If you listen closely you can hear the prawns cheering.

Famous Aspergerino's include Gary Numan :

"Here in my car,
I feel safest of all
I can lock all my doors
It's the only way to live in cars.
Here in my car
I can only receive
I can listen to you
It keeps me stable for days in cars.

ANNNND,
Dan Aykroyd,Carl Jung, Beethoven, Michelangelo and Nikola Tesla!!


Oh, and a few folks know to frequent the sift in days past and present we must say!!

I would test it, if I could. By “God”, I’m assuming you’re still talking about Yahweh specifically, and not just any random god-type entity. If that’s the case, then I’ve already falsified the claim that the Bible is perfect, so that argument is gone.

You haven't falsified it. If you have, show me where. If you're referring to Matthews lineage using Chiastic structure, that isn't an imperfection. Chaistic structure is a literary device, so Matthews genealogy is not giving us the entire line, but rather like an artistic summation of it. To say it is wrong would be like telling a painter his painting is wrong.

If you’re merely making a deist claim, then I can’t argue with you. I take no position on deism other than if some deity created the universe and set it in motion, I have no reason to believe it cares about humans, and it certainly has made no edicts that I perceive as to how I should live my life.

Since you have no argument against a potential God, and couldn't tell whether you were living in His Universe or not, then how would you know if this God cares about humans or if it has laid down any edicts about how you should live your life?

You’re not listening to me. Seriously. I do have ways of determining which story is more likely. Occam’s razor is the best for this problem. The complexities introduced by faith in Yahweh and the Bible are necessarily more complex than the problems they solve. They are also blind faith (I'm talking about the vast majority of the faithful, and about what you're recommending I do), which is willful self-delusion. The theories that physicists and biologists have come up with are quite convincing, especially if you understand how science works.

I have been listening to you and what I have found is that if you can find some kind of excuse to dismiss something that seems even potentially legitimate, then you run with it. You only seem interested in trying to falsify the question, because you apparently have already decided it isn't true. You don't have any real evidence to prove it, but in previous conversations you have said you see no reason to bother thinking about it. In short, you don't care.

You say I'm talking about blind faith, and I'm not. I believe what I believe because God convinced me of its truth. I had no reason to believe it otherwise, and I wouldn't. I am telling you that if you draw near to God, He will draw near to you. He loves you and wants you to know Him. You just don't want to know Him and that is the problem.

Neither do you understand the law of parsimony. The law states that in explaining a given phenomenon, we should make as few assumptions as possible. Therefore, if we have two theories which are equal in explanatory power, but one has fewer assumptions, we should choose the one with fewer assumptions. However, a more complex theory with better explanatory power should be chosen over a more simplistic theory with weaker explanatory power. I think John Lennox kind of sums this all up at 3:00



Agreed. I find myself in an environment in which my species was capable of evolving. It says nothing of how statistically improbable it is.

You were created in your parents womb; this says nothing about evolution. It only says that you have some way to come into existence, personally. It says nothing about the particulars of how that came to be.

Disagree. I’m lucky that of all the possible combinations of molecules that could have come together to create our terrestrial environment, the right ones came together to create life, then the right DNA strands combined to eventually create me. I’m lucky, sure, but given the length of time we’ve had, there’s no reason I should be surprised, especially when there's no reason to assert that this is the only universe.

There is no reason to assert it isn't, either. In a finely tuned Universe, it is more plausible to believe it was designed rather than it just happened to be one Universe out of trillions that implausibly just looks like it was designed because if you have enough Universes eventually one will form that appears that way. Remember Occams Razor?

You ask why multiple universes are more likely than a deity? Because you and I both know for sure there is at least one universe, so positing some more of them is less of a stretch than asserting a self-contradictory entity, alien to our objective experience, defying any consistent and meaningful description, so vastly complex that it cannot be properly understood, and so full of human failings that it looks man-made.

That would be true if God were any of those things. I can agree with you though that your understanding of God is self-contradictory, alien to your experience, etc. You believe you have God figured out, when you don't know Him at all. You would actually do anything to know God, but you are rejecting Him out of ignorance.

In the scenario between multiple universes or God as a theory to describe a finely tuned Universe, God wins every time. It doesn't matter how complex God might be; the explanatory power afforded by the theory is by far superior.

I’m sceptical of all your claims because that’s how I roll. I’m sceptical of everything, especially big claims. It’s the smartest way to avoid being duped.

You're skeptical of everything that doesn't agree with your presuppositions about reality. Those I have rarely if ever seen you seriously question in all the time I have spoken to you. Regarding knowledge that agrees with those presuppositions, you feel free to speculate about that all day long and will say that virtually any of it is more plausible with no evidence. The thing is, I used to be on your side of the fence, and I know what a search for the truth looks like. This isn't it.

The smartest way to avoid being duped is to understand that you might be duped at this moment and not realize it. That's the trouble with being deceived; you think you're right when you are really wrong.

You have been telling me that I must believe in the one true thing that is true that is Yahweh and the Bible and creation because it’s true because it’s true because it’s true because it’s the only possibility.

What I've been telling you is that God is not hiding from you. You are hiding from Him. It's not that you don't know there is a God so much as you don't want to know that there is. You simply want to do whatever you think is right and you automatically reject any possibility that says this is wrong and you are in fact accountable to a higher authority. In short, your attitude towards God is not skeptical but rebellious.

Now, I conceive of another possibility: my 10^trillion universes. You agree it’s possible, so there’s no reason for me to believe yours is necessarily true. If I have to choose between them, the one that doesn’t require the further explanation of a sentient deity more complex than 10^trillion universes is simpler. And even then, I DON’T HAVE TO CHOOSE one or the other. I can remain sceptical. To me, it’s foolish not to.

I concede its possible that God could have created other Universes, but I don't concede the idea that Universes just happen by themselves. This is really a very foolish idea. It's like coming across a coke can and believing wind and erosion created it. It only seems plausible to you because you must have a naturalistic explanation for your existence to make sense of your reality.

I don't expect you to believe in God unless He gives you some kind of revelation. I frequently pray that you will receive this revelation, both for you and the sake of your family.

Since I already pointed out this flawed understand of the law of parsimony, I won't reiterate that argument here.

While we’re talking about being honest with ourselves, I’d like to hear it from you that the following things are *at least technically possible*: that Yahweh doesn’t exist; that your relationship with Yahweh is an illusion created by you inside your head because you are human and human minds are prone to occasional spectacular mistakes; that the Bible was created by deluded humans; that the universe is around 14 billion years old; that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old; that life on Earth started 1-2 billion years ago; and that all species evolved from primitive life forms. To be clear, I’m not asking you to accept them as true or even probable, just state whether this collection of statements is possible or impossible.

This is what Paul said:

1 Corinthians 15:17,19

And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

I wasn't there at the resurrection; I take it on faith. My faith has been borne out by the evidence, such as being born again, witnessing miracles, and experiencing the presence of God in my daily life. I don't admit any of those things; I have most definitely received revelation from God, and there is no other plausible explanation for the evidence. If you can concede that God can give you certain knowledge then you can understand why I don't doubt that knowledge.

Notice what George Wald said?

I notice that you only quote scientists out of context, or when they’re speaking poetically. I guarantee he never said that in a scientific paper. Life may be a wonder, not a miracle.

I *only* do? That's a false generalization. This quote is right on target, and I challenge you to show me where I have taken George out of context. This is what scientists believe, that time + chance makes just about anything possible. Has life ever been observed coming entirely from non living matter? That's a miracle, and that's what you must believe happened either here or somewhere in the Universe.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/

Near the end, you’ll find this gem: “The history of physics has had that a lot, … Certain quantities have seemed inexplicable and fine-tuned, and once we understand them, they don’t seem to [be] so fine-tuned. We have to have some historical perspective.”

If you haven't done so already, watch the first 10-20 minutes of this: http://videosift.com/video/The-God-of-the-Gaps-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson. It's "creationism/intelligent design" laid bare as a position of weakness. Your "fine tuning" trope is part of "intelligent design" and has the same historical flaw.

It's the God of the gaps argument which is flawed. It's not a God of the gaps argument when the theory is a better explanation for the evidence.

It's just a bare fact that there is a number of physical constants in an extremely narrow range which conspire to create a life permitting Universe. It's even admitted on the wikipedia page:

Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life".[2] However he continues "...the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

What do you mean, “they hate that possibility”? Why should a scientist hate any possibility? If there were science that pointed to the real existence of God, that’s exactly the way their investigations would go. That’s what motivated early modern scientists – they believed unravelling the laws of the universe by experiment would reveal God’s nature. It was only when the scientific path of experimentation split conclusively away from the biblical account that anybody considered that religious faith and scientific endeavour might become separate enterprises.

The roost of the scientific establishment today is ruled by atheistic naturalists, and they very much hate the idea of God polluting their purely naturalistic theories. They consider science to be liberated from religion and they vigorously patrol the borders, expelling anyone who dares to question the established paradigm. A biologist today who questions the fundamentals of evolutionary theory commits professional suicide. It is now conventional wisdom and you either have to get with the program or be completely shut out of the community.

Here are some other interesting quotes for you:

Richard Lewontin “does acknowledge that scientists inescapably rely on ‘rhetorical’ proofs (authority, tradition) for most of what they care about; they depend on theoretical assumptions unprovable by hard science, and their promises are often absurdly overblown … Only the most simple-minded and philosophically naive scientist, of whom there are many, thinks that science is characterized entirely by hard inference and mathematical proofs based on indisputable data

Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.

As for the “much” stronger evidence, as stated in the article, every time scientists solve a mystery of something they thought was “finely tuned”, they realized that there is a much simpler explanation than God. Evolution, for instance, eliminates the question of "fine tuning" in life. “God” is a metaphor for “things outside my understanding”. Once they move within our understanding, nobody claims that they’re God anymore. And FWIW, some of the most famous scientists ever came to the same "Because God" conclusion, which held until someone else got past it and solved what they couldn't.

I'm glad you understand that the whole enterprise of science was initially driven by the Christian idea that God created an orderly Universe based on laws, and thus we could reason out what was going on by investigating secondary causes. Yet God wasn't a metaphor for something we didn't understand; God was the reason we were interested in trying to understand in the first place, or even thought that we could.

You say there is this "because God" brick wall that we break down by determining the operations of the Universe. We can then see that it was never God at all, but X Y Z, yet what does that prove? Genesis 1 says "God created", and that He controls everything. What you're confusing is mechanism with agency. Can you rule out a clockmaker by explaining how the clock works? That's exactly what you're saying here, and it is an invalid argument.

You also act as if evolution has been indisputably proven. Let me ask you this question, since you claim to understand science so well. What is the proof and evidence that evolution is a fact? Be specific. What clinches it?

So to your conclusion, how do you figure that the appearance of fine tuning—which seems to go away when you look close enough—is stronger evidence?

It only goes away when you come to a series of false conclusions as you have above. The evidence is there, even the scientists admit it. To avoid the conclusion multiple universes are postulated. However, this is even more implausible for this reason; the multiple universe generator would be even more fine tuned than this Universe. Therefore, you are pointing right back at a fine tuner once more.

Eh??? But in your last nine paragraphs, YOU yourself, a limited temporal creature, have been trying to prove God’s existence with your “fine tuning” argument (corrupt reasoning, like you say), even after you've repeatedly asserted in the other threads that the only possible evidence for God is that he’ll answer our prayers. Why are you bothering? It is laughable how inconsistent you’re being here.

I wouldn't know the truth on my own; only God can reveal what the truth is. There are two routes to the truth. One is that you're omnipotent. Another is that an omnipotent being tells you what the truth is. Can you think of any others?

Keep fishing. Either the patient being prayed for recovers or doesn't recover. If not, the sincere prayers weren't answered. Unless you’re suggesting God secretly removed the free will of the scientists and the people praying so that the tests would come back negative? Gimme a break.

You seem to believe that free will means God doesn't interfere in the Creation, and this isn't the case. Free will means, you have the choice to obey or disobey God. It doesn't mean you are free from Gods influences. That's the whole idea of prayer, that God is going to exert His influence on creation to change something. God is directly involved in the affairs of men, He sets up Kingdoms, He takes them away. He put you where He wanted you and He will take you out when He has sovereignly planned to do it.

Even if the prayers are sincere, God isn't going to heal everyone. Yes, either way the patient recovers or doesn't recover, and either way, God isn't going to reveal His existence outside of what He has ordained; faith in His Son Jesus Christ. Anyone trying to prove Gods existence any other way will always come away disappointed.

And all of this was written only after the prophesy was fulfilled. A little too convenient.

Actually it was written hundreds of years before hand.

The 70 weeks are not concurrent, first of all.

I know. I'm assuming they were consecutive. How could 70 weeks be concurrent? That makes no sense at all. Even if you meant to say “not consecutive”, what does it mean to declare a time limit of 70 weeks if they're not consecutive? It means nothing. That time limit could extend to today. What's your source for saying they're not concurrent/consecutive/whatever?

This is why I suggested you become more familiar with theology. Yes, you're right, I meant to say consecutive. You would know they were not consecutive if you read the scripture. The prophecy identifies they are not consecutive. Please see this:

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2004/552/

Again, conveniently, this “prediction” doesn't appear in writing until after the fall of Jerusalem.

Jerusalem fell in 70 AD. The gospels were written beforehand. If they were written afterwards, there would have been a mention of the fall of the city, if only to confirm the prophecy, but there is no mention of it in any of the gospels.

I'll rephrase this by saying, that Jesus fulfilled dozens of prophecies about the coming of the Messiah. Clearly, the impact of that Jesus has had on the world matches His claims about who He is.

Which clearly defined prophecies did he fulfil, not including ones that he knew about and could choose to do (like riding on a donkey)?

http://www.godonthe.net/evidence/messiah.htm

Except for all the religions that aren't Christian. They don’t belong to him, and they have surely had enough time to hear his voice.

The world belongs to Christ. The difference between the Lord and the other religions is this:

1 Chronicles 16:26

For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the LORD made the heavens

You really think that’s unique to Christianity? Do you know much about Islam? And I don't mean Western stereotypes of it. I mean, really know how normal Muslim people live their lives.

Muslims don't have a personal relationship with God. Allah keeps them at arms length, and they mostly serve him out of fear. They also have no idea whether they are going to heaven or not. They only hope that at the end of time their good works will add up more than their bad ones. The reason Muslims choose martyrdom is because under Islam it is the only guaranteed way to go to Heaven.

I get it. It’s a test of sincerity. For whom? Who is going to read and understand the results? To whom is the sincerity proven that didn't know it before, requiring a test? I think you’re avoiding admitting it’s God because that would mean there’s something God doesn't know.

Why do metalworkers purify gold? To remove the dross. That's exactly what God is doing when He tests us:

1 Peter 1:6

In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials.

These have come so that your faith--of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire--may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.

>> ^messenger:

stuff

Your probably right I admit I am a bit ignorant of this particular sport, and after watching it again there wasn't any real time between when the ref. got there and when the ball hits them. So the ref. very may have been in the process of telling the guy to get up or get off the field. I guess I just got the impression the first time I watched it that the ref. was basically taking the guys word that he was injured and was fixing to issue a penalty. I could be wrong in this case though because not enough time elapsed for the ref. to even make a decision. Still my final word is like or not he was right the guy was obviously faking it. And the only fair call in my mind would have been to penalize them both for unsportsmanlike conduct.
>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Auger8:
I see your point and at the same time I don't yes I agree it's wrong to hurt people for no reason. Do I think one very slow air ball that barely tapped both guys hurt them, no. Do I think the ref. has any capacity to tell if someone is faking an injury, no. Do I agree with how Beckham handled the situation, no. Do I think this might open the eyes of a lot of people, refs. included who see players take glancing blows and suddenly cry whiplash knowing the other team will be penalized, I hope so. In the short time I played Football in junior high I quickly realized how corrupt these sports have become. We were taught to fake injury at the slightest touch if we thought we could get away with it and if the resulting penalty would help our team win the game. Bending the rules to win isn't good sportsmanship. Now neither is kicking balls at someone who's on the ground claiming to be hurt.
But tell me if you knew, I mean absolutely knew that the guy was faking it but knew the ref. wasn't going to listen to you, because either you were the supposed offender or just because you were on the opposing team. What would you do?
I might not exactly agree with Beckham's ultimate choice here to ferret out a rat. But ferret one out he certainly did and if it makes the refs. more careful when assessing injuries then the sport is better for it. I personally think the reason they didn't Red Card him was because the refs. knew they fucked up and knew they fucked up big time. If they Red Carded Beckham they would have had to do the same to the other player for feigning injury.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Auger8:
I could tell he kicked two balls at him in the video here not real clearly but I saw it.
My question is this: So you don't agree that the guy on the ground was intentionally faking an injury? A leg injury at that. He seemed to run just fined after Beckham. Beckham may be a douche but in this instance he was right. Like it or not.
>> ^Yogi:
By the way what this video doesn't show is that Beckham actually kicked TWO balls at Sam Cronin...only one was off target.
Beckham is such a Douchenozzle in the MLS it's embarrassing. He runs that league like it's his own private playground, constantly screaming at officials and telling them "Fuck You" to their faces over and over for nothing. I've lost whatever respect I've had for him since he's show'd what a cruel and insolent jackass he can be.
The MLS is a joke of a league for not dealing with him properly. For this the referee didn't give him a red card, when it clearly is. The league then suspended him for one game and fined him an undisclosed amount of probably $1000 which is pointless for Beckham. It's just nuts, American Football cannot grow with these shit people.


So you hit people when they're faking an injury? What are you 8? So what he was faking, it's up to the referee to get him up and add time, kicking balls at him and hitting him and the referee is a red card offense. It doesn't matter that he was faking an injury.
This is just like on Cops when the police are talking to a guy who just hit his wife "Yeah but she said..." It Doesn't Matter! You can't hit people!


Ok I'll preface this with saying I've been a soccer referee for the last 15 years. When I'm confronted by this situation I confront the individual and I get them up. If they don't want to get up I call on their coach and he has to leave the field, and his team plays short a man because of it (unless they want to sub which if he's faking probably not) and I add time if it's necessary. The players do nothing, they have no rights to grab him, pick him up, or tell me he's faking, it's my job to deal with the "injury," manage the clock and get the game going again.
So I don't know what you're saying about the officials knew the "fucked up" what in the world did they do wrong? He did exactly what he was supposed to. He went over to the player and told him to get to his feet, big deal get on with the game. Beckham is causing problems that makes the referees job harder cause now their could be a serious altercation after the match, possibly with serious consequences.

>> ^Auger8:

I see your point and at the same time I don't yes I agree it's wrong to hurt people for no reason. Do I think one very slow air ball that barely tapped both guys hurt them, no. Do I think the ref. has any capacity to tell if someone is faking an injury, no. Do I agree with how Beckham handled the situation, no. Do I think this might open the eyes of a lot of people, refs. included who see players take glancing blows and suddenly cry whiplash knowing the other team will be penalized, I hope so. In the short time I played Football in junior high I quickly realized how corrupt these sports have become. We were taught to fake injury at the slightest touch if we thought we could get away with it and if the resulting penalty would help our team win the game. Bending the rules to win isn't good sportsmanship. Now neither is kicking balls at someone who's on the ground claiming to be hurt.
But tell me if you knew, I mean absolutely knew that the guy was faking it but knew the ref. wasn't going to listen to you, because either you were the supposed offender or just because you were on the opposing team. What would you do?
I might not exactly agree with Beckham's ultimate choice here to ferret out a rat. But ferret one out he certainly did and if it makes the refs. more careful when assessing injuries then the sport is better for it. I personally think the reason they didn't Red Card him was because the refs. knew they fucked up and knew they fucked up big time. If they Red Carded Beckham they would have had to do the same to the other player for feigning injury.

>>




Ok I'll preface this with saying I've been a soccer referee for the last 15 years. When I'm confronted by this situation I confront the individual and I get them up. If they don't want to get up I call on their coach and he has to leave the field, and his team plays short a man because of it (unless they want to sub which if he's faking probably not) and I add time if it's necessary. The players do nothing, they have no rights to grab him, pick him up, or tell me he's faking, it's my job to deal with the "injury," manage the clock and get the game going again.

So I don't know what you're saying about the officials knew the "fucked up" what in the world did they do wrong? He did exactly what he was supposed to. He went over to the player and told him to get to his feet, big deal get on with the game. Beckham is causing problems that makes the referees job harder cause now their could be a serious altercation after the match, possibly with serious consequences.

I see your point and at the same time I don't yes I agree it's wrong to hurt people for no reason. Do I think one very slow air ball that barely tapped both guys hurt them, no. Do I think the ref. has any capacity to tell if someone is faking an injury, no. Do I agree with how Beckham handled the situation, no. Do I think this might open the eyes of a lot of people, refs. included who see players take glancing blows and suddenly cry whiplash knowing the other team will be penalized, I hope so. In the short time I played Football in junior high I quickly realized how corrupt these sports have become. We were taught to fake injury at the slightest touch if we thought we could get away with it and if the resulting penalty would help our team win the game. Bending the rules to win isn't good sportsmanship. Now neither is kicking balls at someone who's on the ground claiming to be hurt.

But tell me if you knew, I mean absolutely knew that the guy was faking it but knew the ref. wasn't going to listen to you, because either you were the supposed offender or just because you were on the opposing team. What would you do?

I might not exactly agree with Beckham's ultimate choice here to ferret out a rat. But ferret one out he certainly did and if it makes the refs. more careful when assessing injuries then the sport is better for it. I personally think the reason they didn't Red Card him was because the refs. knew they fucked up and knew they fucked up big time. If they Red Carded Beckham they would have had to do the same to the other player for feigning injury.


>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Auger8:
I could tell he kicked two balls at him in the video here not real clearly but I saw it.
My question is this: So you don't agree that the guy on the ground was intentionally faking an injury? A leg injury at that. He seemed to run just fined after Beckham. Beckham may be a douche but in this instance he was right. Like it or not.
>> ^Yogi:
By the way what this video doesn't show is that Beckham actually kicked TWO balls at Sam Cronin...only one was off target.
Beckham is such a Douchenozzle in the MLS it's embarrassing. He runs that league like it's his own private playground, constantly screaming at officials and telling them "Fuck You" to their faces over and over for nothing. I've lost whatever respect I've had for him since he's show'd what a cruel and insolent jackass he can be.
The MLS is a joke of a league for not dealing with him properly. For this the referee didn't give him a red card, when it clearly is. The league then suspended him for one game and fined him an undisclosed amount of probably $1000 which is pointless for Beckham. It's just nuts, American Football cannot grow with these shit people.


So you hit people when they're faking an injury? What are you 8? So what he was faking, it's up to the referee to get him up and add time, kicking balls at him and hitting him and the referee is a red card offense. It doesn't matter that he was faking an injury.
This is just like on Cops when the police are talking to a guy who just hit his wife "Yeah but she said..." It Doesn't Matter! You can't hit people!

This was good, but give this video a listen and you might like it better http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duWTfl4MJ1c

>> ^bareboards2:

Bible. Bullshit. Same paragraph.
Snit fricking fracking fit.
He used profanity. He didn't phrase his argument in a way in which you wanted him to phrase it.
So what? The guy cusses. He used shorthand to make his point. I understood him perfectly.
You want context? Read anything he has ever written. Watch more than two minutes of any video. The guy has a potty mouth.
And?
The question becomes why can't you hear the LOGIC of his statements? Well, no question really. This is why I have chosen not to engage in any protracted argument about this. YOU AREN'T LISTENING TO HIM. There is no point in arguing when you never heard him to start with.
You heard Bullshit blah blah Bible. Ginger Ginger Ginger, my man.
If you don't know what I mean by that, read my little anecdote above about Gary Larson.
I will grant you that there are some people who can rightly claim that he attacked their faith.
They are the persons out there who stone women for not being virgins on their wedding nights, who don't mix fibers, who refuse to eat shellfish or pork.
They exist.
Super Orthodox Hassidic Jews. Extremely conservative Muslims. A tiny tiny subset of Christians.
But I guarantee you, no Christians in that room. Any Christian who follows EVERY SINGLE WORD of the Bible does not send their children to school. They lock them up and home-school them.
Anyone else who claims that Dan Savage is attacking the Christian faith of anyone in that room is as incapable of reasoning thought as Ginger Ginger Ginger.
Damn. And here I am arguing anyway. Damn it.
@dirkdeagler7. Now I am REALLY done.


TLDR: I actually agree with his overall sentiment so you are OUTRIGHT wrong in saying I did not listen to him, you in fact do not listen to other people it seems.

Now you really do sound like the people you are criticizing. You say I dont listen yet you ignored the fact that i said, in so many words, that I agree with his overall message in this segment (as I said I'm not against the gay lifestyle, rights, or marriage. I also said sexual preference is no one elses business which means I disagree with bullying or ostracizing homosexuals). I never criticized the LOGIC in his statements merely the manner in which he gave them and the context (this goes beyond his lecture topic and includes the fact that these are HS students at a lecture about bullying).

Not only did you not listen and create an argument that is apparently at someone else other than me (i actually had to double take to make sure this was directed at me...full honesty), but you go on to drop these gems:

"But I guarantee you, no Christians in that room. Any Christian who follows EVERY SINGLE WORD of the Bible does not send their children to school. They lock them up and home-school them."

"Anyone else who claims that Dan Savage is attacking the Christian faith of anyone in that room is as incapable of reasoning thought as Ginger Ginger Ginger."

At this point Im actually feeling badly for picking on you and stupid for arguing with you. It's apparent that your argument and stance are not processing anything anyone has said in this comment thread...it shouldn't be a surprise now that I realize you posted the vid to begin with.

So here you are: disregarding fact (the apologies by him and the organizers), dismissing and attacking any opinion that is counter to your own, twisting and misinterpreting (or just not listening) to what I'm saying and then disagreeing with me and using laughable attempts to belittle me and my thought process, and using wide based and unfounded arguments/beliefs (ie my quotes above) to prove your point

You sound just like the people you seem to hate on, just on the other side of the coin and you sit on your high horse unable to see this very basic possibility...that you might be wrong in this matter.

I can't NOT do a run-down of the subtitles. They're just too goddamn funny.

"The justified and has charged up former C_i_a_ officer
are john and tour kalo
steeple player is said that right
arbiter reiterates problems they write me anyway out with a espionage act
now that's a very very serious charge you know that before president obama
theres only been
three instances of the united states government
charging someone with the espionage act
forgiving excessive information
as they claim
this former cia officer there
and
six different tastes
that is special on it because president or bob promise to
i'd be air and friend to whistle blowers
entrance passage
there's something wrong in our government he reported he was going to
help you
doesn't look like he's albania
so whatever sag ideal while he talked about
how we want a quart of people
and how was torture
now he thought it was justified even did an interview on sixty minutes
and said
uh that he thought it worked the underplayed amount of george but we did
but do you happen to call it torture
now they look at that missy i did not like that
furthermore there was a two thousand a new york times story which invade
believe he is the source of the dam
proving at and so they well okay i got past and i jack I guess you're you
know
there was one of the toughest laws we have
and we're company get your are part of the spaces
because it's if
here's a great irony of that
if you actually do the waterboarding if you didn't torture
you got no punishment whatsoever
now present all mama claimed it was torture and ridiculous and he says he
stopped at
as ridiculous in a squabble right
is torture
but he didn't always scot-free
the president will not
look backward euler look for work
if you report the waterboarding the torture
espionage act
when I play with a look back work
all its to protect the C_i_a_'s after this thing
protect that's the bush administration
error and dick cheyney that order that torture well then of course you look
backward and in fact the new uh... looked very deep into you know us info about
charging
the defense lawyers at one time all back
our whole system is based on
an adversarial system
where somebody gets a defects
now one of the press uh.. tactics was to look at that
interrogators
and try and determine who they were so they can bring them into the court
and say eight use them as witnesses
because the guys who aren't going to have a bank
that are face execution
listen when you get an executed we should be able to call the witnesses

That's not even half the video. But I laughed my ass off.

If you listen carefully, you can almost hear Noam Chomsky in the crowd

I'm no expert when it comes to a global warming debate, but I've been on this Earth for well over 40 years and I'll be damned if I can tell you the last winter in the Detroit area I've been through where I have not once had to shovel snow up to this point in the season. I'll give you a hint: N-E-V-E-R. Something's going on, and it ain't no "tide goes in, tide goes out" bullshit.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^lantern53:
What's happened to our educational institutions?

Idiots like you aren't allowed in them.
Seriously lets look at the facts about the smartest mother fuckers on this planet. They know global warming is occurring.
Anyone who's smarter than Stephen Hawking please stand up and we'll listen to you. Otherwise, nah shut the fuck up.

Perhaps this is helpful. Maybe it isn't.

I was once socially inept and felt unsure of how to interact with people. I get the same feeling when I happen to be around people from customs and cultures.

I found the solution that turned things around for me was to simply smile. This may invite people to talk to you. In this case, just try to listen. If you reply and they don't like what you said, repeat back to step one.

>> ^lantern53:

What's happened to our educational institutions?


Idiots like you aren't allowed in them.

Seriously lets look at the facts about the smartest mother fuckers on this planet. They know global warming is occurring.

Anyone who's smarter than Stephen Hawking please stand up and we'll listen to you. Otherwise, nah shut the fuck up.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Buffy and Blade teaming up to kill the Vampires and Werewolves of Twilight? Brilliant.


Funny or Die MUST listen to you...