@shinyblurry

I cannot prove to you that this has happened to me

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.

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.

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.
For this irony to be the foundation to salvation, God would have to be a smartass of an asshole. This is not a sane, righteous or respectable approach given that most humans adopt their parents religious beliefs and are therefore largely disqualified given the amount of pressure some religious people put on family to remain loyal to that which they were born into.

A point that they still have a chance of finding your God has truth to it despite whether your God is actually real as we can't discount the subjective realness of delusions, but to make such a claim is to discount the difficulties and almost impossibilities in some cases due to lack of legitimate opportunity.


If you are that close to being an atheist, what is the practical difference? To maintain a hairbreadth of uncertainty so as to hold the "intellectual honesty" card is actually intellectually dishonest I think, no offense. I don't think being certain and being a hairsbreadth away from certainty is really much different.

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.


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.


Even if scientists understood this perfectly, what does that actually prove?

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).
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?


Did you know that scientists must make fundamental assumptions, such as a uniformity in nature, to even do science? Can you answer why there is a uniformity in nature?

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.


Scripture says differently

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.


For instance, God is the giver of life. He gives everyone a body and soul, air to breathe, water to drink, and He even upholds the atoms that comprise your being. Life is only possible because of what God is doing for you in this very moment, and every moment.

So, if this is true, why is it wrong for God to take it away, at the time of His choosing?

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.


Let's say someone is doing something terribly evil, and causing many people to greatly suffer. The evil he is doing is going to cause many people to miss the boat on what God had planned for them. Is God wrong for judging this person and taking away his life to serve the greater good? Now lets say this is a nation, which is causing many other nations to suffer in the same way. Is God wrong for judging that nation? Wouldn't God actually be evil for ignoring it and allowing people to suffer needlessly? How about if the entire world becomes corrupt? Wouldn't God be evil for allowing it to continue that way?

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.


I think you are suffering from a lack of imagination. Here is the being that has created everything you have ever loved, appreciated, been in awe of, who is intimately familiar with your comings and goings, all of your thoughts and feelings. He gave you your family, your friends, your talents, your purposes. He understands you better than you understand yourself.

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.

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

The Dutch government fell because 1 of the 3 leading parties is a radical right party and only does what is popular, not what is smart.

What always surprises me is there is a debate about spending or not in the first place. Spending may or may not help us out of the mess, but its the policies that got us into this that should finally be looked at.

On top of that, the spend more philosophy is a hard one to defend. There is no good evidence it does anything but raise the debt the government is in. Every time it has failed, the believers simply say that it was even more that was required. When it didnt fail, was it truly due to more spending?

In the past, when everyone was still more or less isolated gaining more government debt was fine. You could always print more money. Today the inflation and especially devaluation vs other currencies will make your troubles worse.

Sadly who ever wins, things will get worse in the next 2 years. The devaluation of the dollar is starting to come to roost. Gas prices will go higher and everything else with it. To make things worse next year massive tax savings will end and everyone will pay more in taxes.

Its a ticking time bomb only with Obama putting the final nails in the coffin.

The economy is not getting better. Don't listen to the TV look around. Every month another store or 2 around you shuts its doors.

WE borrow 4 Billion dollars a day and have done this for at least a decade.
Another way to put it that the government borrows 0.43 cents every dollar. How long can that go on? It can't go past 50 cents.


Ron Paul, like him or not is the only one willing to cut now and deep government spending. All others only desire to limit the growth rate a little. He is like the only chance America has as long as we vote out long standing career politicians like John McCain and Nancy Pelosi

Devaluation of the dollar, anyone?

A summary of what I saw:

Dude says Romney, Santorum and Obama are clueless on the economy, but Ron Paul is super-fantastic with his talk about hyperinflation and dollar devaluation.

Smart interviewer asks "So tell me Mr. Smartypants Ron Paul supporter guy, are you putting your money where your mouth is? Are you selling your dollars? Are you shorting U.S. Treasuries?"

The answer? "Uh, no, I'm holding onto my dollars, and I'm gonna go long on Treasuries, because there are 'lots of reasons' to do the exact opposite of what Ron Paul says a smart investor would do..."

Indeed there are, indeed there are.

How is it that abortion is a sacrament to the left, yet when one person devalues another person by saying they should have been aborted, the left has a hissy fit?

How do we know how much value a person has if they are not allowed to be born?

How unfair is abortion? how selfish do you have to be to end your child's life? Has anyone ever looked at the long term effect? Yes, they have and it appears that people aborting this children suffer a higher incidence of cancer.

But regardless, if saying someone should not be aborted, why does this only apply to someone already living?

Fucking retards , shit like this devalues valid protests against idiot government policy

No, stating that someones opinion on a matter that is based on reading or some other form of research is inferior to an opinion that is based upon visiting the locale is indeed an appeal to authority . Argumemnts hold up based on logic and fact, not on who is making the argument.

And reading an article versus reading an article AND visiting the location is clearly an example where the later has more facts at their disposal, and has facts that are additionally more thoroughly verified and reliable.

As far as the AD hominem, I am indeed serious, and I have not made any personal attacks

I never said you had, I merely pointed out that I had not made any personal attacks either. I believe the closest I came was saying "You seriously devalue everything Hitchens was by likening him to..." which amounted to saying you were incorrect on a point, not any manner of personal insult or attack.

You see, neither of them had to go back and apologize repeatedly for being wrong, insultingly wrong, or drunk and wrong.

Which is admittedly a point on which we truly do have more of a difference of opinion. I count it one of Hitchens' strengths that he was willing to admit when he had been wrong, no matter how vehement or adamant he had previously been. He was constantly putting his own views to the test, and when they failed the test he changed his mind and admitted he had been wrong. I count that a much better mark than those people who count themselves or are counted by others as never having been wrong or needed to back down.

>> ^obscenesimian:

Just Because I disagree with you does not mean that I need to read up on Christopher Hitchens. I thought he was remarkably wrong very often. But at least he did have the decency to admit when he hadn't thought a position through well enough.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^
>>


I think you slightly diminish Hitch's name including Carlin, Hicks and Suzuki. Even Chomsky only bares inclusion for his great heights in the past.
I get your point, but you may want to read up on Hitchen's some more. He stood apart from almost everyone on your list by willingly putting himself in harms way to put his beliefs and understanding to the test, and in many cases surviving the ordeal to come back and declare that what he learned had changed his mind.



Oh be serious.

Carlin and Hicks were good and everything, but how much time did they spend in Cbua, Iraq, North Korea and Iran? How much of their lives did they dedicate to studying global conflicts and loudly debating their merits and demerits? Did they ever accomplish anything akin to "The trials of Henry Kissinger"?

You seriously devalue everything Hitchens was by likening him to a pair of very intelligent and insightful comedians. Their material was after all based on at best reading about the things Hitchens was off witnessing first hand. More over there can be no doubt that Hitchens own reading on any subject of import also badly dwarfed that of Carlin and Hicks put together.

Greece should just GTFO of the euro union while it still can, print a shitload of drachma's to devalue it's currency and go on an exporting spree. When you pair underachieving countries with economic powerhouses like Germany, then expect a single exchange rate to balance across the board, you've got bloody rocks in your head unless you turn Europe in to a defacto single country. One overarching government that manages and redistributes the wealth to the poorer areas from the richer.

This is what happens in the US, Australia etc. The most profitable states generate more taxation which in turn pays for government programs to assist the poorer states. Federal loans/deficits are managed by one body (although states also have their own budgets/revenue/loans) and actions to head off mismanagement at the state level can be enacted by the fed with far less drama than trying to force individual countries to act in the whole unions perceieved best interests (eg. accepting the deal sans referendum in this case).

Leaving each country in the EU self governed was a recipe for disaster even before you add in financial mismanagement.

>> ^Spacedog79:

I seem to have been downvoted quite hard for that one, I guess people didn't get the point I was trying to make is where do you get that money for government spending? This is the fundamental problem with our current system, it can only come from the government borrowing, thereby ultimately increacing our debt and inevitably leading to bankruptcy. The idea that we can continue to grow ourselves out of this economic hole is ludicrous and has caused enough environmental and social destruction as it is.
The ONLY solution it for government to STOP borrowing and start issuing money in the public interest without debt. Usury as a means of financing a nation must be sent back to the history books where it belongs.
>> ^sigmel:
>> ^Spacedog79:
Was going so well till he hit #4, spend more before paying down the debt? Nice one genius, how do you spend more under the current system without the goverment borrowing it and creating even more debt than they borrowed. Epic Keynesian fail.
Who's paying this guy, and what interest do they have in the debt based money system?

The idea is that you spend money to create growth (like an investment). Say the government spends $50k to fund a project that will create jobs that result in $10k in taxes a year. In five years you break even, and after that you start making money (ie, a good investment).



To be fair, I wasn't one of the ones who downvoted; I was just trying to explain as I understood it. You get the money for government spending by creating more money. Our interest rates on our bonds are very low right now, so there is no immediate inflation concern. This would have the effect of devaluing our money, but that could help us in terms of making our exports more competitive. If you borrow to create growth, then you should be creating enough in order to cover the initial cost and interest in due time.

Considering that we have such high unemployment, then I feel that using growth to get us out of this is very valid. If unemployment were a lot lower, then obviously we wouldn't have much in the way of ability to grow. But considering we need employment and increased tax revenue, I think creating jobs would be a good move to solve both problems. I also think it is possible to do this in a way that isn't detrimental in an environmental or social way.

I'm going to wait till they implement this plan, lose share value, and then I will buy a 100 block of their devalued stock on a serious gamble.... It worked out for me with BP.

I hope the OWS crowd doesn't count her as one of them. It would mean the message is "I made a bunch of bad financial decisions and now I don't want to deal with the consequences".

Taking out student loans you can't pay off is as much the fault of your underpaid HS teachers that told you University was the best way to go as any Wall Street trader. Mostly though, it was your own decision, take responsibility for it.

Buying an overpriced home you couldn't afford was as much the fault of your real estate agent as any Wall Street trader. Mostly though, it was your own decision, take responsibility for it.

Seriously, the Wall Street upper class have done an awful lot to create an uneven playing field to enrich themselves at the expense of others. They have made an environment were people who have made GOOD financial decisions, paid off their debts, and started investing are the ones getting hurt. Their investments are getting devalued, or more often just growing much slower than that of the ultra rich.

I'm sorry, but people like this reporter are flattering themselves to try and claim their lot in life is Wall Street getting them down. People like her have failed themselves, no help from Wall Street required.

Reading this blog made me remember reading this Wired story from way back when I thought Wired was a good magazine (GO Maximum PC!) and the quote that really caught my eye was "Everyone has their Steve-Jobs-the-asshole story." I think it stood out because, on TV at least, he seemed nice enough, but mostly I wanted ammunition for arguments with my Mac fanboy friends.

More recently I remember reading about Apple pulling an entire e-book collection from one publisher after said publisher produced an unauthorized biography with the double entendre title "iCon: Steve Jobs" which is a move that I consider a far cry from "Do no evil."

Even Steve Wozniak openly said: "I couldn't treat people the way he does"

But do geniuses need to be assholes?

I would say that there is a fine line between tough love and devaluing the people around you. That fence dance can make a C feel like an A; but it makes the kid who fails feel all the more hopeless.

This is stupid. The point of the Fed's actions is to try to spark inflation, because inflation helps people deleverage.

Since debts are measured in fixed numbers of dollars, devaluing the dollar makes the real value of your debts shrink.

It's not as effective as the government using fiscal policy to put people back to work, but it's certainly not causing the recession by trying to get more money into the economy.

If you read the full post, it's pretty obvious that it's not written by an economist, but some right-wing political hack.