Walker- paid for at least one abortion probably many more, so by his definition he’s a baby murderer, liar, philanderer, self admitted total shit for brains moron, wife and child abuser, mental defective, suicide case, attempted murderer, kidnapper, deadbeat father x 4 or more, police impersonator, fake businessman, fake graduate,….the list never ends. He is absolute proof that the right has zero morals, ethics, standards, or anything besides a blind lust for power.
I can only imagine the never ending jabs and accusations from you if he was a Democrat….and they would be well deserved.

Oz - puppy torturer and murderer, liar, quack, and snake oil salesman who made millions by selling fake miracle cures to morons and now wants to buy a senate seat. More proof that morals, ethics, standards, and honesty are 100% lacking in the right….but we knew that after Marmalade Mussolini.

Which party is the party of death, debauchery, and criminality again? ROTFLMFAHS!!

Edit- forgot Tina Forte, AOC’s opponent that calls AOC a “crime surge creator” while hiding the fact that Forte’s family are a major crime organization , her repeatedly convicted husband Joey Snapple and her son are recently convicted illegal gun and drug traffickers that used her failing beverage company to run guns and drugs, she is often found with terrorist Proud Boys, and was at the Jan 6 failed coup. Sure sounds like she’s much more of a crime surge creator all by her self. Funny enough, she was a hard core anti marijuana advocate until her husband was busted with $150000 in illegal marijuana among other illicit drugs and illegal guns, now she wants it decriminalized and conviction records expunged. No….she won’t abuse her office for personal gain….never.

SJWs are not progressive or the left, no matter how loudly they claim to be.

Odd that he tells us what is not progressive, then forgets that definition to say that progressives now work towards the opposite of his definition and that "progressive" now means oppressive.

Allowing and supporting a small vocal and zealous group co-opting a political party and changing it's platform 180 degrees by giving credence to their false narratives and claims to be 'progressive' is disgusting and disingenuous, and he knows it.
Just stop calling the SJW idiots progressives or the left, since they are neither, and the problem for progressives and the left are solved. SJWs WANT to represent the left, and the right WANTS them to represent the left (because they're easy to argue against), but they simply don't. Pieces like this only serve to support the SJW snowflakes and the false right wing narrative that the left is fascist.

He does also bring up many straw men, like Catholics being forced to pay for abortion causing birth control, they aren't and they never were, they only had to allow their employees the freedom to buy it with federal money if they so chose, but they don't want people to have the choice and apparently think that if they pay you, they have the right to control how you spend that money, what you may believe, and how you choose to live your life.

Sad that he's gone the route of supplying straw men, conflation, misdirection, misidentification, and misinformation in order to rail against something he's helping cause with those actions. It's like calling the tea baggers conservative right wingers, they weren't/aren't either, but they successfully co-opted the right by claiming they were both and the right going along because they needed the idiot vote....lets not let that happen on the left, please.

SJWs aren't on the left, and aren't progressive, they are fascists and cry babies trying to grab control of the left and progressive movements for their own means, not to further the left's agenda. Fight them, don't capitulate and slink off, handing them a political party like the right did with tea baggers.
STAND UP TO THEM.

OK, I'm glad you tried though.
Actually I dismiss this as ignoring previous repeated public/biblical statements about god, Jesus, and the holy ghost being a single omniscient and omnipotent super being.
I've been told time and time again that Jesus "sacrificed himself for our sins". That means HE had control, obvious if he/3 is omnipotent, he has control over everything, knows everything, and free will is an illusion/lie...just like the cake. ;-) It simply can't be both ways. Either god is omnipotent or not. There's no such thing as 'partially omnipotent'....it's like saying 'part of infinity'....meaningless. (in case you are unaware, any portion of infinity is infinity)
If it was not intentional, and was all the doing of man, then Jesus didn't do anything FOR us in that death. So why do people thank him constantly? Why do people chastise others with 'Jesus died for your sins...so now you owe him your eternal gratitude'?
Man wouldn't need saving if god didn't CREATE sins to be avoided, or rules and rituals that must be observed (although oddly, every religion interprets the rules differently, even those that take the rules from the same book, which should be impossible if it's really the 'infallible word of god', no? Why would He make his definitive requirements so impossible to understand and follow, unless he's really closer to Loki in temperament and is really just screwing with us all), or punishment for being 'confused' about what's reality and what's not: Hell....or if god doesn't exist, or if god's existence and/or sin is unknown to a person.... (WHAT? What kind of rule system is that?) Reminds me of a joke too....

Aborigine asks the missionary :"So, you say God would not have punished us for sinning if we did not yet know about him or sin, and we would have all gone to heaven?"
Missioinary replies: "Yes, God is compassionate, and would not punish you for not knowing something you could not know, or not knowing rules you had not been taught."
Aborigine replies: "The why the f#ck did you tell us! Asshole!"

He needs to check his definitions. Treason has a clear and specific definition...and it doesn't include anything as vague as "going against the constitution". But crazy doesn't need logic or facts, that much is clear.

I don't think his definition of "fix" is the same as mine. I guess it depends on whether you have enough brainpower to operate the anti-vapor valve or not. Personally, I don't care to have the car or garage smelling like gasoline, so I prefer to avoid the fumes.

You clearly aren't familiar with bob...his definition of "liberalism" is really just "anything he doesn't agree with". It has nothing to do with the English language, or agreed-upon definitions.

any creator who only reveals himself to certain people and not others is a dick and not worth following or caring about. Any person who "thinks" god has been revealed to them and uses that as an assertion of authority over those who haven't had similar "revelations" are not just dicks, they deserve to be locked up.

I'm still ignoring shiny but I'm assuming he's making all the same tired arguments about god revealing himself as he always does. I'm sure he's also still quoting the bible as an authoritative source.

As Matt has continued to point out, secular morality has proven itself better than biblical morality.

God and religion are two separate things. always have, always will be. The question of the existence of a creator is largely irrelevant. If a creator exists and I'm doing things contrary to what this creator wishes me to do, tough. If this creator has a problem with it, it can come down here and tell me directly instead of using a ancient book as it's main source of communication. God is either a dick or incompetent for using such an inefficient means of communicating its wishes. Even if a creator did manifest itself physically and declared its undisputed existence, this creator would have a lot of angry people (and that includes people who DO believe in a creator) on its hands demanding some answers and rightfully so. The threat of eternal damnation just really isn't that effective of a means of ensuring compliance. Again. secular morality beats biblical morality.

Even if a creator does not exist it still doesn't change anything. Even if it was possible to scientifically prove a creator doesn't exist. It doesn't change shit. Countless people will still continue believing it. A creator may not exist, but Religion ain't going anywhere for a long time. There isn't a magic set of words that magically convince someone to not believe in an imaginary god. This ain't the TV show Stargate and there is no "Ark of Truth" and in my opinion, it would be immoral to use such a device if it existed. (great googely boogely that was such a horrible tv movie).

If we want a free society, people have to make their own conclusions. By and large, all atheists and agnostics support Freedom of Religion. They just want religion out of government. You can be religious, but government has to be secular.

science is agnostic to the existence of a creator. It doesn't care if a creator exists. If the evidence is there. then the evidence will point to it. If there is no evidence then it doesn't exist. Even if there is evidence and we just haven't found it yet, we still have to err on the side treating it as if it doesn't exist. Theists make the claim the a creator exists. You have to back that shit up. The burden is on you to prove it exists. Not only that, but you have a double burden. Not only do you have to prove a creator exists, you have prove that this creator wants you to do X, Y, and Z. None of which has been done.

And guess what, not all atheists/agnostics believe/disbelieve the same thing. just because you trot out some non-believer that says things that other non-believers don't agree with doesn't mean a thing. Yeah, atheists and agnostics like to squabble over the definitions of atheist and agnostic and the myriad of combinations of both words. So what? it doesn't remove the theist's double burden of proof, Yes, there are some atheists out there who don't just want separation of church and state, they would eliminate all forms of religion if they could. Shock, someone in a group is taking things a little far. ZOMG! THAT NEVER HAPPENS ANYWHERE!! It STILL doesn't remove the theist's double burden of proof.

Matt has argued this countless times. you make a claim? you gotta back it up. You may wish to quibble over the semantics of what an atheist is or isn't. I too don't strictly agree with his definition of atheism. But he has declared his views on the subject countless times: He used to be a Christian, but he decided that he needed to know that what he was preaching was actually rational and Christianity could not meet the burden of proof in his eyes. So he is not making the claim that god doesn't exist, because he cannot prove that. The problem is, Christians, or any other religion for that matter cannot prove any of their claims either, thus, there is no reason to believe them or consider them trustworthy.

You want to quibble over whether or not that's an atheist or an agnostic, be my fucking guest but it's just a distraction that doesn't change the end result. Matt (and myself) do not accept the claim that a creator exists, nor do we accept the claim that even if a creator exists, that this creator follows the Christian belief system (or any other belief system for that matter). And the reason that we can't accept any of these claims is because of the lack of evidence and not meeting the burden of proof

His definition of "Corrupt" is kind of skewed, but in many ways I could see this. I don't think it's a legitimate criticism of the US being corrupt because you have to see it through a very thing perspective, but when you look at the whole, the US *IS* getting away with the most bullshit en-mass compared to every other country in the world. Corruption does not equate to chaos. There are more obviously fucked countries in the world in terms of murder, extortion and fascist control, but through that very thin perspective you can't disagree that any other country controls as much of the entire planet with as large a proportion of those in power benefiting illegitimately.
Another way of looking at it is: there are the same number of corrupt assholes in the US as any other country, but the level of control and influence over the rest of the world those in the US have simply makes them more at fault than others.
Whatever. NONE OF THIS MATTERS!

@aurens, One of the main techniques Ron Paul uses to manipulate people like you is by telling you that his definition of liberty is the ONLY definition, and that his interpretation of the constitution is the ONLY interpretation. By doing this, he leads you to believe that you are heroically fighting for liberty and the constitution, when in reality you are actually fighting for a very partisan and fringy set of far right political beliefs.

I find this fundamentally dishonest, whether you are aware you are doing it or not. I was mocking you, yes, but don't assume humor can't be 'part of the conversation' too.

Without using delusional 'constitution liberty, blah blah blah' type rhetoric, tell me why federal civil rights protections should be ended. Become part of the conversation.

Important point---> The constitution is like the Bible; people can use it to justify just about anything they want it to. This is fine, but when you use the circular reasoning that 'my candidate's subjective interpretation of the constitution is the ONLY interpretation of the constitution, therefore I am right and you are wrong by default', people like me might mockingly call you out on your self deception.

And, @artician, don't give me that condescending and assumptive 'you might learn something' bullshit. I've studied and discussed Ron Paul and libertarianism intensively over the last few years. The more I learn, the less I like it, which probably explains why Paul's support is wider than it is deep. I doubt you have anything more to teach be, as I seem to know more about the movement than you do, but if you have a new talking point, feel free to recite it for me. Ron Paul is a joke. If you are interested in learning about your candidate, here are some study materials: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/of1yc/why_ron_paul_is_possibly_the_worst_presidential/

As far as 'racism' goes, how many excuses are Ron Paul supporters going to come up with before they come to terms with the fact that this guy, if not racist himself, has certainly used racism for profit and political advancement?

The facts (off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more)
-RP ran a number of racist newsletter for many years.
-RP changed his position on the letters from 'the quotes were taken out of context' to 'I didn't write them.
-Many members of his staff have attested that he signed off on these letters.
-He has been photographed with many white supremacists.
-He has received campaign contributions from big names in white supremacist circles, which he kept.
-He has appeared on white supremacist talk radio shows.
-He speaks for the John Birch society.
-He was against the civil rights act.
-Anonymous found heavy organizational ties between RP and white supremacists.
-He uses the same states rights rhetoric as white supremacists.

How much smoke do you need to inhale before you pull the fire alarm?

Enough hero worship already. Try Occam's Razor instead.

I completely disagree with his definition of what terrorists are. Look at what Israel are doing to the Palestinians:

They've built enormous fences around hundreds of thousands of them, often separating them or isolating the people there from other villages. Arrests, delays and degradation at these checkpoints is commonplace, and this is often just so they can go to work, or visit friends. During special events such as Jewish holidays, the West Bank can be under military closure for more than a week.
http://mideastposts.com/2011/05/02/humiliation-and-degradation-easter-at-qalandiya/

The Israeli's then illegally settle or continue to expand on what is often privately owned Palestinian land.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/world/middleeast/21land.html?hp&ex=1164171600&en=2e03da87b76e6581&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Then they burn their olive trees, desecrate their mosque's, beat their children and kill adult civilians.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/204101.html

What can the Palestinians do to fight back? Well pretty much nothing due to the fact Israel receives billions of dollars in military supplies and funding each year from the US Government. The UN criticizes Israel's actions and International law states that expansion of many of the settlements is illegal, however the Palestinians are literally powerless.

Many Palestinians over the years, including women, have decided to blow themselves up in public, often killing many people, children included - these people therefore are labelled terrorists. So I have to ask, which of the actions I've described that the Israeli's/US are involved in against the Palestinians would be considered as moving them more towards a type 1 civilization?

The chinese room one is pointless. By his definition people don't understand anything either.

@shinyblurry

Having watched the first 30 seconds again and thought about it, with Craig's definition of objective moral values (OMVs) inserted into Premise One, it reads: "If God does not exist, then nothing exists which is good or evil independently of whether anybody believes it to be so." If by this he means, "If God does not exist, then nothing exists which is good or evil no matter who believes or does not believe it to be so", then it's pretty close to a truism, but as Qualia says, it leaves Craig with significant problems. Then, unfortunately, Q goes off apparently on an irrelevant tangent about people assessing other people's moral behaviour, which is the wrong argument to make at this point, as Craig's definition is all about things being moral or evil independent of everyone's judgement. The correct point to make here would be that by Craig's own definition of OMVs, it's now impossible to verify Premise Two because it would require either a human or God to assess that such a moral value or duty existed. This can never happen because Craig's definition of OMVs precludes humans from evaluating things morally, and the argument cannot, obviously, invoke God's opinion, since proof of God's existence is the argument's conclusion. So, by definition, Premise Two cannot be proven, and that's Craig's argument completely sunk, and it could have been the end of the video too.

Except something interesting happens: Craig contradicts his earlier definition of "objective" meaning that it doesn't matter what any human thinks, and presents the fact that 99% of people would say that torturing and caring for a child hold different moral values as evidence that OMVs exist, in other words, now, suddenly the definition of OMVs rests in what 99% of people think. This means he accepts somebody's assessment of moral value, if on a large enough scale. If Craig appeals to the moral opinion of 99% of people to prove objectivity in his own arguments, then obviously anybody arguing against Craig is allowed to do the same, so any points Qualia Soup makes in the video based on the opinions of humans in general stand because they follow Craig's own rules of evaluation.

So, Qualia's point is valid and relevant, that on the whole, we don't make moral judgements based solely on the act itself, but on what the person committing the act believed about their actions: a healthy adult killing a baby is viewed entirely differently than a retarded adult or a very young child killing a baby. This is not irrelevant if Craig's proof for Premise Two relies on the opinion of 99% of people. This shows that OMVs may not exist independent of what people think. It suggests the opposite: that judgements of the moral value of an action may only exist based on what people think.

QS: It goes on, asking "what do we make of a being that's decided that only one species is morally accountable?"

SB: This is simply a red herring. It makes absolutely no difference and is not relevant what we think about God holding humans accountable and not animals. Our standard for moral behavior is not measured by the behavior of animals. The relevant difference is that the standard for our moral behavior is measured by what God chooses as morally correct.

Here, QS is responding to Craig's accusations of atheists being "speciesist" for thinking humans are special, and throws it back in his face by showing by his definition, God is speciesist if he only chose to hold one species morally accountable. Also, your own argument that morality relies on what God decides is morally correct assumes the existence of God, which you cannot assert in the middle of a proof of God's existence.

The section that follows about "unevaluated value" makes the point that if there are moral values that exist but we lack awareness of them, then it's useless for them to exist undetected. And if we're not positing that a God already exists, it makes more sense for the actions to be noticed, and then evaluated as either evil or good at that moment, rather than to have already been evaluated morally by God, and then detected as morally good or evil by that person due to their internal morality detector provided by God. In other words, the capacity for moral judgement is not proof that God gave it to us. It could have evolved.

The argument beginning at 3:47 shows there's no way to determine that a person has detected something that was already evaluated as good by God and understood it as so, rather than has seen something and evaluated it as good himself by his own judgement.

***

And it goes on from there. Anyway, that's my evaluation of your evaluation of Qualia Soup's evaluation of Craig's ontological proof that God exists.

I'd much rather talk about you and me and our relative faiths in God, but before we go on, I have to know what the rules are and what I will be expected to establish.

About us
For example, can we just accept that you and I exist, one independent of the other, neither a figment of the other's imagination? Can we accept that our normal external sensory input can be accepted as correct for the purposes of this conversation, (except in the trivial cases of optical illusions and so forth)? You probably know what I'm saying. I hate it when I get into an argument and think I've made a very strong point, only to have my opponent come back with, "Everything's subjective; you can't prove anything is real," or, "Maybe you imagined the whole thing, I mean, you can't prove you didn't," or, "You can prove anything with facts," or, "Well, you have your beliefs and I have mine," or some crap like that where I'm not talking about subjective facts or my own beliefs.

Also, in theological arguments, I must insist on a couple things. The first is that words must have meaning. If you say something, you can't later say that it's not to be taken literally, or that that word has a different meaning when applied to God. The second is that everything logically entailed by a statement must stand with the original statement, and any other statement. If there's any inconsistencies, then at least one of the statements must be false.

Also, please don't assert supernatural things like the existence of Satan, or your knowledge of how he works, telling me these things like I'm ignorant of them, rather than fully aware of the stories, but sceptical. Say that it's what you believe or have come to believe or whatever, but don't say it like objective fact. Same goes for Bible verses. I don't accept them as fact any more than you'd accept Skeletor quotes as fact. To me that book is best treated as fiction, though it's possible it conveys some details of events that really happened, but pronouncements of the way the world is I absolutely do not accept as the word of God, especially since I don't believe he exists. I don't care if the Bible predicts atheists/sceptics. All that tells me is that people have been doubting the veracity of the word for 2,000 years, and someone took the precaution of adding a word or two against non-believers into the text so believers down the line would have justification "from God" for dismissing my arguments as guided by Satan, or whatever.

I know you don't think Qualia's line of reasoning holds, but I don't know what you think of Craig's argument. Is it valid, in your mind? And here, I'm mostly interested in how you think. As I've said, the video was only intended to take apart the argument of one Christian apologist, and not to prove or disprove anything.

I'm 99% sure you said in a comment somewhere that you're dubious of science. Could you explain what you mean by that? Science isn't a system of faith or a set of theories. It's a process of testing theories. Are you dubious of the process? What parts of it specifically do you mean?

Is it accurate to say that the sum of your experience of God is subjective, that's to say, is based solely on your own experience in your head, and possibly in things in the objective world that you have interpreted in a subjective way, and is not borne out in any demonstrable way in the measurable material world?

About God
Please describe God. Where is he? When is he? What is he capable of? What does he feel? Is he immutable? Please add anything you can about why he did things like create the universe and animals and us and disease and suffering and inequality and joy, why he cares for us, why he cares what we do, why he made some things moral and some things evil, and any other informative facts. Is there a God the Father anymore, or just Jesus? Did Jesus have a human form and a godly form, or did he transmute from one to the other? What was Jesus before he was born? Was he born of the virgin Mary?

I'll answer your most recent post in my next sitting.

I'm not a fan of this snide style. That's to say, if he treated me like this, it would take away from my psychological well-being, I wouldn't be happy, and I wouldn't want to be around him or wish success for him, to use his definitions. It was possible for him to make the exact same arguments without being mean. In fact, doing it that way would have been more likely to have impact on people who are not in the allegorical choir, which is to say, those more likely to be in the non-allegorical choir.

But I really like the path he takes on definitions, so upvote for content. Hadn't heard it thought through that far.

My favorite smiley usage is for exaggerating craziness, ie:

"If I ever see your pimply face again, I'll smash it with a brick, have a nice day asshole "

>> ^MaxWilder:

I disagree with his definition of the smiley face. It means that the previous statement was lighthearted. That's different from "I didn't mean it." Though it could mean you were only kidding, it could also mean "I don't mean that as an insult."

I disagree with his definition of the smiley face. It means that the previous statement was lighthearted. That's different from "I didn't mean it." Though it could mean you were only kidding, it could also mean "I don't mean that as an insult."