huskerjack23

I can't believe this entire thing. I never thought the day would come to be rid of the virus forever. And bringing in TO's last QB, the one that sent him out with a national title, as an (co)offensive coordinator. I've gotta say that my head is spinning. This is like the big ten talk last June.

I bet Sanders himself calls him, tells him whats what, and it'll all blow over. If everything is on the up and up with his resignation, then it shouldn't be a problem. You would think...

I'll commend you for bringing info, especially the way you did it. It was a "yeah I heard it too, but I don't think I should've because I never get told anything" vibe that makes me feel like the fire is burning hot.

Really?

I'm saying that man is man is man, and no matter what he bases his morality on it will be as good or as bad as that man. Well what does that have to do with what I said? Are you trying to say that morality just is? All I'm gonna say is that christian morality teaches to repress women, stone adulterers and disobedient children, infinite punishment of finite crimes, and sacrificial atonement of another person's crimes, none of these things are moral. This is written in their holy book. How can a person be moral, subscribe to this book as sacred, and not be a hypocrite? Times have changed my friend. I don't know any Christians who repress women or stone people. But your bible says these things. Isn't it the inspired word of God?

There's another component at work, as well. Regardless how convinced a person is that there is no god or no after-life, the reality is that with sentience comes the unshakable belief (not knowledge) that one cannot simply cease to exist. From the moment man gained the ability to see himself as a discrete entity and to contemplate his life and death - as evidenced throughout recorded history - he has attributed the inexplicable to supernatural (or religious) forces. I am agnostic - I recognize that there is no way to either prove or disprove the existence of a god or gods, or an after-life. Regardless of this, when I contemplate my death I still feel that somehow I will still exist in some state, and that I will be able to make my presence known. There is no logical basis for this, of course. Intellectually, I recognize that and I recognize that when I die I will leave no residual - but I can't make myself believe that. Its a function of the Id and the Ego. Given that, it naturally follows that people would find TV shows like that compelling - people want evidence that they won't simply cease to exist, and hope (even subconsciously) that such shows will provide proof of that. Parenthetically, it can be argued that the above is the sole reason that religion was created by man. I'm not making that argument - hell, for all I know, there is a god or gods, and this is its or their subtle or humorous way of making their presence known to man. There are a number of days that I'm convinced there is a god - not only that, but that god is a woman and I've pissed her off. Anyway... I'm sure there is a little bit of this at play. I sometimes have trouble with the afterlife question since I've become an atheist, the whole ceasing to exist thing. It's not about it's hard to believe I cannot, it's more about the "I'm afraid of not" existing thing. But on the surface, I find its more about fear of dark open voids. I went to a farm cemetery, so no street lights or anything, and I couldn't even get out of the car. I just couldn't bring myself to do it. There's nothing out there I know, but there might be I believe. It's so weird.

I'm saying that man is man is man, and no matter what he bases his morality on it will be as good or as bad as that man. Well what does that have to do with what I said? Are you trying to say that morality just is? All I'm gonna say is that christian morality teaches to repress women, stone adulterers and disobedient children, infinite punishment of finite crimes, and sacrificial atonement of another person's crimes, none of these things are moral. This is written in their holy book. How can a person be moral, subscribe to this book as sacred, and not be a hypocrite?

Interesting thought. Only how would we measure it, just because you went to Yale, or Harvard doesn't mean you have a better grasp on an issue. Some of these guys have no real world experience, just all theory. Same could be said for a business owner, they may have street smarts but might not grasp the deeper/long term effects of certain laws. I think we need better people to run for office. I guess on the national level I equate it to the old saying "those who cant, teach"... Only "those who cant, regulate". One thing I think would help is to repeal the 17th amendment so Senators would be elected by state legislators. That might allow the state to have a voice, especially with bills that mandates states take on certain levels of spending to fund programs i.e. Medicare. I think the greatest thinkers should be the ones who are the ones deciding the laws that are basically all theory. I guess the education level might not make as much of difference, like Warren Buffet might be a great thinker that I'd want on the committee. It might even be someone who's demonstrated great thoughts and wisdom towards certain areas of life that are crucial to the long term views of the country. I'd say that even John Wooden had and also Tom Osborne has that capacity.

At 6'7"? Really? 6'1" I think you completely missed his sarcasm...one of the articles had him listed at 6'7 I'm glad you picked up on that haha

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/story/14600243/locker-flashes-firstround-form-on-day-2-at-senior-bowl http://nflmocks.com/2011/01/25/senior-bowl-day-2-north-squad-practice-notes/ Not trying to jack your thread Knapp. I haven't liked Pierre Allen for two years.

At 6'7"? Really?

Morality is as individual as a fingerprint. Secularists have no greater claim to morality than Hindus, Buddhists, Catholics, Muslims, etc. There are good and bad Theists and good and bad Atheists. You can't paint either group with a broad brush. This is the thing that I'm trying to express. Morality IS individual. But one that includes dogma of a religion can only deviate from that religion to good and bad extremes. It hinders free thought and expression because the individual usually leads back to its doctrine for final decisions. A person can be charitable and kind but still think that homosexuals are an abomination. They can be pro-gay people but think that slavery in the bible is justified because it was done in the name of the lord. Secular morality is superior because we are all accountable to each other. God is not accountable at all. That seems to be saying that secular morality is free from guidance, and it's not. All morality is based on the experiences we have through life. Those experiences are as individual as fingerprints. So you're secular and you're not hung up on god-based morality. Maybe you're hung up on political-based morality. Maybe you're hung up on the morality of your environs. Maybe you base your moral code on Husker football. Whatever it is, it has a basis in something. Nothing human is infallible. There have been no perfect humans, and all man-made constructs are inherently flawed, whether that's a bridge or a belief or a moral code. Secular morality is simply based on other things than Theist morality. But here's the kicker - if you're an Atheist, then you know that Theist morality is based on man-made thoughts and ideals. The very word secular becomes more a discourse in semantics rather than a truly differentiating definition. At the end, we're all falling back on what some man said, whether that man wrote a chapter in the Bible/Quran/Pentateuch or whether that man is you. I'm not saying that secular morality is superior because it does the most good. I'm saying it's superior because it allows for the most freedom for the individual to make final decisions. SoCalHusker, wherever he is, would be screaming that to the rooftops.

I thought of a kooky idea. I think the executive branch and legislative branch should share a committee of philosophers that have either equal votes, aggregated vote (just one for the whole committee), or a more heavily weighted vote(s). Each state could have a delegate for this delegation and that delegation could vote who'd they want in the federal committee. It'd be like a new congress that REQUIRED certain degrees of education and it what fields. I would have them vote on every bill and require that the philosophers' vote always be the tiebreaker in the event of a tie. We could even keep the vice president involved by letting him/her be on the committee, but his/her vote wouldn't be as heavily weighted. Also, these people would not work in Washington. With the speed of information nowadays, they really do not need to. I'd have them work in Independence Hall in Philadelphia, if it's not just a historical landmark now. Obviously it's just an idea that needs work, but my idea is that we'd need a group of people among our legislators and executives that we're almost guaranteed (by law) to not have biases toward personal status, ideology, corporate influence, and bureaucracy. The founding fathers were about like 30-50 people of the early nation's GREATEST thinkers. I don't understand why we wouldn't want the influence of our greatest thinkers in public policy.

Morality is as individual as a fingerprint. Secularists have no greater claim to morality than Hindus, Buddhists, Catholics, Muslims, etc. There are good and bad Theists and good and bad Atheists. You can't paint either group with a broad brush. This is the thing that I'm trying to express. Morality IS individual. But one that includes dogma of a religion can only deviate from that religion to good and bad extremes. It hinders free thought and expression because the individual usually leads back to its doctrine for final decisions. A person can be charitable and kind but still think that homosexuals are an abomination. They can be pro-gay people but think that slavery in the bible is justified because it was done in the name of the lord. Secular morality is superior because we are all accountable to each other. God is not accountable at all.

Even though I know what you mean by what's in the bold, I think it's important to start with the right groundwork. There are no known conditions or situations where we can actually demonstrate there is 'ghost activity.' There are situations where the brain is easier to trick that normal, where your senses are on high alert, or where you can create the expectations for something mysterious to happen, but to connect that with paranormal activity is to assume the conclusion. And a lot of times, from what I've seen from shows like this, that's how it operates. These people assume there are ghosts––even if they claim to be skeptical––and they take whatever 'data', no matter how flimsy, and try to cram it into their model instead of letting the facts bear out the case. They do this by a number of methods. Russel Glasser of The Atheist Experience talks about some of them here. All excellent questions. Seems you already see through the charade. I'll add a few. 1. How are instruments that measure physical phenomena, radios, or cameras helpful in detecting something which is by definition a non natural occurrence? 2. How would something that retains what we'd call consciousness able to do so without the help of a brain, which has been destroyed/decayed and is nonfunctioning? 3. Why should I buy into a dramatic, almost plot-based, TV show when I know they have a financial interest in at least keeping the controversy going, if not inventing this stuff whole cloth? Imagine a show where every week four fat guys sit in a dark shack and say, "Well, that was worthless. Let's go home." On your third question, briefly: have you ever listened to backmasking? It's the same concept. You play a song backwards and what usually comes out is nothing but grable, except here and there you can make out what sounds like specific words. Not usually enough to make it coherent, but it might lead your brain to a certain explanation. A famous example is Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven." If you listen to the song without someone telling you what words to listen for, you'll maybe pick out three or four (Satan, six-six-six, power, etc.) But then when they tell you their––and I stress their––interpretation, you can hear it clear as day when you listen again. (Try it. Go down to the 'allegations of backmasking' section, be sure to listen to the reversed track BEFORE you read the lyrics interpretation. Then read the interpretation and listen again). It's the same concept with the white noise from ghost hunting shows. The point is the brain is highly susceptible to suggestion. Nothing idiotic about fearing the unknown. Evolution has ground that so deep in our species we'll probably never get rid of it, and probably wouldn't want to if we could. The problem with our pattern-seeking nature is that we tend to want any explanation over no explanation. So when we hear a noise, a bump in the night, even though we can't identify it our first instinct is to conclude SOMETHING, right or wrong. I think 'Ghost Hunting' is a cash-in on this trait. Hope that helps. Knapplc made some excellent points as well. The interent is chalk full of people who debunk this stuff, some of them for a living. Skeptoid.com probably has some short podcasts on specific (or general) cases of 'ghost activity.' If you have a specific case you're looking at I'd be happy to take a look. Thanks for the reply. I was trying to figure out my susceptibility to the show and I couldn't finger it out. You hit the nail on the head on the biggest skeptic question that needs asking would be "assuming the conclusion". So many conclusions can be drawn but ghost is the sexiest one. I had a they're/their misstep in my post too lol. Would you think hard skepticism is a great trait in an unknown situation like that?

Martinez is a special player there's no doubt but what I want beyond that is intangibles and a winner's persona. An air of personality that Frazier had, that Cam Newton has. It could click on for him. It took Vince Young three years for it to finally click.

So as the resident skeptic, Husker_x (at least you're the most vocal about it lol), I'd like some help with skeptical inquiry about ghosts. I watch Ghost Adventures (yes, go ahead and laugh) and I don't know why but I can't seem to be as skeptical as I'd like to be about it. My stance on ghosts is pretty agnostic but I kind of get super anxious whenever I'm in situations that are typical for "ghost activity". So it's not that I believe in them, it's just hard to bring a view of skepticism to the equation (fear of the dark, fear of the unknown, fear of the void or something) I'd like some help bringing up skeptical questions to the table. Google didn't do a good job of helping, nor did I really look hard lol. Here are some questions I've asked as a skeptic and it helps somewhat. 1. How do they know that whatever presence they're feeling is a ghost or they're brain just effing with them? Or just random physical phenomena? 2. Why is it so hard to repeat the evidence? If it's there and they can respond, then they can repeat commands surely. 3. Regarding EVPS: what if it's some kids messing with you? How did you decipher that unintelligible garbage as a sentence? It's also TV so people that are easily susceptible to manipulation can be led to conclusions that the producers want those watching to be led down. So is it alright as a skeptic, to be an idiot but realize you're being an idiot? Or am I just being an idiot? lol

The problem is this man holds the infallible word of your Lord and Savior. This man is supposed to be moral? A man who doesn't own up to the terrible things that human beings do, but to cover it up to protect the sanctity of the church? This man is not moral. Also, the fact that you don't want to be lumped in with the Pope and his morals helps solidify my opinion that secular morality is superior. Yours is based on religion, but you make up your own mind on what you believe and don't believe, dogma be damned.

Can't he just get shot in the head like most zombies?

We might as well bring back Jay Norvell

Was it still a triple option offense even though the first fake to the FB was never an actual read in Osborne's option? Whenever the FB got the ball on that play, it was always a called play. That's what I've always heard anyway. I could be wrong.

Have they hired this guy yet? What's the latest scuttlebutt here?

We've always had good kickers at Nebraska. No need to worry. I learned earlier this year it's not a good idea to assume. We shall see. Kicking in high school and kicking with 85,000 people who all are living and dying on your kick are two entirely different things. Like I said I hope he turns out to be a good kicker for us. True but do you apply this to every position as well not just kickers? We've seen what we are like when our offense(Martinez) goes down. We suck. Star players are good we need depth on offense. Of course but kicking is an entirely different monster. Kickers need to have the mental wherewithal to be able to kick under pressure. Henery was a master at the mental aspect of kicking. Nothing shook him. Nothing. Lord knows we're going to need a good kicker even moreso if Watson is around next year. when's the last time Nebraska had a kicker that was really bad though? Congdon?

Because if he's capable of putting together a great offense, just hasn't had the chance yet, why not spend less money on a guy you're confident in? It's either spend more money on a higher probability of success or spend less money on a lower probability of success. This isn't quite 2002 where the entire defense needed to be blown the hell up for a coordinator change. I think Bo still trusts most of the staff and trusts that Beck would be able to step in and carry the offense.

It should be "Legends" and "Icons"