I cut out the words you don’t entirely agree with. The rest of my comment is all about our perception of you. That should be important to you if you think God wants you to talk to us and, one assumes, help us learn something. Right? Is that a consideration for you at all?

Sure, and I fully admit I have turned a blind eye to this in the past. I should have been more sensitive to peoples concerns than I have been. I'm sure I've wasted many opportunities with people here as Satan hoped I would. It's been a process of growth and maturity in my walk with Christ, and this will continue until the day I die.

If I decided it was my civic duty to start showing up at a certain church and talk atheism to the parishioners, I would expect resistance, of course. I would pay very strong attention to how people were reacting to me and what topics or phrases or types of argument were setting people against me, and see if I could understand their perspective and adjust the way I spoke to help them understand me more. In that scenario, my goals for being at the church are different from the parishioners' goals, and since their goals for being there could be fulfilled (perhaps better) by ignoring me and by my being quiet, I’m the one who has to make the effort if I want to engage them.

I agree with you here.

That’s what I meant by "uninvited". It doesn’t mean anyone requires an invitation to join the Sift, or that anybody expects you to leave. It means nobody asked you to come and explain the "truth" of things to us. Our goal here is to kill time, follow political stories, discuss topics of interest to us and generally enjoy ourselves. Your goal here, however vague, is different from our goals, and often in conflict with them. I was enjoying thinking about Feynman’s points, then you come in with your arrogant opener, "It's better to know the answer than remain ignorant of it." Read it again to yourself. How would you react? Take @Quboid’s initial comments seriously too. Don’t nitpick phraseology like "pushing people away from your belief." Look past what you disagree with and address the real content. It's respectfully written and a valid question.

Well, the difference here on the sift is that it is not by default a place for atheists to hang out. It's a place for anyone to hang out and share their videos and opinions. It just so happens it has attracted a lot more atheists than theists and so everything done on the sift is bent towards their worldview, including the videos and conversations. You're right that nobody asked me to come, but I didn't need an invitation either. If you look at any video on religion here, people feel free to speak their mind about Christianity and Christians but for some reason they take exception when I do the same. I understand what your argument is about and what you're saying, which I appreciate and recognize as being essentially valid, but your comment about being uninvited doesn't apply. Atheists run the sift but the sift wasn't created for them.

And I'm actually saying this selfishly because I do want to understand what you’re saying.

And FWIW, everyone sees everyone through a funhouse mirror, especially types we don’t have a lot of contact with and don’t understand. For us, yep, that’s you.

Yes, I see people through my presuppositions. My worldview is the biblical worldview. I do understand you because I used to be in your shoes. I'm sure some of you will say the same thing.

I can provide evidence for any claim I make, if you ask for it. Find the body of Jesus? Don't be ridiculous. How could we? And if someone found the body of Jesus, you'd use bogus science to claim we hadn't proven it to be his, just like you still use bogus science to claim the universe is less than 10,000 years old or that macroevolution is a myth. I routinely claim the Bible is falsifiable on its face, but every time someone falsifies it, you change the meaning of the words, claim it's a metaphor, or do some other dodge, like how you handled the discrepancy between an omniscient God and a God who is surprised to discover that Adam and Eve had eaten the forbidden fruit.

Now you're just using fallacious arguments. Why don't you present your very best argument as to what you think falsifies the bible and let's see if it holds any water?

In the example of God being surprised, it is you who are assuming God was surprised. The text doesn't say He was surprised, it only says He asked Adam and Eve what they did. Why do you think that means that God didn't know what they did? How many parents have you heard asking their children whether they did such and such knowing full well that they did do it? That's exactly what God was doing.

OK. Here's the most clear-cut contradiction I’ve come across in the Bible. The topic seems so petty it's almost embarrassing to use it, but compare Matthew 1:8-9 with 1Chronicles 3:10-13. They give incompatible lineages from Joram to Joatham.

The genealogy in Matthew 1:8-9 isn't meant to be a complete record. It is actually a style of writing in Hebrew which is more concerned with symmetry than accuracy. That is why there are 3 groups of exactly 14 generations. Matthew would have assumed that his audience would know the details he left out for the sake of symmetry.

You pulled this out of thin air. Are your answers here divinely inspired?

We can scientifically test for, find and measure the efficacy of self-prayer. It's only prayer for others that consistently has no measurable effect. Science can and does test and prove some prayer effective, so you can't hold that God will not be tested. I've just disproven that.

So I'll ask you again: considering that we can reliably measure the effectiveness of self-prayer, why can't we measure any effects from intercessory prayer on behalf of others?

I didn't pull it out of thin air. Scripture says do not test the Lord thy God. You haven't proven anything. God will not let you test Him with personal prayer any more than He will let you test Him through the prayers of others. Scripture says God doesn't answer prayers that aren't prayed in faith, so when you are praying just to test Him, you aren't going to get proof He is there. Although there is one test I think God will accept. If you prayed this prayer I think He would answer it:

"God....if Jesus is your Son and He really is the way....and if He really is everything the Bible says about Him....then I will follow Him"

>> ^messenger:
stuff

She was dogged in her determination to get her money back ... wonder if she's available to help me with my bogus early termination fees from Verizon for services that don't work for my needs =o/

@shinyblurry


My claim isn't "designed", it is simply the fact of what I believe. I don't modify it to escape someones inquiry. You like to make some bold claims about what it is, or isn't, but you never happen to back them up with evidence. As I told you earlier, it is falsifiable. You could prove it to be logically inconsistent. You could find the body of Jesus. You could disprove the major facts of the bible. You cannot claim it is unfalsifiable. The problem with your spoof deities is that they have no explanatory power. A flying teapot explains exactly nothing.

I can provide evidence for any claim I make, if you ask for it. Find the body of Jesus? Don't be ridiculous. How could we? And if someone found the body of Jesus, you'd use bogus science to claim we hadn't proven it to be his, just like you still use bogus science to claim the universe is less than 10,000 years old or that macroevolution is a myth. I routinely claim the Bible is falsifiable on its face, but every time someone falsifies it, you change the meaning of the words, claim it's a metaphor, or do some other dodge, like how you handled the discrepancy between an omniscient God and a God who is surprised to discover that Adam and Eve had eaten the forbidden fruit.

OK. Here's the most clear-cut contradiction I’ve come across in the Bible. The topic seems so petty it's almost embarrassing to use it, but compare Matthew 1:8-9 with 1Chronicles 3:10-13. They give incompatible lineages from Joram to Joatham.

If the newspaper is from August 1914 , it makes the whole story (and video title) bogus.

>> ^ponceleon:

So is it illegal? I'm not in any way defending her, just curious if it is somehow illegal... I mean, how would it be legally different than a street performer pretending to be a robot? Just to be clear: she's an incredible douche.
In NYC here are some nuances about public performances. I don't know all the specifics but it's something along the lines of you can't explicitly ask for money or donations. So I think cops could arrest her for something. But I think public shaming is a better punishment.

Almost every morning on the F train there's a guy walks through train cars with a cup, shacking it and asking for spare change. But he doesn't say he's homeless or hungry or anything like that. Just asking for money. He's dressed very nicely too, so it's not like he's in need.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

>> ^Porksandwich:
it's not much different than people who work the same job as you and complaining about not having enough money and need a few bucks over and over. Especially once you find out that they don't have kids or the majority of the expenses you do and probably spend their money getting drunk or pissing it away in some other fashion.
It's absolutely nothing like that.


Sure it is. It's someone who could keep 10 bucks in their pocket, like you do, to pay for their lunch/gas/etc rather than asking for money repeatedly. If they never pay you back, you've got yourself a beggar. Hell most people would give MORE money to a co-worker who asked than a beggar on the street, because they'd assume they'd get paid back.....which is not always the case.

Just a difference in scale, she's hitting dozens if not hundreds of people a day for a couple bucks. Co-workers who don't payback can hit the employee base only so much before people catch on, so they will make their rounds and space it out. Both usually include a sob story, money problems, or family problems.....as true as your imagination can make them from the little bit they feed you to get that cash out of your hand.

And it sounds horrible, but there are people who work making decent money who do this stuff for whatever reason....it's a game or they supplement their income enough to make it worthwhile, etc.

Hell there's a guy I know who was convinced one of his co-workers was hard up and kept giving this guy part of his lunch or money for lunch. The guy he was giving this stuff to was doing this to half a dozen people at least, worked the same job as the rest of them...making the same or similar money. Had less familial obligations than most and kept it up for a good long while...months and months. I wouldn't doubt he made half a day's pay on some weeks doing that crap...plus free lunches every day.

He may not be a beggar by the definition of the word, but he was still begging IMO which kinda.....makes him a beggar.

>> ^Porksandwich:

it's not much different than people who work the same job as you and complaining about not having enough money and need a few bucks over and over. Especially once you find out that they don't have kids or the majority of the expenses you do and probably spend their money getting drunk or pissing it away in some other fashion.
It's absolutely nothing like that.

>> ^ponceleon:

So is it illegal? I'm not in any way defending her, just curious if it is somehow illegal... I mean, how would it be legally different than a street performer pretending to be a robot? Just to be clear: she's an incredible douche.


Let's be clear. You're asking if fraud is illegal.

>> ^ponceleon:

So is it illegal? I'm not in any way defending her, just curious if it is somehow illegal... I mean, how would it be legally different than a street performer pretending to be a robot? Just to be clear: she's an incredible douche.


This also isn't fucking news. If you've ever been to a major city, Paris, Berlin, New York, LA, this is how it works! No ones forcing you to give money to people.

Um, Bill Nye? Do you think that astrologers are really unaware of the precession of the equinoxes?

What do you think that whole "Age of Aquarius" thing was about?

As any basic introduction to astrology--heck, the Wikipedia entry on astrology--will tell you, there are two different ways of calculating the signs: tropical and sidereal. Under sidereal astrology, your sign is based on the actual constellation. Most people who think of themselves as a Sagitarrius really will be a Scorpio under sidereal astrology.

Tropical astrology, the most popular form of astrology in the West, is on the other hand based not on the positions of the constellations, but based on the position of the sun at the equinoxes and solstices. The signs are named after the constellations that were present in them back in the day, but it's not as if the equinoxes occur at different points in the year than they used to.

Whether or not you think astrology is bogus or not, it's probably a good idea to at least read the Wikipedia entry on a subject before you criticize it.

I'm not justifying what the officer did, he's totally wrong, but I'm guessing arguing with the cop and being confrontational is why the biker got arrested and treated so poorly. Which doesn't mean cops can arrest people for being disrespectful, like I said, I'm not justifying.

- The officer gets out of the car and he's yelling, "What? What??", wtf kind of ghetto way is that of greeting a cop motherfucker? Unless he's looking for trouble though, then ok it's the right way.

- "I have not committed any crimes and you can't take my personal property", it's not up to the biker to decide whether he committed a crime and yes the cop can seize your vehicle if he arrests you, so why dare the cop to do what he knows he can do? Oh look he ended up doing what the biker said he couldn't!

- The cop asks for papers and he's like "technically, you're not allowed to ask for my papers if I haven't committed a crime", again, the biker doesn't know if he committed a crime, and yes the cop is allowed to ask for papers if you're driving a vehicle, maybe you can argue later in court?

- The cop comes back and says the 3 magic words, "You're under arrest" on some bogus charge, just accept that you're under arrest, trying to talk the cop out of it while ignoring his orders = BAD IDEA.

- He's under arrest and keeps yapping and being uncooperative, pointing out it's a bogus charge doesn't help because he's trying to shame the cop into letting him go, he's not leaving any room for the cop to save face.

I know we all want cops to be perfect angels that can take a lot of shit and abuse from people on a daily basis and not react emotionally, but guess what, they're flawed human beings like the rest of us. You wouldn't greet a waitress with "What? What??" and expect good spit-free service, would you?

>> ^Crooksandliars:

Leading demands for a revised strategy, French Socialist Francois Hollande, a reader of Krugman, tops President Nicolas Sarkozy in the polls with the warning that putting debt-cutting over expansion is “bringing desperation to people.” Elsewhere, Greeks are turning to anti-austerity parties, recession-wracked Spain and Italy are relaxing deficit targets, the Dutch government is splintering and European Central Bank President Mario Draghi is calling for a “growth compact.”
.


This attitude strikes me as totally bogus. We think the European voters are voting on macro-economic policy? They're throwing out governments because they're unhappy, and they're installing people who promise them higher spending because they like having the government that spends money on them. Italy and Spain aren't revising their deficit targets because of some new found economic enlightenment, they simply lack the willpower or competence to live within their means.

Maybe stimulative policies are better than austerity. I'm not an economist, so I don't know. What I do know is that voters and politicians haven't stopped being short-sighted.

what is with this bogus charade?

That's not what progressive means, in this context. A progressive tax system is one where you pay a (progressively) higher rate when you have more income.

The US Income Tax is a Progressive tax, exactly as you described and exactly what I said. Since our current tax code has the bottom 50% of wage-earners paying only 5% of the Income taxes, than that's a Progressive system. I nailed exactly what it meant. Whatever you're saying here sounds like a distinction without a difference.

I know that quite a few of your companies weasel their way out of paying any tax at all, but I don't know how many overall manage this.

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/accounting/papers/Hanlon.pdf

Yup. It happens. This particular study suggests that once a company becomes 'big', they find ways to jigger the system to the point where they are paying around 20%. Obama just dropped the corporate tax from a staggering 35% to a more realistic 28%. Hopefully that will make it so companies are compliant, rather than gaming the system to get around the "too high" rate that previously existed.

However, the real problem is in companies that are getting massive political payola. Every administration has companies like this. For Obama, it is sleaze-mongers like Immelt and GE who are pushing the bologna that is "Green Energy", which Obama likes - so he gives them so many tax breaks and subsidies that they paid ZERO taxes in 2011. Not to mention they also got massive subsidy payments on top of it. It is that kind of bogusity that ticks people off.

A reasonable corporate tax rate is fine. Set it at a decent level - say 22% - and get rid of the loopholes, subsidies, foreign incorporation, and all the other gimmicks. I dont' have a beef with "taxes" in general. I have a beef with taxes that are too high, and tax codes that encourage modern patronage.

Women agree that this is a War on them or haven't you checked the poll numbers for women

It would be more accurate to say that LIBERAL women agree with these LIBERAL pundits that there is some mythical GOP "war on women". The so-called poll you reference is a single poll conducted by ABC was oversampled with LIBERAL women. The overall numbers show Obama having no significant lead (49 to 45 = insignificant) among women.

Still in denial?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_04082012.html

901. Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as (a Democrat), (a Republican), an independent or what?
Democrat Republican Independent Other (vol.) No opinion
4/18/12 34 23 34 5 3

Now - you tell me... Does 34% Democrats, 34% "Independants", and 23% Republican sound like any sort of representative sample? This poll's results were 100% unadulterated bullcrap, and they were used deliberately to reinforce the false claim that the Democrats are desperately peddling about this bogus, completely farcical "war on women". The whole "War on women" is a line of leftist propoganda that is being used as a distraction to try and talk about anything EXCEPT Barak Obama's record of failure, incompetence, and the REAL "war" in America, which is Odumbo's war on the economy with his stupid moron idiot policies.