Ten oz

In a trail a person is innocent until proven guilty. A jury is suppose to be impartial, of peers, and fair. So why are so many people so ardently against a trail? If it helps clear the air, present the facts, and provides definitive resolution based on the evidence why not have one? Seems to me that many people don't want a trail because their faith is the system is not honest as expressed. Justice isn't always impartial, a jury is not always made up of peers, and outcomes aren't always fair. That concern seems to be common amongst both the protesters and the supporters of Wilson.

This video just reminded me how unconscious of a thing stereotyping can be. When the video started I saw the kids, the sawg they were wearing, heard the rock music, and immediately assumed a specific type of message was about to follow. I was wrong. I had not deliberately stereotyped them yet I did. Whether on purpose with negegative intentions or by innocence mixed association the result is the same. We are imperfect. Sometimes we profile, stereotype, judge, fear, and etc each other based of our prior expireinces rather than a person's behavior. As a knee jerk reaction sometime people refuse to acknowledge it. Since it is not deliberate the feeling often seems to be that it isn't wrong. If we could all be more honest about how we felt I think it would go a long way. This is not a condemnation of anyone in particular. Just a general comment. I see people on both side of this issue stomping there feet and behaving as if they don't judge people they don't know based of circumstantial information like clothing of hair style. We all do it to some extent.

As drought continues to impact the agriculture industries in major producing states with coasts like California and Texas anything that might produce water for irrigation seems useful. OTEC seems to have some advantages over desalinization plants as it creates rather than consumes energy. Rather than emphasizing on energy production focusing on low cost fresh water might be a better way to sell it.

God coming to earth in human form or seeding human life via miraculous conception is a common theme is many different religions. Whether we are talking about Krishna or Hercules the idea of God as the father or incarnation of a person claiming importance has a long tradition. It seems far more likely to me that to story of Mary's virgin pregnancy was made up than it was a means to account for a rare biological event. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births#Egyptian_mythology

More people have been married to Kim Kardashian than have died during the "riots" in Ferguson. Not a single police officer has died or been serious injuried. Every week around the United States at sporting events there are drunken fights or other violent outburst that result in deaths and injuries. Some of what we are seeing in Ferguson is simply media sensationalism mixed with the uncomfortable feelings seeing police in miliarty grade equipment causes. It reminds me a bit of Occupy Wall Street. Some cities welcomed protesters and had no problems. Other cities chose to use gas and break protests up. In the later the media covered it as rioting and violence outburst.

@ Eise, you may believe Paul was no later than with five years but that is not an assumption shared even amongst theologians who strongly support the existence of Jesus. I already provided you links that clearly reflect the estimates for both Jesus supposed life and Paul's first letters. The estimates range from 16-26yrs apart. Insisting on other dates is wildly speculative and unsupported by accepted evidence. Also authorship of Paul's letters at not fully known. Only 7 of the 13 letters are believed to have been written by Paul. Your 95% certainty in estimated information reflects a choice to believe the information in the face of no true reason to believe. Once an assumption is made you can't just treat it as 100% and use that information to support the your next assumption. This is the reason why I don't accept that there was or was not a Jesus. I see either of equally possible. There simply isn't enough information either way. Apply criteria such as the Criterion of Embarrassment is nice as a thought experiment but proves nothing affirmative as it like most Jesus evidence is built of assumptions. Assuming to know what the motives would've been. Assuming to know why someone would say what they are saying. Close enough isn't necessarily good enough if you are looking to meet a criteria. If I take my car to the shop and they advertise a 100 point safety inspection which ensures my vehicles safety by there criteria could I call my car safe if they just check 75 points? In the absences of 100 points (safe) surely 75 points is good right? Such is the curve you are lending to your 4 point criteria. You don't have to best information for any of your 4 points so you are calling what you do have the next best things in the absence of what would be preffered. It is intellectually dishonest. Since I mentioned the Criterion of Embarrassment, have you ever seen a Preacher stand on stage as proclaim how sinful they once were? Alcohol, Drugs, sex addiction and etc mentioned to describe their terrible past. Then they say, " If Jesus could save a lowly soul like mine Jesus can save yours". When proclaiming their past sins are those preachers truly making statements against interest or are they just using it to dramatize the greatness of Jesus and the power of forgiveness. Do you automatically believe that the preacher use to gamble, drink, and etc based on the Criterion of Embarrassment or do you see it as an act? Based on basic probabilities do you consider it likely that all the various preachers with that same story would be telling the truth? Yup, is not a coincidence that experts on the history of any actively worshiped God/Religion tend to be the worshipers themselves. While it may be common place for people of a variety of backgrounds to take of Egyptology it is rare to see a Hindu study the Historicity of Muhamad or a Buddist study the Historicity of Jesus. So perhaps true unbiased historical work will be done on current religious histories when the religions themselves are history.

I think it is important to note that whites overwhelming kill whites. Just as most black murder victims die at the hands of blacks most white victims die at the hands of whites. So while I see this issue of black on black crime referenced a lot in these discussions you correctly have identified it as irrelevant. Most all crime is localized and thus will be Asian on Asian, White on White, and etc. To sepetate out Black on Black for discussion only serves as an attempt to redirect the issue and avoid debate. A bait and switch. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2012.xls

@ Eise, you are doing the math wrong. You have presented a 4 criteria contingency. All 4 parts must probably be true. The numbers I referenced deal with the probability that ALL 4 criteria would be true if the information wasn't the best it could be. The numbers have nothing to do with individual arguments or a "100 events". You have 5 separate claims you are asserting and each claim needs to be measured against your 4 criteria. The probability that you are repeatedly meeting all 4 each time with will less than best evidence is very low. So rather than give me number for the 5 assertions you should be providing numbers for the 4 criteria which support the assertion. How well does each of the 5 stand up singularly against the 4 criteria contingent. If the chance for each claim was 50% as you stated for example than the probability that they all happened would be low, NOT that Jesus did not exist. Probability is not a statement on what did or did not happen. It is a measurement of the likelihood of your conclusions. Ultimately everyone of your thoughts on the issue could be wrong but Jesus may have still existed and vice versa. Jesus' existence is not contingent upon our logic. I brought probability into this to show you how unlikely it is that all of your criteria is being met. Not prove Jesus wasn't real. You are conflating the two.

@ Eise, I understand that my 1-10 scale is not how probability is calculated nor does it follow Bayes theorem. I am simply trying to get you to provide estimates in regards to how strong your assumptions are. You have a 4 part criteria. The probability of all 4 parts being true various significantly as the strength of each changes. Let's take Julius Caeser for example. For each part of the 4 criteria you advocate Caesar has the best possible versions of the evidence we'd expect. So let's call that 99% of what we'd hope for. With each of the 4 parts of the criteria being 99% likely the probability that all 4 are likely is 96% (99% x 99% x 99% x 99%). Now let's pretend the evidence wasn't so strong and we were calling each of the 4 parts 70% likely. That is still good right? 70% is still measurably better than 50/50 right? We, that is not how probability works. The probability that any one of the 4 is correct may be 70% but the probability that all 4 is correct is much lower. That probabiliy is only 24% (70% x 70% x 70% x 70). And this is the problem with using evidence based of likelihoods. The probability that all likelihoods are correct is rather lower even if the individual likelihood of any single one is actually good. Your assumptions that Jesus was probably real is contingent on ALL 4 of the criteria you outlined support being proved. ALL the assumptions being made. Unless those assumption are 95% likely or better (best possible evidence) the probability that all assumptions are true is low. Which means it is doubtful that all 4 of your criteria are actually being proved. This is why I asked you to assign a number to each and why you refused. Because we both know that any reasonable percentage of likelihood you would've assigned would factor out to a low probability. So the question becomes how much of what you think is likely can be wrong before you stop thinking it is likely?

Let's give the information you support some numbers. We'll keep it very basic and follow your 4 criteria. Scale of one through ten. 10 = very likely, 5 = moderately likely, and 1 = very unlikely. Documentation - you have already acknowledged that contemporary would be best. Of course contemporary isn't alway practical. If a person is illiterate, of little importance, and so on we wouldn't expect much written. However Jesus had followers. It is not a crazy idea to think one of them might've written something down. Jesus also had ditractors. Again, not unreasonable to assume they might've written something down. What writings we do have are "moderate likely" at best. The fact that they come within decades rather than centuries after Jesus estimated life time simply prevents them from being in the "very unlikely" category. So the number I would give is a FOUR. This is a scale after all. Had Jesus written something himself and it survived that would be a TEN. Second and third hand accounts written decades after.....a 4 is fair. So let's give it a number:Independent sources - Surely you accept the notion that sources with known authors are better than sources with unknown authors? I also think it is fair to say that unrelated sources are preferred over collective group sources? So we are not in the "very likely" ball park here. We don't have Roman historians writing about the fallacious Jesus in biographies about Pontious Pilates. Such would be gold and on the "very likely" end of the scale. As would anything written by a Jesus ditactor. Rather what we have are gospels written by a variety of authors (not factually known how many) with assumed levels of relationships based primarily on writing style and continuity of narrative. Plus as you point out the account got worse each time it was written. And all the authors are spiritual believers by their own word. I can't get above "moderately likely". Again, a 4 seems fair. I could even go lower on this one. How true in overall terms something is matters. Once it is established that something is friction or exaggeration it lowers the probability that other parts are true. Again, with each additional claim you are increasing the amount of evidence required to prove Jesus' likelihood. Each claim requires it own scale of likelihood against your criteria before we can even account for them....... Back to our scale we've already started: Agenda - It is clearly there. This is the formulation of a religion after all. I can't even imagine what time of NT exclusive information there could be that would make it "very likely"? What would a 10 look like this criteria in your opinion? I give this one a TWO Yes, the behavior fits an era and a region. Surely specific time/dates and locations would be better than an era and region though? All referencing the behavior does is support the liklehood you have your era and region correct. A 10 here would be a known location at a known time. A 1 would be unknown location at unknown time. What we have is a known window of time with a general area for location. Again, we are in the ball park of "moderately likely". Since neither location or time is known I lean toward the lower end of "Moderately likely". After all we have exact locations for Moses but that isn't believed because the time isn't known. Here we diffinativele have neither time or location. Just estimates. I give it a THREE. So for your 4 criteria on a basic 1-10 scale of "very unlikely" to "very likely" to have existed I gave Documentation a 4, Independent sources a 4, Agenda a 2, and time and place a 3. The average being 3.25 which falls on the lower range of moderately likely. That of course is just a very basic scale. To do it properly would require seperate scales for all hypnosis' being presented. We'd have to create probabilities for all claims and average them against each other well as know the history for such speculations being accurate. As previously stated Baye's theorem would be the way to do it. That said my silly 1-10 scale at least quantifies what I mean by probably this, might that, or if whatever. You keep stating outcomes built a top of things that are "probably" true and never quantifying what probably means. Probably isn't evidence for something else that in itself is also only probable. Give me a number. 10 being the best evidence imaginable (with in reason) and 1 being the worst evidence. Then applie your 4 point criteria to everything you accept as probably true in regards to proving the existence of Jesus.

Selective quoting? I provided a link for review. You are insisting on a 4 criteria standard of your own preference. My point was that your method is not universal. There are many considerations. I provided 6 you then followed that by added several more you said I left out. Your criteria as previously outlined: "How old is the original document? The shorter after the events described, the better." - Age of the origanal documents do matter. However I find the part misguided. Rather than saying "the shorter after" I'd say the more contemporary the better. And there is nothing contemporary. So there is nothing that is particularly good. Decades later is better than nothing but it isn't good. "Are the events described by multiple independent sources? The more, the better." - the Gospels are one source. The claim that they are all independent accounts is not provable. Many of the Gospels were clearly inspired by other ones and there is authorship questions so it isn't known where the information comes from. Assumptions have to be made to accept the Gospels as multiple accounts. So Jesus does not pass the "more the better" test. Accepting the Josephus reference as legit rather than a forgery there is two references. "Does the document fit in the agenda of the scribe? The better it fits, the less the chance it is authentic. And of course the opposite: the worse it fits, the bigger the chance it is authentic." - The New Testament fits the agenda perfectly. Jesus is said to have been the Jewish Messiah. In the tradition of that story Nazareth, kings, donkeys, and solar events were all included. The story also dressed itself up with common stories of immaculate inception and resurrection. "Do the events described fit in the historical context of the time and place where the events are supposed to happen? If they do they increase the chance that the document is authentic." - We don't know when and where do we? The time frame and location are estimates. There is a window for when Jesus is said to have live give a take several years. As for the location we know the region but that all. No X marks the spot for birth, baptism, or execution (3 things you say we know probably happened). You say Jesus probably existed but are not actually calculating the probability. This is why I mentioned Baye's Theorem. Using it you can actually calculate probability rather than just guess at. Every assumption you make like saying Jesus was Baptized by John or put to death has its own probability of being true or false. Once you calculate it all out the odds of there being a guess are not overwhelming.

It is interesting how you have assumed an authoritarian/expert position and challanged posters to disprove the theories you support rather than prove the theories yourself. Your insistence of being in line with the majority in itself is evidence of nothing. I personally prefer Bayesian Probability because at the end of the day many matters of history are unprovable. Often the best we can do is come up with probabilities. Not real solid conclusions. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability#History You seem to prefer other historical methods. So let's look at wiki's "Historical Method": 1 - When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)? 2 - Where was it produced (localization)? 3 - By whom was it produced (authorship)? 4 - From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)? 5 - In what original form was it produced (integrity)? 6 - What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method Right off the top the New Testament and the Gospels fail 1, 3, 4, & 6. 1: Date - it is unclear when Jesus lived, if Nazareth existed, and when each gospel was written. 3: Authorship - it is unclear who wrote much of the Gospels 4: Analysis - it is unclear which Gospels inspired others and which are 2nd vs 3rd vs 4th vs etc hand accounts. 6: Credibility - the New Testament has none since much of it is clearly fiction. Even you toss aside resurrection while insisting other parts contain truth. Ultimately it has little credibility. Almost no one believes all of it. So 4 out of 6 right off the top is bad. Sadly many theologians argue that we should ignore that. We should focus on what has continuity and not be distracted by what doesn't. IMO that is not a logical appoarch. What evidence do you have for any of the claims you outlined? Pilate was a real person. So because he was mentioned by default that makes the Gospels real? Surely there is better logic than that? You have posted a lot about the historical method. Why don't you apply it and educate us all on why the 5 definitive statements about Jesus' life you insist on are provably true?

Race aside. In major cities across the United States most police officers do not live in the communities they police. That is a problem. Not thee problem but something that should be addressed. I believe a person would be less likely to tear gas a street if they live on it. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/most-police-dont-live-in-the-cities-they-serve/

There is a science to history but it is less conclusive. No one is saying its all 100% nonsense. Some of us just don't believe/accept the same level of certainty you seem to. An educated guess is still only a guess.

...and who decides which ones do or do not fit, Christian Theologians? I personally do not accept that any certainty can be obtained through educated guessing without a means of verification. The motivations for forgeries, the reason for exaggeration, the style of a lie, or the presumed agenda of people thousands of years ago are not things I consider evidence of facts. Here in the United States our constitution was written by educated people well experienced in both governance and law. It was written to be clear. To be law. Today, just over a couple hundred years later scholars and politicians debate the Constitution constantly. The motivations of different signers, the intentions behind admendments, the meaning of specific words in the context they were used during the time frame the constitution was written, etc, etc, etc. And the authorship of the Constitution is far better documented than the Bible or its Gospels. Not only is the authorship documented but the motivations and beliefs of the authors of the Constitution are better understood. They wrote books, letters, op-eds, and had debates that were documented. They explained their intentions. And yet there is still debate. The courts still hear challenges and still feel the need to ask the supreme court for clarification. If the meaning of 2nd Admendment is still up for debate I find it hard to accept the the Gospels are not. We struggle to define words like "arms", "well-regulated", and "militia" in context to how/when they were used in the 2nd Admendment. Yet vauge remarks in Gospels written by unknown authors during timeframes that are only estimated provide clear evidence?? Allowing Christian Theologians to be the main historical experts on the historicity of the Bible and Gospels is akin to allowing the Federalist Society to be the same for the Constitution.

Edgar Cayce and Nostradamus also mentioned astronomical events and the movement of various groups of people. It doesn't mean they were just making it up. I was born and raised in a Christian country. My parents are Christian, all the grade school teachers I had were Christian, sports team coaches were Christian, and etc. Christian history feels real. It is the history I was raised with. It feels like Jesus was most likely a real person. That feeling is not based in any tangible facts though. I heard it my whole life from a hundred different people so now it feels true. Looking at the information without any rooted presumption of truth until proven otherwise I do not see anything affirmative. I think that for believers there is enough to believe in but for known believers there isn't enough to convince. Where a person already is in their personal beliefs plays a huge role in how the history is interpreted.

@ MigL, I don't believe Cap and Trade encourages the status qou across the board. I think it encourages industrialized nations and their corperations to find ways to emitt less green house gases so that they don't have to pay. While at the same time encouraging those under the cap to develop in a direction that keeps them under the cap. I don't think the policy is perfect but it is far from being so terrible that I'd prefer the Government just give private for profit companies like Lockheed Martin hundreds of billions along with a green light wildly expand nuclear power.

I think you are conflating issues here. Disliking Cap and Trade as policy and thinking climate science is government propaganda are seperate things. We shouldn't argue the merits of climate research as a means of debating Cap and Trade. Climate change is real, it is man made, and something needs to be done. Those are facts. Whether or not Cap and Trade is the best way to act is open for policy debate. I don't like Cap and Trade either. However, first step toward fixing a problem is admitting we have one. I think it would be better to start with Cap and Trade (accept that there is a problem) and then work towards a better solution than the alternative which has been to deny that there's a problem because we aren't happy with any of the proposed solutions. Nothing will be pain free. As for which industries should be subsidized here in the United States 70% of our energy subsidizes go to fossil fuels. Another 9% go to nuclear power. Green technologies like Solar, Wind, and Hydro are not getting a lions share of the subsidizes. Are you suggesting Solar, Wind, and Hydro should get nothing?

@ MigL, Governing bodies aren't the ones sounding the alarm. They are merely responding to what you admit is too serious of a problem to ignore any longer. As for the "fleecing the taxpayer" angle wouldn't having more energy/fuel efficient transportation, homes, and businesses save the average person money? Driving a compact that gets 40mpg rather than a SUV that gets 15mpg save lots of money. LED's rather than incandescent lights, better home isulation, and roof solar panels save money. A lot of what governments push is action to limit usage and educate people. I don't see examples of excessive taxation that in the long term cost average people more money. As for Green subsides that is simply an investment in research. Governments in the past spent fortunes developing technologies that took time to pay off. Not every dollar spent building rockets was spent well. I personally rather see my government spend money on diversifying domestic energy than building more aircraft carriers. Of course it isn't either or; governments are able to balance doing both.

Hitchens was brilliant and well educated on this issue. As is Dawkins today. Unfortunately since great minds like theirs didn't spend their formative years attending bible study they are not considered "experts". Problem of course being there arent many nonbias people out there interested in committing their lives to scripture (theology). Most experts in theology were driven to it by faith. Those smart enough not to bother with the circular logic of using New Testament as the sole source to authenticate the New Testament a stuck with the label of denialist. Meanwhile theologians claim to know facts without evidence. Of course, knowing or believing without proof is faith regardless of how mainstream anyone tries to spin it.

Sometimes no species are able to survive. A event like a meteorite strike may kill everything in a locality. What follows is a chain reaction as then other species outside that locality may become impacted based on things like changed migratory patterns. Natural selection will continue amongst the groups outside the destoryed locality. Survival after an event and surviving an event being two different things. Natural disasters influence natural selection. And sometimes there is just no surviving.

@ CharonY, you are right. It is a point that probably didn't need to be brought into the discussion.

Climate is observable, messurable, and recordable. Tangible work has be done in regards to climate. The existence of Jesus is a theological thought experiment where the argument is made that Jesus was most likely a real person. No contemporary sources and the couple vague nonchristian sources do not actually biography his life. You post as if real evidence exists and is being ignored. Rather, I don't have faith in the best guesses of theologians.Btw, I have not once said Jesus did not exist. Just that it is not clear. No scienctific concensus to rival that of climate change exists that would argue against the idea that it isn't clear. However, his existence is meaningless. Everything that matters about Jesus from a religious stand point clearly isn't real. Once you strip away the virgin birth, god, miracles, resurrection, and so on what is let? What literature Christian or otherwise do we have that biographies a real human? Seperate the man from the myth and all you are left with is some guy of unknown origin was probably baptized and the later crucified. No dates, relics, contemporary accounts, or anything else.

The United States is working with China to curb global CO2 emissions. Seems to me that leading by example makes more sense that continuing the status qou because other are. If all parties take the "they do it so we may as well" appoarch than progress is impossible. Again, we are working with China on the issue.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/world/asia/china-us-xi-obama-apec.html?_r=0 At least this agrument has some honesty to it. Your acknowledging that CO2 is a problem but basically saying that he economics are more important. I believe this is at the heart of most climate change denial. Lots of wealthy people and industries simply won't be hurt in the short term so they don't think it is worth acting on. Not only that but the opening of the Northern passage and accessing Northern fossil fuels will be a windfall for a variety of industries. You've already stated "I'm OK with mitigating carbon emissions" and "CO2 is a greenhouse gas" yet now you call "primarily due to man warming" a "fraud". Seem a bit contradictory. If the whole thing is a fraud why do anything at all? Why complain about what China is doing? This argument never makes sense to me regardless of the number of times I see it. There is not more money in green technology that the multi trillion dollar Oil and Coal industries. Why would researchers and Governement officials turn heir backs on the multi trillion dollar fossil fuel business in an attempt to get rich off of far less profitable green technologies? the whole idea of this angle is backwards. What past works are you referring too? NASA currently has satellites takening up to dates messurements, NOAA currently has sea buoys and researchers actually out in the Ocean taking messurements, the National Snow and Ice Data Center is currently in the Artic doing research, and etc, etc. Tons of current and up to date work being done. Indisputable findings. It isn't as if everyone just accepts some theoretical model thought up by activist meteorologist in the 1960's.