Could the end be near?.........(Serious Discussion) Opinions welcome

[Estonian]

Hahaha, this thread is so 17th century.

[private_numero]

Part of the reason I dont respect any police. The cop that lets me off without a stupid $300 fine for "operating an unroadworthy vehicle" I will shake his hand and respect him. These days it just doesnt happen, Cops are given quotas and its all about who can make the most money.

You try to fight it in court, not only will you loose, but you will be made to pay more fines. I know this is only in Australia, but at the end of the day it all stems down from the money hungry government.

word

[PHAS3D]

If you seriously believe all the bullshit the government feeds you, you seriously need to broaden your view.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL this is the truth!

[prod0660]

some older lady in stop n shop today said that the world is going to end VERY SOON!, her argument was "look at whats happening in egypt, its gods people fighting each other, they of all people know whats going on in the world and if such a peaceful and godblessed nation like Egypt is suddenly up side down then the world has lost it"--those were her exact words..i was shocked at the ignorance and stupidity in her idea, but its her belief, so w.e

[Streetlight]

I had to chime in

[Oxer]

Rory... What the fuck.

[Streetlight]

Guys lets be honest, what you all wants are some math equations, specifically, Pascals proof of gods existence!

Either God exists or God does not exist, and you can either wager for God or wager against God. The utilities of the relevant possible outcomes are as follows, where f1, f2, and f3 are numbers whose values are not specified beyond the requirement that they be finite:
God exists God does not exist
Wager for God ∞ f1
Wager against God f2 f3

Rationality requires the probability that you assign to God existing to be positive, and not infinitesimal.

Rationality requires you to perform the act of maximum expected utility (when there is one).

Conclusion 1. Rationality requires you to wager for God.
Conclusion 2. You should wager for God.

We have a decision under risk, with probabilities assigned to the relevant ways the world could be, and utilities assigned to the relevant outcomes. The first conclusion seems straightforwardly to follow from the usual calculations of expected utility (where p is your positive, non-infinitesimal probability for God's existence):

E(wager for God) = ∞*p + f1*(1 − p) = ∞

That is, your expected utility of belief in God is infinite — as Pascal puts it, “our proposition is of infinite force”. On the other hand, your expected utility of wagering against God is

E(wager against God) = f2*p + f3*(1 − p)

This is finite.[5] By premise 3, rationality requires you to perform the act of maximum expected utility.

Therefore, rationality requires you to wager for God.

[Art[of]Fitment]

hey, im a little behind, but regarding your original thoughts. i have no idea about the birds, maybe they all drank some water that had chemicals in it? and as for believeing in God, it requires more faith to be an atheist or evolutionist. Its easy for me to be a Christian and believe in God bc of all the positive proof.
no one knows the end of the world, except God, not the mayans, no scientists, not even God's own Son knows the time. Were just along for the ride.

[prod0660]

Ron Paul 2012

[Oxer]

What makes it funnier is he is now the foreign minister

since most people saved that money, or bought things online from other countries, which did sweet f-a to stimulate our ecconomy.

This is a very 'modern' problem. Buying from outside the country was not really practical at all until the late 90s, and not outright common until the 2000s. Maybe this is why this Rudd guy didn't consider that. Maybe. I dunno. But a lot of older politicians sometimes forget what year it is, which can cause issues.

[Oxer]

However, the average developed country's government does have the people's best interest in mind... sort of. There's no advantage to anybody in government to willingly cause the country to go into ruin. They're not supervillains, hellbent on turning the world into a wasteland. Some may do a terrible job because their terrible policies survive with charisma and marketing, but that's just because they're bad at running a country and good at politics.

Something like your guy Rudd's economic stimulus plan is a good example (not saying it was a good idea, I have no opinion on the matter, I'm terrible at economics). Stimulating the economy by using some money to make money. You need people to be able to buy in order for businesses to survive, so he enabled that. Yes, it came from taxes, but guess what? It goes right back into taxes, plus growth (when it works). So regardless of outcome, it was a well-meaning gesture, which throws off what I feel is an implication that the governments have it out for us.

I didnt mean that they are infact trying to run countries into the ground, but you cant honestly tell me that there is any one government that isn't running on some percentage of greed.

I agree with the second paragraph quoted, but I still think it was a rediculous idea. I too have no background in economics, But even I could see that it wasn't just a $900 gift that they were handing out like 50% of the people who receved it saw it. If he hadn't have done that, we would still be in the same position today, since most people saved that money, or bought things online from other countries, which did sweet f-a to stimulate our ecconomy.

The governments of today simply run what previous ones have put in place... As an example, In Australia's last election, both parties made all the promises to change so many things and bring in all these new legislations to help ease things like the financial crisis among a list that wouldn't fit in one post. The 'winning team' has literally come through with none of it.

The bitch just stands there and talks through her ass, shes a puppet. Instead the reserve bank put interest up and no taxes were eased. A couple years ago when the financial crisis hit our shores, the prime minister at the time, Rudd, gave every tax payer between $6-900. People were wrapped, went out, spent it, it was meant to boost the economy. Where the fuck did the money come from, and how were they going to pay it all back? Tax.

If you seriously believe all the bullshit the government feeds you, you seriously need to broaden your view.

None of that has anything to do with what I said, which is why I was confused.

Regarding your points (what I can glean from them anyways) is that governments lack accountability, a statement with which I agree. That's definitely not new though. In fact, now is the time where the people have the most power over their government when it is tapped into and use correctly. Before the 20th century, nothing short of an actual coup could change your government.

However, the average developed country's government does have the people's best interest in mind... sort of. There's no advantage to anybody in government to willingly cause the country to go into ruin. They're not supervillains, hellbent on turning the world into a wasteland. Some may do a terrible job because their terrible policies survive with charisma and marketing, but that's just because they're bad at running a country and good at politics.

Something like your guy Rudd's economic stimulus plan is a good example (not saying it was a good idea, I have no opinion on the matter, I'm terrible at economics). Stimulating the economy by using some money to make money. You need people to be able to buy in order for businesses to survive, so he enabled that. Yes, it came from taxes, but guess what? It goes right back into taxes, plus growth (when it works). So regardless of outcome, it was a well-meaning gesture, which throws off what I feel is an implication that the governments have it out for us.

But anyways, back to the point I was actually making, anarchy (which Wiki sums up as "Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy.") would be worse for the common person than anything our governments could conjure up. If you're wealthy, or resourceful, then anarchy would be in your favour. If you're neither, then it would be hell.

[Oxer]

Pretty much the reason I dont bother listening to what they have to say anymore. The way I see it, Any form of government can go get fucked. Hell, I dont even vote. If they force me to next time around, There will be nothing but dicks on my ballot paper...

Part of the reason I dont respect any police. The cop that lets me off without a stupid $300 fine for "operating an unroadworthy vehicle" I will shake his hand and respect him. These days it just doesnt happen, Cops are given quotas and its all about who can make the most money.

You try to fight it in court, not only will you loose, but you will be made to pay more fines. I know this is only in Australia, but at the end of the day it all stems down from the money hungry government.

[NegativeCamber]

^ i like the way you think. the sad part of that who ordeal is that its a world wide problem. just as many people over here believed in the hopey changey false promises deal, it took that event to awaken them to see that no matter who is up there, they all work for the same people. the big offshore banks run our nation and many others. the last president who was against this and was trying to dismantle it was shot in the head. As Rothschild stated, "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."