The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

I wouldn't call her the ugliest woman. Actually I find women that are unkempt/unhealthy (read dirty/morbidly obese) are far less attractive than her. If she were able to fix that one wonky eye, I'd even put her on the 12-pack list. 12-pack of IPAs but 12-pack nonetheless

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Auger8.

Think my first was an Anchor Steam or Liberty Ale~Love me some Stone IPA

You've done some nice cherry picking here. Sepacore, my hope in this conversation is that you will be intellectually honest to address the substance of the arguments, rather than trying to find some angle to make your point so you can *avoid* addressing the substance. I don't think that is too much to ask.

My point exactly.
Therefore to call it 'evidence' rather than 'subjective experience' is an at best misleading if not false claim, as the term 'evidence' used in conversation with others generally refers to something provable to others.

To say something like "I had a subjective experience that is evidence to me" would be fine, as it has a buffer around the term to denote that 'evidence' in this case is in no way substantial or transferable to others, i.e. not evidence to others and can be discarded.. and any line of poetic words can not change this.

Jesus made a claim, that if I put my faith in Him, He would send me the Holy Spirit to supernaturally transform me, and live within me. If that happens, it is objective evidence that His claim is true. You may have other theories as to why it happened to me, or that it happened at all and I am simply deluding myself, but something has happened, and I have changed. Whether it is subjectively experienced, it can be objectively observed in my life. I am a different person, and those in my immediate family and circle of friends have certainly noticed it.

Let's look at the definition of evidence:

ev·i·dence
   [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing.
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

As you can see, not all evidence can be empirically tested. Personal testimony is sufficient to send people to the electric chair in our court system. My personal testimony, and the testimony of billions of others, does count as evidence. This is all beside the point:

If you understand the above point (one you made yourself), then you may agree that those who 'require evidence' (regardless of what some guy poetically said), can not genuinely accept your use of the word 'evidence' as having the same value as what now has to be refereed to as 'actual evidence' for clarity after the term has been devalued to host a non-transferable personal experience (i.e. not evidence to others), and therefore swapping out this term for a personal 'reason to believe' is not only required for more clearly followable terminology within a conversation but is more accurate in general discourse of 2 opposing views.

You have completely ignored the entire point of my argument, and it seem you deliberately left out the key part of what I was saying:

"but it is something you can test on your own"

I am not telling you, I experienced God so believe in God on that basis. I am telling you that Jesus made a claim which you can empirically test. You have constantly objected that there is no empirical evidence for God, yet you have failed to validate whether this is true. You have merely assumed it is true, through many other lines of reasoning, except the one that would, if the claim was true, produce any results. Again, Jesus said directly that you would have no experience of God outside of going through Him, and your experience directly matches His claim; No have no experience of God. You assume its because there isn't a God, which is natural to assume, but Jesus said it is because there is no way to even approach God or know anything about Him except through Jesus.


Re Jesus said, Jesus said etc

The notion that one would give another great tools/resources like logical processing, rational thought and critical thinking and then put forward a reward of 'subjective experience based evidence' only achievable by those that disregarded such 'gifts' enough so as to have a chance of achieving this form of evidence is absurd.

If there is a God, then you are using none of these tools correctly. If you've ever read the book "flatland", then you can understand how two dimensional creatures would consider the possibility of a 3D world illogical and irrational. Thus, so does a materialist consider the spiritual reality to be illogical and irrational. This is why I say atheism is a religion for people who have no experience of God.

The bible anticipates your argument and your skepticism:

1 Corinthians 1:18-22

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Men have always taken great pride in their intellectual accomplishments, yet none of them have ever given even one shred of revelation about Almighty God. The wisdom behind the cross is much higher than this worldly wisdom, and it in fact proves it all to be vanity and foolishness, but the world cannot see that, because it is wise in its own eyes:

Romans 1:22

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

No offense taken as you've missed the point. Firstly there is a difference as i do not claim to 'know' that God doesn't exist. I claim to have 'reasons to believe' that it is unlikely. Knowledge of mental deficiencies, emotions, subjective experiences, experience recognition mental softwares and the way humans make mass assumptions to quickly gain degrees of understandings of any/every situation alone take me right up to that hairsbreadth away point. Whereby it can take time and effort explaining to people the difference between agnostic (don't know/care), agnostic-atheist (don't know, doubt it) and atheist (believe not), I'm happy to wear the tag as a generality in non-specific and non-in-depth discussions.

However I'm aware that a God identical to your claims 'could' be hiding in the shadows just outside of human detection and actual evidence as the religious coincidentally claim to those who request proof (yet then in the same breath can state 'but I have personal evidence'.. yes, seems convenient and unlikely).
Just like I'm aware that there 'could' be a 700 story tall pink dragon that farts rainbows named Trevor that simultaneously exists and doesn't exist inside both of my kidneys without being split into 2 parts..
Or someone 'could' prefer their beliefs enough to unknowingly and automatically do mental acrobats around anything that would disrupt them including acknowledging that their position is unsubstantiated outside of a mind that wants to believe (this is in fact what can occur when someone suffers from a delusion).
Debating possibilities is a waste of time, whereas debating probabilities is where you might actually get some results or at least supportable reason to belive.

I'm not talking about probabilities. Jesus was a real person, and He made claims. These claims can be tested.

As far as the difference between God and trevor goes, one has explanatory power and one doesn't. Neither does anyone believe in trevor; he isn't plausible. He isn't even logically coherent. No one believes in flying tea pots, and flying tea pots don't explain anything. God does explain something, and in many cases, is a better explanation for the evidence, such as information in DNA and the fine tuning of our physical laws. Asking whether the Universe was intelligently designed is a perfectly rational question and there is evidence to support this conclusion. Do you know that 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians believe in a personal God? I am not appealing to an authority here, but I think this statistic shows that people trained in science do believe that the evidence points towards God.

understanding of stellar evolution is actually very primitive

The arguments relating to 'we don't know everything yet' is not a basis in which to claim 'X is just as, if not more so, likely to be true'. Claims require their own 'evidences' to support them. Pushing ideas onto people requires 'transferable evidence' and just because there is a question mark at a stage whereby most other aspects of a theory hold true enough to be accurately predicted during tests, does not reflect on another theory being more likely but may indeed reflect on another theory as being less likely.

Again, this is just cherry picking and I think you have lost track of the thread, or you don't want to follow it. You said that part of your skepticism about God creating the Universe was that we understood things about stellar evolution, which is to say we don't need to invoke God as an explanation. I pointed out that not only is our understanding primitive, but even if it were perfect, how does that rule out a Creator? You are confusing mechanism for agency. The stars didn't create themselves, the laws that govern the cosmos caused them to form, and ultimately the laws that caused them to form also had an origin. You have to explain the agency before you can say you don't need God to explain something.

I won't reply much to this as it merely shows that you're already geared to ignore actual evidences that would support the idea of the universe not requiring a God (note that this readiness to disregard facts is what occurs within delusions so as to keep degrees of stability withing fantasized worlds).

I can just as easily say this:

And I won't reply much to this as it merely shows that you're already geared to ignore actual evidences that would support the idea of the universe requiring a God (note that this readiness to disregard facts is what occurs within delusions so as to keep degrees of stability withing fantasized worlds)

Although we haven't figured everything out yet, we've only had about 400 years worth of good studying and scientific thinking on the matter of a 13.7 billion year old case... how much can you honestly expect us to know definitively when so much of our combined time goes towards supporting notions that can't actually be proved?

I don't, and therefore, I wouldn't expect you to say that what has been described actually proves anything one way or the other.

Yes I know that humans must make assumptions so as to figure things out, in fact it was one of the if not THE main focus of my previous post.
Could you ask your question if their wasn't uniformity in nature? No. The fact that there is, is what allows for those that can question it to arise. Our mere being here says nothing as to whether there is a God, in fact nothing in science thus far (to my knowledge) says anything as to whether there IS a God, however some things do say as to whether or not a God is required.

So what is the experiment that proves science is the best method for obtaining truth if you have to assume things you cannot prove to even do science?

Our being here doesn't prove there is a God, necessarily, but we should be surprised to find ourselves in a Universe that is so finely tuned for life.

Scripture (your one and others) say a lot of things, some things vaguely, somethings specifically, and some things contradictorily (Google 'bible contradictions' for examples), but most of all, it says things poetically somewhat like a manipulating salesman whose product you're not allowed to touch, until you've handed over the money. Scripture also doesn't say things as well as some writers over the years could have, but hey it's only the word of God.. I'm interested in things outside of scripture, things that are testable, things that are comparable to an alternate source than where they came from.

You're cherry picking, and dodging the substance, and now even the point of the argument. You were agreeing with Sageminds contention that if God is perfect, then He is also perfectly evil. I pointed out that scripture describes God different, and I also gave you a logical argument outside of scripture for it:

It would be less perfect for God to be a mixture of good and evil versus being perfectly good.

Do you have a response to that argument?

Cheap shot: proof please. I require it in order to respond to the statement & question.
Na just kidding I don't expect any proof for these claims, just like I can't provide you any proof about Trevor.. * whispers: because Trever doesn't actually exists *. In these cases we'll just dismiss each others unsubstantiated claims until the other provides either evidence or acceptable reason to believe said claims.

It's your claim that God does evil in the bible, and so I am asking you why, hypothetically, is it wrong for God to take a life? Since we're talking about the God of the bible, He is the creator of all things, and so has ultimate responsibility over His creation. He is responsible for every aspect of your life, and has the say over your continued existence. Therefore, what makes it wrong for Him to take life just as He gives and maintains life?

Conflict.

Christian claim: God gave humans free will and allows them to use it whereby they will be judged in the afterlife.
Christian claim: God may affect the world in your benefit if you pray (or as your hypothetical, affect the world against you if you're naughty).
Christian claim: God exists outside of detection.
Christian claim: God can do anything.
Christian claim: God.
Christian claim: God is mysterious / we can not understand the will of God
Christian claim: God likes X, God doesn't like Y.

Or to summarize: God exists outside of known existence and has the ability to create and destroy anything without exception.
This is the result of human intelligence evolving to the point of getting one of our psychological survival drives (hope) to an indisputable peak of performance.

My point is that believers over time have given themselves so much wiggle room, when we start talking about 'why God X, why not Y, can God Z' etc, then we enter the realm of imaginative flexibility where the desperate and delusional can simply change the variables of what they want to use regardless of the conflicts, and ignore any logical positions by getting caught up on their preferred ideological technicalities while rejecting other physical or metal technicalities or proofs.

Again, this is a hypothetical scenario involving the God of the bible. It's your claim that God has done evil, so you can back it up with a logical argument? I've outlined a few scenarios and asked you if God would be evil for doing any of those things. I am not talking about mysterious ways, I am talking about specifics.

I have to say 'proof please' again. The words of 1 source (the Bible) are not good enough, evidence requires testability and multiple sources of confirmation. Too much imagination and you can slip away from reality.

Again, we are speaking hypothetically of a scenario you engaged in; "how would you react if the God of the bible showed up at your door". You said you would react in such and such way, which is unrealistic considering how the God of the bible is described, which is what I pointed out to. Based on your modified understanding of the God of the bible, do you think you would react the same way?

Would have replied sooner, but was busy and then D3 launched =D

No problemo..take your time? How is D3?

>> ^Sepacore

>> ^Ryjkyj:

Eh, if he might be right at the limit, then I say good for him for exercising his rights. In a system where there's not a sliding scale, and a person who is legally unconscious from alcohol poisoning is punished in the same way as a one-hundred-ten pound person who might have had a stiff IPA with dinner, you never can be to careful.
Most of the time, if a cop wants to bust you, they can generate probable cause easily enough. Or just take you back to jail and hold you overnight for no reason.


In every country, I've ever been to DUI laws relate to blood alcohol level, which varies according to build. So a big guy could have a few beers and be fine, but a small woman might be intoxicated after one glass of wine (nothing sexist, merely a function of body mass).

Most laws I'm aware of have penalties that increase relative to BAC.

So I don't really think your point stands.

And if he's "right at the limit" he shouldn't be driving. If you're not sure, don't drive. BAC limits are pretty generous anyway. I've been reasonably drunk and still tested as a pass*

The guy's an absolute dick, being rude to cops for no reason other than to be an ass.

* obviously I wasn't driving. This was on a pub breath testing machine, so not sure of the accuracy.

Eh, if he might be right at the limit, then I say good for him for exercising his rights. In a system where there's not a sliding scale, and a person who is legally unconscious from alcohol poisoning is punished in the same way as a one-hundred-ten pound person who might have had a stiff IPA with dinner, you never can be to careful.

Most of the time, if a cop wants to bust you, they can generate probable cause easily enough. Or just take you back to jail and hold you overnight for no reason.

I must concede that there certainly is controversy on the definition of what "atheism" means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Definitions_and_distinctions

On, among other details, the negative/positive we're arguing for here. I suppose "Atheism" is too broad a word nowadays to be able to narrow down - this is a problem, because it causes confusion in both adversaries and proponents.
>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm sorry but the dictionary disagrees with you:
a·the·ist   /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

>> ^gwiz665:
False.
Atheism is a negative position, not a positive one. It makes no claims as to what is, it only says what is not. It is "no belief in X" not, "belief in no X".
>> ^shinyblurry:
atheism denies the existence of a deity. to say you lack belief is an autobiographical statement of your psychology and has nothing to do with the question of whether God exists. If you want to say you don't know, you are an agnostic.
>> ^HaricotVert:
Quote-mining a mischaracterization of atheism. How trite. Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity, not "I believe that no god exists." There is a subtle but important difference.
The concept or existence of a god is precisely not excluded from the realm of possibility. The arrogance of assuming that for some reason every atheist is a "gnostic atheist" who just "doesn't understand" or is "closeminded" to the idea of god is ridiculous. Provide us with scientific evidence, or the messiah appearing at the superbowl (per Maher's rant) and I would be more than happy to reevaluate my current logical position in light of new evidence. To do otherwise would be a violation of the very science and reason I already live by.
Here is a handy chart to clarify the distinction between gnosticism and theism.
>> ^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

I'm sorry but the dictionary disagrees with you:

a·the·ist   /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
noun

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.


>> ^gwiz665:
False.
Atheism is a negative position, not a positive one. It makes no claims as to what is, it only says what is not. It is "no belief in X" not, "belief in no X".
>> ^shinyblurry:
atheism denies the existence of a deity. to say you lack belief is an autobiographical statement of your psychology and has nothing to do with the question of whether God exists. If you want to say you don't know, you are an agnostic.
>> ^HaricotVert:
Quote-mining a mischaracterization of atheism. How trite. Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity, not "I believe that no god exists." There is a subtle but important difference.
The concept or existence of a god is precisely not excluded from the realm of possibility. The arrogance of assuming that for some reason every atheist is a "gnostic atheist" who just "doesn't understand" or is "closeminded" to the idea of god is ridiculous. Provide us with scientific evidence, or the messiah appearing at the superbowl (per Maher's rant) and I would be more than happy to reevaluate my current logical position in light of new evidence. To do otherwise would be a violation of the very science and reason I already live by.
Here is a handy chart to clarify the distinction between gnosticism and theism.
>> ^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

From Wikipedia: Hasidic Judaism or Hasidism, from the Hebrew חסידות—Ḥasidut in Sephardi, Chasidus in Ashkenazi, meaning "piety" (literally "loving kindness",[1] IPA: [ħɑsiduθ], [χɑsidus]), is a branch of Orthodox Judaism [...]


I lolled.

(a copy of the messy comment above)

A collection of verses from the Qur'an about unbelievers

A person's beliefs about life (and afterlife) have a huge effect on how they live and perceive the value of other people's lives; it is nothing like blaming school shootings on violent video games, unless you assume that the shooters actually believed they lived inside a videogame.

The Qur'an, Islam's founding text, makes it quite clear that
a) The unbeliever will burn in hellfire forever (e.g. 4:56)
(nothing new here, M's recycling the holy texts already in existence)
and b) the unbeliever must be killed if he does not accept Islam (4:89), either by God or "or at our hands" (9:52); only Islam can exist on earth (2:193).
See this article on the history of Jihad and martyrdom in Islam.

Of course, the majority of muslims, like any other group of human beings, aspire to live their peaceful lives, etc. The difference between Islam and Christianity or Judaism, apart from its youth, is that it is founded upon a character and his book that are highly impervious to the effects of secularization. While the Bible is an edited compilation of transcripts written by several authors over centuries, the Qur'an was written by one warrior general in the space of his lifetime; questioning any part of the book's infallibility puts the whole faith in question, a risky thing when you read what the book in question has to say about non-believers. (I could go on, but really, Harris says it so much better than me in "The End of Faith" ...for free!).

But you want evidence, so here are a few things to ponder, in relation to what the Qur'an, and thus Islam, has to say about the topics in question. (Keeping in mind that Mohamed did not invent the barbarities that the book contains; they were contemporaneous, he simply enshrined them as the "infallible" word of God. Also: Mohamed's life, as transcribed in the Hadith, is considered a role model).

Honour killing: women considered property of men (see s.4:34) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_hon
orkilling_2.html
Honour killing: adulterers should be killed anyway, no?
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/07/24/2003180222

Because of sharia law's stance on adultery, it remains a crime in several Islamic countries
(sharia law is for the most part copied from the Torah/OT; in Islam, adultery is one of the worst sins/crimes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zina_(Arabic) ):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery#Criminal_penalties

Also, denouncing rape can get you jailed... for adultery:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=7943698

homosexuality: illegal in 75/195 countries; 32/48 Muslim countries. In 8 countries it is punishable by death... under sharia law, of course (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, Sudan, Nigeria, la Mauritania and Somalia).

Condoning slavery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_slavery#Slavery_
in_the_contemporary_Muslim_world

forced marriage of minors: what Islamic doctrine/scholars say: http://muslim-quotes.netfirms.com/childbrides.html
women protest age limit laws: http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=88589
more statistics on child brides (once again, the problem did not stem from Islam, but is upheld by it... Mo+Aisha): http://marriage.about.com/od/arrangedmarriages/a/childbride.htm

Apostasy and human rights: http://www.iheu.org/node/1541

Of the 126 designated terrorist organisations, 73 (60%) are religious, 65 (51%) are Islamic extremists. To compare, the second highest ranking terrorist-fueling ideology, communism, has only 21 (17%) groups. Jihad anyone?

Government report on link between Koranic schools and terrorism: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21654.pdf

Of the 17 "Significant Ongoing Armed Conflicts of 2010", only 5 are not marked by religious ideologies (only 2 if communism is counted as a religious ideology). Eleven of these conflicts involve Islamists, who are either trying to instate an Islamic theocracy (in accordance with the teachings of the Qur'an), or they are fighting Muslim governments that are considered not "Muslim" enough.

A collection of verses from the Qur'an about unbelievers

A person's beliefs about life (and afterlife) have a huge effect on how they live and perceive the value of other people's lives; it is nothing like blaming school shootings on violent video games, unless you assume that the shooters actually believed they lived inside a videogame.

The Qur'an, Islam's founding text, makes it quite clear that
a) The unbeliever will burn in hellfire forever (e.g. 4:56)
(nothing new here, M's recycling the holy texts already in existence)
and b) the unbeliever must be killed if he does not accept Islam (4:89), either by God or "or at our hands" (9:52); only Islam can exist on earth (2:193).
See this article on the history of Jihad and martyrdom in Islam.

Of course, the majority of muslims, like any other group of human beings, aspire to live their peaceful lives, etc. The difference between Islam and Christianity or Judaism, apart from its youth, is that it is founded upon a character and his book that are highly impervious to the effects of secularization. While the Bible is an edited compilation of transcripts written by several authors over centuries, the Qur'an was written by one warrior general in the space of his lifetime; questioning any part of the book's infallibility puts the whole faith in question, a risky thing when you read what the book in question has to say about non-believers. (I could go on, but really, Harris says it so much better than me in "The End of Faith" ...for free!).

But you want evidence, so here are a few things to ponder, in relation to what the Qur'an, and thus Islam, has to say about the topics in question. (Keeping in mind that Mohamed did not invent the barbarities that the book contains; they were contemporaneous, he simply enshrined them as the "infallible" word of God. Also: Mohamed's life, as transcribed in the Hadith, is considered a role model).

Honour killing: women considered property of men (see s.4:34) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_honorkilling_2.html
Honour killing: adulterers should be killed anyway, no?
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/07/24/2003180222

Because of sharia law's stance on adultery, it remains a crime in several Islamic countries
(sharia law is for the most part copied from the Torah/OT; in Islam, adultery is one of the worst sins/crimes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zina_(Arabic) ):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery#Criminal_penalties

Also, denouncing rape can get you jailed... for adultery:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=7943698

homosexuality: illegal in 75/195 countries; 32/48 Muslim countries. In 8 countries it is punishable by death... under sharia law, of course (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, Sudan, Nigeria, la Mauritania and Somalia).

Condoning slavery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_slavery#Slavery_in_the_contemporary_Muslim_world

forced marriage of minors: what Islamic doctrine/scholars say: http://muslim-quotes.netfirms.com/childbrides.html
women protest age limit laws: http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=88589
more statistics on child brides (once again, the problem did not stem from Islam, but is upheld by it... Mo+Aisha): http://marriage.about.com/od/arrangedmarriages/a/childbride.htm

Apostasy and human rights: http://www.iheu.org/node/1541

Of the 126 designated terrorist organisations, 73 (60%) are religious, 65 (51%) are Islamic extremists. To compare, the second highest ranking terrorist-fueling ideology, communism, has only 21 (17%) groups. Jihad anyone?

Government report on link between Koranic schools and terrorism: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21654.pdf

Of the 17 "Significant Ongoing Armed Conflicts of 2010", only 5 are not marked by religious ideologies (only 2 if communism is counted as a religious ideology). Eleven of these conflicts involve Islamists, who are either trying to instate an Islamic theocracy (in accordance with the teachings of the Qur'an), or they are fighting Muslim governments that are considered not "Muslim" enough.

edit: html's not working, so this looks like crap. sorry, i'm too tired to rearrange right now.


>> ^SDGundamX:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/hpqp" title="member since July 25th, 2009" class="profilelink">hpqp
You repeated his speaking points and provided no evidence to support them and then insinuated that I know nothing of Islam's teachings to boot. You've clearly learned from your teachers (Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens) quite well.
Show me some evidence please that shows that Islamic followers are more likely to cause harm to fellow human beings than others. By evidence I mean an empirical study that controls for other factors that include but are not limited to: education, income, regional cultural factors (other than religion), and local political systems (or lack thereof as the case may be, for example in countries such as Somalia).
And no, you didn't correct that for me. It doesn't matter their stated reasons for committing the violence. People who resort to violence do so for a complex array of reasons. I dispute the notion that people commit violence soley "because of their religion" any more than school shootings occur "because kids play violent video games."

According to the dictionary, atheism is a denial or disbelief in God.

reference.com
a·the·ism   /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled
[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

cambridge
atheist
noun /ˈeɪ.θi.ɪst/ n [C] Definition
someone who believes that God or gods do not exist

websters

Atheism
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

So go ahead and argue with the dictionary. I know what an atheist is..and I also know what an agnostic is because I used to be one. I would suggest that atheist propaganda isnt a good source of information to bring to an argument and that maybe you should figure out what the meaning of something is before you correct someone else.


>> ^mentality:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Atheism takes a stance, which is that God does not exist. It's the agnostic that says he doesn't know. Don't you even know what you believe? All I've ever told people is this..that there is plenty of evidence to believe that God exists..however, my testimony isn't necessarily going to be good enough for people..which I why is tell them to seek out the truth themselves. I have told anyone who has honestly inquired that God will reveal Himself to anyone who dilligently seeks Him out, as He directly promised. This is not about me and never was. I don't have any motive other than doing what the Lord commanded me to do. The conversation never turns around here though, its mostly a blanket wall of denial and dogmatic assertion. I don't have any trouble speaking or appealing to the deeper thinkers..its the shallow know it alls that can't hear anything.

You make the fundamental mistake of not understanding the term Atheism.
Atheism is the lack of belief of God(s), not the belief of no god. Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God is unkowable. So one can be an agnostic atheist.
You also make another fundamental mistake of misusing the term evidence. You may feel your "evidence" is enough to sustain your faith, but that doesn't give it the rigor to be considered evidence in a scientific sense.
Frankly, when you complain of others' hubris and denial, while misusing terms and bringing up theories that you clearly don't understand, you make yourself look bad, and make people of faith look bad. Faith is a private thing, and doesn't need someone so poorly educated as you as its champion.

Since you asked, I'll tell you why I believe in God. Up until 8 years ago I was agnostic. I was raised agnostic, without any religion. We celebrated Christmas and Easter, but that was about it. I wasn't raised to like or dislike religion, I was simply left free to decide what I believed.

At the time I became a theist, I didn't believe in a spiritual reality, or any God I had ever heard of, because like most of the people here I saw no evidence for it at all. I actually used to go into christian chat rooms and debate christians on what I saw to be inconsistances in the bible. A lot of what people have said in this thread are thoughts that I once had and arguments I used to use myself.

Then one day it all changed. I guess you could say my third eye was opened. I had something akin to a kundalini awakening, spontaneously out of nowhere. When it was over, I could suddenly perceive the spiritual reality. I didn't quite know what I was looking at, at the time..didn't truly understand what had happened to me (though through intuition i understood the great potential of it). It was only after researching it online and finding out about the chakras did I start to understand.

It's an amazing, truly truly amazing thing to find out everything you know is wrong. It is really utterly mind blowing. This however, was the conclusion I was forced to immediately reach however, because the evidence for it was right in front of my face. Everything that I had known up until the point I could perceive the spiritual was missing so many essential elements that I may as well have been just born.

I started to receive signs..little miracles, I would call them..like stepping in front of a vast panarama of nature and suddenly seeing it at an angle impossible to human sight, where everything is in focus at the same time, that produced such startling beauty it filled me to overflowing with estatic joy. I started to perceive there was a higher beauty, a higher love that had always been there but I had somehow missed it. I started to get the point, that there was something more. That there was a God.

When I conceded it was possible, to myself, it was then that I started to hear from Him directly. He let me know a couple of things, and proved to me that I wasn't just imagining Him. He showed me that He had been there my entire life, teaching me and guiding me as a child on, only I had been totally unaware of it. He showed me how we "shared space", and that not only could He read my mind, but in some essential way that He was what my mind is. That He is mind itself. He showed me how my thought process was more of a cooperative than a solitary thing.

Now before you say I just jumped at all of this because everyone wants to imagine a loving God, etc etc..untrue in my case. When I first found out He was definitely real, i was scared shitless. Up until that point, my thoughts about God were all negative. I figured if He did exist He probably hated me. You see, that is what I had gleaned growing up in a Christian society without actually knowing anything about it.

At this point I became a theist. I thought of God as a He because He seemed masculine rather than feminine, and also I thought of Him as the Creator. I didn't know anything about the bible, or the Holy Trinity, or what a messiah was, or any of that. I thought the God I knew must not be generally known because I had never seen anything out there that pointed to a loving God.

For the next 6 yeears I was on a spiritual journey. I studied all the various belief systems, spiritual or otherwise, all the religious history..east and west, north and south. I studied philosophy and esoteric wisdom, gurus and prophets. The one I really hadn't studied though, was Christianity. The reason being I didn't believe Jesus actually ever existed so I dismissed it out of hand.

Before I knew anything about Christianity, God taught me three important things about who He is. One, He taught me His nature is triune, that God is three. I didn't understand what that meant precisely, I just knew that was His nature. He also taught me that there was a Messiah. He taught me that there was someone whose job it was to save the world. The third thing and most important thing He taught me was about His love. That He loved everyone, and that He secretly took care of them whether they believed in Him or not. He showed me His perfect heart.

What led me to the bible was this: I asked Him who the Messiah was and He told me to look in a mirror. At the time I had been away from civilization for a few months and my beard had grown out for the first time in my life. I hadn't seen a mirror since I was clean shaven. I sought one out and when I saw my reflection I couldn't believe my eyes. I looked *exactly* like Jesus Christ. I mean to a T.

It was then I was forced to accept the possibility that Jesus was real. To be honest, I really didn't want to. I felt like I had a really special relationship with the Father and that Jesus could only get in the way of that. I didn't even feel like I could pay Him any real respect, because I knew the Father was greater than He was. But, I couldn't ignore what He was showing me, so I started to read the bible. To my surprise, I found out it was about the God I already knew.

Everything I read in the bible matched what I already knew about God . The Holy Trinity matched His triune nature. That there was a Messiah and Jesus was it. And most of all His love, His great and majestic love, for all people, was perfectly laid out in ways I had never before comprehended. The bible was the only information on Earth that accurately described what I already knew about God. That is how I knew it was true from the outset.

So that's when I became a Christian. I couldn't ignore the evidence. My journey to Christianity was based on rationality and logic, believe it or not, albiet with miracles and spirituality mixed in. Even the miracles themselves were logical, as God showed me how He worked from a meta-perspective, and that time and space didn't restrict Him at all. So there you have it..an interesting testimony to be sure.

I am unusual in that I didn't come to God on my own. God chose me, I didn't choose Him. I might never have come to God if He hadn't. I found out later that this means I was elected..in that, before God made the world He had already planned to create me to do His will. After He woke me up it never really took much faith to believe in God because He demonstrated to me His amazing power and ASTONISHING intellect in ways that were impossible to refute. Whatever brick wall I would put up, He would smash it down into oblivion. He favored me because I stayed hungry. I knew the truth was knowable, and I gunned for it 200 percent. I would have died for it.

So I empathize with the people here. Some of you might actually be elected too, it just is not your time to know. Some are probably angry/scared/rebelliious, while still others are intellectually incurious and swayed by hyperbole. I'm pretty sure not many people here have actually read the bible. I hadn't either..I was simply arrogant at the time.

So what I would say to people here is..there is far more going on than seems apparent..if you don't believe at least that there is a spiritual reality, you're practically rubbing two sticks together. God definitely exists and will prove it to you if you humble yourself, come to Him in sincerity, with your total heart and pray. Admit you're a sinner, and ask Him to be your Lord and Savior. Anyone can know God is real. I wish I had read it earlier..would have saved me a hardship. Save yourself the trouble and find out the truth for yourself, that God is real He loves you. God bless..



>> ^TheSluiceGate:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, according to the dictionary:
dict.org
Atheism \A"the ism\, n. [Cf. F. ath['e]isme. See Atheist.]
1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or
supreme intelligent Being.
merriam-webster.com
Definition of ATHEISM
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
a·the·ism   /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled
[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
dictionary.reference.com
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
The definition of atheism is very clear; the belief that there is no God. If you don't really believe that, IE .0001 percent, then you're not an atheist. You can't just reinvent the definition so you have no burden of proof. That .0001 might as well be 99 percent for all the difference it makes. Personally, I think the definitions people are trying to use today for atheism are extremely intellectually dishonest.

The problem here, as MaxWilder suggested, is that arguing about what the word atheist means is just semantics. We could both quote dictionaries until the cows come home, but it would make no difference to the central argument. It's for reasons like this that other new terms such as "rationalist" or "humanist" are being coined all the time as a way of distancing traditional atheism from the word atheist itself. I realise now that me trying to clarify the manner in which many people commonly define their lack of a belief in a god is actually quite pointless. I'm even going to disregard that you didn't respond to the reason why it doesn't take faith to be an atheist. This thread needs to be brought down to brass tacks.
Let's simplify the central point here, the central point of both the video you posted, and of all the arguments in this thread: Can you give one reason why you , shinyblurry, personally believe that there is a god? Just your one best argument for a god's existence.
For my part, and in the interest of fairness, I will tell you briefly how I arrived at being an atheist. (You can comment on this separately if you wish, but please, not before addressing the above question!)
I was about 13 years old when, as a child brought up a catholic and attending weekly mass, I began to question the morality of the god described in the bible. I looked at the atrocities he committed and asked myself what I would think of a real flesh and blood person alive today who behaved in the manner of the actions attributed to him in the bible, and whether or not this person would be worthy of the praise and admiration heaped upon him. This central idea led to an increased questioning of all the aspects of the religion I had been brought up in, and an awareness that although there were many great ideas and philosophical truths in catholic teachings, there was no conclusive proof either in the bible, or in the world in general, for the existence of a supernatural god of any kind.
So if you, shinyblurry, were recording a video in the style of the one that you have posted, what would you be saying on camera was the one central reason for your belief?

>> ^shinyblurry:

Well, according to the dictionary:
dict.org
Atheism \A"the ism\, n. [Cf. F. ath['e]isme. See Atheist.]
1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or
supreme intelligent Being.
merriam-webster.com
Definition of ATHEISM
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
a·the·ism   /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled
[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
dictionary.reference.com
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
The definition of atheism is very clear; the belief that there is no God. If you don't really believe that, IE .0001 percent, then you're not an atheist. You can't just reinvent the definition so you have no burden of proof. That .0001 might as well be 99 percent for all the difference it makes. Personally, I think the definitions people are trying to use today for atheism are extremely intellectually dishonest.


The problem here, as MaxWilder suggested, is that arguing about what the word atheist means is just semantics. We could both quote dictionaries until the cows come home, but it would make no difference to the central argument. It's for reasons like this that other new terms such as "rationalist" or "humanist" are being coined all the time as a way of distancing traditional atheism from the word atheist itself. I realise now that me trying to clarify the manner in which many people commonly define their lack of a belief in a god is actually quite pointless. I'm even going to disregard that you didn't respond to the reason why it doesn't take faith to be an atheist. This thread needs to be brought down to brass tacks.

Let's simplify the central point here, the central point of both the video you posted, and of all the arguments in this thread: Can you give one reason why *you*, shinyblurry, personally believe that there is a god? Just your *one* best argument for a god's existence.

For my part, and in the interest of fairness, I will tell you briefly how I arrived at being an atheist. (You can comment on this separately if you wish, but please, not before addressing the above question!)

I was about 13 years old when, as a child brought up a catholic and attending weekly mass, I began to question the morality of the god described in the bible. I looked at the atrocities he committed and asked myself what I would think of a real flesh and blood person alive today who behaved in the manner of the actions attributed to him in the bible, and whether or not this person would be worthy of the praise and admiration heaped upon him. This central idea led to an increased questioning of all the aspects of the religion I had been brought up in, and an awareness that although there were many great ideas and philosophical truths in catholic teachings, there was no conclusive proof either in the bible, or in the world in general, for the existence of a supernatural god of any kind.

So if you, shinyblurry, were recording a video in the style of the one that you have posted, what would *you* be saying on camera was the one central reason for your belief?