Murphy's Law only applies if you believe in it. Right? Then belief is not ''true or false,'' but ''good or bad.''

1.) Disregarding ''absolutes'' such as mathematical facts, belief is the cause and creator of perception and reality.

2.) Each person believes a different thing.

3.) Then there is no such thing as a misconception.

• a.) ''According to your belief, it is done unto you.''

• b.) ''As a man thinks in his heart, so will he be.''

• c.) ''the thing I have dreaded has come upon me!''

4.) What we choose to believe is never ''true or false;'' since those labels apply to knowledge, while faith/belief is like reaching out your arm to accomplish a task. Belief accomplishes something, while knowledge accepts what it is told. Can the incipient workings of faith be ''false?'' I reach out my arm and grab a light switch with my finger, and flick it ''ON.'' The lights turn on. Is my hand false? How would that even make sense? Beliefs accomplish something--always. They begin things. Knowledge, observed conclusions can be false. The quest for knowledge, shunning faith is all the while fueled by a faith that faith is invalid.

Seeing has NEVER been believing;
Faith has never been dependent upon proof
Faith produces its own proof.
Belief has nothing to do with an intellectual deduction.
Beliefs are measured by the merit of the things they elicit.
Belief/faith is a moral issue, not an intellectual one.

''Emancipate yourself from mental slavery''

If you're not happy, why not? You've been trying to be happy, trying to chase down your contentment...That causes stress, and you'll never ''catch it,'' anyway. Life is a reflection of our thoughts/beliefs/actions; it's no good to chase contentment because that brings to life the reflection of lacking and poverty. You have to BE the contentment. Chasing it only underscores the truth that it is far from you.

First, distance yourself from the strivings that cause you nothing but stress and a fistful of wind. The problem starts when we try to reason with our happiness, as though it were a logical issue: ''if only I could get this, surely I will be happy.'' And when it isn't working out, we try more desperately to get it. More stress. The more we strive for happiness, the more unhappiness we heap onto ourselves. You didn't really want all that extra stuff; All you really wanted was the contentment you thought was attached to it.

So let it go. Be like the tree in the wind. It's flexible and happy. All that it needs to be happy and to thrive is right there with it. Don't be so rigid that the smallest upset breaks you. Everything you need to be happy is everywhere with you.

KFC, don't give in! We need you to stick it to the little man!

Totally not swayed by this, especially because it's from PETA. That's just how it's done. Of course, making sport of the birds and pre-slaughter breaking wings and legs is unnecessary. That doesn't make it wrong to consume chickens.

Chickens are not ''the same as people.'' They don't need the same treatment that we would, and that's one of the big problems with messages like this. These people try to personify the chickens, and make a chicken's death EQUAL with a human's. Wait, who drew that ''line?'' Well, what if someone ELSE wants to draw a different line, and say that it's only evil to eat people, but cows, pigs, and chickens are okay? Doesn't the ''other guy'' count, too?

Chickens have to be kept in a place where they can't pile up onto each other, since they frighten easily, and will kill each other by climbing on top of other chickens. The cramped quarters are for their own good. Their beaks are clipped because chickens are also prone to aggression and cannibalism. This is so they don't all kill each other, as well.

The bone breaking and ''making sport'' of them is not necessary, but think about it...WHO ELSE takes a job killing chickens, but those who can find at least a little enjoyment in it? I'm not saying that part of the slaughter is RIGHT, but it seems this video is using the ''shock factor,'' since they're betting that most people have no clue as to how chickens are raised and slaughtered.

This video is old, too. In a 2003 article, the issue is addressed:

''Bachelder "jumped on the corporate jet and flew to PETA's hometown of Norfolk," PETA's website crowed, acquiescing to five of PETA's eight demands. According to the organization's victory report, among other matters, Bachelder pledged to install cameras in all of KFC's 29 slaughterhouses by the end of next year, with a plan to audit the tapes monthly. KFC also agreed 1) to ensure that its suppliers would add stimulation devices to the perches in the chicken sheds; 2) to move quickly to kill chickens in electric stun baths rather than merely immobilizing them; 3) to implement humane mechanized chicken-gathering systems; and 4) to provide increased space for chicken housing. KFC promised to report back to PETA on a regular basis to verify its compliance.''

The whole thing can be found here: http://www.discovery.org/a/1515

''And so I genuinely felt obliged to call...'' ...you out.

I know, I know, ''it's just a picture, Mike!'' and I should ''chill out.'' But I couldn't help but think that some people accept this without any further thought on the matter. So here we go:



1.) Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Before I get too far into that, let me preface with this: God is love. Forced love is no love at all. If God created no possible avenue for humans to choose evil, that would be God, forcing us to do what He wants. If God imposed His will for perfection on us, He would no longer be who He is. ''So you're saying that God has limits?'' I'm saying that God is bound by His love for us, and His intolerance of evil. He allows us to make choices, even if it breaks His heart that we choose our own destruction. God does not force anyone to do anything. This is not an issue of ability; but an issue of God giving us a chance to choose for ourselves.



2.) Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is the author suggesting that if God doesn't ''step in,'' and put a stop to all evil, that God, Himself, is evil? I suppose it could appear that way to some. But what if God forced each person to surrender all freewill to Him; and to do exactly as He wishes? He would have a bunch of ''robots.'' He wouldn't really have ''us;'' --that would be God, just taking what He wants. He could have a bunch of robots any time He wants, but what God really wants is us. This is why our ability to choose is so important. Malevolent? No. Heartbroken? Yes.



3.) Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

He is both able and willing. ''Then how did evil come to be?'' We are the ones God allowed to choose evil or good. Any evil in the world exists because we chose it. God doesn't force us to do anything.



4.) Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him ''God?''

He has given us sovereignty over our own destinies. He will eventually deliver us over to whatever it is that we have chosen for ourselves.



So? That still doesn't prove God exists!

Correct, but it does deconstruct this argument.





And about the comment at the end ''Atheists. Winning since 33 A.D.'' I can appreciate a good joke, and that was clever.

...Except the fact that this was actually the dawn of Christianity. Since Christianity is ''just one more theist religion'' to atheism, the dawn of Christianity is more accurately described as the point in time that atheism began to fail more and more, as time progressed to present day.

On a hike!!

Here are some pictures I took from these hills my friends from work and I took a hike on :-)

There were frogs, coyotes, avocado groves, eucalyptus trees, thorny plants, long, steep climbs, and ALL kinds of FUN! :-D

Devil's Advocate

A good friend from high school commented on the post ''Negativity:''

Sorry Mike, I must play devils advocate here, but in it may gain you perspective.

Violence is bad, hate is bad, chaos is bad, lies are bad, mmmk. I'll get that outta the way.

But there has never been reform without violence (sad but true). Which means, no one in power (read power as corrupt, as we all know absolute power corrupts) is willing to sacrifice that without violence (violence here, is read as "revolutions and retaliations" against said power). From chaos, comes order, and from order, comes chaos.

Hate is a negative emotion. True. I personally hate, hate :P. But without such emotion aren't we all idle when people without much culture and love hit the scene? When our brothers and sisters are killed, we could never keep the streets clean without a inkling of such emotion. Ever want to run up to Charles Manson and give him a big hug, and tell him everything will be ok? Naw, he deserved to rot in jail because he didn't just hate, he spread it. So my point here is, fire sometimes, sadly, must fight fire. Hate and love can go hand in hand. I, for instance, am filled with hate with politics lately, due to its corrupt nature, and that springs from my love for the American people. I love the fuck outta them. So I hate seeing the repetitive bad choices that are made for us by these people "representing us".

Chaos and disorder. Ahhh, here is an interesting one. How is this defined? Its a very difficult one to truly define. If the universe was built on a big bang, a nuclear explosion of sorts (pure chaos, random subdividing) has it not created order? We see planets revolving around stars and amazing beauty that has defined for us, the laws of physics. Don't get me wrong, I believe in God, this is just an example. Another example is, if we create enough law, do we not therefore create chaos from it all? We are granted freedom of speech by our bill of rights, yet if we speak our mind in public its illegal. If we speak our mind in court its contempt. If we speak our minds about somebody in a way they don't like, its libel. If we speak in protest, its illegal. If we speak about not liking a president, treason. Sounds pretty chaotic to me, almost like a law that isn't enforced (freedom of speech) is creating chaos by being layered over by a bunch of laws that are enforced. Create enough laws, and you have created chaos.

Lies are in the same grouping. But its on the same page as the others, if you lie to save a life, its not bad. We all know this much. Its in deceptive evil that lies are truthfully bad. To deceive someone in order to do something else evil, which is normally where the problem with lies is. Truth sometimes is sometimes falsely confused with fact in some peoples heads. Fact, is fact, it is infallible, no way to argue it. But truth, realize, most of the time is not infallible. It deals more closely to peoples perspective then fact does. Fact cannot be argued, but sometimes we find that peoples "truths" can be. Which does create more problems, but it remains keyed to observational ability and perspective regardless what we do.

:)

Figured I'd throw that out there... Not arguing with your points, they're very valid. I just believe in exceptions to every rule. Or, chaos, if you will. :)

Kudos, and hope your doing well out there Mike.
Take care bro




This is not an argument, but it is a peaceful debate.



Here's what I said:


Being devoid of hate doesn't mean always being a ''nice guy.'' Hate towards another person destroys its host. It's okay to hate our enemies, as long as a clear idea of our enemies is maintained: our enemies are hate, ignorance, fear, arrogance, poisonous ideas/beliefs. Flesh and blood are not our enemies. Love does not mean withholding punishment, and love does not mandate that evil should be tolerated. Sometimes violence is necessary to apprehend those who spread evil.


Perhaps humans can create laws, but that does not mean that they are creating order rather than disorder with those laws. It's easy to tell which one came first: order or chaos. Shuffle a deck of cards. If they come out in bridge order, then time is moving backwards and chaos creates order. Indeed, as time progresses, order ''loses'' to chaos. Chaos is the absence of order, not the other way around.



Not all lies are in the same grouping. If a lie can stop a murder from occurring, then that lie must've been a little closer to ''virtuous'' than other lies, based on the intentions of the liar and the consequences of that lie. The person who told the lie had greater things in mind than simply preserving truth at any cost; a valiant undertaking, but there are, at times, more important things. Our version of truth is not all encompassing of everything that truth is, so, to sacrifice the other virtues so that our own distorted version of truth might be kept unbroken, will not create ''good.''


This also means that the virtues, as we know them, can't be trusted as 100% pure. But it still stands that they're much better than their respective ''voids.''

Now this is the California I came back for

He was totally oblivious to me until I whistled to get his attention.




A sea anemone! They try to grab you if you touch 'em! (yeah, it's actually their poison/stinging cells that shoot into your flesh, but it's on such a small scale that it feels like it's just really ''grippy.'')

This all used to be under water back in the summer.

At least the fires made some vivid sunsets.

The water was lavender. Wow.