Please please please forgive me, but if Jillette has never smoked pot or drank iIN HIS LIFE... I just can't trust that constitution. I don't know what to say, do I think less of him? Do I distrust his motivations? Seems to me that any human who has never jumped off the wagon just to see what happens next can't relate to me, or pretty much most of the free thinkers I do relate to.

@spoco2

You THINK you know the truth of there even being a god, and you believe you know who this god is. But these are THOUGHTS and are not backed up by ANYTHING whatsoever. 2+2 = 4 is backed up by being able to SHOW it... you can take 2 beads, take another 2 beads, count them, and have 4 beads.

You cannot point at ANYTHING and say 'See, there's my proof that there is a god, he is the one in the bible, and that is true'.

If you prayed to Jesus Christ and sincerely admitted that you are a sinner, asked for His forgiveness and asked Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior, you would come to know there is a God. It is something which can be empirically verified.

And I said that it was fine for you to believe that there was one true god. Go right ahead and believe that you have found that 'truth'. It's your forcing of YOUR belief in this on others, this belief that cannot be shown to be true in any way. This belief of yours that a man who sleeps with another man is damned to hell forever and so should be feared and scorned is horrible.

If it's fine to believe that Jesus is God incarnate, then it is also fine for me to obey His commands, one of which is to preach the gospel. This is a fundamental right that every american has according to the first ammendment. Why should I be censored? You feel free to say what I believe is not correct. Why shouldn't you be censored?

A man who tells a lie, steals something, blasphemes the name of God, or looks at a woman with lust is on his way to hell. One sin isn't necessarily worse than any other sin; the wages of sin is death, and all have sinned. So the man who lies is just as guilty as the man who sleeps with another man. God cares so much about the well being of His Universe that He punishes all sin with eternity in hell. He cares so much about us that He gave His only Son to take our place in punishment, so we could be forgiven and have eternal life. Those who reject His mercy will have to face His justice.

My beliefs, those of science and observable phenomenon, do not say anything about how people choose to live their lives. My morals state that anyone is free to be with whoever they want to. They can live however they want, including believing in an invisible man in the sky with a long, flowing beard, as long as that way of living doesn't try to do harm to others.

You are doing harm to others. Mumford and Sons are not.

Many of your views may hide behind apron of true science, but I can guaranatee you that the presuppositions of your worldview are not based on empirical testing. As far as who is doing harm, if you saw someone in a burning building, would you not stop to try and rescue them? At least one atheist understands this:

http://videosift.com/video/Penn-Jillette-gets-a-Bible

Gah, I just can't like any of this guys videos. It's like he is trying to be Penn Jillette and just not pulling it off very well.

http://videosift.com/video/V-for-Vendetta-Are-You-Like-a-Crazy-Person

I have seen the results of other people testing it. Again, the scientific method intrinsically tests it for me, so I don't have to spend my life doing it.

I don't know that nuclear reactors actually work, I can't really test it because I don't have one available, but I think they do work, because I can see the results of them. Saying I have "faith" that they work, is misrepresenting what is actually going on.

>> ^longde:

The point is you haven't tested the results and the evidence.
It doesn't matter why or how or by what mechanism you have faith; you still have faith. Somehow, though, your faith is of more quality than someone else's. You reasoned out your faith, so it's OK.
"Assumption"? Let's not play semantics, here.>> ^gwiz665:
This is demonstrably false. "Taken on faith" is a huge misrepresentation.
We do not have faith in spite of the evidence, we have "faith" in the evidence. We can actually check up on it, we can even test them ourselves. If the results don't add up, one of our axioms (the stuff "taken on faith") might be false.
The entire scientific method rests on the fact that we can TEST our hypotheses, theories and the like.
I did a post on this earlier http://videosift.com/video/Penn-Jill
ette-An-Atheists-Guide-to-the-2012-Election?loadcomm=1#comment-1353716
Assumption is not the same as faith.
>> ^longde:
Whatever. Even atheists have faith. At least the ones that claim adherence to science.
Unless one has reproduced all scientific results and math proofs over the past hundreds of years, the efficacy of science and the honesty of scientists are taken on faith. This from an atheist trained as a physicist/engineer. There is nothing I have read about the scientific method that claims infallibility, but listening to alot of scientists (who should know better) and laymen atheists you would think it does.
edit: upvote for the discussion>> ^gwiz665:
Faith is the cancer of the mind, religion is just the outcome. The very essence of faith is to limit your curiosity, your search for knowledge and your very mind. I cannot abide by this.
I especially cannot abide by it when it is in people of power, like politicians.
It saddens me that smart, intellectual people are afflicted by this cancer, because it is such a damn shame that all they say have to be double-checked, because you cannot be sure whether it is actually founded in reason or in faith.
Faith has no value to me. Faith got us nowhere, reason got us to the stars.

The point is you personally haven't tested the results and the evidence.

It doesn't matter why or how or by what mechanism you have faith; you still have faith. Somehow, though, your faith is of more quality than someone else's. You reasoned out your faith, so it's OK.

"Assumption"? Let's not play semantics, here.>> ^gwiz665:

This is demonstrably false. "Taken on faith" is a huge misrepresentation.
We do not have faith in spite of the evidence, we have "faith" in the evidence. We can actually check up on it, we can even test them ourselves. If the results don't add up, one of our axioms (the stuff "taken on faith") might be false.
The entire scientific method rests on the fact that we can TEST our hypotheses, theories and the like.
I did a post on this earlier http://videosift.com/video/Penn-Jill
ette-An-Atheists-Guide-to-the-2012-Election?loadcomm=1#comment-1353716
Assumption is not the same as faith.
>> ^longde:
Whatever. Even atheists have faith. At least the ones that claim adherence to science.
Unless one has reproduced all scientific results and math proofs over the past hundreds of years, the efficacy of science and the honesty of scientists are taken on faith. This from an atheist trained as a physicist/engineer. There is nothing I have read about the scientific method that claims infallibility, but listening to alot of scientists (who should know better) and laymen atheists you would think it does.
edit: upvote for the discussion>> ^gwiz665:
Faith is the cancer of the mind, religion is just the outcome. The very essence of faith is to limit your curiosity, your search for knowledge and your very mind. I cannot abide by this.
I especially cannot abide by it when it is in people of power, like politicians.
It saddens me that smart, intellectual people are afflicted by this cancer, because it is such a damn shame that all they say have to be double-checked, because you cannot be sure whether it is actually founded in reason or in faith.
Faith has no value to me. Faith got us nowhere, reason got us to the stars.

This is demonstrably false. "Taken on faith" is a huge misrepresentation.

We do not have faith in spite of the evidence, we have "faith" in the evidence. We can actually check up on it, we can even test them ourselves. If the results don't add up, one of our axioms (the stuff "taken on faith") might be false.

The entire scientific method rests on the fact that we can TEST our hypotheses, theories and the like.

I did a post on this earlier http://videosift.com/video/Penn-Jillette-An-Atheists-Guide-to-the-2012-Election?loadcomm=1#comment-1353716

Assumption is not the same as faith.

>> ^longde:

Whatever. Even atheists have faith. At least the ones that claim adherence to science.
Unless one has reproduced all scientific results and math proofs over the past hundreds of years, the efficacy of science and the honesty of scientists are taken on faith. This from an atheist trained as a physicist/engineer. There is nothing I have read about the scientific method that claims infallibility, but listening to alot of scientists (who should know better) and laymen atheists you would think it does.
edit: upvote for the discussion>> ^gwiz665:
Faith is the cancer of the mind, religion is just the outcome. The very essence of faith is to limit your curiosity, your search for knowledge and your very mind. I cannot abide by this.
I especially cannot abide by it when it is in people of power, like politicians.
It saddens me that smart, intellectual people are afflicted by this cancer, because it is such a damn shame that all they say have to be double-checked, because you cannot be sure whether it is actually founded in reason or in faith.
Faith has no value to me. Faith got us nowhere, reason got us to the stars.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^shinyblurry:
You can test the claims of Christianity by placing your faith in Jesus Christ, and asking Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior.
And when he doesn't show, then what do we do?


Been there - Done that - Didn't work - Moved on and got a real life!

Okay, let's start over. I apologize if I was being dismissive of your viewpoint. Because you presume God doesn't exist, you imagine that people do pray fervantly to know God and never hear from Him. That people could go their entire lives fervantly praying to God and die without hearing one thing. So, when I say that people don't hear from God because their prayers are half-hearted, you are thinking that I have to believe that because to believe otherwise would impringe on my faith.

Yet, I don't have to believe that because of my faith, I believe that because I know the love of God. I have felt that love that He has for His children, and I know that it is His desire that everyone comes to repentance. I know God doesn't toy with people, and that He is never unwilling to change someones life. He is willing to accept anyone at any time. It isn't a game of cat and mouse, it is simply whether someone is willing to submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. People are stubborn and rebellious, their hearts are hardened and their minds are consumed with this world. This is the difficulty.

No, I don't consider your views less valid than mine. We all have the right to believe what we want to believe, and I don't believe myself to be superior to you in any way. The only reason I have anything is because of God and nothing that I did on my own. I was just making sure you understood that I am making a knowledge claim, that God exists.

I used be agnostic so I can appreciate your position. I didn't see any evidence for a Spirit either. I just want you to know that Jesus loves you, and He does want to touch your life. It doesn't have to be some day, it could be today. You don't need to wait, all that you need to do is place your trust in Him as Lord and ask Him to come into your life. God does answer prayers, especially that one. He loves you, this I know, so seek after Him. I will pray for you.

>> ^dannym3141

>> ^shinyblurry:

Someone who prays 6 hours a day is obviously not praying half-heartedly, but in your example she never hears from God. This is why I said you are clouded in your assumption because the example is reflective of your atheism towards God and not towards what we're discussing. As far as our positions go, you assume God doesn't exist. I know that He does exist. You can believe that I am deluded but this is a knowledge claim and not an assumption. If you don't want to reply to what I wrote, that is up to you, but I spent time writing it and I would appreciate that you would acknowledge what I said before we continue. Thanks.
>> ^dannym3141


Firstly, i do not know what you expect me to respond to in your post. Secondly, your post was based on the statement that my assumptions are clouded (which is unfair) and i thought you'd make another reply with that in mind. However i can see that you consider it fair to treat your opinions as more important than mine and therefore we must assume god exists, anything else is clouded judgement. I indirectly have the answer that i was looking for though; if god exists, he is not touching me through you today.

And i am always open to that happening, believe it or not. Maybe it will one day.

Thirdly, please do not assume that i am calling you deluded. Am i to assume you are calling me deluded to believe that he doesn't exist too?

Someone who prays 6 hours a day is obviously not praying half-heartedly, but in your example she never hears from God. This is why I said you are clouded in your assumption because the example is reflective of your atheism towards God and not towards what we're discussing. As far as our positions go, you assume God doesn't exist. I *know* that He does exist. You can believe that I am deluded but this is a knowledge claim and not an assumption. If you don't want to reply to what I wrote, that is up to you, but I spent time writing it and I would appreciate that you would acknowledge what I said before we continue. Thanks.

>> ^dannym3141

>> ^shinyblurry:

"God doesn't listen to half-hearted prayers," when xxovercastxx asked.
I find a related thought experiment disconcerting. I picture a child upset because god hasn't come to her. She is honest, kind, lives by the bible, but she has not felt the touch of God. She asks the religious men why and they say "god doesn't listen to half-hearted prayers." From that day on, she spends her entire life praying, for 6 hours every single day, waiting for the touch of god, yet never feels it. And on her deathbed she dies knowing that she has not been accepted by god, and will not see heaven.
How do you know whether xxovercastxx was being sincere or not? You're so quick to assume not. She/he could honestly and openly invite god into her/his heart every single day and never feel god's touch. Would you sit there over the child from before, telling her "no, still not sincere" as she wastes her life in god's service?
If such a person feels no touch, then they are either insincere or god does not exist.
Your story is clouded by all sorts of assumptions. You're working from the premise that God does not exist, so you don't expect anyones prayers to be answered. I know that He does exist, and that people fall away because they decided to go their own way instead of trusting God. A person who can walk away from God and totally reject Him just like that obviously did not have much love for Him in the first place. It's like being married to someone in a deeply committed relationship for many years, and then suddenly walking away from it because someone else gave you some flowers. Obviously, to these people, God was never personal, and was simply a tradition they followed.
What God wants is a total committment. A half-hearted prayer is seeking something from God and giving nothing in return. It is to be double-minded before God, and see Him only as the great ATM in the sky, who can fulfill your dreams of living a life without Him interferring in it. If you're unwilling to submit to the Lordship of Christ, I wouldn't expect to hear anything. This isn't to say God wouldn't answer even a half-hearted prayer, but you definitely shouldn't expect much when you give so little.
There may be millions of people that invite god into their heart every night.. some may even repent their sins for safety. In fact, i'm sure there are many people who identify as religious and feel like that. People who, unlike you, are not able to convince themselves that they feel god, but live religiously because they can't bear the alternative and desperately WANT to feel god.
Would you say that they are all insincere, every single one?
I fear the answer will be simply "yes." Anything else must surely make you question your faith, that god could ignore an honest soul asking for help?
I haven't convinced myself of anything. I was secular when God knocked on my door, and I wasn't even looking for Him. What I know is that religion doesn't get you close to God, and neither is it based on feelings. To know God is a personal relationship. It is based on love and trust. A person who is unwilling to change their life and serve God is probably going to be in a perpetual crisis of faith. A person who is willing to change, willing to humble themselves, will most certainly get an answer.
>> ^dannym3141


You say i am clouded in my assumption that goes does NOT exist. Yet you work from the assumption that god does exist. Are we not, in that respect, equally flawed? If it is a flaw in my argument, it must be a flaw in yours and i think that might be unacceptable to your point of view and certainly would require you to make a new reply to my comment in lieu of that. If it is not a flaw, then it can't be a flaw in mine surely?

Hopefully you'll be able to answer my question now we have that cleared up. I have a feeling you will extricate yourself from the responsibility of equality though, and you will say that the assumption of god existing is not flawed. Yet assuming god doesn't exist is flawed.

I'm a "just born once" atheist. I lack any form of faith in any creator gods, interfering gods or any other so-called "supernatural beings". There are things I do not understand, but I live my life based on what I think is likely, what I can prove myself (or demonstrate) and what I otherwise can observe in nature.

The central claim of the Christian faith is something that you can prove to yourself. If you believe Gods testimony that He raised His Son from the dead and you confess Jesus is Lord, you will be born again and receive the Holy Spirit. It is tangible and experiential. To know God is to know Him personally, and He gives you the evidence.

Gravity, I can prove myself - to a certain degree, and when testing it, the current theory does predict the result, so I think it's true.

You can think about morality this way. If you take a look at your life, you will probably see that you live as if there is good and evil, that an absolute moral law exists. Your conscience will tell you that much, before intellect even comes into it. Some things are right and some things are wrong. The whole world acknowledges this, and this points to an absolute moral law, which in turn points to a moral lawgiver.

Evolution is a little more tricky, because I can prove micro evolution myself with fish, and with basically all the animals we have bred artificially, cats, dogs, cows, chickens etc. Macroevolution is harder, for me as a layman, but I think it is likely, because it explains so much very neatly, and it predicts how things are now, it is also the natural conclusion of micro evolution.

This is what Darwin believed, and he expected to find the evidence for it in the fossil record. Except it wasn't there:

innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ..why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geologoy assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Charles Darwin
Origin of the Species

150 years later and it still hasn't appeared. You see, if you assume that all life has a common ancestor, then you have to believe that micro-evolution leads to macro. It's a just-so story. Darwin made a quantum leap of assumption when he extrapolated micro evolution to a common ancestor. He made a great discovery, but one doesn't necessarily lead to the other. The model of micro evolution is also compatible with special creation. Why should one be preferred when there is absolutely no evidence for macro evolution? Micro has even been demonstrated not to lead to macro:

natural selection, long viewed as the process guiding evolutionary change, cannot play a significant role in determining the overall course of evolution. Micro evolution is decoupled from macro evolution.

SM Stanley Johns Hopkins University
Proceedings, National Science Academy Science
Vol.72 p.648

They have been breeding thousands of generations of fruitflies and millions of generations of bacteria and never once have they created a new species. If macro is true, you have to ask yourself why there are limits they are unable to cross. Living fossils are another problem, creatures supposedly hundreds of millions of years old, and no change at all. They found a blue green bacteria (supposedly) over 1 billion years old, and it is exactly the same as it is today. The evidence all points away from macro. Fossils enter the record in stasis; they don't change.

God can't be observed, can't even be tested for. God also have no direct impact on the world, other than through his followers, and since he (she/it) is not his followers, the conclusion is that he probably doesn't exist.

If you can't even see the operations of atoms in the world, why would you expect to see the operations of God? The bible says that in God all things live and move and have their being. How could you observe that?

It is not that I have faith that he doesn't exist, it's just that I haven't seen anything to suggest otherwise. I have the same attitude towards Ghosts, Zombies and Unicorns. I would have had the same attitude towards Dinosaurs, because, come on, they're huge lizards, no way they exist! But the evidence suggest otherwise, fossils are real, they actually did exist, but not anymore, thus my earlier theory is demolished by the evidence, and a new hypothesis is formed, one backed by evidence.

It's good that you have an open mind. That's a rare thing in this world. If you don't prefer any evidence, but just want the actual truth, no matter what it is, then all is open to you. Jesus said, seek and you shall find, knock and the door will open. Take a leap of faith and ask Him what the truth is..ask Him for revelation. If He can't hear you, all you will have done is wasted a few minutes of your life.

>> ^gwiz665

So it may bring a little more light to your topic above. As I felt this was rather condescending and a personal attack to some degree(even though I am atheist), especially when it comes from someone who claims to have a spiritual connection to God, a good and moral person. There is only ONE Christian way, ONE true religion, and we are all an affront to the light and helpers of the dark. Those that don't hold these beliefs are Gods enemies.

The truth by its nature is exclusive. On the question of what 2 + 2 equals, there are an infinite number of wrong answers and one right answer. Does the fact that there are an infinite number of wrong answers diminish in any way the exclusive truth of the right one? Should we say because there are so many potential answers that there is no actual right answer? Obviously not, so why do you think it is any different for the question of God?

Matthew 12:30

Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

I take heavy stock only in science now. If there is a God it will wait till after my death for my attention--for to follow one here, I may in the end hurt someone. Like in your post above or in broader implications like homosexuality and various other randomly adhered laws and traditions (honor killings, suicide bombers and jihad, corporal punishment, suicidal group pacts, etc...) that consider some people a dangerous threat due to a religion's view.

Hebrews 9:27

And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,

You will not have that opportunity. After you die you will enter into the judgement of God. It is not something you can put off even for tomorrow, but you are not guaranteed tomorrow. You need to get right with God before you die, or you will face judgement for your sins.

Vincit Omnia Veritas, this Latin phrase sums up what I'm willing to follow the most and what I hope is actually true for most of us humans--a true philosophical debate. That is why science gets my attention above all others, philosophy for some moral quandaries and comedy to help in a lot of situations were the outright truth may not.

Only the truth can set you free. Everything else is dwelling in the vain imaginations of mankind.

/I did say I wasn't going to comment on @shinyblurry again, but I thought the way he responded to me was a prime example of a mental attitude towards those he may consider to be in the wrong and that it may give insight into your example above. It seemed almost misanthropic, but I certainly will not label shiny as such as that is up to the person to confirm; certainly not me.

I am telling you what the word of God says. I know that you see me as something else, and you can place any label that you like upon me, but my only intention is to share Gods truth.
>> ^kceaton1

"God doesn't listen to half-hearted prayers," when xxovercastxx asked.

I find a related thought experiment disconcerting. I picture a child upset because god hasn't come to her. She is honest, kind, lives by the bible, but she has not felt the touch of God. She asks the religious men why and they say "god doesn't listen to half-hearted prayers." From that day on, she spends her entire life praying, for 6 hours every single day, waiting for the touch of god, yet never feels it. And on her deathbed she dies knowing that she has not been accepted by god, and will not see heaven.

How do you know whether xxovercastxx was being sincere or not? You're so quick to assume not. She/he could honestly and openly invite god into her/his heart every single day and never feel god's touch. Would you sit there over the child from before, telling her "no, still not sincere" as she wastes her life in god's service?

If such a person feels no touch, then they are either insincere or god does not exist.

Your story is clouded by all sorts of assumptions. You're working from the premise that God does not exist, so you don't expect anyones prayers to be answered. I know that He does exist, and that people fall away because they decided to go their own way instead of trusting God. A person who can walk away from God and totally reject Him just like that obviously did not have much love for Him in the first place. It's like being married to someone in a deeply committed relationship for many years, and then suddenly walking away from it because someone else gave you some flowers. Obviously, to these people, God was never personal, and was simply a tradition they followed.

What God wants is a total committment. A half-hearted prayer is seeking something from God and giving nothing in return. It is to be double-minded before God, and see Him only as the great ATM in the sky, who can fulfill your dreams of living a life without Him interferring in it. If you're unwilling to submit to the Lordship of Christ, I wouldn't expect to hear anything. This isn't to say God wouldn't answer even a half-hearted prayer, but you definitely shouldn't expect much when you give so little.

There may be millions of people that invite god into their heart every night.. some may even repent their sins for safety. In fact, i'm sure there are many people who identify as religious and feel like that. People who, unlike you, are not able to convince themselves that they feel god, but live religiously because they can't bear the alternative and desperately WANT to feel god.

Would you say that they are all insincere, every single one?

I fear the answer will be simply "yes." Anything else must surely make you question your faith, that god could ignore an honest soul asking for help?

I haven't convinced myself of anything. I was secular when God knocked on my door, and I wasn't even looking for Him. What I know is that religion doesn't get you close to God, and neither is it based on feelings. To know God is a personal relationship. It is based on love and trust. A person who is unwilling to change their life and serve God is probably going to be in a perpetual crisis of faith. A person who is willing to change, willing to humble themselves, will most certainly get an answer.
>> ^dannym3141

shinyblurry, the flaw in your thinking is that somehow this Bible is a perfect work and completely true word of God, and yet there are so many different versions. You can't even come close to agreeing on the basic concept of what is God. How is your Trinity correct, but the Catholic church is wrong, and the apostles are wrong, but somehow YOU are correct.

The central truth of the gospel is what is important, and that is what has nigh universal agreement, throughout the church, and throughout history. That is, that Jesus Christ died for our sins, and through Him we are saved and reconciled to God. Anyone who believes that God raised Jesus from the dead and confesses that He is Lord will be saved.

The real problem with your nonsense is that a child molester who murders old ladies and is also a serial killer... just has to say a few words and poof, he is as pure and spiritual as you are. I'm not sure how that sits well with you.

The reason you have a problem with this is because you see yourself as a good person. Yet, the bible says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. If you only sin 5 times a day, by the time you are 70 years old you will have sinned over 100k times. There is no one good but God, and God doesn't show partiality between sinners.

>>You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only -- James 2:24

Only a faith that produces works is a justifying faith. A faith that produces no works is dead.

Also, Jesus likes to contradict himself even from the same author within mere paragraphs of one another:
>>If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. -- John 5:31
>>Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true -- John 8:14

John 5:32

There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is valid.

He is saying, if it were only Him that testifies, His testimony would not be valid. Yet, His Father also testifies on His behalf. Now let's look at the rest of John 8:14 that you ommitted:

John 8:14

Jesus answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going.

He is now saying that His testimony about Himself is valid, because He heard it from His Father, He told Him where He came from and where He is going. There isn't any actual contradiction, but just a lack of study.

>> ^joedirt