The "explanatory power" of a teapot is irrelevant to my question. Do you believe in it or not? If not, why not? You are dodging the question, and it is painfully obvious why. You find yourself in the same position that Mr. Hitchens did, which is to prove a negative.

You can prove a negative. For instance, there are no US Senators who are muslims. Go to http://www.senate.gov/ to verify.

There is no reason to believe there is a teapot floating in space, but there is reason to believe that the Universe was created by a supreme being. Could there be one in space unknown to all? Sure, and I wouldn't unequivicably state that there are not. Perhaps some astronauts were having a tea party in outer space one day and the teapot floated off. If I did unequivicably state there were none, I would have a burden of proof, and that is why Christopher had to explain himself.

Explanatory power is entirely relevent to the question because you are trying to establish an equivilency between the question of Gods existence and the question of the existence of anything you can dream up in your mind. It is simply to try to trivialize the question to equate the idea of God, which can explain everything from the fine tuning of the physical laws, the appearance of design in biological systems, and the information in DNA, to teapots, unicorns, and fairies, which explain absolutely nothing.

When Christopher attested to the fact that he believes that God does not exist, the burden of proof was on him to prove that He does not. The reason he could not is because he had blind faith in this idea.

of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.

francis collins human genome project

I don't have faith in a self-creating universe, I just don't see evidence for an all powerful being. As soon as evidence for one appears, my views will change. This is not faith. It is, in fact, the opposite of faith.

So, you're an agnostic? I was once agnostic and did not see any evidence for God or Spirit, although I did not rule out His existence either. Let me ask you this..if Jesus is God, would you turn your life over to Him and follow Him?



>> ^botono9:
>> ^shinyblurry:
A flying teapot explains exactly nothing; it has no explanatory power. The idea of God does. Between evolution and special creation you have exausted all the possibilities. You have faith in a self-creating universe, I have faith that it was designed by an all powerful being. I see evidence of design, and since it is mathematically impossible it happened by chance, God is a far more plausible hypothesis according to the evidence
The "explanatory power" of a teapot is irrelevant to my question. Do you believe in it or not? If not, why not? You are dodging the question, and it is painfully obvious why. You find yourself in the same position that Mr. Hitchens did, which is to prove a negative.
I don't have faith in a self-creating universe, I just don't see evidence for an all powerful being. As soon as evidence for one appears, my views will change. This is not faith. It is, in fact, the opposite of faith.

It's a farce to think contemplating how large the universe has nothing to do with the grand design.

The Universe itself is only the tip of the iceberg - it's not nihilism, the truth is we do not know anything at all ; but the journey to continue on the path of real Truth by piecing it together is one of the more beautiful and meaningful aspects of life in a world so closed-minded, fearful & narcissistic. It is all in the eye-of-the beholder but know that no religion knows what the powers that be are... we will probably never even develop the senses to get anywhere close to understanding.

I am speaking to the pale blue dot theory that humanists rejoice in, to wave the size of the Universe around as a magic wand that erases the idea of any absolute truth, especially when it pertains to a belief in God. To say that our perceived insignificance in the face of the deep invalidates the idea that God, if He even exists, could possibly care about what is going on here.

It is to see through everything and thus see nothing at all, which is essentially what nihilism is. You say we can't know anything; well, the obvious question is, how do you know that? I agree, this existence that we have now is only the tip of the iceberg, but in the manner that it is a poor reflection of what is to come. The size of cosmos is infantesimal in comparison to the depths of the mind that created it. It is not the material that is interesting, it is the glory of that one who spoke it into being, to which the cosmos testifies:

The heavens declare the glory of God;

And the firmament shows His handiwork.

Day unto day utters speech,

And night unto night reveals knowledge.

There is no speech nor language

Where their voice is not heard.

Their line has gone out through all the earth,

And their words to the end of the world.

The temporal is only temporary, because time is running out. What we see now is a pale rendition of the actual, eternal reality. We are spiritual beings, and these are just clay vessels, dust and ashes. The things that are seen are all perishing; it is the things that are unseen which are eternal.

I understand atheism, I used to consider myself one. But, I think atheism gives itself too much credit in face of the vastness amount of possibilities / possible impossibilities we will never understand but could maybe to a finite degree, comprehend.

I agree and so does francis collins:

"of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God."

Well, philosopher, what I will say is that the only thing that matters is what the truth is. If you cannot define what the truth is, it is impossible to understand anything at all. And unless you are omnipotent, you cannot know that truth, but one who is omnipotent could reveal it to you. That is the only reason anyone can know what is true, because we heard from the One who was there at the very beginning. Now if you can admit the validity of special revelation, then you are one step closer to understanding where I am coming from.

This guy says it best "It's humongous big." True that, brother. Keep on spacin' out, it's the closest we will get to any sort of truth.

I think this is a lot closer:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,b but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.






>> ^shagen454

It most certainly is a leap of faith to say that there is no God, since you cannot disprove God. You have no evidence that God doesn't exist.

Since you say that you're using logic, and presumably you're a materialist, how do you account for the laws of logic in nature? Could you point to them for me? How do you account for the laws of logic in your worldview?

As far as science goes, why should we prefer empirical evidence as the best way of discovering truth? For science to be done, it must assume a little thing called the uniformity of nature. This is to say that the future will be like the past. Of course, there is nothing to guarantee this will be true even five minutes from now. The only way to justify this is by circular reasoning. It is no better than saying that God justifies God.

I can account for the laws of logic and uniformity in nature in my theistic worldview, how do you account for them in yours? The idea of the Uniformity of nature was a Christian idea which was that God made an orderly universe based on univeral laws and that we could investigate secondary causes to determine what those laws are. That is how science really got its start in Christian europe. You're welcome.






>> ^Drachen_Jager:
>> ^shinyblurry:
of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.
francis collins human genome project
Complete and utter B.S.
Everything we know about the Universe has been learned through the rigorous application of logic.
There is nothing. Literally nothing that we have gained any other way.
Now you're trying to tell me, that because I am using the deductive tools by which 100% of substantive knowledge has been derived I am the one using faith? Atheism requires no leap of faith. Only the rigorous application of the scientific method, intelligence and logic. Just because you cannot manage some, or all of the skills required to arrive at the correct conclusion does not preclude others from doing so. To believe such would be the worst kind of hubris.
I repeat, total and utter B.S. Shame on you for even mentioning it.

>> ^shinyblurry:

of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.
francis collins human genome project

Complete and utter B.S.

Everything we know about the Universe has been learned through the rigorous application of logic.

There is nothing. Literally nothing that we have gained any other way.

Now you're trying to tell me, that because I am using the deductive tools by which 100% of substantive knowledge has been derived *I* am the one using faith? Atheism requires no leap of faith. Only the rigorous application of the scientific method, intelligence and logic. Just because you cannot manage some, or all of the skills required to arrive at the correct conclusion does not preclude others from doing so. To believe such would be the worst kind of hubris.

I repeat, total and utter B.S. Shame on you for even mentioning it.

What you're doing is showing your faithiesm

of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.

francis collins human genome project

The difference between everything you mentioned and God as a concept is that the idea of God has explanatory power. The question of whether the Universe had intelligent causation is a valid question, and from what we know (that space time energy and matter had a finite beginning), the cause of the Universe would be immaterial, spaceless, timeless and transcendent. These perfectly describe attributes of an all powerful God. We also have evidence of design in the Universe and the fine tuning of physical laws. So, to rule God out as an explanation is simply ignorant. Between evolution and special creation, you have virtually exausted the possibilities of how life came to exist.



>> ^Drachen_Jager:
>> ^Morganth:
No, this just illustrates that you do not understand. If there is a god who created the universe, why then would he have to be wholly provable from inside of it? You're actually having to make a number of assumptions about the nature of god to make your claim.
If there is a creator god, we would not relate to him in the way that Hamlet relates to a character in another act of the play, but rather in the way that Hamlet relates to Shakespeare. He could not find him in the highest tower or prove that Shakespeare exists in the lab. Really, the only way Hamlet could ever know that Shakespeare exists is if Shakespeare writes something about himself into the play.
Seriously dude? Hamlet? That's not a person. He's a character in a play, your analogy is utterly useless other than to confuse the gullible.
I make no assumptions about the nature of God, you are the one who makes assumptions about the nature of God. You HAVE to make assumptions about the nature of God to make your argument work. I'm saying there is no God, so there are no necessary assumptions about his nature, since he doesn't HAVE a nature.
There is an infinitum of proposals you cannot prove to be true or false. Unicorns, wizards and dragons ruled the earth 2000 years ago. The Flying Spaghetti Monster created God. All the matching pairs of socks that go missing are stolen by sock-goblins. The proposal that God exists is, therefore only one in an infinity of unprovable junk. Unless you are prepared to believe that UFOs abduct people and mutilate cows and every other stupid theory people throw out there, you have no reason to believe the Universe was created by some kind of sentient being. One is just as likely as the other. If we believed in unprovable junk we'd never get anything done, the scientists would all be bogged down in nonsense and we wouldn't have iPods and personal computers. We'd still be banging rocks together.

I was sad when I realized that it wasn't Phil Collins' "Take a Look at Me Now".

People without good critical thinking skills can be misled to do stupid and harmful things (like voting for prop . Faith is synonymous with lack of critical thinking. Faith is a problem no matter how benign some of its practitioners currently are because they can more easily be misled by clergy, politicians, and hucksters.

Stupid people do stupid things, whether they are theists or atheists. Faith has nothing to do with it, and your idea that believing in a higher power is a suspension of critical thinking shows that you are intellectually satisfied with a stereotypical and superficial analysis, which itself shows a lack of critical thinking.

With over 90 percent of the world having some kind of faith in a higher power, and 93 percent of this country, you must think you're pretty darn special, considering that you must believe that the vast majority of people on this planet, and those who came before them, are inferior to you. Yet, you have more faith than anyone else. Here is a smart person to tell you about it:

atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.

francis collins human genome project

Christian theology is bullshit because the problem of evil is insurmountable.

You apparently don't know the difference between the logical problem of evil and the evidential problem of evil. They are separate issues.



Malaria was not created by free will. If there were a benevolent all-powerful creator, he would not have allowed Malaria to exist.

What about poisonous mushrooms? Should He allow those? Someone might eat one. Should He have allowed us to invent electricity, since people have been electrocuted? How about hang nails? Long lines at the grocery store?

Sin fucked up the world? Well, the creator would have had to create the magic that would cause the world to become fucked up when sin occurred. Malaria is necessary for the greater good?

Man screwed up the world. Sickness, disease and death are the consequences of sin entering into the world through man. None of it was necessary, but God is still capable of using it to achieve a greater good.

You just have a very imbalanced view here. You blame God for the bad but fail to notice the good. If there is anyone to blame for scourge of Malaria today, it is the apathy of human beings:

http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/preventive-care/malaria-prevention.htm

That makes your supposed creator about as 'benevolent' as Hitler who thought gassing Jews was necessary for the greater good. The god of the old testament is a genocidal megalomaniac, exactly like Hitler.

Hitler didn't send his son to die on a cross for your sins. God has His hand extended to you to pull you out of the fire at any time, but it's on you to reach out for it.

>> ^jwray:

People without good critical thinking skills can be misled to do stupid and harmful things (like voting for prop . Faith is synonymous with lack of critical thinking. Faith is a problem no matter how benign some of its practitioners currently are because they can more easily be misled by clergy, politicians, and hucksters.
Christian theology is bullshit because the problem of evil is insurmountable.
Malaria was not created by free will. If there were a benevolent all-powerful creator, he would not have allowed Malaria to exist. Sin fucked up the world? Well, the creator would have had to create the magic that would cause the world to become fucked up when sin occurred. Malaria is necessary for the greater good? That makes your supposed creator about as 'benevolent' as Hitler who thought gassing Jews was necessary for the greater good. The god of the old testament is a genocidal megalomaniac, exactly like Hitler.
It is pretty fucked up to believe in / worship this bloodthirsty megalomaniac without any evidence that he even exists.
Yes, church gives you a sense of community. That's fine. I still even go to a church event once in a blue moon to catch up with some old friends from 10 years of attending the same small Sunday school classes. But for fuck's sake, there are other ways to meet people and serve your community than through glorifying a fictional genocidal tyrant who wouldn't even deserve it if the bible were true.

It's natural that atheists proselytize, because atheism is a religion:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6034949/Atheism-Is-Protected-As-a-Religion-says-Court-

It has its own creation story:

"Thus, a century ago, [it was] Darwinism against Christian orthodoxy. To-day the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervour, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith."

Grene, Marjorie [Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, University of California, Davis], "The Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, Vol. 74, November 1959, pp.48-56, p.49

with its own miracles:

"Time is, in fact, the hero of the plot... given so much time the 'impossible' becomes possible, the possible probable and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs miracles."
George Wald, "The Origin of Life," Physics and Chemistry of Life, 1955, p. 12.

In which its adherants have total faith:

I have faith and belief myself... I believe that nothing beyond those natural laws is needed. I have no evidence for this. It is simply what I have faith in and what I believe.

Isaac Asimov
Counting the Eons P.10

I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible: spontaneous generation arising to evolution

George Wald - Harvard Professor
Nobel Laureate

They believe it even in the face of contradicting evidence

Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved.

Francis Crick Nobel Laureate
What Mad Pursuit p.138 1988

Much evidence can be adduced in favor of the Theory of Evolution from Biology, Biogeography, and Paleontology, but I still think that to the unprejudiced the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.

EJH Cornor, Cambridge
Contemporary Botanical Thought p.61

It provides a comprehensive belief system:

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideaology, a secular religion- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with its meaning and morality...

Michael Ruse Florida State University
National Post 5/13/00

Atheists know they are right no matter what:

No evidence would be sufficient to create a change in mind; that it is not a commitment to evidence, but a commitment to naturalism. ...Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it.

Steven Pinker MIT
How the mind works p.182

Even if they have to suppress the truth to prove it:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Lewontin, Richard C. [Professor of Zoology and Biology, Harvard University], "Billions and Billions of Demons", Review of "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark," by Carl Sagan, New York Review, January 9, 1997. (Emphasis in original)

"In fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won't fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feeling."

Erasmus Darwin, in a letter to his brother Charles, after reading his new book, "The Origin of Species," in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life of Charles Darwin," [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p215.

They are true believers:

of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.

francis collins human genome project

It won't be long before there are atheists churches and street preachers handing out tracks.

>> ^quantumushroom:

All too easy, Slapnuts.

Now deny it cause the stats don't come from SocialistWorker.org

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Drug use, rapes, murders and random deaths are in every camp, all the attendant chaos one would expect when socialists, anarchists, code pink commies and feed-the-flames libmedia descend anywhere. These protestors are not even 1% of the 99%.

Citation needed, motherfucker.



Idiots put all their links in an image, so you can't click on them and read the reports for yourself... hmm, I wonder why?? Oh, it's because there were no reported murders in the links! And no reported rapes in the links! Lesser events? Yes, a few. Completely unrelated events? Why, yes, several!

Here, for your reading pleasure, are all the links the right-wing crypto-fascist zombie airheads can come up with to marginalize the "dirty hippies" on the lawn:

Links originally from Pundit Press:

From Oregon Live: Primarily about a man who showed up at Occupy Portland, dismissed it as "an eyesore" and criticized its "lack of cohesion", and was arrested within days for starting fires. Also includes a few other accounts of minor drug posession, disorderly conduct, a weapons charge, and arrests of people for charges unrelated to the Occupy camp. Occupy Portland had a problem from near the beginning with homeless people joining the camp, and there were no services from the city or state to help them.

From Denver Post: A man who made an impassioned speech in favor of the Occupy Fort Collins camp was arrested as a suspect in an ENTIRELY UNRELATED arson charge.

From Gawker: A military veteran died of a self-inflicted gunshot, and the city used it as an excuse to halt all camping.

From Fox News: A "rash" of reports that consists of 1 accusation of sexual abuse and 1 accusation of sexual assault in Zuccotti park, 1 accusation of sex with a minor in Dallas, and 1 alleged sexual assault in Cleveland. Fox inflates this to "nearly a half-dozen" reports. The article also includes a number of unsubstantiated rumors of destructive behavior by Occupy protestors in various locations around the country.

From Komo News: A man accused of indecent exposure (completely unrelated to the Occupy movement) is arrested when spotted taking part in an Occupy Seattle protest.

From Redstate: Blantaly right-wing opinion piece which includes a number of links purportedly supporting the premise that the Occupy movement is full of criminals. The very first link is about the police entrapment on the Brooklyn Bridge. One of the links is the above piece from Komo News about an unrelated exposure charge. And another is about how Iran supports the Occupy movement (fear the boogeyman!).

From Reuters: This article is about the man shot by Berkeley police in a computer lab at UC Berkeley. No ties to the Occupy movement at all. But the Occupy protest was nearby, so it must be related, right???

From ABC News: A man is arrested for firing an assault rifle at the White House. He "may have spent time with Occupy D.C. protesters."

From The Daily Cardinal: Link broken; defaults to University of Wisconsin's Daily Cardinal homepage.

From New York Post: Article is about theives preying on the lack of security at the Occupy camp. Apparently all that police overtime is really helping...

So! All these articles, and they amount to... a few isolated issues that don't nearly account for all the numbers posted, and a couple of them are for unrelated charges where the person might have been caught in or near an Occupy event.

My overall analysis: Aside from QM being full of shit as usual, it's time to let the camps go. They made a splash, but now they are just being used as fodder for the right wing lie-machines. There are just too many unrelated crazies that come to the camps and interfere with the message. It's time to Occupy the polls, and put the energy into publicly supported legislation.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'commercial, advert, funny' to 'commercial, advert, funny, genesis, phil collins' - edited by Fusionaut

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Phil-Collins-Gorilla-Drummer-Cadbury-Ad

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Hybrid. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Remember kids, Minecraft and Phil Collins don't mix.

Genesis was one of those bands that made an impression on music as a whole.
Peter Gabriel had/has such a unique voice, and a great stage presence. Rutherford and Banks were amazing as well. The fact that they could reproduce their music so well live, shows their talent. Maybe I'm wrong, but i always viewed Phil Collins as a Yoko Ono element.
I first bought this album in 1973 and have worn out a few copies. I still get goosebumps when i listen to early Genesis.

>> ^hpqp:

Sigh. For a moment (when you edited your first reply to something less childish and insulting) I thought you didn't want to come off as a closet misogynist with the rhetoric of an angry tweenager... guess I was wrong.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^hpqp:
@Yogi
Yes, technically a "whore" is "a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse, usually for money;" but also "a prostitute or promiscuous woman: often a term of abuse" (Collins Engl. dictionary; the part in bold comes up in practically all the online dictionaries google presents when searching "whore dictionary definition", and the Oxford Dictionary classes this word as "derogatory").

But this is not about definitions, it's about use, and your reactionary response seems to betray the fact that you know this full well (which is perhaps why you chose to truncate the M&W definition of "whore").
Your comment that I originally responded to contained truth, and would have probably received a lot more upvotes if it hadn't been for the first phrase. My response, in any case, was not meant as a personal attack, but simply a "heads up" to the negative connotation that term carries.

Fuck Off.



You don't understand what Fuck Off means? It means I don't care whether you live or die...just FUCK OFF!