>> ^hpqp:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Neros name was Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus.

Bin Laden's name was Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden.
Why awe they twitewing so?

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^shinyblurry:
Neros name was Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus.

Bin Laden's name was Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden.


The point being that his full name doesn't add up to 666. Not only that but Neros original name was Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus. So arbitrarily picking out Nero Caeser as his name because it adds up to 666 and saying this is who John is talking about doesn't cut the mustard. This wasn't who John was talking about, because the man of sin has not yet been revealed. It was prophecy for the future, not for Johns present.

Neros name was Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus.

>> ^A10anis:
@ Shinyblurry's post starting with "Your welcome" (didn't quote the lot of it because i don't want that dribble being repeated below my post)

Your hypothetical story used to make a point about how you make yourself feel better was quite disturbing. Under the same logic you employed there.. if someone told you "kill 1000 babies" and all suffering would end for eternity, your story would only encourage an idiot to be a horrific murderer because of some deranged persons words.

Actually, the point of the hypothetical was to show the sloppy reasoning inherent in digging for treasure in a spot marked other than X.

>> ^A10anis:
You state "The only thing which is stopping you is pride.". No, it's the use of intelligence.
* It's not believing things because they make me feel better, or allowing me to think less because i can say magic did it.

So, how is you believing that you have a superior intellect to someone who believes in God not pride?

>> ^A10anis:
* It's the love of actually thinking about situations from a 'likely/unlikely true based on scientific reasoning' position, which is what drives human advancements forward.

Since there is no empirical evidence for or against Gods existence, how do you calculate how likely or unlikely His existence is?

>> ^A10anis:
* It's not naively thinking or pretending there are great things to learn from a disgusting book of prejudice, torture, fear and horror (i.e. kill your loved ones because you hear voices or let towns rape your daughters because they're of less value than a male stranger).

The bible, apart from the revelation of God, is a historical account of the actions of fallen men. Men who were sinners and sometimes did things which were morally wrong. That there was no effort to cover up those sins is a point in favor, not against.


>> ^A10anis:
* It's not believing claims that a book is an accurate account of history and the universe, when it gets the most basic things a God would know wrong, coincidentally these claims are just the way things would appear to a human's untrained eye (sun revolving around the planet).

If you want to address the accuracy of the bible, you must first accurately portray the bible. My guess is that you have only studied the bible through the lens of skeptics. Do you know the actual history of how this idea came about? The bible does not say the sun revolves around the earth, but it was interpreted that way by Claudius Ptolemy in the 2nd century. Claudius proposed a theory of geocentricity, which at the time, was far more accurate than the existing theory of heliocentricity, and he interpreted certain passages of scripture to support his assertion. These passages, specifically Joshua 10:12-14, and Psalm 93:1, do not teach geocentricity at all, but were taken out of context by Claudius and others to promote the theory.

>> ^A10anis:
* It's because the bible (unbelievable in it's own right), once claimed to be a book of literal truth, becomes more and more metaphorical as science stomps its way all over the human races ignorance of the universe reaching greater level's of understandings that are testable through mathematical predictions.

The scientific theories which contradict the literal truth of the bible, such as the theory of deep time, macro evolution, and abiogenesis, are not subject to empirical testing. You cannot prove these theories in a lab. They are inferences based on circumstantial evidence, and are not truly scientific. You must *believe* them, and real science is based on knowledge, not belief.

>> ^A10anis:
Quote "Yet, it wasn't evidence at all, it was simply what I preferred to be true.". Seems like not much has changed, except your preferences.

Your preaching is nothing more than the same unjustified crap that those who don't have facts to support them continue to make. IMO you've either given up on your critical analytical abilities, or you're a troll copy/pasting.. given how similar your sentences are to other preachers.

What changed is that I fairly investigated the claims of Jesus Christ, instead of dismissing them based on a superficial knowledge of Christianity. When I did that, I received supernatural evidence that they were true.

>> ^A10anis:
Christianity is a sacrificial cult, full of unsubstantiated claims.

Your gross mischaracterization not withstanding, how have you investigated the claims of Jesus Christ?

>> ^A10anis:
Jesus's so called miracles appear in many other religions, usually descriptively to the letter.

Have any actual evidence to support this claim? Be sure to include the original sources and not just the claims of skeptics.

>> ^A10anis:
Your beliefs come from a time where women were valued as little more than a discard-able possessions.

Galatians 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Scripture teaches that woman have the same value in the eyes of God as men do. God has assigned us different roles, but he shows no partiality between men and women.

>> ^A10anis:
And If your God did exist, then said God can go fuck themselves, as i have no desire to follow the direction and teachings of a psychopathic asshole.

I would suggest it is the distorted lens through which you see God that informs your negative opinion of Him.

>> ^A10anis:
PS: although I'm not censoring myself too much, it's not my primary intention to offend you (but don't care too much either), just can't stand how people spouting this type of content can think they 'should' be taken seriously.

Atheists rarely censor themselves when they speak to Christians. Nothing you've said here is unexpected. I do not take offense at what you said; on the contrary, I care about you as a human being made in the image of God, and I see you as being worthy of love and respect. My hope is that you come to know the love of Jesus Christ. You simply have no experience of God at the moment, but God is willing to show you He is there at any time. He loves you more deeply than you understand. Draw near to Him and He will draw near to you.

>> ^westy:

This is so retarded and idiotic.
but the comedic value redeems it
What adds to it is I bet Patrick Stewart is sat there probably thinking "oh for fucks sake I played other characters you know"
This is at comic-con. He's not there to talk about Richard III and I, Claudius.

"Rembrandt's Claudius Civilus tells us that the very greatest painting isn’t bound by time or taste, a reminder that if ever we should need it that eloquence doesn’t always come with a pretty face". FARK! Simon Schama and his wisdom never fails to leave me sitting here dumbfounded..

Derek Jacobi was brilliant in "I Claudius."

Hey, I wasn't intending to say in any way that this type of content is out-of-bounds for the Sift. And I agree on all points of slippery slopes of logical fallacy. I guess I was too lazy to express my personal distaste for exoskeletal gladiatorial combat, but didn't want to be a driveby downvoter with no explanation.

When I was a kid, I had a glass magnifying dome with a rim around the bottom that left a quarter inch gap between the bottom of the lens and the surface of the table, sealed on all edges. Two insects would enter and we would gleefully watch them tear each other's limbs off. I guess I feel bad about all the fun I had.

I will now wander over to the Mr. Fisk queue and see what there is for clickitys, by way of apology.

In reply to this comment by MrFisk:
In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Sorry for the downvote Mr. Fisk. Here's another one that I down-voted. There are lots of explanations as to why in the comments section.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Scorpion-vs-Black-Widow-Intense-sheesh

No offense schmawy, amigo, although I read through the entire thread and the primary argument against these type of videos seem to consist of nothing more than a slippery slope logical fallacy.

If A happens, then by a gradual series of small steps through B, C,…, X, Y, eventually Z will happen, too.
Z should not happen.
Therefore, A should not happen, either.

True, there are some who found this sort of entertainment truly offensive, and voiced there thoughts/opinions alongside their downvote. However, I checked the upvote count and felt I could garner more upvotes and close the gap between gold and bronze. Also, I found this to be entertaining myself and enjoyed sharing this vid with the sift. Furthermore, the other bug fight from this same japanesebugfights.com did not attract the negativity of the one which you mentioned, and that was the one I used as a comparison to measure if I were crossing the line. In conclusion, I vividly recall the account of a elephant vs. rhinoceros in the historical fiction I, Claudius by Robert Graves, and if there were a video of that, I would be delighted to post it here as well. FYI, the elephant won. To me, it would be more entertaining than soccer. Unless it were that soccer-basketball-like sport the Aztecs played were the losing team were executed. But then again my sense of humor is as twisted as a Texas tornado.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Sorry for the downvote Mr. Fisk. Here's another one that I down-voted. There are lots of explanations as to why in the comments section.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Scorpion-vs-Black-Widow-Intense-sheesh

No offense schmawy, amigo, although I read through the entire thread and the primary argument against these types of videos seem to consist of nothing more than a slippery slope logical fallacy.

If A happens, then by a gradual series of small steps through B, C,…, X, Y, eventually Z will happen, too.
Z should not happen.
Therefore, A should not happen, either.

True, there are some who found this sort of entertainment truly offensive, and voiced there thoughts/opinions alongside their downvote. However, I checked the upvote count and felt I could garner more upvotes and close the gap between gold and bronze. Also, I found this to be entertaining myself and enjoyed sharing this vid with the sift. Furthermore, the other bug fight from this same japanesebugfights.com did not attract the negativity of the one which you mentioned, and that was the one I used as a comparison to measure if I were crossing the line. In conclusion, I vividly recall the account of a elephant vs. rhinoceros in the historical fiction I, Claudius by Robert Graves, and if there were a video of that, I would be delighted to post it here as well. FYI, the elephant won. To me, it would be more entertaining than soccer. Unless it were that soccer-basketball-like sport the Aztecs played were the losing team were executed. But then again my sense of humor is as twisted as a Texas tornado.

No offense schmawy, amigo, although I read through the entire thread and the primary argument against these types of videos seem to consist of nothing more than a slippery slope logical fallacy.

If A happens, then by a gradual series of small steps through B, C,…, X, Y, eventually Z will happen, too.
Z should not happen.
Therefore, A should not happen, either.

True, there are some who found this sort of entertainment truly offensive, and voiced there thoughts/opinions alongside their downvote. However, I checked the upvote count and felt I could garner more upvotes and close the gap between gold and bronze. Also, I found this to be entertaining myself and enjoyed sharing this vid with the sift. Furthermore, the other bug fight from this same japanesebugfights.com did not attract the negativity of the one which you mentioned, and that was the one I used as a comparison to measure if I were crossing the line. In conclusion, I vividly recall the account of a elephant vs. rhinoceros in the historical fiction I, Claudius by Robert Graves, and if there were a video of that, I would be delighted to post it here as well. FYI, the elephant won. To me, it would be more entertaining than soccer. Unless it were that soccer-basketball-like sport the Aztecs played were the losing team were executed. But then again my sense of humor is as twisted as a Texas tornado.