Hey, thought we could continue our conversation here if you like.

The problem is deeper for the atheist position because the existence of evil is actually proof that God exists. There couldn't be any such thing as evil apart from the existence of God. Without the objective standard of Gods moral law, good and evil don't exist. Yet evil does exist and we know there is a right and wrong. We know some things, like rape, are just absolutely wrong. When we do something wrong, we feel terrible, and that is because we are guilty of violating the moral law. We all have a God given conscience that tells us that. So, when you think of how things ought to be, what standard are you using? If there is no good and evil, it ought to be the way it is. According to evolutionary principles, the way things ought to be are whatever causes us to pass on our genes. Raping is actually a good thing according to evolutionary principles, yet we know it is evil even though it could pass on our genes. So, there is a higher standard that we all answer to, and what I am saying is that this comes directly from God, and we are all accountable to it.

In reply to this comment by agopo:

I'm not at all a scholar of the bible. I've read parts, I've been to
Sunday school before i was confirmed (age 14) and I have at times had
fun reading it.

Well, I would encourage you to try to understand it. Every conversation I've ever had with an atheist about the bible either brings up the same five things from the old testament or their doubts about who wrote the bible..and that's it. I've never actually spoken to an atheist, and I've spoken to many atheists, who even understood the basics. I think that if you're going to criticize something, you should at least try to understand it at a basic level..maybe that's just me. Although, the lack of understanding matches what the bible says, that the truth is spiritually discerned. Without the Holy Spirit, the atheist is going to find it fairly impossible to comprehend.

Arguing from authority is not a strong argument. Just because "the
intellectual scholarship" is much greater than I understand, doesn't
change what the book says. And since new evidence is not uncovered, it
is what it is, you are forced to "interpret new evidence" and that's
not the way the world works.

What you, and many others try to imply, is that what is the bible is simplistic, and for people without any intellectual standards. The truth is that what is in the bible is complex, and it takes a real intellect (supplanted with godly wisdom) to be able to understand it. The intellectual scholarship is vast because the bible is inexaustible. It functions as a cogent whole, and address all the deep questions that human beings have. It is not simple by any stretch of the imagination.

1) Personal evidence cannot be verified. What things were revealed to
you before you ever read or understood them? How were they revealed,
what was revealed, how did you later understand them / where did you
read them?

I would like to understand your thought process, which is why I ask.

Is it possible that you already had a forgone conclusion when you read
X, and therefore you interpreted X the way you wanted?

God had revealed to me through signs that He is a triune God, and that He has a Messiah, someone whose job it is to save the world. So when I finally read the bible, those signs are what initially confirmed it to be true. I didn't have any foregone conclusions about the bible before I read it. I had no actual idea what Christianity was all about.

What happened? How has your life improved, what did you do before,
what do you do now? How can you tell that it happened supernaturally?
Is there any difference from that to just having a profound change of
heart. If you are talking about addiction, it is possible to fill the
void of that addiction with other things - some people exchange
cigarettes with food, why not religion/faith? Does your faith take up
as much of your time as "the unhealthy things" you did before?

Before I became a Christian I was a theist, and before I was a theist I was an agnostic. When I became a theist my bad behavior didn't change. I was like Enoch, in that I believed that none of the religions were true, or that all of them just had pieces of who God is. I believed in a God that loved you the way you are and didn't particularly enforce any kind of behavior upon you, as long as your heart was in the right place. I would think that God, knowing me intimately, and knowing my good intentions, was very understanding if I did something which was out of line. Of course God is very patient with all of us, but the point is that I had plenty of faith in God at the time, and spent my time thinking about Him and pursuing the truth. The difference is that once I accepted Jesus into my heart as my Lord and Savior, everything changed.

It was only when I became a Christian that my behavior changed, and much of that practically overnight. When you're born again, you are spiritually cleansed and start out with a blank slate. You become like new. I had addictions, depression, anger, pain, sadness, and other issues that left me in short order. Some of those things I never thought I would give up, some of them I never wanted to give up, but I immediately lost the desire for them. It was a change of heart; God gave me a new one. It was supernatural because as I said, I didn't do any work. People spend their entire lives in therapy or counseling and spend tens of thousands of dollars or more to get rid of just some of these problems, and often don't see any results. I lost almost all of my baggage in just a few short months.

3) Not really. It only accounts for a visual interpretation of how men act. The writers of it has observed how people act and guessed at reasons why that is. Some are close to reality, some are way off. Which human behaviors does it predict? How and where does it describe in finite detail how those behaviors are created? I'm looking for actual citations here, because this is complete news to me.

It predicts all kinds of human behaviors by describing the mechanisms which motivate them to act. It shows the fundemental dichotomy of the heart of man. As an example:

James 3:3-10

When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.

and

Matthew 12:34

O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

and

Matthew 15:19-20

But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

4) I disagree. It describes a point of view. The morality of the God of the bible is hardly any good morality. We have an ingrown moral compass, I can agree on that, it's been naturally selected against because it helped our ancestors to survive and procreate. "His moral law" is atrocious, if the bible is any indicator.

If everyone followed the morality that Jesus taught us, this planet would be as close to a utopia it could possibly get. He taught us to love one another, to forgive as a rule, to do good to even those who hate you, to help everyone in need, and to follow the moral law. Your idea of Gods morality being atrocious is plainly false. The passages that you feel are atrocious have an explanation, its just whether you want to hear them or not. As far as natural selection goes, all it cares about is passing on its genes. That is the only criteria for success. This doesn't explain noble behavior in the least, such as sacrificing your life for someone else. That's a bad way to pass on your genes.

5) Which prophecies have been fulfilled? You don't think Israel chose their currency based on the bible instead? Which captivities have been prophecied down to the year and where in the bible?

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


6) This is hardly uncontested. There are parts of the bible that seem to be true, but because some of it is true, does not mean that all of it is. http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history#Historical_accuracy_of_biblical_stories

It's positive evidence in the bibles favor when it is verified by archaelogical evidence. There are many things in the bible that historians denied were true in the bible, like the hittite civilization, until archaelogy proved the bible correct.

7) Citation needed. Saying that the universe has a beginning is hardly proof of anything. That's the easy way to say it, anyone apart from earlier theories said that, so of course they did it in there too. In actuality the bible claims that God is eternal, which there is no basis for.

These claims are just claims, there is no basis for saying them in the bible. Blood clotting could be found by trial and error back then, ocean currents can to a great extent be measured by fishermen even back then. Scientists who believed in an eternal universe have since changed their mind, when evidence discredited the theory. It's all about being able to back up your claims. the bible just claims.

This guy discovered and mapped the ocean currents, and he did so being inspired by psalm 8, which is the one that mentions the "paths of the seas"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Fontaine_Maury

Abraham didn't learn from trial and error. They were doing circumcisions on the 8th day from the beginning.

You must think something is eternal, unless you believe something came from nothing. So your problem isn't really with eternal things, just an eternal person.

Here is a list of them

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scientific_facts_in_the_bible.html

8 ) How did you experience the holy spirit?

It's really impossible quite impossible to describe since it effects every level of your being at the same time, but experientially you could say it's like going from 110 to 220v. It's like you lived all your life being covered in filth and suddenly you're washed off and sparkling clean. It's like being remade into something brand new.

>> ^gwiz665

@shinyblurry Thank you for posting your reasons for believing the Bible to be credible. It is refreshing to have someone properly lay out their case instead of the normal circular reasoning I normally hear (God is real because the bible says it, the bible is true because God wrote it).

I'm not at all a scholar of the bible. I've read parts, I've been to Sunday school before i was confirmed (age 14) and I have at times had fun reading it.

Arguing from authority is not a strong argument. Just because "the intellectual scholarship" is much greater than I understand, doesn't change what the book says. And since new evidence is not uncovered, it is what it is, you are forced to "interpret new evidence" and that's not the way the world works.

1) Personal evidence cannot be verified. What things were revealed to you before you ever read or understood them? How were they revealed, what was revealed, how did you later understand them / where did you read them?

I would like to understand your thought process, which is why I ask.

Is it possible that you already had a forgone conclusion when you read X, and therefore you interpreted X the way you wanted?

2) What happened? How has your life improved, what did you do before, what do you do now? How can you tell that it happened supernaturally? Is there any difference from that to just having a profound change of heart. If you are talking about addiction, it is possible to fill the void of that addiction with other things - some people exchange cigarettes with food, why not religion/faith? Does your faith take up as much of your time as "the unhealthy things" you did before?

3) Not really. It only accounts for a visual interpretation of how men act. The writers of it has observed how people act and guessed at reasons why that is. Some are close to reality, some are way off. Which human behaviors does it predict? How and where does it describe in finite detail how those behaviors are created? I'm looking for actual citations here, because this is complete news to me.

4) I disagree. It describes a point of view. The morality of the God of the bible is hardly any good morality. We have an ingrown moral compass, I can agree on that, it's been naturally selected against because it helped our ancestors to survive and procreate. "His moral law" is atrocious, if the bible is any indicator.

5) Which prophecies have been fulfilled? You don't think Israel chose their currency based on the bible instead? Which captivities have been prophecied down to the year and where in the bible?

6) This is hardly uncontested. There are parts of the bible that seem to be true, but because some of it is true, does not mean that all of it is. http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history#Historical_accuracy_of_biblical_stories

7) Citation needed. Saying that the universe has a beginning is hardly proof of anything. That's the easy way to say it, anyone apart from earlier theories said that, so of course they did it in there too. In actuality the bible claims that God is eternal, which there is no basis for.
These claims are just claims, there is no basis for saying them in the bible. Blood clotting could be found by trial and error back then, ocean currents can to a great extent be measured by fishermen even back then. Scientists who believed in an eternal universe have since changed their mind, when evidence discredited the theory. It's all about being able to back up your claims. the bible just claims.

8 ) How did you experience the holy spirit?

I think your have veiled your eyes more than I do.


Yea, I tell you, if you do not have an orange aura, you will never understand the complexities of the universe.

I am very open-minded to new ideas, even though it might not seem like it in my comments here, but that's entirely because no one has yet presented any new ideas with any shred of evidence or backup other than, for instance, the bible which is not a credible source. @shinyblurry, I'm looking at you.

Have you ever read the bible? I've found most critics of the bible haven't actually even read it, much less understood it. Generally, the average atheist will pick through it and find a few things he doesn't like and then turns off his brain at that point. The intellectual scholarship of Christianity is much greater than you understand, and if you studied the bible for an entire lifetime you still wouldn't know everything there is to know that is in it. It is inexaustible.

I'll give you a few reasons why I think the bible is credible. The first two are personal. One, that revelation was given to me about certain facts in the bible, before I ever read or understood it, so that when I did read it, it was instantly confirmed to me as being divinely inspired.

Two, by following the words of Jesus Christ, my life has been completely transformed for the better in every tangible way. I stopped doing many unhealthy things I formally did not have the willpower or inclination to stop doing, and these near instantaneously. There was also a transformation of my character, and a 100 percent cure to any depression that I experienced, that being replaced with joy. None of this was accomplished by hard work on my part; I simply believed in Gods promises and followed His word and it all happened supernaturally through the Holy Spirit. The experience I've had matches the promises to the letter.

Three, the bible accurately describes the human condition. It lays bare the nature of man and describes the fundemental dichotomies of his existence. It accurately predicts human behavior and describes in finite detail the mechanisms that create those behaviors.

Four, the bible accurately describes the moral realm. It shows that right and wrong is intuitive to human nature, being that each of us has a God given conscience that knows right from wrong. This matches the universal norms of morality we see in all human civilizations. It also matches my experience, that although humans can justify any kind of behavior, that there is a sense of absolute right and wrong which precedes any intellectual calculation. It further illustrates the moral responsibility we have to our Creator, because sin transgresses His moral law. That the guilty conscience you have is foremost because you have offended a holy God, and the things you think you have gotten away with are really the chains that bind you.

Five, the bible has much fulfilled prophecy, starting with all of the prophecies of the Messiah, which Jesus fulfilled hundreds and in some cases over a 1000 years after they were written. There are also prophecies about israel going into captivity at certain times down to the year, the destruction of Jerusalem, the recent reformation of Israel, accurately predicting even the very currency it would be using.

Six, that it is historically accurate, and has been verified by archaelogy literally 10s of thousands of times. The people, places and civilizations in the bible have been confirmed as being real and existing as described, and this over much scoffing and skepticism over the centuries.

Seven, that it contains certain facts about the world that simply could not have been known at the time, such as information about the hydrologic cycle, ocean currents and springs, the right day for circumcision (on the 8th day the chemicals for blod clotting are at their highest peak), that the earth is free floating in space, the uncountable number of stars (at the time they thought that they could put a number to it by counting the ones we can see), etc..or at the most basic, that it says the Universe had a beginning, which science didn't figure out until more recently..and scientists actually used to use their belief in an eternal Universe to discredit the bible..

One of the biggest confirmations was that I received the Holy Spirit. That alone confirms everything Jesus said is true. It is something tangible and is an experiential experience that isn't simply wishful thinking. More than an experience, it is to know God personally, because His Spirit dwells within you.

Lastly, and most importantly, is the person of Jesus Himself. His words outrank by a vast degree any earthly wisdom, and expose the vain philosophies of man as foolish and futile. His words are a fountain of life, living and active, and they set the standard for all human discourse. Indeed, they are the words this civilization is built upon. The transforming power they have had on the world and in the hearts of men is beyond dispute, and direct proof of their pure truth. To follow the example of Jesus is the most difficult thing any person could ever try to do (indeed it is impossible without supernatural help) and it is also the most rewarding (as in eternally). In truth, they are the only words that lead to life. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

So, these are a few reasons I think the bible is credible. What I can tell you is that without the Holy Spirit you will never understand it, because it is truth that comes by supernatural revelation. Feel free to disagree, but I was once in your position, and believed much the same things about the bible. You just cannot imagine how far off you are from understanding it until that veil is removed from your eyes.

>> ^gwiz665

First paragraph is interesting, and has 2 good questions in it. One, how can you trust something that comes from something that can't be trusted. Second is the issue of what rationality even is. And is it even possible to bring it into question, ever. These 2 questions are the prime questions in my own person philosophy, and mirror some of the greater minds of history, I am, after all, only a single man in the long history of human thought.

I too am but a man, limited and small, but hopefully I can bring some godly wisdom into this. Between the two of us, maybe we can reduce this down to size.

I think the first question is actually very easy to answer, not to say that I didn't struggle for an answer for a long time. It is hard to think of things like this completely unclouded. But, the answer remains very easy, for me that is. There is a famous logical fallacy called "Guilt by association" , or, the Hitler Card, or various other things *Reductio ad Hitlerum when being MR. Smarty Pants *. For me to have a problem with its emergent nature from nature; I would need to be able to make an argument against it based on its own lack of integrity, not its associations with nature. One shouldn't be to troubled making this failed comparison, I do it more often than I care to admit!

Yes, I believe it is commonly referred to as the genetic fallacy. That the conclusion is inferred based on a defect of origins rather than the current meaning. I would not condemn rationality on that basis alone, but I use it to show that necessarily in the secular worldview, rationality is not the invincible and eternal God it is made out to be; that it had very humble origins inside a petri dish. This is just to crack open the door of introspection.

To say the same thing over, an objects creation doesn't mean it is still only consistent of the properties that made it. One can see this in ourselves, we are made from inorganic material, and thusly, it isn't proper to say we aren't organic because we came from the inorganic. Also, when I combine things of 2 different chemical properties, it is likely that I will arrive with something with completely different properties from the other two. So both in the logical base, and the higher abstraction, we fail to condemn rationality, we must attack its merits if we hope to win!

You're right, not much is to be gained by this particular argument about rationality. We must go deeper and suss out what it actually is.

The way you went about trying to condemn rationality from my own starting point of naturalistic existence was, however, the correct way to go about it. What I mean to say is you didn't try to use reason to undercut reason, like the postmodernists do, but tried to show that the foundations, at is concerns my own world view, are unfounded at the base. Proper technique, but a flawed argument, IMO. Leaps ahead of some European thinkers though

Thanks. I am happy that you understand that this is about worldviews and their foundations, because that is really the heart of the matter. Many people don't seem to realize that their belief system is a lens through which they perceive reality. Jesus said this is the pivotal issue:

Matthew 7:24-27

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

The second issue of the first statement is that of rationality itself. What is it that we even mean! For myself, I have divided the term into several sub-terms to help me both think about it, and talk about specific properties of rationality. The 2 terms that I an other continental philosophers have used are Logic and Reason. Reason being the so call a posteriori method of thinking, which fall to the realms of science, and Logic; being the dubed A priori, or statements that are a necessarily true...or true without need for examination. You might of read many of my rants on how I do not trust A posteriori as a method for finding truth. It leaves itself to all the problems of induction that for my part, have never been resolved.

I agree that we can reduce rationality into those two sub-terms, Logic and Reason. So let's examine..

For logic, we have the laws of logic, which are absolute, immaterial and unchanging. Yet the Universe is material and always changing. There is nowhere in nature to point to the laws of logic, yet they clearly exist. I account for these because God is a logical being who is absolute, immaterial and unchanging. So where does logic come from and how is it absolute? I don't see how they can be accounted for in a secular view.

To analyse reason, I'll just ask a simple question. How do you know your reasoning is valid?

As far as "TRUTH" with a capital T, I hold that science and all inductive methods have ZERO claim to it, and because of the way I define knowledge (as true, certain, belief) also does not expand human knowledge. So, as an element of rationality, I don't not hold it to any great merit of truth. It is GREAT at understanding the universe as humans can experience reality, but only so far, and only so much, and never in the fullest nature as to be consistent with the word "Truth". ( Turns out, I don't explain that I believe in truth only as far as A priori methods can show them, I think any attempt to say A priori isn't a good way to think about things results in you using A priori logical statements to show it isn't true, thus thwarting the objection)

Now here is the elusive question, and the one that plagued me as an agnostic. As pontius pilate asked Jesus, what is truth? Jesus claimed to be the way, the truth, and the life, and He meant this in a literal sense. The way, is in, the only true path for all human beings. The truth, because He is the Creator and Logos. The life, because He is the source of life. Bold claims, to be sure. He claimed to be the foundation of all foundations.

Is there is a truth? Well, it is true that I typed those words "is there a truth?". It is absolutely true even though only you and I know about it (and anyone else reading this). If the record were destroyed and the witnesses were gone it would still be true. If the Universe were destroyed it would still be true. Nothing can ever change that I wrote those words; the truth is the truth. Even if someone went back in time and stopped me from doing it, it still definitely happened. So, absolute truth exists.

The question is, how can you know what it is? You can know the things you have done, and seen, to a limited extent, but beyond that it gets progressively vague. Senses deceive, and so do people. How do you know anything for sure? Well there are really only two alternatives.

To know the absolute truth beyond a doubt you would either need to be omnipotent, or, you would need to receive revelation from an omnipotent being. So you would either need to be God, or God would need to tell you directly what is going on. Everything else is just speculation. It is like a person living in a pitch black room, who goes round and round inside of it, and thinks it is the whole Universe, until God opens the door from the outside.

Side question..what do you think of this statement?: God is perfect.

I don't know that I have ever heard a good explanation about free will. I should point out, that even in my Christianity, I was a 5 point Calvinist. I never have accepted that this quazi-random thing called free will exists in any way, shape or form. In the end, it doesn't even matter, either.

I agree that this is outside our control, of course. My assertion is that it is impossible unless it is something that is given to us. There is no meaningful free will in a determinalistic Universe, which I think is the inevitable conclusion of materialism. Personally, I believe that God controls everything, but in regards to love, we have the choice to love Him or not.

Let me expand why I think that. For me, I don't have the Theological problem you do. I don't have to explain goodness or evil in terms of human choices.

It is pretty simple theologically. Only God is good. Therefore, everything God tells us to do is good. Everything God tells us not to do is evil. The only way to know goodness is to obey God, because we canot obtain to it on our own.

I don't even have to believe in good or evil, or even if I do think it is a "something that exists", I HAVE to remain agnostic about it in the same way I do God, reason being is there isn't really a reasonable way to go about forming the groups "Good" and "Evil". Is it good to tie my shoe laces, or to just slip my feet right inside that shoe! It seems that most of life would either be impossible to show its good or evil value, but even more problematic, why and how!?

You may not define it but I submit that in your conscience you know what good and evil is, and that you live as if they do in fact absolutely exist. It is an intellectual quagmire if there is no moral lawgiver; it is all relative and meaningless. Yet, the whole world acts as if there is an absolute moral standard, and our conscience tells us that, before our intellect kicks in, that some things are right and others wrong. That isn't just wrong to murder someone, it is absolutely wrong. The guilt we have from past misdeeds tells us that we have trangsressed a moral law. So if there is no good and evil, how strange is it that we live as though there is? It makes no sense unless there is an absolute moral law, and in turn, a moral lawgiver.

We can see this problem in Christendom itself, there is no "one way" to be a christian! That was ALWAYS problematic for me. If truth was as easy as being in the bible, then everyone, and I mean everyone would be the same type of Christian. It would be the logical outcome of such a perfect and holy notion of good and evil. So either Christendom is in my same problematic position of not knowing the difference between good or evil, or if that even exists at all; if it wasn't some problem we created to increase the suffering of the world (like good ol Man Schopenhauer though!)

It isn't as black and white as all of that. Remember in the bible that God did non-stop miracles in front of the Israelites and they rebelled against Him anyway. Remember that Jesus did even more miracles and they ended up crucifying Him. So, the problem isn't with God, or His Word, it is with human beings. If you put God on the right and Satan on the left, and you lined up all of the Christians in the world between them, their placement in the line would be determined by what percentage of their heart they had given to God. Whatever percentage they haven't given to God is run by the world and their desires, and the more true this is, the less able they are to interpret the holy scriptures. It is the reality of sin that has created all of these different interpretations and denominations. There is one truth, and billions of Christians imperfectly interpreting it. The fact is, only Jesus was able to lead the perfect life of obedience to the Father. We all have a teacher, the Holy Spirit, to guide us into all truth, but only if we listen to Him.

So in other words, being the result of atoms bouncing around off each other degrading the absolute randomness of choices I make isn't something I have a problem with personally. As it is, my own existence, even if planned by nature or God or even myself, still remains so far beyond my ability to grasp at even day to day instances of any particular situation that even that; planned or random I have no real guess as to the goings on of that day. Perhaps if I was an all powerful God, with absolute knowledge of all factors of existence and all properties of existence I might find reality a little tedious.

It is much bigger than our limited awareness, that is for sure. What I have learned is that there is no such thing as coincidence. Try eliminating that word from your vocabulary for a few days. You might notice some very interesting things.

As to the quote, I think it a little dubious. For instance, it relates thoughts to fizz of a soda. That is fine, but they also have a comparison to HOW similar they are to each other. For instance, 1 and 2 are both numbers. There isn't really a problem with them both being numbers at the same time, its a party yall, all the numbers get to the dance floor! However, even in their exact "numberness" of being all "numbers", they still have differences to each other, even while still being numbers! So while the "one"ness of 1 being one is still just a number, a number which is a number exactly the same way 2 is, their is also a difference between 1 and 2, and it is inherit to the way that both exist. In the same way that A=A, A!=(!A). The basic laws of identity and contraindication. 1 may be of some degree of similarity to 2, and likewise, Fizz to thinking. But there is also a degree of separation. One could say the same, on a high level argument, that both smell and touch are of the "Same" physical representation of an object. So while the object they correspond to has a oneness with itself, the individual properties of its oneness are unique and independent. And not just via the method of induction, but it is AUTOMATICALLY apparent and true that things that are different are not the same. So the comparison of the atomic nature of both fizz and thoughts is ABSOLUTELY true, but so are there differences. It is those absolute differences that I, personally, use in my own method of philosophy which I borrowed and adapted from my limited understanding of Phenomenology.

I think you kind of missed the point here. It is just an analogy to show that if our thoughts are just the product of some brew of chemicals and electricity, and you and I just happened to get different chemicals, then your doubt and my faith have nothing to do with what we believe. They are just the natural result of how we are assembled and nothing else.

As to the last assumption of my beliefs, I actually don't have the same material requirement for existence. I find the views of George Berkeley, that we all exist in the minds of God, as the one of MANY, near infinite, plausible methods we could exist metaphysically.

Sure, there are many ways to imagine this, and I've heard quite a few. I think the only two meaningful questions concerning this is..is there a God, and if so, has He introduced Himself?

One might also mockingly bring up the idea of a spaghetti monster, but I have ALWAYS found that to be extremely uncharitable with the way "NORMAL" theory is crafted.

The FSM has no explanatory power. You don't get a Universe from flying pasta. The only workable theory is one that could explain all the meaningful questions that we have. I find all of those answers in Jesus Christ.

My current understanding of the universe certainly allows for a God, in fact, I find myself leaning that way more than my atheist brethren. It was, for me, certain, though, that the God of the Christian variety didn't satisfy all the problems that I had.

What problems do you feel He fell short on?

So my metaphysical undemanding doesn't have to find its roots in matter. I don't hold that matter is all there is, or that matter ISN'T all there is. I think there is not enough evidence to say either way. Moreover, I don't know that such evidence could even exist, which is why I am not only atheist, but also agnostic.

Ahh, but if you're agnostic you cannot be an atheist. If you don't know if the evidence could exist, then necessarily you don't know that it couldn't exist either. To be a true agnostic is to have no bias in either direction.

I think we are most likely creatures that are good at doing what we do, and truth...absolute truth, isn't really valuable as far as not getting eaten by a tiger is concerned.

It would be very valuable if God could help you avoid the tiger.

As such, I think humans have very few tools for understanding truth, from a Gods eye view perspective. It is the great arrogance of man that most cranktankerous arguments between scientists and religious people have with one another. We really do have more in common than different...we really have no clue what's going on. 7000 years of human discovery, great monuments of technology and thought, and yet, the truth is still as elusive as it ever was.

As I was saying above, without being God, or having direct revelation from God, we are only chasing our own tails. If there is no God we will never know how it all began or what is really going on. What I believe is that there is a God who has revealed Himself through the person of Jesus Christ. That we can know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

Hopefully, this huge wall of text has some merit and value, for I have written it while ill. I hope I have portrayed my message without the normal anger and hate associated with such inquiries. Of note, such pleasant conversations are truly all I exist for, if not for them, my life is worthless. As a person, I hope only to accomplish knowledge, and the pass that knowledge on to others. Nothing else really matters to me at all. Which is why, at times, I have lashed out at those undeserving because of the deep relationship I have with this type of endeavor. Imm'a let this fly now, and hope the typos don't completely obscure it, but I need to sleep.

I have enjoyed and appreciated your conversation. It certainly is a lot to chew on. I enjoy these kind of philosophical discussions; they have always been my bread and butter. I also appreciate that you are strictly concerned with knowledge, and how committed you are to it. I wholeheartedly approve of your endevour. Truth is what matters to me, second to love. When I was agnostic, I tied my brain into a million knots searching for it, and when I became aware there is a spirit, the mystery deepened 1000 fold. I feel I have found what truth is, which is the love of God, and I hope to share as much of that with you as I can.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK

I'm a "just born once" atheist. I lack any form of faith in any creator gods, interfering gods or any other so-called "supernatural beings". There are things I do not understand, but I live my life based on what I think is likely, what I can prove myself (or demonstrate) and what I otherwise can observe in nature.

The central claim of the Christian faith is something that you can prove to yourself. If you believe Gods testimony that He raised His Son from the dead and you confess Jesus is Lord, you will be born again and receive the Holy Spirit. It is tangible and experiential. To know God is to know Him personally, and He gives you the evidence.

Gravity, I can prove myself - to a certain degree, and when testing it, the current theory does predict the result, so I think it's true.

You can think about morality this way. If you take a look at your life, you will probably see that you live as if there is good and evil, that an absolute moral law exists. Your conscience will tell you that much, before intellect even comes into it. Some things are right and some things are wrong. The whole world acknowledges this, and this points to an absolute moral law, which in turn points to a moral lawgiver.

Evolution is a little more tricky, because I can prove micro evolution myself with fish, and with basically all the animals we have bred artificially, cats, dogs, cows, chickens etc. Macroevolution is harder, for me as a layman, but I think it is likely, because it explains so much very neatly, and it predicts how things are now, it is also the natural conclusion of micro evolution.

This is what Darwin believed, and he expected to find the evidence for it in the fossil record. Except it wasn't there:

innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ..why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geologoy assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Charles Darwin
Origin of the Species

150 years later and it still hasn't appeared. You see, if you assume that all life has a common ancestor, then you have to believe that micro-evolution leads to macro. It's a just-so story. Darwin made a quantum leap of assumption when he extrapolated micro evolution to a common ancestor. He made a great discovery, but one doesn't necessarily lead to the other. The model of micro evolution is also compatible with special creation. Why should one be preferred when there is absolutely no evidence for macro evolution? Micro has even been demonstrated not to lead to macro:

natural selection, long viewed as the process guiding evolutionary change, cannot play a significant role in determining the overall course of evolution. Micro evolution is decoupled from macro evolution.

SM Stanley Johns Hopkins University
Proceedings, National Science Academy Science
Vol.72 p.648

They have been breeding thousands of generations of fruitflies and millions of generations of bacteria and never once have they created a new species. If macro is true, you have to ask yourself why there are limits they are unable to cross. Living fossils are another problem, creatures supposedly hundreds of millions of years old, and no change at all. They found a blue green bacteria (supposedly) over 1 billion years old, and it is exactly the same as it is today. The evidence all points away from macro. Fossils enter the record in stasis; they don't change.

God can't be observed, can't even be tested for. God also have no direct impact on the world, other than through his followers, and since he (she/it) is not his followers, the conclusion is that he probably doesn't exist.

If you can't even see the operations of atoms in the world, why would you expect to see the operations of God? The bible says that in God all things live and move and have their being. How could you observe that?

It is not that I have faith that he doesn't exist, it's just that I haven't seen anything to suggest otherwise. I have the same attitude towards Ghosts, Zombies and Unicorns. I would have had the same attitude towards Dinosaurs, because, come on, they're huge lizards, no way they exist! But the evidence suggest otherwise, fossils are real, they actually did exist, but not anymore, thus my earlier theory is demolished by the evidence, and a new hypothesis is formed, one backed by evidence.

It's good that you have an open mind. That's a rare thing in this world. If you don't prefer any evidence, but just want the actual truth, no matter what it is, then all is open to you. Jesus said, seek and you shall find, knock and the door will open. Take a leap of faith and ask Him what the truth is..ask Him for revelation. If He can't hear you, all you will have done is wasted a few minutes of your life.

>> ^gwiz665

It isn't that the bible is the origin of morality, it is that God is the lawgiver who has written His moral law on our hearts. Humans know what is right and wrong because their God given conscience informs them. We both know murder is wrong, just by intuition alone. Why? Because some things are in fact absolutely and universally wrong. If we seem to share any similiarites with the animal kingdom in spirit, it is because we all have a common design.

A point of fact is that sin is what keeps us separated from God. It is not that God is hiding from you, it is that we are born spiritually dead because of sin and thus spiritually separated from a Holy God.

Isaiah 59:2 (NIV) But your iniquities have separated you from
your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will
not hear.

This is the reason Jesus came, to reconcile us to God. The wages of sin is death, and He paid that price for us, so that we could be forgiven and receieve eternal life.

>> ^swedishfriend:
>> ^gwiz665:
Morality is what we make of it. There is no rulebook against which we can measure it. We weigh it in our experiences and in what our ancestors taught us. Our evolutionary development has also imprinted certain aspects, which stay with us, like community building and "people skills".
Nature and nurture, not "god did it".
There is zero evidence that points to the bible being the origin of any morality at all, neither is a supernatural being which happens to hide whenever we look for it.
Even if there was evidence that pointed to the bible as the rule of morals, would we even want that? It's antiquated and dare I say, evil?

This is exactly it. There is plenty of evidence to show that nature through evolution does give us encouragement or discouragement in response to threat, empathy, needs, etc. What triggers those emotions and how we deal with those emotions are influenced by culture. People have lived together for millions of years before the Bible or Christianity or even before the written word. Cooperation in order to survive and even selfless sacrifice to save someone else is something we see in many social animals not just ourselves. Morality is a reasoned thing combined with a natural tendency and always has been. Religions come from people and while religion can influence other people they are initially created by people and their culture. Why nature made us this way I don't know but I know that something experienced by a few people 2000 years ago did not create the concept of morality nor does it influence all the humans and other social animals who have never heard of religion of any kind who still manage to have a concept of how to treat each other well in order for all in the group to prosper.
-Karl

You said god allows evil to exist so people will "know" him. If he can stop evil, but does not do so, he is not a good being.

And your morality response is an absolute cop out. As far as we know, Hitler never murdered anyone. But because he ordered the deaths of millions we consider him evil. Your god ordered the deaths of an entire people (1 Sam. 15:2-3), the theft of property (Numbers 31:7-18), the abduction and rape of virgins (Deuteronomy 20:10-14) and the slavery of anyone not born an Israelite (Leviticus 25:44-46) and yet you consider him good? God specifically mentions the people of Samaria and that "their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open" (Hosea 13:16). How fucked up do you have to be to think this is a benevolent god?
>> ^shinyblurry:

What I admitted to is that God allows you to have matches, and warns you that you could burn your house down, but if you ignore the warning He will still save your life..and you probably won't play with matches again in the future. If you listened to God you never would have burned your house down in the first place. God created a world in which evil did not exist; that He allowed us to screw up and bring it into the world means we have the freedom to choose. To take that away means we have no choice. What you are advocating is that God doesn't allow you to have matches, or if He does, to continually prevent you from abusing them. That isn't freedom.
As far as God breaking His own commandments, He would really only be subject to two of them, since the rest couldn't apply to Him. Lying, and murder. He never done either. He has never lied. He has killed, but it was never murder. Murder is to kill unlawfully. Under the law the penalty for sin is death. So if you want to point to places in the bible God took life, that was entirely lawful. Over 2 million people are born and die every day..giving and taking life is something God does all the time. That He is patient with us even though we are sinners shows His mercy. That He sent His Son to take our place so we could be forgiven and obtain eternal life shows His love.
>> ^Skeeve:
If I allow someone to burn your house down, only so that I can run in and save you when it is on fire so that you like me, am I a good person? You just admitted that your god does the same thing - allows evil to exist so humans will like him - so how can he be good? Why would anyone worship such a horrible creature?
As for the argument from morality that you have provided, if you provide me with something that is objectively evil, I will provide you with the bible verse in which your evil-ass god commanded someone to do it.>> ^shinyblurry:
Debunked? You're not a very good philosopher if you don't think there are any counter-arguments to this claim. First, the assumption here is that God and evil are mutually incompatible, or that God couldn't use evil to achieve His goals. If the entire purpose of your existence is to know God, and evil facilitates that, then God is capable of using it for beneficial purposes. Second, it presupposes that evil actually exists. So, if there is evil there also must be good, and there must be a moral law differentiating between the two, which leads to a lawgiver.
>> ^Skeeve:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?
Epicurus (c. 341 - c. 270 BC)
This garbage was debunked 2300 years ago.

What I admitted to is that God allows you to have matches, and warns you that you could burn your house down, but if you ignore the warning He will still save your life..and you probably won't play with matches again in the future. If you listened to God you never would have burned your house down in the first place. God created a world in which evil did not exist; that He allowed us to screw up and bring it into the world means we have the freedom to choose. To take that away means we have no choice. What you are advocating is that God doesn't allow you to have matches, or if He does, to continually prevent you from abusing them. That isn't freedom.

As far as God breaking His own commandments, He would really only be subject to two of them, since the rest couldn't apply to Him. Lying, and murder. He never done either. He has never lied. He has killed, but it was never murder. Murder is to kill unlawfully. Under the law the penalty for sin is death. So if you want to point to places in the bible God took life, that was entirely lawful. Over 2 million people are born and die every day..giving and taking life is something God does all the time. That He is patient with us even though we are sinners shows His mercy. That He sent His Son to take our place so we could be forgiven and obtain eternal life shows His love.

>> ^Skeeve:
If I allow someone to burn your house down, only so that I can run in and save you when it is on fire so that you like me, am I a good person? You just admitted that your god does the same thing - allows evil to exist so humans will like him - so how can he be good? Why would anyone worship such a horrible creature?
As for the argument from morality that you have provided, if you provide me with something that is objectively evil, I will provide you with the bible verse in which your evil-ass god commanded someone to do it.>> ^shinyblurry:
Debunked? You're not a very good philosopher if you don't think there are any counter-arguments to this claim. First, the assumption here is that God and evil are mutually incompatible, or that God couldn't use evil to achieve His goals. If the entire purpose of your existence is to know God, and evil facilitates that, then God is capable of using it for beneficial purposes. Second, it presupposes that evil actually exists. So, if there is evil there also must be good, and there must be a moral law differentiating between the two, which leads to a lawgiver.
>> ^Skeeve:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?
Epicurus (c. 341 - c. 270 BC)
This garbage was debunked 2300 years ago.

If I allow someone to burn your house down, only so that I can run in and save you when it is on fire so that you like me, am I a good person? You just admitted that your god does the same thing - allows evil to exist so humans will like him - so how can he be good? Why would anyone worship such a horrible creature?

As for the argument from morality that you have provided, if you provide me with something that is objectively evil, I will provide you with the bible verse in which your evil-ass god commanded someone to do it.>> ^shinyblurry:

Debunked? You're not a very good philosopher if you don't think there are any counter-arguments to this claim. First, the assumption here is that God and evil are mutually incompatible, or that God couldn't use evil to achieve His goals. If the entire purpose of your existence is to know God, and evil facilitates that, then God is capable of using it for beneficial purposes. Second, it presupposes that evil actually exists. So, if there is evil there also must be good, and there must be a moral law differentiating between the two, which leads to a lawgiver.
>> ^Skeeve:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?
Epicurus (c. 341 - c. 270 BC)
This garbage was debunked 2300 years ago.

Debunked? You're not a very good philosopher if you don't think there are any counter-arguments to this claim. First, the assumption here is that God and evil are mutually incompatible, or that God couldn't use evil to achieve His goals. If the entire purpose of your existence is to know God, and evil facilitates that, then God is capable of using it for beneficial purposes. Second, it presupposes that evil actually exists. So, if there is evil there also must be good, and there must be a moral law differentiating between the two, which leads to a lawgiver.

>> ^Skeeve:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?
Epicurus (c. 341 - c. 270 BC)
This garbage was debunked 2300 years ago.

@SDGundamX I find some logical lackings in that example.

First off, the machine difference. If I shoot someone, the gun is technically doing it but the person controlling it held liable. If I run someone over with my car, that is even more abstract, as the car is being controlled by a wheel which I then control, yet, I am still liable. I don't see any other legal justification for the difference in this case, unless you are saying machines like alarms need to be held liable in the same light that citizens are. There is no compelling logical distinction to make an alarm that makes a false alarm any less liable for those whom programmed it than one who shoots a gun which has an E-trigger. (devils advocate here, I obviously don't have a problem with false alarms being protected speech)

I also beg to differ about intentionally. The only provable intention of speech is what is said. If I say fire, the only thing you can actually prove is that I said fire. You can't show that I meant to cause a panic, you can't show that I saw fire and said fire. You can't pretend to know, beyond a reasonable doubt about intentionally of speech, it is ALWAYS circumstantial. Intentionally of speech doesn't pass our own critical evidence criteria. I can't actually believe this legal framework even exists. ( Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. I do not salute you!)

And the "is dangerous" can only be use in an a posteriori sense, not an A priori sense. For example, what if I yelled fire in a crowded theater but instead of panic, only laughter was had? What if I steped on a pair of pliers, yelled pliers in my reaction and people thought I meant fire, and someone else screamed fire? I am liable for causing a falsity of a fire claim? Or what if I yelled pliers guess someone would think I said fire and cause a panic for me? It is all very very wishy washy for matters of A priori laws. You only know if something as abstract as speech will be dangerous after it has been said. You can try and make good judgement based on past experience, but that is no grounds to create A priori laws for words and conditions.

Let us look at the example again. A man was taunting a dog, like a god damned fool no less. However, the action resulted in no harm. So, I ask, where is the danger? It is theoretical danger of a sort that didn't happen in this case, yet, he is still guilty of a crime of danger. A danger that didn't exist is the crime for which he stands guilty, a mockery of justice. There are MANY things that I do that don't have a useful purpose as far as the greater good of society. Are you saying that only rights that do good are to be allowed? Are we to have enumerated rights now instead of enumerated restrictions? The kind of document I always took the constitution for is everything is fair game...you don't have to justify any action, ever. The exception to that is just that, the exceptions. We restrict the absolute freedom of people to harm other people, but as for everything else, it is allowed even without proper justification for its existence and participation. It seems a tenancy for people whom create moral laws to abide by this logic, but only sometimes; when concerning an issue that evokes a certain kind of emotional response thing change. For other issues that their heart strings don't match up with, they won't accept the heart string justification of others, saying they are creating a theocracy or separation of church and state or some other non-sense (not that the separation is non-sense, but that other peoples moral claims are any less valuble because they come from religion is preposterous, and insulting).

I think it is pretty unfair to characterize the judge in the way you have. He basically has the a slightly different position on the first amendment than yourself, most likely revolving around the core arguments I just set out (I don't know that, though). I don't think me calling you the same thing you called him; IE "not knowing how the first amendment works" would be fair either, because it is fair to say that throughout legal history, the decisions handed down from the courts have been contradictory in many regards. I could name 3 other case law examples where this should be protected speech, but throwing around case law is just silly, I am resolved to say this is a very convoluted subject...and more so than should be. We should seek some clarity in a legal sense of what the first amendment is all about, philosophically, or else this debate will never end to any non-contradictory, case by case way.

Edited for grammarerar

Not true. Do what thou wilt is directly from the Book of the Law which Crowley wrote and which he said he received from a spirit, ie a demon..perhaps even from Satan himself.

As far as "true hearted" rebellion goes, Satan is the original rebel and all of this so-called freedom of thought is systemic from his desire to usurp Gods position and authority. It isnt at all restrictive to follow the moral law of God, its in fact the only real fredom, and its provided to liberate us from slavery to sin and to the devil. It's the forbidden fruit redux, where humanity is yet again not trusting God but seeking after the knowledge himself, which the devil happily provides, leading the children as the pied piper into the pits of hell.

Yes, not everyone fears God, but not everyone has the common sense not to stick their finger in an electric socket either. There is a concise explanation for sin, and accepting Christ isn't a license to sin. Disobedience to God is never a moot point, saved or not. This video is speaking to the heart of the deception, which is the satanic lie of "do your own thing". It's relative versus absolute truth. It's at the roots of this wicked and perverse generation, which rejects Gods moral authority and seeks only to glorify itself.

I have had personal experience with demons and demon possession, and know they are working to deceive every person about the truth; to lead people away from God. What the bible says about this world being under dominion of Satan is not an exaggeration..it is the horrifying truth of this place, that there is deception working against you on every conceivable level. It really comes down to what kind of person you are..if you are content with the lie, if it suits your moral character, if you love the world instead of the one who made it, then you have already earned your reward and will seek nothing further. Unless this wickedness offends you and unless you want something better, the lie will be all you see. Mick and all the rest of these delusionals are working to spread the satanic lie, many willingly and knowingly. Selling your soul in rock and roll isn't just a popular expression but a literal truth.



>> ^enoch:
crowley was a reknowned occultist and mystic.
he created his own tarot deck based on the egyptian god THOTH but he did not write the satanic bible,that was anton zandor levy a particularly self involved douchebag.
"do what thou whilt,may it harm none" is a wiccan edict drawn from the amalgamation of druidic,celtic and nordic theosophy and was adopted by crowley but was not created by him.wicca was brought to the states in 1952 by brent gardner from england and the secretive coven,which had remained so from the eyes of the church for years,ex-communicated him for his revealing of their ways.
i would not call the artist and musicians who balked at the churchs authoritarian ways as demonic philosophy but rather a true hearted rebellion against the stranglehold the church represented on many who may see things different.
not everyone is god-fearing and the church has never truly established a concise and singular explanation concerning original sin and even if it DID succeed in doing that,chirst died for the forgiveness of those sins.so the point is moot if you have accepted jesus as savior.
again i find videos such as these highly manipulative using imagery and cherry picked material to promote a narrative and for the layman this video may be seen as informative but it is more akin to propaganda meant to frighten those who may not know the facts.
be scared of mick jagger..booga booga!


>> ^enoch:
crowley was a reknowned occultist and mystic.
he created his own tarot deck based on the egyptian god THOTH but he did not write the satanic bible,that was anton zandor levy a particularly self involved douchebag.
"do what thou whilt,may it harm none" is a wiccan edict drawn from the amalgamation of druidic,celtic and nordic theosophy and was adopted by crowley but was not created by him.wicca was brought to the states in 1952 by brent gardner from england and the secretive coven,which had remained so from the eyes of the church for years,ex-communicated him for his revealing of their ways.
i would not call the artist and musicians who balked at the churchs authoritarian ways as demonic philosophy but rather a true hearted rebellion against the stranglehold the church represented on many who may see things different.
not everyone is god-fearing and the church has never truly established a concise and singular explanation concerning original sin and even if it DID succeed in doing that,chirst died for the forgiveness of those sins.so the point is moot if you have accepted jesus as savior.
again i find videos such as these highly manipulative using imagery and cherry picked material to promote a narrative and for the layman this video may be seen as informative but it is more akin to propaganda meant to frighten those who may not know the facts.
be scared of mick jagger..booga booga!

Corporate charters def need a revamp. This video makes the good point that Corporate protections are state enforced and defined, just as property rights and intellectual property rights are. A system of liability for group ventures was bound to emerge in legal form. The problem is group interests usually win out over individual concern. Corporations exist in the same way as moral laws do, or the FDA does, or any type of oligarchy does. It is relatively easy for a group that shares the same motive to promote their idea/ideals to the foreground and enforce them onto others via the crux of government. It is the "enforce onto others" part that is darn near intractable to solve. How do you create a system that manages individuals rights that isn't susceptible to groups of individuals gaming it to their favor? To that, I still don't have an answer...no one does really. As soon as you minimize risk of exploitation, you maximize oppression, and in many cases then alow for even more exploitation on the backside. Try and minimize oppression, you maximize chaos, and then a low for that oppressor that is best able to manage that chaos; most likely, we are fucked. The only question is, do you like it in the face, or in the ass?

Nearly all of the things you mention can and do exist outside of governments. My community has a privatively maintained road. There are private schools of various qualities. And our food is often still subject to large scale contaminations. Just because something isn't done by government doesn't mean it won't. Moreover, when government does do something, it usually means the tools for doing it yourself are outlawed. For example, it is illegal to sell unpasteurized milk products. Even if you are aware of the related health impacts, it is illegal to sell or buy.

Also, you might be aware but are mistaking the fact of the Boston tea party was actually in response to tax break and not a tax itself. The government was essentially acting as an agent of the East India Tea company, in the same way the modern FDA is frequently a tool to dispatch small time competitors with regulatory paperwork.

You seem to be instilled with this idea if you aren't for taxes, then you aren't for poor people, a fallacy of many well meaning liberal types. The problem isn't the support of helping the impoverished, but the means. It would be the same as me telling you to support theology based philanthropy, and ordering by the force of law. The problem of moral issues is they are exactly like the separation of church and state, by making a moral law you force people to agree with this morality. People whom don't subscribe to that line of moral reasoning are FORCED by law to release their funds or face some pretty dire consequences, including jail time.
If you believe in the separation of church and state, then you should also believe in the separation of philanthropy and state...they are essentially the same thing.


>> ^Peroxide:

>> ^ridesallyridenc:
He lost me at "raise my taxes."

Taxes are an investment in your country's future.
Do you drive on roads? Did you attend a school? Do you expect the food at the grocery store to be free of E.coli? Do you expect someone to answer and emergency services to respond when you dial 911?
When Americans were paying taxes to a foreign state, or the head of the empire, for their imports and exports, that was when taxes were theft. Think of the Actual Boston Tea Party, they were protesting paying tax to a different nation state.
"Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives." -wiki.
I repeat, their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives.
I personally think your view on taxes says a lot about your ability to empathize with the community within which you reside. Think about employment insurance and programs for the poor. Of course, maybe you live in a gated community out in the suburbs and the poor are forcibly segregated from you.
Of course, I must add that I do think governments must be held accountable for the manner in which they spend/invest the people's wealth. But frankly I'm sick of egocentric, ill informed people decrying the taxes that are necessary for their way of life, and necessary for to sustain the community of humans beings within which they live.
their is some good discussion over here.
http://videosift.com/talk/Taxes-and-theft