief that you should be a slave?"

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

I rely on accumulated wisdom to assist me responding to your question. I am sufficiently westernized and tend to agree with many of the tenets of enlightenment thinkers of the 17th and 18th centuries. The individual faculty of reason leads me to understand my relationship with other actors in the perceived world. Now, life is an experiment within the world and if I reason properly and learn deeply about my surroundings (to include human beings individually and in groups) I may gain repeatable facts/knowledge of the world.

I'm not sure if you'll see this or not, but this almost the exact same answer Claire was giving me. She argued, basically, that we can determine right and wrong by what's happened in the past. I told her to watch Milton Friedman's 'Free to Choose' series. It's fascinating to listen to the other side argue what they believe is right. They interpret history differently. Everyone here is on a website where everyone else agrees with their point of view. And that's perfectly fine, however, you guys know that there are others that don't hold that view right? And you know they argue history in a different way right? What makes you right over them?

Since my foundation is a belief in individual freedom coupled with a healthy skepticism for large groups of humans with any real or make-believe power over me, I will tell you at this point the answer to your question is a value judgement. I cannot know the mind or heart of the NWO (since it doesn't have one) any more than I can know the mind or heart of any organization. Acts and words are the clues to knowing the intent of organizations. Anyone or any organization impinging upon my liberty using coercion (non-violent or violent) to make me a slave will be resisted (here's you opening!).

Well... I guess I'm confused. You said acts and words are the clues to knowing the intent of organizations. Ok... but then you said you cannot know the mind or heart of any organization. That's where peoples' intentions come from is it not? But nonetheless... the road to hell is paved with good intentions. If you claim not to know the mind or heart of the NWO people, that's fine, and I thank you for your honesty. Perhaps I can help shed some light on this from the mouth of a person that, I believe, almost all of you in here respect. This about 30 min long, but worth it:

28 min: "They believe they're doing the right thing."

Now there is a subtle distinction here between someone confronting me directly with a threat of violence to my life, liberty or property and the nefarious, spooky NWO that you mention. The former I will deal with directly using my own measure of force, if needed. The latter will be dealt with based upon my determination of the threat and my ability to respond. If your trying to get to a point where the argument straddles the "might makes right or right makes might" thread, then I guess we all make decisions at the point of engagement with the specifics of the situation.

"nefarious, spooky NWO that you mention"... you talk about as if it doesn't really exist and it's a figment of my imagination. I won't put words in your mouth on that one, but that's what I'm getting from it.
And how... that's amazing. How are you referencing self-defense with might makes the right? Perhaps you should phrase that in another way, because I might be pulling the wrong thing from that. I never said 'might make right'. I don't believe that, and besides, that's one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard of.
If you wanna' listen to someone that believes that, check this out: The Spectacular World of Atheism. It seems like you're trying to combine the idea of self-defense with might-make-right... how do you know, if the NWO came to your home to exterminate you, that they're in the wrong?
I'm asking for an answer to this question: Can you convince me of a reason why the NWO would not be justified in wiping every person in this movement from the face of the planet for the good of the people?

The NWO you speak of is, in my opinion, nothing more than the continuing culmination of consolidating statism in the world. A basic tenet of statism is confiscation of social power (of the individual) under the umbrella of the "greater good" theory promulgated by every agent of the state since the Mesopotamians. Hence, it is my belief that the positive interventions of the state into the lives of individuals for the "greater good" of society is debilitating to human progress and should be resisted.

I'll give Claire the credit for posting something further down the lines of reasoning than what you're talking about. You talk about statism... where did that idea come from? How do you know statism isn't right? How do you know the people resisting statism isn't the problem? Can you convince me of a reason why the NWO would not be justified in wiping every person in this movement from the face of the planet for the good of the people? Claire at least said it was unfortunate that they hold bad ideologies. I think you need to go down and read my response to that.
You want to tell me earlier that I must accept your answer because I didn't respond... nobody responded to the one I gave her. She even skipped past it and went to something above it. I don't blame her. I wouldn't want to defend her position either. If you want to read it, it's the one with the pictures of the Ten Commandments for the NWO. I'm not sure how to link to a comment like you did earlier.

The real question here is if humans in sufficient numbers will resist or merely become the distopian slaves you hint at.

No, the real question... is exactly what you haven't answered yet. Can you convince me of a reason why the NWO would not be justified in wiping every person in this movement from the face of the planet for the good of the people?
Someone else already posed the answer you gave, you were just waxing more poetically than she did. That is easily arguable from the side of the NWO, CFR, Bildaburg's, Skull & Bones (Bush and Kerry both admitted on TV that they were members of), etc. These guys all use the same arguments that you guys do. Can any of you convince me of who's right, you or the NWO, and how you justify that?

Because if you can't... then what is the purpose of this freedom movement? That's a scary thought.

No wonder nobody wants to talk about it.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Q Adams

Do you know what it is to be religious?
It has nothing to do with temple bells, with pujas, or with the ceremonies of the priests, and all the rest of the ritualistic nonsense.
To be religious is to be sensitive to Reality.
From this sensitivity for the Whole of existence springs goodness, love, and without this sensitivity there is no beauty.
Love is something extraordinary!
Love IS! It has no object.
The mind that loves is really a religious mind because it is in the movement of reality, of truth, of god, and it is only such a mind that can know what beauty is.
The mind that is not caught in any philosophy, that is NOT enclosed in any system or belief, that is NOT driven by it's own ambition and is therefore sensitive, alert, watchful....such a mind HAS beauty.
A mind that does not belong to any nation, group, or SOCIETY, that has NO authority, that is not motivated by ambition or held by FEAR.....Such a mind is always growing in love and goodness, and because it is in the movement of Reality, it knows what beauty is.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16326-most-extreme-news-stories-of...

Roundest and shortest

In July, an international team of craftsmen unveiled an unusual pair of balls - believed to be the roundest objects in the world. "If you were to blow up our spheres to the size of the Earth, you would see a variation of only 3 to 5 metres in the roundness," said optical engineer Achim Leistner. The silicon balls are designed to each contain a near-identical number of silicon atoms, and become a new way to define the kilogram.

The shortest ever pulse of light- just 80 attoseconds (billionths of a billionth of a second) long - was created in June. That's short enough to act like a kind of superfast flashgun to study the movement of electrons around large atoms. But there's still room for improvement - it's theoretically possible to produce pulses of just a zeptosecond (trillionths of a billionth of a second).

Hottest and earliest

Concerns about global warming are put in the shade by the discovery of a planet called WASP-12b, which is 1.5 times as massive as Jupiter and takes just over a day to circle its host star, orbiting at 1/40th the distance between the Earth and the Sun. The tight embrace heats WASP-12b to an estimated 2250 °C - about half as hot as the surface of the Sun - making it the hottest planet yet discovered, as well as the planet with the fastest orbit, say researchers.

Later in the year, archaeologists unearthed the earliest nuclear family - an adult couple and their two children, buried together 4600 years ago in Eulau, Germany. "The two kids have her mitochondrial DNA, and his Y chromosome - that's a nuclear family," said molecular anthropologist Brian Kemp of Washington State University. But the real-life Flintstones had it much worse than their cartoon counterparts. Their shared grave is one of a number in the area, apparently marking the site of an ancient massacre.

Oldest and biggest

At the time of those murders, a Norway Spruce a few hundred miles to the north was just entering middle age. Today, it is believed by some to be the oldest living organism in the world, we reported in April. At 9,555 years old, it smashes the record set in 2002 by The Old Man, an ancient bristlecone pine in the white mountains of California.

An out of this world news story back in January reported on a true heavyweight - the biggest black hole in the universe. With a mass of 18 billion Suns, it's six times as massive as the previous record holder, according to Mauri Valtonen of the Tuorla Observatory in Finland.

Tiniest and Dimmest

Not to be outdone by the Europeans, NASA discovered its own extreme black hole in April. With a mass just 3.8 times that of the Sun, the black hole in a binary system called XTE J1650-500 is the tiniest on record. "This black hole is really pushing the limits," Nikolai Shaposhnikov of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center told New Scientist.

Finally, to end on a not-so-bright note, in December US astronomers discovered the dimmest bulbs in the Milky Way. The "failed stars" each shine with a million times less power than the Sun, making them half as bright as the previous record holder.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = == =

The reason i posted these observations is because they shed light on the fact that science and human understanding are forever increasing and moving forward. We learn new stuff everyday. Stuff we learn today shatters understandings held only yesterday. This is not a reason to despair or to cast doubt. It should be welcomed! Someday soon, this annoying metaphysical 'debate' WILL BE DECIDED ONCE FOR ALL. I pray for that day.

~cheers~

... that one side proves the other is wrong. Is it going to change the world? No. People are going to continue to believe whatever they want to, irregardless if a select few prove it at breakthematrix.com.

-Miss Green
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it."