MrWordsworth- use less strong wording to look like you’ve considered all sides

Much like a pond the scum often floats to the top

Your point on oil price is interesting and as far as i can gather was why saddam invaded kuwait in gulf war1 (as well as to secure more sources. I wonder who benefits out of this

Sorry, MWW, I didn’t notice the typo, and I wasn’t making a political point.  You reminded me of something I thought was funny, so I shared it with the group as a joke.

I’ll try to give your posts the serious response they deserve in the future…

I’m sorry, its just that I go on Republican Neo-Nazi ‘Christian’ blogs telling them the same thing I did now, and they call me a liberal, and my anger unfortunately carries over to the innocents on the next blog.

DOF - “I didn’t notice the typo”

Me neither, MWW- we at least are not the type to completely dismiss the validity of a point on picky details.

DOF- “I’ll try to give your posts the serious response they deserve in the future”

I agree, always include a serious aspect to a comment, at least to say why the joke is being made so it’s got backing. You both have some respect from me for apologising.

MWW- I’m not too up on american politics (i’m from UK) so I myself am not sure what the agenda is, as far as I can gather america uses more oil than it consumes so although someone may be conspiring to raise prices I doubt it would be the US government, the invasion of iraq itself may have been to get oil cheaper from the friendly new regime. There have been shia-sunni conflicts before the iraq war so if there was a puppetmaster I doubt it would be the US doing it for higher prices.

You may find it interesting that the new cogress speaker, Nancy Pelowsi, refered in her speach to a “new world order”. Considering the theories around that I’m somewhat surprised polititions keep use it, unless they want people to be afraid, because generally where there’s fear they can make themselves a ‘hero’, or in some cases make a profit

so although someone may be conspiring to raise prices I doubt it would be the US government

Considering that the oil companies and the military industrialists have bought off the Grand Old Party, you could say that the corporations and the current Republican government are one and the same [fascism].

the invasion of iraq itself may have been to get oil cheaper from the friendly new regime.

Ah, but in the process of invading Iraq, Iraq stopped selling oil to us, driving the oil prices up.  And the destruction of the Iraqi economy damaged their ability to produce more oil.  Which is why they are gearing up to invade Iran now: Iran will of course stop selling us oil if we invade them, driving up the price of oil.  Look forward to another 9-11 type attack on America (whether it be ‘terrorists’ detonating a dirty bomb in a city or a raft full of explosives detonating next to a U.S. Cruiser) in order to start the war with Iran, since the people in the U.S. are fed up with the administration and will need another attack to rally behind.

There have been shia-sunni conflicts before the iraq war so if there was a puppetmaster I doubt it would be the US doing it for higher prices.

They have been trying to escalate fighting between the different groups of Islam (like Saddam being insulted by a group of Shia Muslims before he was executed, angering the Sunni Muslims who liked Saddam) because they know if people are divided and fighting each other, they can be more easily controlled and cannot form a viable resistance.

You may find it interesting that the new cogress speaker, Nancy Pelowsi, refered in her speach to a “new world order”. Considering the theories around that I’m somewhat surprised polititions keep use it, unless they want people to be afraid, because generally where there’s fear they can make themselves a ‘hero’, or in some cases make a profit

They are very arrogant, and probably find it amusing to use the term without an outrage from the public.

One more interesting thing I might mention:  there was a huge terrorist bomb that went off in a Madrid airport, killing three people, and it was barely mentioned at all on news ticker in the American Media, since it was not committed by Muslims.  And that is how you really combat real terrorism.  You don’t mention it, because real terrorism is meant to terrify people.  It is like murder or rape, you can’t prevent it.  You can only deal with it if it happens.

-distant claws

The Sunnis and the Shiites disagree over which of Mohammed’s companions should have succeeded him as religious leader.  I believe one of them was rich and one of them wasn’t, so a class war adds some heat to that fire.

And going full circle, who would benefit from a hypothetical conspiracy causing war in the Middle East?  Why, that would be the Christians, (25% of us!!!) who know that warring will lead to Christ’s return.

All kidding aside, history has shown that, unfortunately, there doesn’t need to be a conspiracy for religious differences to be grounds for violence.

I can see the conflict-term oil price rises, and once they control the oil fields they can control prices and assign ownership how they want. A lot of money goes to the Saudi monarchy which I know the US wanted to protect in gulf war 1 at least, and it’s not a country you hear about developing hypothetical WMD’s against the west.

On that point I wonder where N korea comes into this and if nuke testing really is the cause for blame, it is certainly publicised, and being isolated commie not open to the globalisation that would spread the unity needed for new world order, in fact that could in part explain the spread of anti-communism.

Also makes me wonder if the media is manipulated (+ how it’s infiltrated) to selectively report. I know it’s controversial but according to ‘Bowling for Columbine’ the US media selectively reports murders by blacks more frequently than murders by whites, you also hear of the CRASH corruption of the past. I’m not sure of the gain of some of this by a pupeteer though but I am curious.

From other threads I also get the impression forein media makes the UK look a lot more dangerous with crime and murder than it is. I have also heard on television the idea that one of the reasons Bush hurried into Iraq may have been so that the UK wasn’t able to enforce a 2nd UN agreement that the priminister needed to hold onto popular support, a kind of way to cause regime change in an ally, but I’m not sure why bush would want to lose his poodle.

Thriceberg - thanks for the shia-sunni explanation, and you are correct that religions will conflict at the fundie level. I think we can all agree that whether there is manipulation or not, on religon or other right-wing topics, the way to be immune is to get along and see people for their similarity; a lot of religions have the underlying message of being nice, and it’s not as if race or sexuality affects your everyday deelings with people

MWW has a good point about how every argument tends to become polarized.  Examples: If you are against gun control, why then you must want kids in high school to shoot each other!  Pro gun control?  Then what do you have against grannies defending themselves?!  Against the war in Iraq?  Why then do you hate America!?  For the war in Iraq?  You must be a tool of the oil companies!!! 

Want to regulate fishing to preserve fish stocks?  Leftist!!!  And so on.  Political issues are “packaged” into “right” and “left” and people who unwrap the packages tend to be hated by both sides.  This phenomenon has come to a head with the so-called “Neville Chamberlin Atheists” and their critics, the self-appointed champions of atheism.  Apparently some atheists are not nasty enough to suit other atheists, so they’re feuding about it while fundies gloat.

By the way, I actually get all my information from The Simpsons.  I don’t bother with books, magazines, educational programs or any of that. 

OK, I’m not always serious, even when seriousness is called for.  Some subjects are just so serious I have to laugh. :-D

DOF- “Political issues are “packaged” into “right” and “left” and people who unwrap the packages tend to be hated by both sides”

Exactly, and as you later went on to say, happens with religions. Without packages there could be no radicals or fundies and the world would be a much more open minded place

Speaking of simpsons I liked the scene where Homer looked at the phone bill and his brain didn’t know if it was him who made the calls:
“sign the check and I’ll release some more endorphins”

While a sane party line would be more like:
1 You are pro-choice sexually
2 You are conservative economically
3 You are liberal on personal rights
4 You are pro second amendment
5 You are pro first amendment
6 You think religion doesn’t matter
7 You think race doesn’t matter
8 You realize that war solves nothing
9 You are pro Constitution (neither party is pro-constitution!)

1-2:  Yup.
3:  Meaningless.  I know many “liberals” who would fit right into Orwell’s _1984_, and the “traditional” conservative (quasi-libertarian) standpoint would fight to the death for individual rights.
4-5:  Yup.
6: I think it does matter.  I just don’t think it matters in the way that most religionists think it matters.
7: Race (genetics) matters very little; cultural background matters more; individual behavior, though, should trump all of it.
8: Don’t be absurd.  Of course war solves a plethora of problems.  Of course, it also creates interesting new ones, too. 
9: Yup ... though saying one is “pro-Constitution” is sort of like saying one is “pro-Good”—the desired outcome is in the eye of the interpreter.

A tangent but:

I was just thinking about how if conciousness came from outside the body via a kind of wireless conection between the brain and another dimension that we don’t observe, how or if it would influence a physical body

Though I have said there may be space for god in physics, I can’t yet see it in chemistry, unconcious things like just keeping a cell alive can be explained by equilibrium only, as much like a flame a cell is a bag of self-sustaining reactions using up materials from outside.

Keeping alive is all well and good it doesn’t require being conscious. Everything resulting from a nerve signal telling a muscle to move can be explained entirely chemically, so an outside consciousness would have to influence the source of the electrical signal. Electrical charges are caused by ions (chemical) and so you would expect whatever determined the distribution of charge leading to a nerve signal to also be chemical, it could only be distributed by other means by micromanaging colision paths of individual ions, using the uncertainty principle of position of the electron to momentarily alter sterics of the ion/thing collided with to alter the angle it will travel at, violating entropy somewhat but (like a fixed lottery) possible because it wouldn’t be blindly allowed to follow statistics. Sources of nerve activity in the brain are to my knowledge not fully understood.

Even if there is no link to other dimensions, as I’ve said in the past, things can exist in them in parelel to us, it’s just we ourselves may not necessarily have a mechanism to get to those dimensions. There could still be a link though if there is this extreme micromanagement of colision paths to distribute charge

DC: ... so an outside consciousness would have to influence the source of the electrical signal.

Do you mean as in Chemistry/Physics or Philosophically?
If it’s the latter, I don’t think you can use absolute terms in philosophy as there’s usually a smidgen of speculation but ... I’ve been wrong so many times in my life it’s become another pleasure. 

I like your ‘tangents’.

I should clarify

“so an outside consciousness would have to influence the source of the electrical signal.”

Concious physical movement starts with a nerve signal, everything that occurs as a result is entirely described by known chemistry and body mechanics - nerve conduction is by an ion gradient, release of neuroreceptors at a nerve ending is chemically instigated by the charge travelling along the nerve and the muscle contraction/relaxation itself happens only because of ATP hydrolysis/formation to enable the myosin and actin layers to seperate so that the layers are allowed to slide. Muscle contraction is a ratchet mechanism.

http://www.embl-heidelberg.de/CellBiophys/LocalProbes/motorproteins/myosin.html

Now because there is no space for consciousness from another dimension to influence anything after the creation of the nerve signal , the only place we could put it down to would be where and how the signal started.

Nerve signals can only start because of a charge inbalance, which for your sensory organs could be explained by chemical changes to an ion gate that, when closed is impermiable to diffusion and allows a charge gradient to be kept
Sensory ion gates:
- Chemical you smell or taste can bind to a receptor causing structural changes resulting in gate opening
- Some gates may open with temperature if there can be a structural change that’s particularly affected by entropy (S)

G=H-(T*S) where
Entropy (S) (measured positively in Joules per kelvin per mole) = disorder caused by the need to do something with the energy you’ve got
Enthalpy (H) (measured negatively in KiloJoules per mole) = energy released from bond formation and interactions
Temperature (T) (measured in kelvin)
Gibbs free energy (G) (measured in Joules or KiloJoules I cant remember per mole - doesn’t matter as long as you quote units)
Notice when put into the equation above the units, with conversion, cancel to make those of G, the units also have to equal in an equation

Now note this:
G=-R*T*ln(Ke)

R is the gas constant, just a number with entropy units, 8.134 Joules per mole
Ke is equilibrium constant.

This equilibrium constant would also, you would expect, determine the distribution of ions, and therefore the ability to create a nerve signal. You would think this closes off the possibility of outside consciousness creating the signal because it would violate thermodynamics.

However - Entropy is a measure of disorder, it is a statistical term of probability, it is possible to momentarily distribute things in a less probable way but blind statistical control would keep molecules and energy spread out.

Suppose a system wasn’t allowed to undergo blind statistical control, and some effort was put in to, for example fix a scratchcard so it loses more than if it was truely random, the bedroom was tidied so items were no longer distributed randomly, or a liquid was frozen so it could no longer spread out randomly. Distribution of ions could be fixed if you changed their colision path, like cheating at snooker. The angle traveled after colision depends on incoming angle, orientation and shape. Shape is the one thing out of these an outside influence can manipulate - the outside of a molecule or ion is determined by where it’s electrons are, and the orbitals that contain them are probability clouds where there is no fixed difference, only a preferable one. This is the probability that could be manipulated by an opening in physics - the heisenburg uncertainty principle that says the more you know about position the less you know about speed and vice versa (coincidently this means it is impossible to be 100% static meaning everything has movement energy).

At first is seemed the uncertainty principle was just due to the way we measure speed - using something like light which has energy to exist, some of which could be transferred to the thing you’re measuring changing it’s speed. However as well as a measurement thing it, strangely enough seems to be an actual rule of existence because having zero energy is also ruled out by the particle in a box model.

Overall:
-Physics may have openings for influence by conciousness and other dimensions, these won’t apply to the physical properties of charge and quantum mechanics rules seem unchangable conciously
-Chemistry cannot be directly affected because it’s completely described by charge+quantum physics - nothing could change reactivity or enthalpy without changing conditions, but that doesn’t mean you can’t fix the system to cheat entropy
-Biology is entirely described by chemistry and classical mechanics, so no opening for other influence here
-Philosophy is a part of good scientific thought, it’s just the situation needs to have money in it and be findable to attract any intrest

Exactly, and as you later went on to say, happens with religions. Without packages there could be no radicals or fundies and the world would be a much more open minded place

You know, the Bible really is a work of genius: the elite used to use it symbolically to pass on knowledge, while at the same time the masses read it and take it literally, creating backwards, closed-minded fundamentalists and dumbing down the rest of the masses.  Now it has mostly outlived its usefulness in passing on knowledge, but it is still useful for creating fundies out of people who read it and take it literally.

Distant claws, being from the UK you are likely a little MORE informed about US politics than the average citizen of the US. I watch your ‘Prime Minister’s questions’ on C-Span and I can only barely envisage how utterly hopeless GWB would be in that kind of situation…

And moving on, I find this quite compelling;

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

LOL! - Yeah I loved that Simpsons episode ... 

2 Peter 3: 3-9
First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

WORD! I’ve got two words for you. Guess what they are. 

Hug me?
You rule?
Hang ten?
I’m stumped.

Seems the fundies are starting to notice SEB once again. Shame they don’t realize quoting passages from a big we don’t believe in isn’t likely to convince us of anything other than what an idiot they are.

LuckyJohn19:

WORD! I’ve got two words for you. Guess what they are.

John 15: 18-25

“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me. 22If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin. 23He who hates me hates my Father as well. 24If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. 25But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’

Word, try thinking for yourself instead of getting your received wisdom from a poorly written potboiler.

Now Word is playing the persecution card. Next!

What’s with this thumper infestation?

I have my own quotes from The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, like this one:

While Pastafarianism is the only religion based on empirical evidence, it should also be noted that this is a faith-based book. Attentive readers will note numerous holes and contradictions throughout the text; they will even find blatant lies and exaggerations. These have been placed in the text to test the reader’s faith.