shinyblurry

Member Profile


Member Since: January 21, 2011
Last Power Points used: May 21, 2013
Available: now
Power Points at Recharge: 1   Get More Power Points Now!

Comments to shinyblurry

newtboy says...

The good wishes are appreciated. Having a twice broken back sucks.
I think people see 'coincidence' and think it's amazing or supernatural, but they don't see the billions of non-coincidences that DON'T happen daily. If they could see every possible coincidence, the ones that come to pass would seem far more ordinary.
In your analogy, I would first think perhaps there's a problem with their ammo/guns, then I might think they are all horrible shots, THEN I might think they might have missed on purpose. What I would not think is that god stopped the bullets! Because something could have been by design does not mean it IS.

shinyblurry said:

it's been a really bad week for my back and lots of meds have been needed, which impairs my math skills. My mistake there...and I've retracted that....and I apologize.

It's no problem. It's completely understandable for what you're going through over there. I'll say a prayer for you and your family. Hopefully some pain free days are coming your way soon.

Doing the math correctly, I see you ARE right that it's about 400 times the distance.
But they (and so you) are wrong that it's 400 times the "size". You are right that the radiuses/diameters are a ratio of 400-1. That's different from size, even 2d size.
It may seem semantical, but to me it's an important distinction. This is what I took issue with mostly, since I was CERTAIN the actual "size" (in 3D) is no where near a ratio of 400-1, but closer to 64 million -1. Even in 2D it's nothing like 400-1.


Point taken..you were just trying to be accurate in the way the terms were defined.

Also, I'm not intentionally ignoring your point, it is an interesting fact that the ratios are close, but only coincidental IMO, certainly not 'proof' of anything supernatural.
EDIT: even if they were a perfect ratio, it would only suggest a physical law of motion we don't know or fully understand yet.
I would be interested to see a list of other planets and their moons to see if any other planet/moon (or combination of moons) in our solar system shows the same ratios. Neither answer would make me think anything supernatural however, it's just not that kind of question in my eyes.


Taken by itself, it is an extraordinary coincidence if you deem it as such. Yet, when you pile on the many other factors that have to line up for us to have life here, I find coincidence isn't the appropiate word. Now, some say that because it is such a huge Universe, there are bound to be planets like these (which isn't proven, btw)..and we shouldn't be surprised to find ourselves on one of them because we would expect to find conditions which allow for our existence, given that we exist. I don't think that is a persausive argument.

There is a good analogy about this that I borrowed from the net:

"Suppose you are to be executed by a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all of them aiming rifles at your heart. You are blindfolded; the command is given; you hear the deafening roar of the rifles. And you observe that you are still alive. The 100 marksmen missed!"

Taking off the blindfold, you do not observe that you are dead. No surprise there: you could not observe that you are dead. Nonetheless, you should be astonished to observe that you are alive. The entire firing squad missed you altogether! Surprise at that extremely improbable fact is wholly justified - and that calls for an explanation. You would immediately suspect that they missed you on purpose, by design."

newtboy says...

Yes...I did my math backwards or poorly...it's been a bad week for the back and lots of meds have been needed.
I see you ARE right that it's about 400 times the distance.
But you are wrong that it's 400 times the size.

shinyblurry said:

here is another NASA page:

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/30may_solareclipse/

I guess all these people are wrong too:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/life-unbounded/2012/05/18/the-solar-eclipse-coincidence/

http://www.space.com/15584-solar-eclipses.html

http://space-facts.com/solar-eclipse/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse

http://www.astronomy.com/news-observing/ask%20astro/2000/10/why%20is%20the%20moon%20exactly%20the%20same%20apparent%20size%20from%20earth%20as%20the%2
0sun%20surely%20this%20cannot%20be%20just%20coincidence%20the%20odds%20against%20such%20a%20perfect%20match%20are%20enormous

It is simple math and I am not sure why you are having trouble with it. The Sun is 149,600,000 kilometers away. Divide that by 400 and you get 374000 kilometers, which is about the distance of the Moon from the Earth. I notice you're doing quite a bit of gymnastics to avoid the point.

newtboy says...

From my viewpoint, I have not seen a 'concerted campaign to deny your participation', but I have seen your comments disputed nearly every time. That's not the same thing by far.
As you noted, being a 'Christian voice' on a mostly 'secular' site is going to get you confrontation and disputes, some of them might be over the top. Please consider how an atheist posting anti-religious propaganda daily on a purely religious site might be treated, it would be FAR worse than you are treated here, they would likely be banned on day one. You on the other hand, are still 'welcome' here (if not by everyone) and have not been banned or hobbled that I know of.
Many find your 'preaching' insulting, which is why you get the replies you get. You know you are spreading unwanted proselytizing in a place it won't get much support, indeed in a place where it's unwanted by most. That is your right, I suppose, but because you do it knowingly, I feel little sympathy for you and the disputes you find yourself in, you put yourself there intentionally. No whining about it.

All that said, and as much as I disagree with your viewpoint, I would not like to see you banned or leave. It would be nice if you would show a less one dimensional personality and comment on non-religious topics in a non-religious way, but to each his own. I'll just say that you are incredibly unlikely to convince anyone here, especially by the methods you use, but you are free to try. We can always hit 'ignore' if we are bothered.

shinyblurry said:

I was clear from the beginning that I came to lend a Christian voice to the sift. I enjoyed videosift and had been using it for some time before I created an account. I registered an account specifically because of the number of anti-christian videos that I was noticing were hitting the top ten. I wanted to engage with the people here over the topic of Christianity because the sift was, and primarily still is, an echo chamber for the worldview of secular humanism. That's the way the sift likes it, and the sift is intolerant of any voice which challenges that viewpoint. Period, end of story.

There's nothing wrong with my coming to represent Christ, here. Have I utterly failed to do so? Yes, most definitely. However, it is up to me how I want to use this site. I have commented here almost exclusively on religious topics, either on my videos or someone elses it. Occasionally I will comment on a political video or something else, but usually only on religious topics. The point being is that, that is the way I have chosen to use this site. I don't run around and dictate to anyone else how they could or should use the sift, so why should I be singled out? I didn't cause any material harm to anyone, I wasn't off topic, I didn't flout the rules. I was on topic on the videos I commented on, and I brought a Christian viewpoint to the discussion. The sift, being inhabited primarily by atheists, agnostics and anti-theists, utterly rejects that viewpoint. It's not any different if I were to go to the comments section of any major website and say anything positive about Christianity. I would instantly get 2 to 3 comments mocking everything I said.

I stated in my post that I realized that bringing a Christian viewpoint to the sift would get me a lot of flak. I didn't always react well to that, and I acted like a jerk at times. I am sorry for that. I could have done more to build relationships here and I never put in the time. There is some truth to what you have said, that I brought the way I was treated on myself. But your rant is also a product of the simplistic and distorted lens that you view me through. I mean, you on one hand call my treatment here a persecution fantasy and on the other hand say I brought it upon myself. That's just intellectual dishonesty, pure and simply. The truth is, there was a concerted campaign to deny my participation on this site, and whatever you think the reason may be, it did happen.

As to the video, if this video was of a senior consultant from the Bush administration admitting that they systemically deceived the American people this would be #1 on the sift. You're deceiving yourself if you think that the reason this video is being suppressed is due to anything other than the ideological bent of the sift.

lurgee says...

Yo g, check it.


newtboy says...

What I call "good" is acting according to the golden rule...treating others as I would have them treat me. That means always honestly, even when it's uncomfortable. You don't need to know the 'truth' to not lie. It also means thinking before acting of the possible consequence to others as well as myself.
I agree, if thought crime is the same as real crime, I'm a terrible person, but I prefer to judge people's actions as I think it gives better insight to who they are.
If judged by the 10 commandments, I'm still hosed simply by not believing in the unbelievable. I would guess that if thought crime counts on that front, heaven is an empty, lonely place filled only with Asperger's sufferers and other abnormaly brained people, as those requirements are not possible for normal humans.
Moral perfection is an impossibility. What's morally perfect from one viewpoint may not be from another.
Your plane analogy doesn't hold water. Instead of jumping from a plane, I think it's more like being led, blindfolded and deafened, to a doorway, being told by dozens of people the differing things they are CERTAIN are on the other side of the door (but not one of them has ever seen it open) and deciding to trust one line of belief and putting that parachute on because your guy said you're on a cliff and need a parachute, but you might as easily be underwater and need scuba gear instead, then your parachute is a trap, or in space and it's just useless, etc.. Since there's no way to know what's beyond the door, many prefer to go unencumbered by anything, accepting it's likely there's absolutely nothing there, but ready for what may come. In the unlikely event that in the end there is a just god there judging my life, I feel I'll be fine unless ritual is more important than action. It's not a possibility I feel is likely.

shinyblurry said:

But what if the 'holy spirit' tells me clearly that I don't need to believe in any supernatural insanity to be a good person (which is the most important, and often missed lesson of religion)? Or that my 'heavenly reward' is in life, in knowing I'm a decent person to others, no afterlife required?
It seems that should be just fine, according to some scripture (not that I care about or believe in scripture) and should be enough to get proselytizers to let me be, but it's not.


It depends on what you mean when you use the word good. I'll venture that you are using a relative standard of good, but that isn't the standard that God uses. Usually, when we call ourselves good it is in comparison to other people. You might think, I've never raped or murdered, and I am certainly no Adolf Hitler or Ted Bundy, so I am good by basis of comparison. Yet, what God calls good is moral perfection, and everything that falls short of that He calls evil. His standard is an absolute standard, not a relative one, and so our relative standard of good is not good enough.

When people call themselves good, generally, what they really mean is that they have good intentions. In our hearts we want to do right and think good things about people, yet the reality is usually starkly different. If you examine yourself in the light of the 10 commandments, even just four of them such as do not lie, do not steal, do not covet, do not take the Lords name is vain, you probably find them that you've broken them hundreds if not thousands of times in your life. Jesus took the standard even higher and said that if we hate anyone, we've murdered them in our hearts, and if we look at a woman with lust we have committed adultery with them in our hearts. If our lives were an open book and people could see not only what we've done but also what was going on in our hearts, would anyone call us good? I can say for myself it would be an open and shut case.

This is why we need a Savior; we will be judged for what we do in this life and our goodness isn't good enough. That is why Jesus came; to pay the price that we cannot pay so that we can be forgiven for our sins and have eternal life. Whether you care about the scripture, think about whether you would ever jump out of a plane without a parachute. That's exactly what you are prepared to do by entering into eternity without Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

worthwords says...

If the best theory is a designer and we give up and go home then that's the most depressing dismissal of the human spirit ever.because it's simply not possible to consider that the diversity of life arose from an imperfect copying.
When the wind blows across a beach it leaves information about the direction and force in the rearrangement of billions of unrelated sand particles. Information is ubiquitous.

shinyblurry said:

There is no theory which can explain how natural selection gets you from non-life to life, to a cell with genetic information. Natural selection is therefore not adequate to explain the information in DNA. What we have observed is that information only comes from minds; therefore the inference to the best explanation is that which points to a mind, and therefore a designer.

enoch says...

look...at..you!
/giggles in delight

the path proceeds as understanding blooms.
loving wings of illuminated gossamer float on the sea of epiphany,
empathy and compassion emerge,
breaking the chains of egocentricity.
the lyric of truth enlightens the seekers path.

as the man pushes further...onward and upward.

and the watched becomes the watcher..once again.

namaste my friend.
namaste.

siftbot says...

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 3 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!


shinyblurry says...

I guess I should amend my comment by saying that the only reason I would vote for anyone at all is if I felt led by the Lord do it. If the Lord wanted me to vote for a Mormon, I would. I am not really too concerned about who appears to be running the country at any given time. You could have a born again believer in the white house and it won't make any difference if the country isn't serving God. We've been extraordinarily blessed by God and now we're spitting in His face. The only way we will escape judgment is if we repent.

2 Chroncles 7:14 if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

deedub81 said:

I just saw this comment from you from last year.

You do realize that all adult Mormon males are referred to as Elders, right? You realize that Romney doesn't speak for the church nor has he ever held a senior level position in Salt Lake City. What is the difference between a Catholic President and a Baptist President and a 7th Day Adventist President and a Southern Baptist President?

shinyblurry says...

I miss it too. It was fun and engaging back in the day.



Anyway, on to this topic.

Your definition of "God" makes him capable, uniquely among all things in the universe, of proving his existence to a human. (What about me? Don't I prove my existence to you by communicating with you? Or if I showed up in your neighbourhood and had a beer with you, wouldn't that prove my existence? What do you mean, "only God can prove Himself"?)

At the same time, my definition of human --and I hope you agree on this-- includes that humans can be 100% convinced of false things. There is plenty of evidence of this in the many religions and folk beliefs of the world, as well as in mental health documentation and police records. Agreed? Assuming yes, it is fully consistent with your experience then that you SB could be 100% convinced of a false thing. You, as a human, are incapable of telling the difference between 100% conviction of a false thing, and 100% conviction of a true thing. The proof of this is that you are human, and people exist who 100% believe things that are incompatible with what you believe, so it must be possible for a human to 100% believe something false.


Well, let me connect the thoughts in these two paragraphs. You certainly do prove your existence to me by communicating with me. If you showed up in my neighborhood and we had a beer together(i dont drink but i would drink one with you), I would come away being 100 percent certain that you exist. I'm fairly sure you will agree that my certainty about your existence would be justified. Does this 100 percent certainty about your existence mean I could 100 percent prove it to someone else, or even to myself? Certainly not. No matter what evidence I had, even a video tape, someone could say that I am really just sea turtle dreaming this and none of it is real. Is that plausible? Not even remotely, but I couldn't disprove that hypothesis using evidence, empirical or otherwise.

So I think the disconnect here is that you are equating 100 percent certainty with 100 percent proof. Yes, it is technically true I could be a sea turtle dreaming all of this, and I could never disprove that, but I am 100 percent certain that isn't the case. To believe otherwise would make rational thought impossible. Therefore rationality is impossible without first assuming you are capable of rational thought. I have to believe this even though I cannot necessarily prove it. This poses a problem for the atheist. Essentially, all an atheist can say is that "my reasoning is sound because my reasoning says it is"..which begs the question as to why the chemical soup in the brain of an exalted ape fizzing a particular way should be called rationality. Whereas I can say that I am rational because I was created in the image of a rational being, God. Both arguments do use circular reasoning, but the atheist argument is viciously circular.

So, this comes to my point about my belief in God. To me, His existence has been sufficiently proven to the point where I can claim complete certainty, just as if we hung out together I would claim complete certainty that you exist. There is no real difference there and in fact, God has provided me better evidence of His existence because He is with me all of the time. whereas you could only be with me some of them time. I cannot prove to you that God is with me, or that He runs my life, but it doesn't diminish the reality of what He has proven to me.

So I think this leaves you in the position of having to claim that we can be certain of nothing, but in actuality the argument is self-defeating because it requires you to be certain of something (that nothing is certain). It's just the same as trying to claim that only relative truth exists ("is that absolutely true?") Otherwise you will have to say there is a possibility my certainty is justified.

Maybe there are no gods, or maybe I simply am not perceiving your Yahweh while he chooses not to directly reveal himself to me. Both conditions appear identical from my point of view, and I am incapable of telling which is true, so long as I don't perceive Yahweh.

I agree, and think about this. When I got saved I quickly realized that I had been living in an information bubble my entire life. Living in secular culture, you get confronted with this illusion which makes it seem like you have your finger on the pulse of reality. You are consuming all of this information about where we are, where we are headed, where the culture is, the scientific advances, the dreams and aspirations of those who think like you, and you get this sense of being connected to what is going on in planet Earth.

But what I found out is that this is all just basically confirmation bias. I thought that because I had an extremely wide feed and a diversity of interests that my filter was very nimble and narrow and was just sloughing off all of the trivial and non-essential things, when in fact the filter was wider than the feed and I was staring into a hall of mirrors. When that happens it means you are actually just consuming everything that mostly confirms what you already believe, such as what television shows and movies you watch, and what music you listen to, and what books you read. People also tend to hang out with people who think like they do. The seeming diversity of secular interests is actually a very narrow band which reflects very little truth so you end up in a little bubble (which seems like a Universe).

Both of our experiences with direct communication with gods are consistent with both of our beliefs (me: no contact => there are no gods or just no contact yet; you: contact => there is a god or you're wrong because you're human). The difference is that I freely admit that either is possible, while you insist that your view is correct. Get it?

To you either could be possible, because both experiences look the same to you. Whereas, to me only one is possible because the two experiences are alien to eachother. When you look at me, you have no way to tell the difference because you see no difference, therefore you allow the possibility. If you allow the possibility therefore, it isn't necessarily wrong to think that I am justified in believing I am right.

As for what I've said about Yahweh, you must be confusing me with someone else. I have never said I don't want him to reveal himself. I once, on your recommendation, got down on my knees and prayed for it, remember? I really, really, really want to understand the human condition and the true nature of the universe. If that includes the fact that Yahweh actually is our supreme being exactly as described in the Bible I would be very upset to learn that (just as I would be upset to find that I had been sold into slavery), but if that were the case, I'd want to know so I could make informed decisions for my future.

Yes, you're right, I think I did confuse you with someone else. Sorry about that.

I believe you when you say you just honestly want to know the truth, even if that truth wouldn't be pleasing to you. I think it reveals a lot about your character and the way that you think. I admire that kind of personal integrity.

Just before I became a Christian, when I found out that Jesus is the way God has chosen for us, I was resisting it because I knew that it meant that I had to stop living for me. I knew I was going to lose my right to my own personal autonomy and would have to place it in the care and trust of my Creator. What I found out though is that what I thought was freedom was slavery, and that the slavery I thought I was signing myself into was the true freedom. When you are born again, God makes you a new person and sets you free from all of the bondage of sin, and your present condition and your past suffering. This is literal and it is transformative. There is a tangible weight that lifts from your shoulders the moment you accept Christ and your sins are forgiven. It is a weight that is bowing you down all of your life. Everyone has their own theory about where the weight comes from..such as other people, the government, or even religion as some atheists like to think..but the weight is a spiritual weight stemming from the judgment against your sin. People become slaves of many things because they promise to remove that weight, but the weight always remains in the end because only God can set us free from it.

I do remember that prayer. One of the ways that God reveals Himself is through the reading of His word. Would you be willing to take it one step farther and read the gospel of John? I'm sure you've probably read it before, but this would be specifically for God to reveal Himself to you in a way that you can understand and relate to. You could pray before reading it..God, I once prayed for you to reveal yourself to me..I am asking that you do that through the reading of this book. Please help me understand what is being said and use it to give me revelation of your existence. Then read through it slowly..perhaps a chapter at a time, and going over each verse until you understand what it is saying. Pray each time before you read for revelation. I feel the Lord leading me to tell you this so I believe God will honor it and guide you.

In any case, it is good to talk to you again. God bless.

messenger said:

I miss it too. It was fun and engaging back in the day.

Anyway, on to this topic.

messenger says...

I miss it too. It was fun and engaging back in the day.

Anyway, on to this topic.

Your definition of "God" makes him capable, uniquely among all things in the universe, of proving his existence to a human. (What about me? Don't I prove my existence to you by communicating with you? Or if I showed up in your neighbourhood and had a beer with you, wouldn't that prove my existence? What do you mean, "only God can prove Himself"?)

At the same time, my definition of human --and I hope you agree on this-- includes that humans can be 100% convinced of false things. There is plenty of evidence of this in the many religions and folk beliefs of the world, as well as in mental health documentation and police records. Agreed? Assuming yes, it is fully consistent with your experience then that you SB could be 100% convinced of a false thing. You, as a human, are incapable of telling the difference between 100% conviction of a false thing, and 100% conviction of a true thing. The proof of this is that you are human, and people exist who 100% believe things that are incompatible with what you believe, so it must be possible for a human to 100% believe something false.

Maybe there are no gods, or maybe I simply am not perceiving your Yahweh while he chooses not to directly reveal himself to me. Both conditions appear identical from my point of view, and I am incapable of telling which is true, so long as I don't perceive Yahweh.

Both of our experiences with direct communication with gods are consistent with both of our beliefs (me: no contact => there are no gods or just no contact yet; you: contact => there is a god or you're wrong because you're human). The difference is that I freely admit that either is possible, while you insist that your view is correct. Get it?

As for what I've said about Yahweh, you must be confusing me with someone else. I have never said I don't want him to reveal himself. I once, on your recommendation, got down on my knees and prayed for it, remember? I really, really, really want to understand the human condition and the true nature of the universe. If that includes the fact that Yahweh actually is our supreme being exactly as described in the Bible I would be very upset to learn that (just as I would be upset to find that I had been sold into slavery), but if that were the case, I'd want to know so I could make informed decisions for my future.

shinyblurry said:

Hey friend..I miss when you talked to me rather than snipe at me.

I've always told you that only God can prove Himself. I couldn't prove to you what God has revealed to me, but He could reveal it to you, and would, if you wanted Him to. What you have said many times is that you don't want Him to and you don't care. Well, God is giving you exactly what you want isn't He? Even still He'll be knocking on your door and I hope one day you will answer it.

hatsix says...

If only you knew the slightest bit about philosophy. But no, you have an understanding of what your religion says, which is *THEOLOGY*, not philosophy.

Proof: You attempt to 'prove' that empiricism, a 'theory of knowledge' that was ancient when his religion was founded, and is still considered an important pillar in modern philosophy and theology, is "false" in a self-referential statement.

In the entirety of civilization, in EVERY SINGLE ERA of man, the greatest thinkers have been consumed with empiricism... but unfortunately they lacked SB's supreme insight... too bad SB wasn't born 2500 years ago... he could have ensured that Aristotle didn't waste his time.... OH, and he could have warned Jesus about that bastard Judas.

shinyblurry said:

This is all given within the context of a materialistic worldview. If you believe matter is all there is, then yes, a spiritual reality is improbable. However, according to most physicists time space matter and energy began at the big bang. So, whatever created the Universe is transcendent of all of those things and not restricted by our limitations. A temporal being can never conceive of an eternal being. A material being cannot conceive of an immaterial being. Our senses are not the key to the door, they are the blinds that keep the sun out.

If you want to get philosophical, if you say that empiricism is the only source of truth, how do you test that idea empirically? To even begin testing something, you have already made certain assumptions (axioms) which cannot be proven empirically to begin with. That is the fundamental limitation of empiricism.

siftbot says...

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 2 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!


shagen454 says...

Shinyblurry,

You are invited to my house. I have a nice house, I will transport you with my Lexus SUV from the train station through the extinct volcanoes to my house where I will make you comfortable, bring your Bible keep it handy. Then I will give you a MAOI a natural substance and then I will give you another natural pill. These both have been used for many more thousands of years than Christianity has even been around.

Then you tell me what you see and feel. I assure you, you will not be saying demons, you will have no idea of how to describe what you are seeing except that you are feeling God and God is feeling you. You may even realize that there is no God but that is the only way you know how to describe it. Once you experience this, once again, something that has been around before most religions, then you can tell me your opinion. But, until you do, my door is open to you but your opinion is pretty much meaningless. I am a non judgmental person, I understand that you just do not know because you have not had this natural experience

shinyblurry said:

What you're doing when you take these drugs is that you're turning over control of your mind to demons. It may feel good and seem profound but in reality you are being programmed. I know that many psychonauts believe they are experiencing true freedom, but it is actually mental and spiritual bondage they are experiencing, being imprisoned inside an unreal construct with chains they cannot see.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Member's Highest Rated Videos