121 replies to this topic

[Luna]

umm..
if jesus/god has so many plans for us.
Where had he gone to for the last.. 2007 years?
And if you say he's silently doing his plans I don't think this has much of point to talk about anymore.

I could by the same way say the spirits of the druids are watching over us @@..

You got to remember that 2007 years is only long time to us, but not to God. Trust me, He's been steadily at work during that period of time. See 2 Peter 3:8-9.

Shall we calculate how many true believers and good people died in this tiny amount of time?

[Luna]

Btw elijah3, can you please define Omnipotent?
And then define God? in most definitions of God, you can find Omnipotent.

Epicurus "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Viola "Um, Genesis says God look a nap (just like an over-worked factory worker) on the 7th day after he'd done all that planet-building. Was the writer of that book not familiar with the exact meaning of the term 'omnipotent'?"

Bill Sheehan "If God is omnipotent and all-good, then how could evil exist?"

sir David Stevens "God rested on the 7.th day what for ? surely the author of that statement doesnt know the meaning of OMNIPOTENT"

Omnipotent.. God.. 2007 years.. many dead people.. no evidence.

And what would you say about the Druids which walked the earth many of years before God was even mentioned?

Coral Yoshi "So you really think that God would plant a bunch of bones in the earth to test your faith? Either you're in denial or God has some serious self-esteem issues."

It's so easy to fall into faith, as it is easy to fall into despair.
"Faith is useless, determination is not."

Of course because someone is actually doing something, then the prayers say God answered their prayers.
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer"

And what about all those who died to pleagues, which always claimed to be a punishment of God and some other sort of stuff?
"Deaths in the Bible. God - 2,270,365 not including the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc because no specific numbers were given. Satan - 10"

What if you so believe in God, die, and no afterlife.
Sure, you won't mind cause you're DEAD.
And sure you can't say you had a bad life cause you had wonderful faith.
But eventually, it was a LIE, self-delusion, misguidence and WASTE OF TIME which could have been used to extend your life indefinitly.
Sure I can't say it specificly about you because you are in this forum, so you do intend to extend your life and step into immortality.

But what about all those who, because of God, deny research for life extension and cures?
And those who will SUICIDE by rejecting to take them once they are here?

George Bernard Shaw "No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always convinced that it says what he means."

Stephen Roberts "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"

Well I think that's enough for now.
Again, surely God could exist and manipulate us oh-all-so-wonderfully, after all if God exists, God is omnipotent, no?

But untill God does not show any sign of existence, sanctuary or will to help us.
I will never stop fighting for my life and the life of any other living being, good or evil.
Because when someone dies, so far, you can't bring it back.
And being dead, null, not existing.. is the worse thing I can im,again, even worse than 1000000 years of prison.

Edit:
Not to mention, God says "You shall not kill."
Well, God made the proccess of aging.
Since God made it all, God also made evil, God made killing, God made slaughter, God made sickness, God made DEATH.

A all-powerful, omnipotent, know-it-all being would know the result of its own actions FAR before doing anything.
An omipotent being could in a blink of the eye make EVERYONE worship it, believe in it, not to mention earasing death.
Either God does not exist, or evil or isn't omnipotent.
Or truely is very strange, hidden, mysterious.. which does not justify the suffering it causes AGAINST its OWN LAWS.

Edited by winterbreeze, 04 August 2007 - 01:51 PM.

[Brainbox]

What would you do with children, born into your community, that would display a psychological condition of mind that is not pathological nor criminal according to current liberal general human definition and that does not fit in the "ideal" model an individual should adhere to to be successful in this community or even more extreme, how would you handle such an individual that would undermine the success of your communal concept?

They'll probably use reeducation techiques, and, when that fails, they'll probably go back to applying the death penalty and other punitive measures.

Before I will react on this, some questions.
Is this the correct context for quoting your above statement?
Do you express with this statement that you would considder it ethical to enforce a communal way of life by using the death penalty?

[Brainbox]

The fun or thrill experienced when engaging in risky behaviors is a psychological condition of mind that can be modified. Humans can learn to be happy engaging in behaviors that do not entail serious risks.

Yup. And I like it. Probably the same way you like your psychlogical condition of mind to be religious, that could probably be modified as well. )

Yea, I like my God spot tremendously. So much so that I keep the area squeaky clean and seek to strengthen all thoughts and behaviors emanating from it. I like the part in the article you provide the link to where it says: "These studies do not in any way negate the validity of religious experience or God."

Do I understand you correct that you would be a proponent of changing the world into a mono-culture society based on a psychological condition of mind that exhibits itself into only a portion of our current society? And with this, be a proponent of expelling individuals that do not have this psychological condition of mind?

[Brainbox]

In your latest posts you seem to have left out the communist / religion synergy that would be involved in your concept. But also without the notion of communism and the bad examples of it in recent history,

The bad examples of communism were a result of the Marxist/atheist variety and they never even achieved a true state of communism.

You also expressed before that the current forms of organised religion are bad examples of the intended concept. What would be your conclusion to that?

Mine would be that it is not possible to create a society without flaws. And that, concluding from that, a mono-culture society would be the doom for humanity.
I guess this is the basic difference between adhering to the religious meme and adhering to the meme of evolution.

Luckily, evolution is able to counteract these initiatives for creating diversion-less mono-cultural evil structures.

[william7]

Btw elijah3, can you please define Omnipotent?
And then define God? in most definitions of God, you can find Omnipotent.

Epicurus "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Viola "Um, Genesis says God look a nap (just like an over-worked factory worker) on the 7th day after he'd done all that planet-building. Was the writer of that book not familiar with the exact meaning of the term 'omnipotent'?"

Bill Sheehan "If God is omnipotent and all-good, then how could evil exist?"

sir David Stevens "God rested on the 7.th day what for ? surely the author of that statement doesnt know the meaning of OMNIPOTENT"

Omnipotent.. God.. 2007 years.. many dead people.. no evidence.

In 1 Corinthians 1:25, Paul writes that:

For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

This suggests that God has failings and weaknesses and might be less than omnipotent. I'm sure God has some limitations in how He can do things.

And what would you say about the Druids which walked the earth many of years before God was even mentioned?

I've read little about the Druids. Don't they believe the Druids built Stonehenge?

And what about all those who died to pleagues, which always claimed to be a punishment of God and some other sort of stuff?
"Deaths in the Bible. God - 2,270,365 not including the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc because no specific numbers were given. Satan - 10"

What you don't understand is that it's Satan who is behind the rebellion of man against God like in the Garden of Eden. Genesis 3:1-5. So the death toll you complain of was really caused by Satan.

What if you so believe in God, die, and no afterlife.
Sure, you won't mind cause you're DEAD.
And sure you can't say you had a bad life cause you had wonderful faith.
But eventually, it was a LIE, self-delusion, misguidence and WASTE OF TIME which could have been used to extend your life indefinitly.
Sure I can't say it specificly about you because you are in this forum, so you do intend to extend your life and step into immortality.

Many learn to fast, practice vegetarianism, and reduce stress through prayer and meditation on God's law and Christ's teachings, which contribute substantially to good health and longevity. So, if God turned out to be a figment of the imagination, they would have been blessed immensely and immeasurably through it. No time would've been wasted.

Edit:
Not to mention, God says "You shall not kill."
Well, God made the proccess of aging.
Since God made it all, God also made evil, God made killing, God made slaughter, God made sickness, God made DEATH.

May be you could look at it like God is a creator and is still working to improve His creation. It frequently takes time for man to make his creations or inventions work right. Why can't it be the same for God? It's just a matter of time.

Either God does not exist, or evil or isn't omnipotent.

He's probably limited in the manner in which He can do things.

[william7]

QUOTE (brainbox)

What would you do with children, born into your community, that would display a psychological condition of mind that is not pathological nor criminal according to current liberal general human definition and that does not fit in the "ideal" model an individual should adhere to to be successful in this community or even more extreme, how would you handle such an individual that would undermine the success of your communal concept?


QUOTE (elijah)

They'll probably use reeducation techiques, and, when that fails, they'll probably go back to applying the death penalty and other punitive measures.


Before I will react on this, some questions.
Is this the correct context for quoting your above statement?
Do you express with this statement that you would considder it ethical to enforce a communal way of life by using the death penalty?

No, I think it's out of context. During the Millennium there won't be a serious problem with individuals undermining the communal living concept to any significant degree. There will be a very high level of tolerance for those that don't fit the ideal model as you put it.

My heart is in the nonpunitive measures that will be used to strengthen communal living. I only see the possibility of the death penalty coming back after Christ's 1,000 year reign is finished and man has become aggressive and territorial again as prophecy seems to indicate. Revelations 20:7-9. I'm just speculating here.

[Luna]

elijah3, do you feel a pressure in the top left side of your head each time you defend god?

[william7]

Do I understand you correct that you would be a proponent of changing the world into a mono-culture society based on a psychological condition of mind that exhibits itself into only a portion of our current society? And with this, be a proponent of expelling individuals that do not have this psychological condition of mind?

A monoculture as far as God's law and Christ's teachings - with the blessing and protection of God's Holy Spirit - goes. Within these limitations (for the sake of argument we'll call them limitations when, in fact, they're blessings) the people can still exhibit a wide range or diversity of ideas and behavior. Scripture indicates that during the Millennium everybody will know God since He will have given everyone a heart to know Him. Jeremiah 24:7. Expulsion will not be necessary under these conditions.

[william7]

elijah3, do you feel a pressure in the top left side of your head each time you defend god?

I feel fine. How do you feel when you deny or attack God? Empty or melancholy perhaps?

[william7]

You also expressed before that the current forms of organised religion are bad examples of the intended concept. What would be your conclusion to that?

Thanks for reminding me I forgot to mention the communism practiced by organized religion. Catholicism's practice of monasticism is the worst sort of Satanically inspired communism since it prevents families and children from receiving the benefits and blessings of the communal way of life. The early Christian Church did not segregate on the basis of gender as can be seen by Acts 5:1. Since husband and wife were permitted to participate in the communal life, we must assume children were too.

Mine would be that it is not possible to create a society without flaws. And that, concluding from that, a mono-culture society would be the doom for humanity.
I guess this is the basic difference between adhering to the religious meme and adhering to the meme of evolution.

I believe we'll eliminate all the major flaws in society during the Millennium as the prophecy in Isaiah 65:20-25 indicates. Verse 20 does seem to indicate that there will be some who will not reach a hundred years of age and be considered accursed. I would assume this might occur on occasion due to bad dietary practices and other less than ideal behavior.

Luckily, evolution is able to counteract these initiatives for creating diversion-less mono-cultural evil structures.

I thought evolution once supported only a mono-cultural or communal species as is indicated in this article, at http://blog.wired.co...an-dysons-.html, that favors replacing Darwinian evolution? What's your opinion of this guy Freeman Dyson's evolutionary ideas. I sure would like to hear what Live Forever, modelcadet, Technosophy and anybody else knowledgeable of evolution has to say on the article.

[Luna]

elijah3, do you feel a pressure in the top left side of your head each time you defend god?

I feel fine. How do you feel when you deny or attack God? Empty or melancholy perhaps?

I feel fine.
I feel a headache when trying to accept God though, as it starts running infinite number of paradoxes in my head [wis]
Though I can't say I am attacking God, as my opinion about it "Sure, God could exist, if he does, he is omnipotent after all so of course he can make it all look as if there are WAY better explanations.. therefore untill God won't prove existence, I'm gonna look at the other ways to make my life better and understand the universe" @@..

But then still, why do true believers have sickness, pain, death, suffering..?
That's just....

[basho]

I thought evolution once supported only a mono-cultural or communal species as is indicated in this article, at http://blog.wired.co...an-dysons-.html, that favors replacing Darwinian evolution? What's your opinion of this guy Freeman Dyson's evolutionary ideas. I sure would like to hear what Live Forever, modelcadet, Technosophy and anybody else knowledgeable of evolution has to say on the article.

Interesting link. How do you find this stuff?

This quote from the article, attributed to Dyson, is somewhat perplexing:

We are moving rapidly into the post-Darwinian era, when species other than our own will no longer exist, and the rules of Open Source sharing will be extended from the exchange of software to the exchange of genes. Then the evolution of life will once again be communal, as it was in the good old days before separate species and intellectual property were invented.

Does he mean naturally evolved species will be totally replaced by those we have engineered or altered?

The analogy to software and source code is worrying. Computer technology -- the hardware, communications networks, operating systems, etc -- provide a world that is distinct from the external biological environment. Evolution and experimentation within this engineered environment currently has no direct impact on the external biological world. The evolution and spread of self-reproducing rogue software, viruses, worms, botnets, etc may cause extreme havoc, but there is currently* no actual direct genetic impact on the biological world in which we live (*there are indirect effects, of course, via hardware interfaces which are becoming increasingly sophisticated -- once true nanotech is mastered we'll be in for interesting times).

The free and open manipulation of genetic material, and its release into our environment is far more worrying, and could have a devastating impact.

[Aegist]

The article doesn't really say much about evolution. I've never heard of Horizontal gene transfer as being 'outside of evolution' before, and in fact horizontal gene transfer still happens very frequently every day. It just happens in bacteria. That fact doesn't change the generational aspect of bacterial life, the consequence of mutations, nor remove selective pressure. Horizontal gene transfer would simply fall under the class of 'Mutation', particularly because, as I understand it, horizontal gene transfer is just as random as a mutation. It isn't at all like Open Source Sharing, where someone creates something good, then everyone goes "That is awesome, lets share it". It is more like randomly going to a website on the internet. There is a chance you find something good, but 99.99% of the time, you would get rubbish.

[william7]

Interesting link. How do you find this stuff?

I got one of those Google pages that gives you the top stories from a number of different news and science sites. Wired News top stories, where I got the article, is on my Google page.

This quote from the article, attributed to Dyson, is somewhat perplexing:

That's why I was hoping to get the attention of brainbox, Live Forever, Aegist, etc., on it. May be Live Forever could start an interesting thread with the article since nobody's done it that I know of.

[basho]

The article doesn't really say much about evolution.

I found there's allot more detail in the original article, Our Biotech Future, from The New York Review of Books. It makes allot more sense after reading the full Dyson article.

For example, Dyson refers to the theory that lateral gene transfer was responsible for a very rapid rate of evolution:

Carl Woese...  is postulating a golden age of pre-Darwinian life, when horizontal gene transfer was universal and separate species did not yet exist. Life was then a community of cells of various kinds, sharing their genetic information so that clever chemical tricks and catalytic processes invented by one creature could be inherited by all of them. Evolution was a communal affair, the whole community advancing in metabolic and reproductive efficiency as the genes of the most efficient cells were shared. Evolution could be rapid, as new chemical devices could be evolved simultaneously by cells of different kinds working in parallel and then reassembled in a single cell by horizontal gene transfer.

And with regards to a move away from reductionist thinking, these two paragraphs explain the thinking very nicely:

Here is (Carl Woese's) metaphor for the future of science:

"Imagine a child playing in a woodland stream, poking a stick into an eddy in the flowing current, thereby disrupting it. But the eddy quickly reforms. The child disperses it again. Again it reforms, and the fascinating game goes on. There you have it! Organisms are resilient patterns in a turbulent flow—patterns in an energy flow.... It is becoming increasingly clear that to understand living systems in any deep sense, we must come to see them not materialistically, as machines, but as stable, complex, dynamic organization."

This picture of living creatures, as patterns of organization rather than collections of molecules, applies not only to bees and bacteria, butterflies and rain forests, but also to sand dunes and snowflakes, thunderstorms and hurricanes. The nonliving universe is as diverse and as dynamic as the living universe, and is also dominated by patterns of organization that are not yet understood. The reductionist physics and the reductionist molecular biology of the twentieth century will continue to be important in the twenty-first century, but they will not be dominant. The big problems, the evolution of the universe as a whole, the origin of life, the nature of human consciousness, and the evolution of the earth's climate, cannot be understood by reducing them to elementary particles and molecules. New ways of thinking and new ways of organizing large databases will be needed.

[Brainbox]

Luckily, evolution is able to counteract these initiatives for creating diversion-less mono-cultural evil structures.

I thought evolution once supported only a mono-cultural or communal species as is indicated in this article, at http://blog.wired.co...an-dysons-.html, that favors replacing Darwinian evolution? What's your opinion of this guy Freeman Dyson's evolutionary ideas. I sure would like to hear what Live Forever, modelcadet, Technosophy and anybody else knowledgeable of evolution has to say on the article.

My main reaction to this is that this thread is all of a sudden experiencing a strange lateral shift....

After that first reaction, I'm not impressed. Did anyone read any proof of this hypothesis? My knowledge is limited and I'm not someone who believes easily. If there is some truth to it, it obviously existed way beyond our current phase of development and therefor is probably not relevant for our current state of development and existence. We are not single-cell beings anymore.

The main point that made me quite angry to be honest is the fact that Elijah apparently has a preference for individuals that display a certain psychological condition, expressing itself as a preference for religious thinking. And that, as I understand it, people with different but similar psychological conditions, like a preference to expose oneself to exiting situations, should be re-educated. For me, this would be a highly unethical form of education, commonly referred to as indoctrination.

Furthermore, it is commonly known that social and biological structures that display a sufficient level of diversion, have better survival chances than monolithical structures. So why would one strive for a single mono-culture society on earth? To me, this is a form of evolutionary psychology that is ineffective and even very dangerous in our current times, but would better have suited the condition human society was in during the old middle ages.

Elijah, it seems that you prefer a society that only consists of individuals that adhere to a certain lifestyle due to a specific psychological condition of mind. According current knowledge about evolutionary mechanisms that is not going to happen without extreme centralised human intervention. The thought alone gives me a high level of creeps! Could you explain to me why I should put aside my humanist ethics in favor of your point of view?

[Brainbox]

This picture of living creatures, as patterns of organization rather than collections of molecules, applies not only to bees and bacteria, butterflies and rain forests, but also to sand dunes and snowflakes, thunderstorms and hurricanes. The nonliving universe is as diverse and as dynamic as the living universe, and is also dominated by patterns of organization that are not yet understood. The reductionist physics and the reductionist molecular biology of the twentieth century will continue to be important in the twenty-first century, but they will not be dominant. The big problems, the evolution of the universe as a whole, the origin of life, the nature of human consciousness, and the evolution of the earth's climate, cannot be understood by reducing them to elementary particles and molecules. New ways of thinking and new ways of organizing large databases will be needed.

This is interesting indeed. Reminds me of structural functionalism.

But in line with the topic, the key issue here is IMO that these mechanisms are based upon a high level of diversity on all levels of abstraction and certainly at the level of the individual being. And a high level of distributed autonomy. Interesting on its own, but highly inappropriate to act as a fundamental for the concept of the religious communal living as described by Elijah IMO. I do not understand why he did put forward it this way.

Edited by brainbox, 06 August 2007 - 12:24 AM.

[Zarrka]

As far as God's nature is concerned, there is very little that Eligah needs to defend God against. yes, there is sickness, there is death, and yes Death was mans punishment. and the 10 comandments say thou shalt not kill. but those rules do not apply to God, how can they?

you assume a benevolant God. But hes not benevolant. No God that has promised a massive Apocalypse that will kill many many many people can be seen as benevolant. So any argument that says "thats not fair" or "how can god put up with all this sickness and death" simply does not apply here. In this scenario, God set up rules and asked people to follow them. if they do they will be saved, if they dont they will not be saved. Benevolance or a desire to shield us from hard every second of our day is simply not applicable.

That being said eligah, my bilbo baggins point was that the fellowship knew that if they didnt destroy the ring, Sauren would destroy the world. Frodo needed to put himself in great danger in order for people to be able to live.

In order for us to make great doscoveries, then risks need to be taken. All the medication we have these days, all the new ways we have of doing things that ensure our children are born safe, and dont get sick, our way of treating terrible things like polio and TB etc through anti biotics - none of this would have been found if everyone abscribed to this life principle of yours. and im sure at some point modern medicine has made you better.

of course, the nest thing is simply not to get sick in the first place. but that is not alwasy possible. even communal towns get sick, and need doctors to help out.

[Live Forever]

catichka, do you think that Aegist is going to go to hell for being an atheist? (or, is honest inquiry a more forgiveable sin than lying and saying you believe something that you don't?)

[Zarrka]

i dont believe in hell.

so no, hes not. and honest inquiry is absolutly neccesary for a worthwhile life. Above all else i am a philosopher. most of what i do would probably damn me to hell according to most of christianity. My field is AI, if i say i want to create life and intelligence, then im sure i am as damned as those who want to defy life and live forever.

honesty is absolutly papramount in any philosophical discussion. its lack of honesty (the "you think that...? really..?" premise) that has gotten most of philosophy into nearly of its current undefendable positions, and has reulted on science turning its back on the whole field of fruit cakes.

[Live Forever]

i dont believe in hell.

Aaah, well you believe in a "massive Apocalypse", do you also believe in some type of a judgment for atheists or sinners or anything like that?

so no, hes not. and honest inquiry is absolutly neccesary for a worthwhile life. Above all else i am a philosopher. most of what i do would probably damn me to hell according to most of christianity. My field is AI, if i say i want to create life and intelligence, then im sure i am as damned as those who want to defy life and live forever.

honesty is absolutly papramount in any philosophical discussion. its lack of honesty (the "you think that...? really..?" premise) that has gotten most of philosophy into nearly of its current undefendable positions, and has reulted on science turning its back on the whole field of fruit cakes.

[thumb]

[Brainbox]

Aaah, well you believe in a "massive Apocalypse", do you also believe in some type of a judgment for atheists or sinners or anything like that?

There's major judgement in the mechanisms of evolution. The bible is merely a book of parables that's trying to make us believe that we are able to influence these "super-natural" evolutionary threats by praying and staying very very humble.
Religion is also a mechanism of evolution, that had its uses during mid-eval days as a very crude but succesfull way to form a human society out of individual chaos. For our current chalenges, religion should be seriously modified or left behind.
Regarding the first option, I had some likings for the views of Elijah, until a few day's ago.

Edited by brainbox, 06 August 2007 - 08:02 AM.

[Zarrka]

see, i kinda disagree with eligiah that staying humble is going to get you through the apocolypse. the way i see it it is a world war, that ends once israel has been establish old school style and the teple is rebuilt. So many many many people will die. but, many many many people will live. its not so much about killing everyone as bringing back israel into the fold as it were.

People have this great christian view of the apocolypse as being God coming down with a thor like hammer and stomping about the world smiting the evil. But thats not relaly how it reads. it more reads like russia coming and getting involved in the ME then all the nations around israel ganging up on them,. trying to kick the shit out of them, then israel finally collapsing and calling upon God to help them. once that happens all kinds of wierd shit goes on till the israelites win and get all of their land back.

And, to set the record straight, i am not a christian, i am a theology student. Most of the debates i have with people consist of what is and is not in the bible - whats written vs what is simply christian tradition. Oh, and what a theist has to defend themselves against re: God and what they really dont need to defend themselves against.

[Live Forever]

And, to set the record straight, i am not a christian, i am a theology student.

Oh, I thought Aegist had said at one point that you were a Christian. You appear to believe in God though, correct?

[Luna]

Oh, so many people are going to kick my countries ass soon and then God will rescue us?
Sounds fun..
Wait, didn't it happen.. few years ago? without the god part..

Edited by winterbreeze, 06 August 2007 - 09:23 AM.

[Brainbox]

Apocalypse?

I know it's hard to stay on topic in discussions like this. Although this thread gives me an apocalipticalidiculous feeling as well. [lol]

[Zarrka]

oh yeah winterbreeze, this is meant to be much bigger.

mount Zion splits in half and everything.

and yeah liveforever, Aegist does sometimes lable me as Christian but its rather misleading lol

[Luna]

Well, there is that.. whats his name.. president of iran which wants to destroy us which might result in him nuking us resulting in us nuking him resulting in one big dead middle east..

When's the next spaceship to coloning outer space leaving? I want a ticket.

[william7]

Regarding the first option, I had some likings for the views of Elijah, until a few day's ago.

Don't give up on me so quick. May be God will give us all accident free flying saucers to replace the motor vehicles humanity is so psychologically thrilled with at the moment, so death and injury can be avoided when participating in Satan's survival of the fittest (and fastest) highway to hell scheme.