>> ^ChaosEngine:
Wow, I really don't even know where to start with how ridiculous that is. Intellectual property is not "logically and morally absurd". It is the result of peoples time and effort, and thus, has value. This is not about rewarding a studio who invests hundreds of millions in a game or movie, it's about paying a programmer, artist or hell, even the guy who gets coffee for the director.
As for the "gambling" argument, I have no problem with people with make bad products failing. That's fine. But you seem to believe that someone could put years of work into a great product and then still receive no compensation for it. Fine, but then why should you expect them to continue to put that effort into their work? Yeah, love of the craft, whatever, but people still need to eat, pay bills, etc.
You know what? pay the fucking writer.


I spend time and effort taking a dump. I don't expect you to pay me for it.

If you can monetize your creativity, great. Do it without calling in government thugs to extract the tribute you imagine you're owed from anyone who presumes to interact with your imaginary property.

The guy who gets coffee for the director is paid for his work. You're suggesting I owe him, what, his future job security? Come on. Tell him to go home, get a webcam and produce his own content for literally a millionth of the cost of the primitive, bloated, dying industry he leaves behind.

How much are we getting paid to make these posts? Love of the craft, man.

YT Description: Among the sea of sound-a-like private-pressed Catholic lps that came out in
the 1960's and 1970's, Sister Irene O'Connor's 1976 album stands out with
its primitive drum machine and spooky, echo-laden vocals. Released in 1976
on the 'Alba House' label, the dual-titled Fire of God's Love/Songs to
Ignite The Spirit lp features several haunting and remarkable songs,
including the three below. In particular, the title track "Fire of God's
Love" strikes me as so otherwordly and uniquely eerie that I wonder how far
Sister Irene's O'Connor's seeming solipsism extended beyond music.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Evolution is just another item in the list of fact we atheists can use to disprove religion, since according to pretty much every religion around, evolution is not real, even though it's a PROVEN fact, studied, analyzed and even used in several fields of science on a practical level, to the point of exhaustion.
It's all you have, and we have to define what we're talking about when you say evolution, because there is microevolution and macroevolution. The difference between them is, one has been observed and one hasn't.
But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.
Science v.208 1980 p.716
DS Woodroff U. of CA, SD
In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.
New Evolutionary Timetable p.95
SM Stanley, Johns Hopkins
The theoretically primitive type eludes our grasp; our faith postulates its existence but the type fails to materialize.
Plant life through the ages p.561
AC Seward, Cambridge
Are you actually stupid enough (and I do believe you are) to think there were no atheists before Darwin came around, or to mix atheism and darwinism?
Of course there were atheists around before darwin, but they had no basis for a religion without a creation story.
"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."
Provine William B., [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], "Darwin Day" website, University of Tennessee Knoxville, 1998.
"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."
Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], ", "Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life", Abstract of Will Provine's 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.
"Dr. Gray goes further. He says, `The proposition that the things and events in nature were not designed to be so, if logically carried out, is doubtless tantamount to atheism.' Again, `To us, a fortuitous Cosmos is simply inconceivable. The alternative is a designed Cosmos... If Mr. Darwin believes that the events which he supposes to have occurred and the results we behold around us were undirected and undesigned; or if the physicist believes that the natural forces to which he refers phenomena are uncaused and undirected, no argument is needed to show that such belief is atheistic.' We have thus arrived at the answer to our question, What is Darwinism? It is Atheism. This does not mean, as before said, that Mr. Darwin himself and all who adopt his views are atheists; but it means that his theory is atheistic, that the exclusion of design from nature is, as Dr. Gray says, tantamount to atheism."
Hodge, Charles [late Professor of Theology, Princeton Theological Seminary, USA], in Livingstone D.N., eds., "What Is Darwinism?", 1994, reprint, p.156
"The more one studies palaeontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."
More, Louis T. [late Professor of Physics, University of Cincinnati, USA], "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160.
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory-is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof"
Matthews, L. Harrison [British biologist and Fellow of the Royal Society], "Introduction", Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," J. M. Dent & Sons: London, 1976, pp.x,xi, in Ankerberg J. & Weldon J. , "Rational Inquiry & the Force of Scientific Data: Are New Horizons Emerging?," in Moreland J.P., ed., "The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL., 1994, p.275.

>> ^EMPIRE:
shinnyblurry, you are so fucking ignorant it actually hurts my eyes to read your comments.
I also love how your "atheist creation" history is somehow mixed with darwinism, which just proves how much of an ignorant you are.
Evolution is just another item in the list of fact we atheists can use to disprove religion, since according to pretty much every religion around, evolution is not real, even though it's a PROVEN fact, studied, analyzed and even used in several fields of science on a practical level, to the point of exhaustion.
Are you actually stupid enough (and I do believe you are) to think there were no atheists before Darwin came around, or to mix atheism and darwinism?


Needs more quotes. But I guess that's what religion is all about, rely on things someone said before you and not think for yourself.

Evolution is just another item in the list of fact we atheists can use to disprove religion, since according to pretty much every religion around, evolution is not real, even though it's a PROVEN fact, studied, analyzed and even used in several fields of science on a practical level, to the point of exhaustion.

It's all you have, and we have to define what we're talking about when you say evolution, because there is microevolution and macroevolution. The difference between them is, one has been observed and one hasn't.

But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.

Science v.208 1980 p.716
DS Woodroff U. of CA, SD

In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.

New Evolutionary Timetable p.95
SM Stanley, Johns Hopkins

The theoretically primitive type eludes our grasp; our faith postulates its existence but the type fails to materialize.

Plant life through the ages p.561
AC Seward, Cambridge

Are you actually stupid enough (and I do believe you are) to think there were no atheists before Darwin came around, or to mix atheism and darwinism?

Of course there were atheists around before darwin, but they had no basis for a religion without a creation story.

"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."

Provine William B., [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], "Darwin Day" website, University of Tennessee Knoxville, 1998.

"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."

Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], ", "Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life", Abstract of Will Provine's 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.

"Dr. Gray goes further. He says, `The proposition that the things and events in nature were not designed to be so, if logically carried out, is doubtless tantamount to atheism.' Again, `To us, a fortuitous Cosmos is simply inconceivable. The alternative is a designed Cosmos... If Mr. Darwin believes that the events which he supposes to have occurred and the results we behold around us were undirected and undesigned; or if the physicist believes that the natural forces to which he refers phenomena are uncaused and undirected, no argument is needed to show that such belief is atheistic.' We have thus arrived at the answer to our question, What is Darwinism? It is Atheism. This does not mean, as before said, that Mr. Darwin himself and all who adopt his views are atheists; but it means that his theory is atheistic, that the exclusion of design from nature is, as Dr. Gray says, tantamount to atheism."

Hodge, Charles [late Professor of Theology, Princeton Theological Seminary, USA], in Livingstone D.N., eds., "What Is Darwinism?", 1994, reprint, p.156

"The more one studies palaeontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."

More, Louis T. [late Professor of Physics, University of Cincinnati, USA], "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160.

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory-is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof"

Matthews, L. Harrison [British biologist and Fellow of the Royal Society], "Introduction", Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," J. M. Dent & Sons: London, 1976, pp.x,xi, in Ankerberg J.* & Weldon J.*, "Rational Inquiry & the Force of Scientific Data: Are New Horizons Emerging?," in Moreland J.P., ed., "The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL., 1994, p.275.



>> ^EMPIRE:
shinnyblurry, you are so fucking ignorant it actually hurts my eyes to read your comments.
I also love how your "atheist creation" history is somehow mixed with darwinism, which just proves how much of an ignorant you are.
Evolution is just another item in the list of fact we atheists can use to disprove religion, since according to pretty much every religion around, evolution is not real, even though it's a PROVEN fact, studied, analyzed and even used in several fields of science on a practical level, to the point of exhaustion.
Are you actually stupid enough (and I do believe you are) to think there were no atheists before Darwin came around, or to mix atheism and darwinism?

1- and I quote you " Never Change "
2- I posted a link of a video I thought you might like
3- I was trash talking you, not the video.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Oh I see how it is. You go around trash talking my video and then you come begging for votes? I'll upvote it, but the upvote is purely for the meat balls. I would never promote the use of primitive dishware. Savages.

In reply to this comment by BoneRemake:
I like things being cooked on Clayware. It is just primal.

http://videosift.com/video/Moroccan-spicy-meat-balls-Rick-Stein-Cooks

I know it's just my opinion, but I don't feel @longde deserves so much scorn. Generally speaking, whacking your purposefully disobedient teenager with a belt a few times is acceptable to me. Using physical punishment that leads to no long term effects (e.g., bruising, broken bones, etc.) can be excusable if a parent feels it's necessary to discipline their child and keep them in line.

In this specific case, it seems the old judge let his frustrations get the better of him and he flew off the handle when his primitive brain took over. In this video he went a bit farther than I'm guessing he would have if she wasn't intentionally provoking him for the sake of her hidden camera.

I'm not defending him as a person, especially if he's much more abusive than is evidenced in this video, but a few smacks on the butt isn't over the line in my book. (However, I personally won't be using such violence on my children.)

Who gave this fossil a mouthpiece? What does this guy even know in or about life other than his primitive understandings of the New Testament?

I have claimed that there are methods to synthesize information that do not require the interaction of a mind. I have provided an example of one such system.

You object, but without either asserting that the simulation is a mind, or that it does not synthesize information, but instead you make some vague assertion about how it's instead not an example.

A mind created and designed it, therefore a mind is involved, therefore it is an invalid example..

Abiogenesis is, like all real knowledge, unproven. None the less it is, at present, the only coherent explanation for what can be demonstrated to exist.

Abiogenesis is unproven because there is no evidence, it is just metaphysics. It's your faith that it is true. It is not the only coherent explanation, it is just the explanation that you have to believe because you have ruled out an intelligent designer apriori.

There is no ID hypothesis, Behe came the closest to actually trying, and any competent high school biology student could pick his little charade to pieces in a few hours with a half decent encyclopedia.

Here is the hypothesis

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1156

Here is a story about ID being published in a biology journal making predictions for cancer research

http://www.discovery.org/a/2627

I am arguing not that there are no differences in the world, but that there is no concrete distinction between life and chemistry. You can assume there is, you can assert there is, but until you can demonstrate that there is I have nothing to disprove.

There is obviously a concrete difference since life doesn't come from non-life, and has never once been observed doing so. You have everything in the world to prove here. Everything in the Universe is made up of atoms, does that mean there is no difference between you and me? Is there no difference between a duck and a neutron star? You can't just say that because there are trivial similarities that they are the same thing.

And if you think like that, and you just believe we are all chemicals in motion, then you can't trust your own mind because if our mental processes are just chemical reactions, then there is no reason to believe anything is true. If our mental states have their origin in non-rational causes, rationality can't be trusted. You can't know if the rationality we have from evolutionary processes is discerning the truth of the world or not. Even Darwin realized this:

"With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

The bottom right hydroxyl group is the only difference between RNA and DNA, to suggest that molecules can't lose parts, is to argue that the universe is not as it observably is.

Since the step you clearly label (MAGIC) in the RNA-> DNA path is so obviously trivial, why should anybody believe that the other step you label (MAGIC) is any more complex
?
Well this is plainly false. RNA to DNA is far more probable than ROCKS to RNA. The reason it is labeled magic is because there is no proof. It doesn't mean that they are both equally likely. It is less likely by large orders of magnitude.

The magic is RNA self-replication:

http://www.lifesorigin.com/chap10/RNA-self-replication-3.php

And if you had bothered to do any real research, you would see that the leap from soup to these complex molecules is anything but trivial..here is a list of just of basic issues...

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html

Some quotes for you:

Instead of revealing a multitude of transitional forms through which the evolution of the cell might have occurred, molecular biology has served only to emphasize the enormity of the gap. We now know not only of the existence of a break between the living and non-living world, but also that it represents the most dramatic and fundamental of all the discontinuities of nature. Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive....

Molecular biology has also shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells.

In terms of the basic biochemical design, therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth. For those who hoped that molecular biology might bridge the gulf between chemistry and biochemistry, the revelation was profoundly disappointing."

Dr. Denton, Ph.D (Molecular Biology),
An evolutionist currently doing biological research in Sydney, Australia

Now we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine in itself. Furthermore, each enzyme comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the gene (it's complexity) must be as great as that of the enzyme it controls.

A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain, one consisting of a 1,000 links could exist in 41000 different forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 41000 = 10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives us the figure '1' followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension."

Frank Salisbury,
Evolutionary biologist

Perhaps an "effort", but not a method, or a hypothesis. ID makes no predictions, it simply tries to find arguments to prop up a baseless assumption, that is the opposite of science.

If any ID proponent, or any theologian for that matter, can demonstrate even one example of anything true that their ideology can reliably tell us that we don't already know I will admit that it has predictive power, and that it could qualify as a hypothesis, and then eventually a theory. I'm betting you can't find one.

I did, see above. Here is a bunch more: http://www.discovery.org/a/2640


>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
What I insist is that you substantiate your claims, which you have failed to do.
I have claimed that there are methods to synthesize information that do not require the interaction of a mind. I have provided an example of one such system.
You object, but without either asserting that the simulation is a mind, or that it does not synthesize information, but instead you make some vague assertion about how it's instead not an example.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Abiogenesis is purely metaphysics and unproven.
Abiogenesis is, like all real knowledge, unproven. None the less it is, at present, the only coherent explanation for what can be demonstrated to exist.
There is no ID hypothesis, Behe came the closest to actually trying, and any competent high school biology student could pick his little charade to pieces in a few hours with a half decent encyclopedia.
Given two possibilities, one being unlikely, and the other being false, I'll go with unlikely.
>> ^shinyblurry:
So you acknowledge that information is trivially synthesized, by
non-minds? That's the opposite of your original claim. Is that a
retraction?
No, see above.

You said, and I quote: "if you already have DNA, you can certainly expect a cell to form."
Do you mean that DNA must already have the information required to do so? because lots of DNA does not, otherwise are you asserting that DNA is somehow "mind", which you claim would be required for that information to come into being?
>> ^shinyblurry:
The distinction between "life" and "non-life" does not exist.
So there is no difference between you and a rock? I can admit I see similarities, heart wise..:)
Let's see some evidence for your claim that there is no difference between life and non-life.

I am arguing not that there are no differences in the world, but that there is no concrete distinction between life and chemistry. You can assume there is, you can assert there is, but until you can demonstrate that there is I have nothing to disprove.
You can't disprove unicorns, I can't disprove the life boundary, and we have no reason to believe either exists.
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's not false. This is your pathway to DNA: RNA - (MAGIC) - DNA This is your pathway to RNA: ROCKS - (MAGIC) - RNA Just because you can get RNA to self-replicate doesn't automatically mean it is either likely or plausible this could happen.
Please consider this image: http://en.citizendium.org/images/thumb/f/f6/RNA_base_vs_DNA_base.jpg/350px-RNA_base_vs_DNA_base.jpg
The bottom right hydroxyl group is the only difference between RNA and DNA, to suggest that molecules can't lose parts, is to argue that the universe is not as it observably is.
Since the step you clearly label (MAGIC) in the RNA-> DNA path is so obviously trivial, why should anybody believe that the other step you label (MAGIC) is any more complex?
>> ^shinyblurry:
It is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent" design in nature, which biologists acknowledge, is actual design. It is only useless to you because you have ruled out design apriori, which is just simply ignorant.
Perhaps an "effort", but not a method, or a hypothesis. ID makes no predictions, it simply tries to find arguments to prop up a baseless assumption, that is the opposite of science.
If any ID proponent, or any theologian for that matter, can demonstrate even one example of anything true that their ideology can reliably tell us that we don't already know I will admit that it has predictive power, and that it could qualify as a hypothesis, and then eventually a theory. I'm betting you can't find one.

So, let me get this straight, because our primitive ancestors were afraid of the unknown, they came up with religion -a system of beliefs and practices based on mythical stories of the past about how we got here (creation) and prophetic visions about where we are going in the future depending on what we do in the present (doing X will lead to paradise, not doing X will lead to endless misery). Now that we have technology and scientifically enlightened minds, we should do away religion and base our knowledge on facts and evidence...

and this argument is presented to us by way of a mythical story of the past which presents no facts or evidence for many of its major claims -"we were confused when we opened our eyes", "we got scared," "we held our chests high and we feared no enemies, but we entered into a world of mystery", etc. (On what basis can we claim to know anything about the thoughts/feelings/motivations of primitive humans?) Then we get a prophetic vision of the future intended to change our behavior in the present -change and we can live in peace with nature and everyone else, have our lives fulfilled, and "connect to the true wonder of the universe." However, if we don't change, we're doomed to a future of suffering, terror, and violence.

So- doing X will lead to paradise, not doing X will lead to endless misery. And the problem with religion is...our "X" is true and theirs isn't. And, though we lack facts or evidence to support crucial elements of our belief that X is true, we can have faith that it is so because...

uh-oh

>> ^criticalthud:

>> ^A10anis:
>> ^criticalthud:
@A10anis
uhh...this is kind of like a story that needs to be told again and again until it is within the very fabric of our society, as religion is. but it isn't right now. this is still almost a fringe viewpoint.
I would add though that in this battle between rationality and superstition lies common ground - the simple understanding that a most religious people, deep down, find religion partly because of some sense of purpose. and that should be honored. We self-called "rational" beings often come off as condescending...and in our young and petty consciousness, our own understanding of the universe and the cosmos is hardly advanced. we are hardly "higher intelligence". and if we want other people to get over themselves, we should probably do the same.

Meaning no disrespect, but could you possibly articulate your points in a way thet people who speak english would understand. If you are not english speaking, then forgive me, i'm sure you meant well.

happily!
yes, if i were a religious sort and I saw this video, I could come away with the feeling that I am being labeled as scared, primitive, or dumb. My reaction would probably be to stick to my guns with even more zest.
I think a better approach would be to focus on what we have in common - that is, a sense of purpose to do good in this world...and go from there.
While fear and the endless search for security are certainly psychological factors contributing to the appeal of organized religion, there are many positives to dwell on instead. You get more flies with honey.
and rather than debate whether there is a god or no god, or the stupidity therein, I think it is about time to start contemplating whether we can even conceive of what "god" is or could be. We seem to be stuck upon the idea that god is a "being", whereas the world and universe around us seems to suggest that we are surrounded by a complex collective planetary intelligence and interdependency that we are barely even skimming the surface of.


Shush. You are a pseudo intellectual.

>> ^A10anis:

>> ^criticalthud:
@A10anis
uhh...this is kind of like a story that needs to be told again and again until it is within the very fabric of our society, as religion is. but it isn't right now. this is still almost a fringe viewpoint.
I would add though that in this battle between rationality and superstition lies common ground - the simple understanding that a most religious people, deep down, find religion partly because of some sense of purpose. and that should be honored. We self-called "rational" beings often come off as condescending...and in our young and petty consciousness, our own understanding of the universe and the cosmos is hardly advanced. we are hardly "higher intelligence". and if we want other people to get over themselves, we should probably do the same.

Meaning no disrespect, but could you possibly articulate your points in a way thet people who speak english would understand. If you are not english speaking, then forgive me, i'm sure you meant well.


happily!
yes, if i were a religious sort and I saw this video, I could come away with the feeling that I am being labeled as scared, primitive, or dumb. My reaction would probably be to stick to my guns with even more zest.
I think a better approach would be to focus on what we have in common - that is, a sense of purpose to do good in this world...and go from there.
While fear and the endless search for security are certainly psychological factors contributing to the appeal of organized religion, there are many positives to dwell on instead. You get more flies with honey.

and rather than debate whether there is a god or no god, or the stupidity therein, I think it is about time to start contemplating whether we can even conceive of what "god" is or could be. We seem to be stuck upon the idea that god is a "being", whereas the world and universe around us seems to suggest that we are surrounded by a complex collective planetary intelligence and interdependency that we are barely even skimming the surface of.

I upvoted this because I believe this is part of the future of science. It is easy to dismiss these concepts as new age touchy-feely stuff and poo-poo it out of hand.

But it is similar to something discussed in this vid http://videosift.com/video/Dark-Energy

70% of the universe is unexplained and for "placeholder" purposes, it is now called Dark Energy, until scientists can figure it out. This wasn't even a question 50 years ago, now our brightest minds are looking into it.

"Gaia consciousness" could well be the Dark Energy of the future.

Until then, whether it exists or not, it is fact that we are seriously screwing with the ecosystems of this planet. So whether there is "collective intelligence" or not, we had better get on to seriously changing our behavior.

>> ^criticalthud:

They're still engaged in a primitive debate.
Conceptually, we can't even get passed the notion that god is a singular "being" like us, rather than a vast intellectual complexity - that only becomes more complex as evolution continues. and we are all part of that process. recycled energy in an infinite process.
we're just so fucking self-centered that we miss the the intelligence that is all around us, and just how interdependent we are on the biodiversity we are mindlessly destroying.
we miss the fact that there is a collective intelligence of this planet, without which, we would be nothing. and instead of nurturing it, we're jerking off.

They're still engaged in a primitive debate.
Conceptually, we can't even get passed the notion that god is a singular "being" like us, rather than a vast intellectual complexity - that only becomes more complex as evolution continues. and we are all part of that process. recycled energy in an infinite process.

we're just so fucking self-centered that we miss the the intelligence that is all around us, and just how interdependent we are on the biodiversity we are mindlessly destroying.

we miss the fact that there is a collective intelligence of this planet, without which, we would be nothing. and instead of nurturing it, we're jerking off.

God is a spirit so He doesn't have a gender, persay..but He identifies Himself as a Father..and thus Jesus as His Son was born as a man.

The great evil that human beings have done speaks exactly to the problem of sin. Humans are capable of great acts of compassion and self-sacrifice as well. It's really a false choice you offer here, because the presence of evil is not an argument against God. It can actually be an argument for God, because if there is evil there is also good, and if there were no God how would anything be good or evil?

>> ^criticalthud:
>> ^shinyblurry:
The God I know is loving..He takes care of me and even the little things in my life. He is powerful..He controls everything that is going on. He is merciful..He forgives me when I screw up, which is often. He is just, righteous, true and pure. He is good..He does no evil. He is awesome..He created this beautiful Universe and all the intricate things in it. He changed my life..transformed my character..and leads me through every trial. He is wise..His ways lead to life. He is my Lord and my King. He is worthy of all honor and praise. He is the universal Savior, the one who takes away the sin of the world. He is eternal, he is omnipresent, He is Almighty God.
>> ^criticalthud:
@shinyblurry
respectfu
lly,
please explain your conception of god.
(via this primitive technology)


Ok, so to sum,
God to you is:
a "He"
has a son
is controlling, merciful, forgiving, awesome!, wise, worthy, eternal, omnipresent, paying attention to you.
one more question:
against a backdrop of countless different notions and characterizations of God through all manner of religions, cults and individual views, including yours, and the overall stupidity, pettiness, and self-serving nature of man, what would you say is more probable?:
a. God created us in his image
b. We created god in ours

So let me get this straight...

"God I know is loving..He takes care of me and even the little things in my life. He is powerful..He controls everything that is going on." & "He is just, righteous, true and pure. He is good..He does no evil."

but...

"He forgives me when I screw up, which is often."

If your god takes care of you right down to the little things why does he allow you to screw up? If he is so good and pure and powerful then why does he allow so many people who believe in him to suffer and die? Do you think that the tornadoes, floods, and hurricanes in the US only kill non-believers? "Well, god works in mysterious ways" ... feh. There is nothing mysterious about a tornado ripping through a trailer park in tornado alley. (Other than why the hell those idiots keep building trailer parks in tornado alley.)

There are so many holes in your swiss cheese of a fairy story that you are constantly defending your viewpoint. You talk about your effort to try and "save the souls of the non-believers" but in fact I think that this effort you put forward is your attempt to re-affirm your personal beliefs.
>> ^shinyblurry:

The God I know is loving..He takes care of me and even the little things in my life. He is powerful..He controls everything that is going on. He is merciful..He forgives me when I screw up, which is often. He is just, righteous, true and pure. He is good..He does no evil. He is awesome..He created this beautiful Universe and all the intricate things in it. He changed my life..transformed my character..and leads me through every trial. He is wise..His ways lead to life. He is my Lord and my King. He is worthy of all honor and praise. He is the universal Savior, the one who takes away the sin of the world. He is eternal, he is omnipresent, He is Almighty God.
>> ^criticalthud:
@shinyblurry
respectfu
lly,
please explain your conception of god.
(via this primitive technology)