No!
False!
Propaganda!

Come on, Kids don't think like that when you drink
Maybe if you are a serial-alcoholic (redundant, I know) who is impaired and have alcohol on your breath all the time and regularly beat your kids - Then I could see it, yes.

But kids tent to show unconditional love and see past the faults of their parents, at least at the age of the kids portrayed in this video. Kids don't see their parents as monsters when they have had a drink or two. In fact, I doubt they even notice or care unless the drinking is a long time alcoholic problem.

I remember my mom coming home from the office with a few too many glasses of wine in her - we always got excited because that meant we were heading out for Chinese food

There is nothing wrong with drinking as long as you know your limits and take the right precautions afterwards.

I also disagree with @VoodooV's gun analogy, but for a different reason: some people would really, really like to be in a situation where they'd get to "use" their gun, whereas I challenge anyone to find me a single woman who would want to have an abortion. Abortions are a necessary "evil": not "evil" in the conservative-religious sense, but in the sense that no-one wants to have one, but sometimes it is the only ethical choice to make.

In a perfect world, everyone would be able to turn on and off the reproductive aspect of sex at will, and maybe medicine will allow us that one day. But until then abortion is a necessity, and not only for cases of rape, incest or ripped condoms. I won't address the troll, but @ReverendTed, do you truly think a woman who - because of emotional manipulation/coercion (e.g. "I don't feel anything with a condom"), or for lack of education, intelligence, or presence of spirit (e.g. drunk) - has unprotected sex, should be "punished" (so to speak) with a life-long responsibility of a human life, despite being perhaps emotionally, financially and/or psychologically incapable of raising it properly? A fate which would moreover punish an innocent child for its whole life (something the non-solution of adoption only makes worse btw)?

When a biker who was not wearing a helmet falls and opens his forehead, do you tell him "tough luck, should've worn a helmet, no doctors for you"? Or, closer to the subject at hand, shouldn't STDs be left untreated? You chose to have sex, you didn't take all the precautions, now live with the itchy consequences! Seriously, having to get an abortion because you were not careful is ample punishment enough. Not because you're "murdering" a human being or other such manipulative BS (although many are pressured into feeling that guilt) but because it is an invasive and disagreeable medical procedure (not to mention the psychological aspects, e.g. the possibility of regret).

This has been said ad nauseam before: if you want there to be less abortions, there needs to be more education (including sex ed, but not only) and easy access to contraception. Speaking of contraception, I look forward to the day they invent a version of the pill for men (soon?); why should women bear all the birth control responsibility?

_{As for the question of when a ball of cells becomes a human being, I've addressed the subject elsewhere on the Sift (whose search function is effin' up on me right now; I'll post link when I find it).}

>> ^spoco2:

@MilkmanDan Saying that kids should be able to play with Mercury, even though it is shown to be a very dangerous substance (mostly via it evaporating and being inhaled, not through direct contact) seems a little naive.
What do you get out of it that makes it worth the pretty horrendous possible side effects? Sometimes 'big brother' isn't really that at all, just society at large realising some of the dangerous side effects of things.
My own experience with mercury? In grade six someone had a vial of it, and it got spilled all over the wood floor in our classroom. So little bits of mercury ended up falling in the cracks between floorboards. There were a bunch of us 11/12 year olds trying to fish balls of mercury out with pieces of paper. Not really safe at all. None of us suffered any ill effects that we know of, but why risk it?


I looked into it further on my own, and found out that as @GeeSussFreeK mentioned, elemental Mercury is actually rather safe, even compared to standard Chemistry lab-type things that we let kids handle or have access to. However, that information is often glossed over with blanket warnings about exposure to any sort of mercury, including the legitimately nasty compound forms like what can come from coal burning, etc. As you said, the main danger from the pure elemental form is vapor from evaporation, which seems to be manageable with any sort of proper ventilation or limited exposure time.

I wouldn't suggest that we just allow kids to play with the stuff at will unsupervised, but I think that some level of interaction with it (more than what is common now) can be safe, educational, and worth doing given proper safety practices and other restrictions. On the other hand, there isn't a whole lot to be gained, and there is a lot to lose -- albeit I think the chances of very serious accidents with it are very slim given proper precautions.

I kinda lament the fact that it is harder for schools to do anything even a tiny bit out of the everyday routine because they all have to have massive insurance policies to cover their asses in the event that some freak occurrence happens and they get sued. It is harder to have a woodshop; somebody might cut a finger off. Sports sometimes come under fire for injuries or even the occasional freak accidental death. The loss of those sorts of things makes me wonder if we've gone too far down the "Big Brother" road in some ways. Then again, I think most of that is due to our lawsuit and litigation-happy culture rather than Big Brother...

The actinides are, generally, "safe" to handle, like those Uranium Oxide pellets. You are more likely to damage the pellet with your nasty human oils than the uranium will you...unless you eat the whole thing, but its chemical toxicity will do you more harm that its radioactive toxicity. Uranium oxide just isn't that radioactive, that is why none of the containers or work areas were shielded in this lab.



Now, if they were dealing with a "hot" substance, one that has hard gammas (like when you do MOX fuel recycling), you have to take even greater precautions because then the radioactive problems really do start to show their heads. Not only will it damage your cells faster than they can repair, but it can start to take out unshielded electronics. This is generally only true for fission products, and a few actinides like protactinium which is highly radioactive AND chemically toxic, and generally only man-made (normal occurrences are less than a few parts per trillion in the crust).



These complications are pretty good generalization to why normal LWRs are not the best way to do nuclear, they just generate far to much waste compared to alternatives. You burn less than 1% of the mined uranium in current reactor tech and fuel cycle choices. With a thorium cycle in a molten salt reactor, you can burn greater than 90%, pushing up to 99% or higher if you try real hard. This means you generate an order(s) of magnitude less waste, and that waste generally is safe after about 300 years (radiation is about the same as naturally occurring radiation). There are also other alternates that use uranium in a faster spectrum that perform better than current tech.



A second age of the atom is fast approaching. Unfortunately, those great pioneers which made this industry in the shadow of "the bomb" failed to realize the full potential of e=mc^2. If nuclear power was developed along side the Apollo instead of the Manhattan project, we might already be in that future, alas...it was not to be.



Radiation is fascinating though! I used to believe what I read in the fear news about any radiation leading to death..turns out that isn't so true after all. The planet is a far more radioactive place then you normally consider, and FAR more radioactive when our primordial ancestors evolved. In fact, there are many people living today in what are dubbed High Background Radiation Areas that seem to suffer no ill effect, and some suggest, have lower rates of cancer than other groups. More studies need to be done, but initial findings fly in the face of the notion of radiation I grew up with (that it all is bad and it all kills you!) Some have even suggested that the creator of the entire model used for evaluating radiation risk knowingly lied about it. The entire basis for today's evaluation of radiological risk is evaluated by Muller's findings as supported by the National Academy of Sciences’ of the time. And in fact, might just be based in fear instead of evidence.



Perhaps ancient man went through the same struggles as he tried to adopt fire, some impassioned move against the dangers of fire prevented some groups from using fire and advancing their way of life. Fire, though, allowed the groups that adopted it to improve their life dramatically. The energy released from a fission event is over a million times more energy rich than any energy tech we currently use, imagine what that could mean for mankind. Fusion is over 4 times that of fission (but much harder), and antimatter over 2000x that of fission (and MUCH MUCH harder). Yes, the age of the atom has only just begun, and who knows were man will be a result? Don't settle for solar dandruff, the power of the atom will reign supreme.

So, if one was to get a set of older tires from a friend and wanted to replace your (even older) tires on your own car with them, this could be used to reseat the tires? I know it's fairly inexpensive to get it done professionally at a garage but I am poor as beans and have lighter fluid and a flame. Once I got them seated, I could just reinflate them after they were re-seated and they would be fine? I'm very interested in trying this just for fun and to save a few bucks. Anyone have any precautions I may be ignoring?

if they fell, would it be a tragedy?
because to me, a tragedy is something negative, but unexpected

skyscraper construction is similar, but they (usually) plan for things like slips/falls/etc... and try to mitigate the situation through safety equipment and procedures... hopefully to the benefit of not just the worker's lives themselves, but their families and friends

that's not to say high altitude construction doesn't have it's share of deaths by accident, but those to me are actual tragedies... because most likely steps were taken to prevent whatever happened from happening

no safety equipment used by these adrenaline junkies

and when looking at the phenomenon of adrenaline junkies, I believe one must look further than just the safety precautions taken to determine whether the term "tragedy" is applicable... what is the reasoning behind taking the endeavor at hand? is it solely personal (selfish) reasoning, or are others included in the reasoning (especially friends and family who have no option but to watch and hope for the best)?

that statement is the reason that "tragedy" is applicable when a father from some tribe in africa gets attacked by a lion while hunting for game... and it isn't applicable when it's a lion tamer putting his head in the mouth of a lion for show...

in fact, the more one "tempts fate" solely for selfish/personal reasons... the less I think "tragedy" applies

these guys in the vid, if they fell, it wouldn't be a tragedy... it's kinda weird to expect people to care more about your own safety, than you yourself do... and I'm not saying people caring is a bad thing... its a good thing... in fact, it shines a more selfish light on the original person in the first place... ESPECIALLY if these people caring more than they do themselves, are known... such as friends/family

While it looks pretty awesome, man that looks like some serious recipe for injury or death with all those vehicles driving around in the same area as a whole lot of people who are concentrating on each other and not necessarily the cars.

So, yeah, can see how this is great fun, but also would never be surprised to hear of it all going very wrong.

Hmm, unless, as maybe it was all just a staged thing purely for the cameras, and not some thing that people 'do' which they happened to film, in which case they may have taken precautions, I'm not going to watch the making of to find out

Indeed, 2013. When was the lifetime changed from 2 weeks to a year?

You use the user agent, like the full user agent including version number? Doesn't Chrome autoupdate all the time? Anyway, I am a pretty plain browser user, I am pretty sure that I only log in on Videosift on my own computer, and only through Chrome, without any special cookie settings, but autoupdate is on in it.

>> ^lucky760:

Couple of things. First, we used to have a cookie lifetime of two weeks. That's since been increased by much more, like beyond a year. For example, my cookie also expires in May, but of 2013. Are you sure your cookie expiration isn't 2013?



Second, I can't really think of a reason that you might get logged out, except if you upgrade your browser. The reason for this is there's a security precaution in place that in part uses your browser's user agent to ensure you're the rightful owner of the cookie.
Is anyone else experiencing these issues? I never have to log back in whether in Firefox, Chrome, or Safari, except after upgrading.

Couple of things. First, we used to have a cookie lifetime of two weeks. That's since been increased by much more, like beyond a year. For example, my cookie also expires in May, but of 2013. Are you sure your cookie expiration isn't 2013?

Second, I can't really think of a reason that you might get logged out, except if you upgrade your browser. The reason for this is there's a security precaution in place that in part uses your browser's user agent to ensure you're the rightful owner of the cookie.

Is anyone else experiencing these issues? I never have to log back in whether in Firefox, Chrome, or Safari, except after upgrading.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It reminds me of the transition time when cars shared the road with horses. People definitely didn't trust cars then either and made them take all kinds of crazy precautions like honking three times at an intersection.>> ^kulpims:

@dag I wouldn't trust a car with my life just yet

Having watched the first 30 seconds again and thought about it, with Craig's ...Premise Two cannot be proven, and that's Craig's argument completely sunk, and it could have been the end of the video too.

I think you're looking at the argument from the wrong perspective. Let's examine the premises:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist:

The basic question here is, in the absence of God, is there is any objective difference between good and evil? That, if there is no God, is the difference between good and evil like the difference between coke and pepsi? An example Craig gives is, is the difference like which side of the road that you drive on, which varies from culture to culture?

So, this is where you would make an argument for valid and binding objective moral values outside of Gods existence. You can invalidate the whole argument right here, but you have to provide a logical foundation. I have yet to see anyone refute premise one.

2. Objective moral values do exist

Now, to say this premise is false is to admit that objective moral values do not exist. IE, you will have to admit that torturing babies for fun isn't actually wrong. I have actually debated people who tried to defend it, but I give them credit for being intellectually honest, because that is the logical conclusion; that if objective moral values do not exist, torturing babies for fun isn't absolutely wrong. However, I think we both know that it is, therefore objective moral values do exist.

So, this is a rather tricky argument for an atheist. Qualia soup gets the whole thing wrong here. The basic trouble for you is, if you want to dispute premise one, you have to come up with a foundation for objective moral values outside of God. If you admit there is no such foundation, then we move to premise 2, and there you have to argue that objective moral values do not exist. If you can not argue it, or if you admit objective moral values do exist, then you are forced to accept premise 3, that therefore God exists.

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

Yes, I can agree with all of this. I believe that the Universe is tangibly real, and is generally how it appears to be, in that it is not a malicious deception or a meaningless illusion. I believe we are both individuals made in the image of God with an independent existence and a soul. I believe we can come to meaningful conclusions about reality, and that there is a truth which is tangible, accessible to reason, and which does not change based on our interpretation or personal preferences.

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

I am very consistent when it comes to meanings. This is one of the hallmarks of literal interpretation, that the words in the bible, while they can sometimes be applied in a metaphorical sense, always have an intended meaning which is absolutely true in all circumstances.

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

I generally won't propose arguments that would take faith to accept. I understand your natural skepticism because I used to be equally skeptical. I will just submit that when you are deceived, you don't know you are deceived:

2 Corinthians 4:4

In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

I admit the possibility that I could be deceived, so I think if we both can admit this, we will have a more fruitful conversation.

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

I think it is logically airtight. That if you cannot prove there is a foundation for objective moral values outside of God, and you cannot disprove that some actions are objectively wrong, that you must accept the conclusion of the argument.

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

I am dubious of the philosophy of empiricism upon which science is founded upon. Empiricism assumes that truth can only be discerned through our senses, and that our minds merely processes and categorizes this truth. I reject this view because there are clearly truths that empiricism cannot evaluate, including the validity of empiricism itself. I'll bring in craig again for this one:



I apologize for the title..it's just the best clip I could find.

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

I would say my experience is generally subjective but is objectively confirmed, both by other people, and my daily life. You can say I have interpreted those experiences subjectively, and I am just fooling myself, of course. Personal experience is something hard to prove, as the other person is naturally skeptical of the other persons ability to evaluate what is true. All I can say is that truth is paramount to me and I am incapable of believing something just because I want it to be true. I would rather have nothing and die a meaningless death than live out a comfortable lie.

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

This is a rather large subject. I'll do my best..

God is perfect. He is holy, loving, and just. He exists outside of time and space in His own realm, which is called Heaven. He is capable of doing anything that can be done. As far as what God feels, that can be hard to quantify. For instance, you can say God feels love, but by definition, God is love. In general, from the bible, it seems God can be pleased, can be jealous, has compassion, is kind, is loving, can be grieved and can be angered. His nature is immutable, in that He is goodness itself. He is light and there is no darkness in Him. That doesn't change. He can however change how He interacts with us.

God created us out of the abundance of His love. It wasn't out of a need, as He already had perfect love within the relationships of the Holy Trinity, but it was an overflowing of that love. He created us to be in relationship to Him, as His children.

There were no diseases, or any inequality before the fall. He created the world perfectly, and He set us in paradise, to learn and grow under His care. However, because robots would be undesirable, He gave us free will to be obedient to Him or not. Unfortunately, we abused that, and broke fellowship with God. Sin and death were brought into the world because of it, and since then this has been a fallen creation. If you have something perfect, and introduce an imperfection, then it is no longer perfect and neither can anything perfect ever come from it. Sin and death ruined that perfection, and they are the cause for all of the disease and inequality today.

Because of this, God brought the law into the world, to give us a minimum standard for moral behavior. The law in itself was not capable of fixing the situation, as everyone fell short of the law, but rather it highlighted our need for a savior. This is the reason Jesus Christ came.

He came to Earth, putting aside His glory and position to live as a man, being the first human being since Adam to be born without sin. He lived a perfect life, though He was tempted in every way that we are, and fulfilled the entire law. Finally, He sacrificed Himself on the cross for the sins of mankind, as a substitutionary atonement for our crimes, and He tasted death for all men. God proved all of this by raising Him from the dead. So, Christ defeated death and sin on the cross, and imputed His righteousness, the righteousness of God, back into mankind. Therefore, anyone who accepts His Lordship will have his sins forgiven and receive eternal life. It is by the imputation of Gods perfect righteousness and substituionary atonement that the effects of the fall have been countered, and we are again reconciled to God and can enjoy perfect relationship to Him as His children.

God is three persons, the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus ascended to Heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father, making intercession on our behalf. Jesus was born of a virgin, and was both God and man; He had two natures, which were united for one purpose in submission to the Father. Jesus, before He was born as a human being, existed as God. "Before abraham was, I am."

John 1:1-3

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Hope that answers your questions.



>> ^messenger:

@shinyblurry

@shinyblurry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bison Costanza: "I was trying to lead the way. We needed a leader! Someone to lead the way to safety!"

Bison #2: "But you yelled 'GET OUT OF MY WAY'!"

Bison Costanza: "Because! Because, as the leader...if I die...then all hope is lost! Who would lead? Instead of castigating me, you should all be thanking me. What kind of a topsy-turvy world do we live in, where heroes are cast as villains? Brave bison as cowards?"

Bison #2: "But I saw you push the women and children out of the way in a mad panic! I saw you knock them down! And when you ran, you left everyone behind!"

Bison Costanza: "Seemingly. Seemingly, to the untrained eye, I can fully understand how you got that impression. What looked like pushing...what looked like knocking down...was a safety precaution! In a wolf attack, you play dead, am I right? And when I ran, I was not leaving anyone behind! Oh, quite the contrary! I risked my life making sure that the path was clear. Any other questions?"

Bison #3: "How do you live with yourself?"

Bison Costanza: "Its not easy."

Come on man, I know you're not just a troll like quantum; but this is just a ridiculous stance to take. The story isn't about how this mother did or did not coordinate going to the protest with her family but how the media is exploiting one person and her family to push their agenda... just like they always do except it's really really blatantly obvious now. Let's be honest, it's none of our business wether or not this woman left her family with their consent or not -- that's between her, her husband and her children; it's pathetic when the media turns it into this jerry spingereque b.s. story -- which they do all the time by either promoting someone to absurd standards or demoting them to subhuman levels, whatever will adequately reinforce the story they're trying to sell.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

What you are ignoring, however, is how it is implied she is having an affair with a co-OWS.
I'm not entirely sure of the timeline, but at the time of the F&F broadcast there appeared to be rumors that was the case. So it can be said that F&F didn't do the due diligence to get the truth of it before flapping thier yaps. All they knew was this chick 'left' her family to stay in an OWS tent city with a strange man.
"Subject to outbursts"? Are you ting me? She isn't trained in dealing with the media, trained to tamp down a natural response to being attacked like she was
If I wanted to go to some event 'thing' then I would bloody well make sure in advance that my wife, kids, and other close family/friends were aware of what I was up doing. I'd have had a schedule, a map, a budget, a place to stay, money, and supplies. I'd have had a solid 'I'm done' day my spouse was well aware of so she wouldn't worry. And if something came up, I'd ditch the event instantly and go home because that's where parents/spouses belong. To me the most damning thing in this whole story is that Hippie-Chick McProtest is still in NYC. A normal person who isn't an idiot doesn't stay to hang around a bunch of strangers when her family is having a situation.
Because this is how NORMAL people roll. We make sure our spouses are cool before we go anywhere. We don't do stupid things that give the wrong impressions. If someone accuses us of something fishy, the first thing we do is go back to their family to make sure things are OK. It is called common sense. When a NORMAL person gets confronted with a report that they have abandoned thier family they have the truth and facts on thier side to give them everything they need to respond with the trained aplomb of an expert. Something like...
"I deny the false reports and misrepresentations of my behavior. I have not abandoned my family. I planned this event in advance, with my spouse's approval, and I have taken all precautions to care for my family in my temporary absence. Any reports that suggests otherwise are either misinformed or false. I can provide you with the contact information for my spouse, friends, and other individuals who are well aware of my intentions and can verify my statements."
I frankly find it very strange that we have not heard one peep from the husband. Neither have we heard from neighbors, co-workers, or whatever. The only articles I've seen from people that know her say she's a flaky hippie-wannabe. And the "Waiter" sure didn't do her any favors with his stupid response. He might as well have said, "Yeah - she's 'keeping me warm' nights!"

What you are ignoring, however, is how it is implied she is having an affair with a co-OWS.

I'm not entirely sure of the timeline, but at the time of the F&F broadcast there appeared to be rumors that was the case. So it can be said that F&F didn't do the due diligence to get the truth of it before flapping thier yaps. All they knew was this chick 'left' her family to stay in an OWS tent city with a strange man.

"Subject to outbursts"? Are you ****ting me? She isn't trained in dealing with the media, trained to tamp down a natural response to being attacked like she was

If I wanted to go to some event 'thing' then I would bloody well make sure in advance that my wife, kids, and other close family/friends were aware of what I was up doing. I'd have had a schedule, a map, a budget, a place to stay, money, and supplies. I'd have had a solid 'I'm done' day my spouse was well aware of so she wouldn't worry. And if something came up, I'd ditch the event instantly and go home because that's where parents/spouses belong. To me the most damning thing in this whole story is that Hippie-Chick McProtest is still in NYC. A normal person who isn't an idiot doesn't stay to hang around a bunch of strangers when her family is having a situation.

Because this is how NORMAL people roll. We make sure our spouses are cool before we go anywhere. We don't do stupid things that give the wrong impressions. If someone accuses us of something fishy, the first thing we do is go back to their family to make sure things are OK. It is called common sense. When a NORMAL person gets confronted with a report that they have abandoned thier family they have the truth and facts on thier side to give them everything they need to respond with the trained aplomb of an expert. Something like...

"I deny the false reports and misrepresentations of my behavior. I have not abandoned my family. I planned this event in advance, with my spouse's approval, and I have taken all precautions to care for my family in my temporary absence. Any reports that suggests otherwise are either misinformed or false. I can provide you with the contact information for my spouse, friends, and other individuals who are well aware of my intentions and can verify my statements."

I frankly find it very strange that we have not heard one peep from the husband. Neither have we heard from neighbors, co-workers, or whatever. The only articles I've seen from people that know her say she's a flaky hippie-wannabe. And the "Waiter" sure didn't do her any favors with his stupid response. He might as well have said, "Yeah - she's 'keeping me warm' nights!"