Actually, according to the OED.com effect can be a verb:

a. To bring about (an event, a result); to accomplish (an intention, a desire).

e.g.: "The requirement that a life assurance contract could be effected only if an insurable (financial) interest could be proven."

Did I just out-grammar nazi you?

>> ^JiggaJonson:

@messenger
Incorrect, you can not "effect" anything. Again, it's a noun. Many nouns can function as verbs, 'I feel love," with love as a noun vs "I love you," with love as a verb, but in this instance there is a spelling distinction that denotes the different forms of the word.
Through the use of a be-verb, you can use the forms of the word in the way you suggest with a little rewording. It would have to say "Except when you have an effect on an affect," to be correct. The use of the to-have verb creates a situation where the words that follow will function as nouns.
See also: http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/misspelling/effect.png

@messenger

Incorrect, you can not "effect" anything. Again, it's a noun. Many nouns can function as verbs, 'I feel love," with love as a noun vs "I love you," with love as a verb, but in this instance there is a spelling distinction that denotes the different forms of the word.

Through the use of a be-verb, you can use the forms of the word in the way you suggest with a little rewording. It would have to say "Except when you have an effect on an affect," to be correct. The use of the to-have verb creates a situation where the words that follow will function as nouns.

See also: http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/misspelling/effect.png

Except when you effect an affect.

--Grammar Nazi Nazi>> ^JiggaJonson:

I just want to point out that the Youtube title of this video "SEE THE AFFECTS OF BATH SALTS!!!" should use the noun form of effect (with an E).
I affected the effect of this sentence.
Affect = verb
Effect = noun
Grammar nazi awayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!

I just want to point out that the Youtube title of this video "SEE THE AFFECTS OF BATH SALTS!!!" should use the noun form of effect (with an E).

I affected the effect of this sentence.
Affect = verb
Effect = noun

Grammar nazi awayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!

You've done some nice cherry picking here. Sepacore, my hope in this conversation is that you will be intellectually honest to address the substance of the arguments, rather than trying to find some angle to make your point so you can *avoid* addressing the substance. I don't think that is too much to ask.

My point exactly.
Therefore to call it 'evidence' rather than 'subjective experience' is an at best misleading if not false claim, as the term 'evidence' used in conversation with others generally refers to something provable to others.

To say something like "I had a subjective experience that is evidence to me" would be fine, as it has a buffer around the term to denote that 'evidence' in this case is in no way substantial or transferable to others, i.e. not evidence to others and can be discarded.. and any line of poetic words can not change this.

Jesus made a claim, that if I put my faith in Him, He would send me the Holy Spirit to supernaturally transform me, and live within me. If that happens, it is objective evidence that His claim is true. You may have other theories as to why it happened to me, or that it happened at all and I am simply deluding myself, but something has happened, and I have changed. Whether it is subjectively experienced, it can be objectively observed in my life. I am a different person, and those in my immediate family and circle of friends have certainly noticed it.

Let's look at the definition of evidence:

ev·i·dence
   [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing.
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

As you can see, not all evidence can be empirically tested. Personal testimony is sufficient to send people to the electric chair in our court system. My personal testimony, and the testimony of billions of others, does count as evidence. This is all beside the point:

If you understand the above point (one you made yourself), then you may agree that those who 'require evidence' (regardless of what some guy poetically said), can not genuinely accept your use of the word 'evidence' as having the same value as what now has to be refereed to as 'actual evidence' for clarity after the term has been devalued to host a non-transferable personal experience (i.e. not evidence to others), and therefore swapping out this term for a personal 'reason to believe' is not only required for more clearly followable terminology within a conversation but is more accurate in general discourse of 2 opposing views.

You have completely ignored the entire point of my argument, and it seem you deliberately left out the key part of what I was saying:

"but it is something you can test on your own"

I am not telling you, I experienced God so believe in God on that basis. I am telling you that Jesus made a claim which you can empirically test. You have constantly objected that there is no empirical evidence for God, yet you have failed to validate whether this is true. You have merely assumed it is true, through many other lines of reasoning, except the one that would, if the claim was true, produce any results. Again, Jesus said directly that you would have no experience of God outside of going through Him, and your experience directly matches His claim; No have no experience of God. You assume its because there isn't a God, which is natural to assume, but Jesus said it is because there is no way to even approach God or know anything about Him except through Jesus.


Re Jesus said, Jesus said etc

The notion that one would give another great tools/resources like logical processing, rational thought and critical thinking and then put forward a reward of 'subjective experience based evidence' only achievable by those that disregarded such 'gifts' enough so as to have a chance of achieving this form of evidence is absurd.

If there is a God, then you are using none of these tools correctly. If you've ever read the book "flatland", then you can understand how two dimensional creatures would consider the possibility of a 3D world illogical and irrational. Thus, so does a materialist consider the spiritual reality to be illogical and irrational. This is why I say atheism is a religion for people who have no experience of God.

The bible anticipates your argument and your skepticism:

1 Corinthians 1:18-22

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Men have always taken great pride in their intellectual accomplishments, yet none of them have ever given even one shred of revelation about Almighty God. The wisdom behind the cross is much higher than this worldly wisdom, and it in fact proves it all to be vanity and foolishness, but the world cannot see that, because it is wise in its own eyes:

Romans 1:22

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

No offense taken as you've missed the point. Firstly there is a difference as i do not claim to 'know' that God doesn't exist. I claim to have 'reasons to believe' that it is unlikely. Knowledge of mental deficiencies, emotions, subjective experiences, experience recognition mental softwares and the way humans make mass assumptions to quickly gain degrees of understandings of any/every situation alone take me right up to that hairsbreadth away point. Whereby it can take time and effort explaining to people the difference between agnostic (don't know/care), agnostic-atheist (don't know, doubt it) and atheist (believe not), I'm happy to wear the tag as a generality in non-specific and non-in-depth discussions.

However I'm aware that a God identical to your claims 'could' be hiding in the shadows just outside of human detection and actual evidence as the religious coincidentally claim to those who request proof (yet then in the same breath can state 'but I have personal evidence'.. yes, seems convenient and unlikely).
Just like I'm aware that there 'could' be a 700 story tall pink dragon that farts rainbows named Trevor that simultaneously exists and doesn't exist inside both of my kidneys without being split into 2 parts..
Or someone 'could' prefer their beliefs enough to unknowingly and automatically do mental acrobats around anything that would disrupt them including acknowledging that their position is unsubstantiated outside of a mind that wants to believe (this is in fact what can occur when someone suffers from a delusion).
Debating possibilities is a waste of time, whereas debating probabilities is where you might actually get some results or at least supportable reason to belive.

I'm not talking about probabilities. Jesus was a real person, and He made claims. These claims can be tested.

As far as the difference between God and trevor goes, one has explanatory power and one doesn't. Neither does anyone believe in trevor; he isn't plausible. He isn't even logically coherent. No one believes in flying tea pots, and flying tea pots don't explain anything. God does explain something, and in many cases, is a better explanation for the evidence, such as information in DNA and the fine tuning of our physical laws. Asking whether the Universe was intelligently designed is a perfectly rational question and there is evidence to support this conclusion. Do you know that 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians believe in a personal God? I am not appealing to an authority here, but I think this statistic shows that people trained in science do believe that the evidence points towards God.

understanding of stellar evolution is actually very primitive

The arguments relating to 'we don't know everything yet' is not a basis in which to claim 'X is just as, if not more so, likely to be true'. Claims require their own 'evidences' to support them. Pushing ideas onto people requires 'transferable evidence' and just because there is a question mark at a stage whereby most other aspects of a theory hold true enough to be accurately predicted during tests, does not reflect on another theory being more likely but may indeed reflect on another theory as being less likely.

Again, this is just cherry picking and I think you have lost track of the thread, or you don't want to follow it. You said that part of your skepticism about God creating the Universe was that we understood things about stellar evolution, which is to say we don't need to invoke God as an explanation. I pointed out that not only is our understanding primitive, but even if it were perfect, how does that rule out a Creator? You are confusing mechanism for agency. The stars didn't create themselves, the laws that govern the cosmos caused them to form, and ultimately the laws that caused them to form also had an origin. You have to explain the agency before you can say you don't need God to explain something.

I won't reply much to this as it merely shows that you're already geared to ignore actual evidences that would support the idea of the universe not requiring a God (note that this readiness to disregard facts is what occurs within delusions so as to keep degrees of stability withing fantasized worlds).

I can just as easily say this:

And I won't reply much to this as it merely shows that you're already geared to ignore actual evidences that would support the idea of the universe requiring a God (note that this readiness to disregard facts is what occurs within delusions so as to keep degrees of stability withing fantasized worlds)

Although we haven't figured everything out yet, we've only had about 400 years worth of good studying and scientific thinking on the matter of a 13.7 billion year old case... how much can you honestly expect us to know definitively when so much of our combined time goes towards supporting notions that can't actually be proved?

I don't, and therefore, I wouldn't expect you to say that what has been described actually proves anything one way or the other.

Yes I know that humans must make assumptions so as to figure things out, in fact it was one of the if not THE main focus of my previous post.
Could you ask your question if their wasn't uniformity in nature? No. The fact that there is, is what allows for those that can question it to arise. Our mere being here says nothing as to whether there is a God, in fact nothing in science thus far (to my knowledge) says anything as to whether there IS a God, however some things do say as to whether or not a God is required.

So what is the experiment that proves science is the best method for obtaining truth if you have to assume things you cannot prove to even do science?

Our being here doesn't prove there is a God, necessarily, but we should be surprised to find ourselves in a Universe that is so finely tuned for life.

Scripture (your one and others) say a lot of things, some things vaguely, somethings specifically, and some things contradictorily (Google 'bible contradictions' for examples), but most of all, it says things poetically somewhat like a manipulating salesman whose product you're not allowed to touch, until you've handed over the money. Scripture also doesn't say things as well as some writers over the years could have, but hey it's only the word of God.. I'm interested in things outside of scripture, things that are testable, things that are comparable to an alternate source than where they came from.

You're cherry picking, and dodging the substance, and now even the point of the argument. You were agreeing with Sageminds contention that if God is perfect, then He is also perfectly evil. I pointed out that scripture describes God different, and I also gave you a logical argument outside of scripture for it:

It would be less perfect for God to be a mixture of good and evil versus being perfectly good.

Do you have a response to that argument?

Cheap shot: proof please. I require it in order to respond to the statement & question.
Na just kidding I don't expect any proof for these claims, just like I can't provide you any proof about Trevor.. * whispers: because Trever doesn't actually exists *. In these cases we'll just dismiss each others unsubstantiated claims until the other provides either evidence or acceptable reason to believe said claims.

It's your claim that God does evil in the bible, and so I am asking you why, hypothetically, is it wrong for God to take a life? Since we're talking about the God of the bible, He is the creator of all things, and so has ultimate responsibility over His creation. He is responsible for every aspect of your life, and has the say over your continued existence. Therefore, what makes it wrong for Him to take life just as He gives and maintains life?

Conflict.

Christian claim: God gave humans free will and allows them to use it whereby they will be judged in the afterlife.
Christian claim: God may affect the world in your benefit if you pray (or as your hypothetical, affect the world against you if you're naughty).
Christian claim: God exists outside of detection.
Christian claim: God can do anything.
Christian claim: God.
Christian claim: God is mysterious / we can not understand the will of God
Christian claim: God likes X, God doesn't like Y.

Or to summarize: God exists outside of known existence and has the ability to create and destroy anything without exception.
This is the result of human intelligence evolving to the point of getting one of our psychological survival drives (hope) to an indisputable peak of performance.

My point is that believers over time have given themselves so much wiggle room, when we start talking about 'why God X, why not Y, can God Z' etc, then we enter the realm of imaginative flexibility where the desperate and delusional can simply change the variables of what they want to use regardless of the conflicts, and ignore any logical positions by getting caught up on their preferred ideological technicalities while rejecting other physical or metal technicalities or proofs.

Again, this is a hypothetical scenario involving the God of the bible. It's your claim that God has done evil, so you can back it up with a logical argument? I've outlined a few scenarios and asked you if God would be evil for doing any of those things. I am not talking about mysterious ways, I am talking about specifics.

I have to say 'proof please' again. The words of 1 source (the Bible) are not good enough, evidence requires testability and multiple sources of confirmation. Too much imagination and you can slip away from reality.

Again, we are speaking hypothetically of a scenario you engaged in; "how would you react if the God of the bible showed up at your door". You said you would react in such and such way, which is unrealistic considering how the God of the bible is described, which is what I pointed out to. Based on your modified understanding of the God of the bible, do you think you would react the same way?

Would have replied sooner, but was busy and then D3 launched =D

No problemo..take your time? How is D3?

>> ^Sepacore

I'm wondering if this is Fanta marketing. That would make a good verb.

>> ^shole:

Things do need to be simplified when doing a show of a limited time.
They can't do a show where it's like browsing wikipedia, jumping from one subject into some minute detail of it, and digging deeper until you forget what you were studying in the first place.
Not that i would mind if someone were to make a show like that.


exactly but the compromise is not saying verbs and words that have no real meaning. The compromise is saying , " this is what it is called " " these scientists have done x " "the ramifications are y"
and then include links at the end of a show or a short sting that tells people where to go if they are interested in perusing it or what books to read / maths to study.

The general public is ignorant as to what the basic principles of the scientific method are so trying to then explain the more abstract aspects of quantum mechanics is utterly futile.

Still the lecture was a realy good effort and most of it was fantastic , IT is depressing to me that your average joe on the street probably doesn't know of the slit experiment and that a good proportion of the adults in that room with him didn't .

Mainly gaming jargon for getting a hostile mob to chase after you while it is peppered with attacks. Has been used recently to refer to the same tactic in mixed martial arts .>> ^messenger:

What does "kite" mean, as a verb? Is it a special technique or just gaming jargon for "lead"?>> ^Skeeve:
There is another player playing a "pacifist" character who is at least level 25. He kites dragons to towns to kill them and kites dungeon bosses into traps. He figures he could beat the main quest with only a single kill - the final boss.
The Draugr Overlord in Bleak Falls Barrow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKW6vYe_1Qg

What does "kite" mean, as a verb? Is it a special technique or just gaming jargon for "lead"?>> ^Skeeve:

There is another player playing a "pacifist" character who is at least level 25. He kites dragons to towns to kill them and kites dungeon bosses into traps. He figures he could beat the main quest with only a single kill - the final boss.
The Draugr Overlord in Bleak Falls Barrow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKW6vYe_1Qg

hah! the book she's reading at the end is a verb conjugations book.

Hrm, interesting since I am drunk... But you said, "Also too," which makes all that you wrote moot! Ha, also can mean "too!" I win!

All jokes aside...the constitution, as I said, is understood backwards by Paul. If it isn't wrote, the government has the ability to do (At least the State.)

Universal healthcare is legal, not because of the commerce clause...but because it is.

>> ^NetRunner:

@heropsycho ahh, but you do need to be careful with the whole "enumerated powers" malarkey. After all, there's nothing in Article I, Section 8 about Congress being able to create an Air Force -- just an Army and a Navy. The Air Force is unconstitutional.
Also too, it doesn't say the government is allowed to build roads, just "Post roads" for the post office's use! Don't even get us started on things like power lines or telephone cable.
According to the likes of Ron Paul, the Constitution isn't open to even a little bit of reinterpretation, but instead that it's a straightjacket that should constrain the Federal government from doing anything that isn't explicitly listed in Section 8.
Hell, he's even implied that since the Constitution uses the verb "coin" to describe Congress's authority to create money, that paper currency (backed by gold or otherwise) is also unconstitutional.
IMO, I'd be fine with that interpretation, as long as people stopped pretending that the constitution was some holy scripture filled with infinite wisdom passed down to us by messiahs. We should be rewriting and re-ratifying the Constitution to fit with our modern ideals of how things should function.
For example, there should be something in the constitution about the nexus of money and politics, but there isn't.
There should be something more about the legal definition of "people" -- do fetuses or corporations count?
There should be something in there about the Air Force, and the Marines too, for good measure.
Do we have a right to privacy, or don't we?
Right now we mostly let the Supreme Court decide these things by letting them "interpret" a 200 year-old document based on their supposed ability to divine the mental state of the long-dead authors of the sections they feel are relevant.
Why shouldn't those questions be put to a vote?

For the record, I'm not a strict constructionist. However, I do recognize the danger of looser interpretations, even though I'm politically moderate person. I don't have a good answer for example about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because that law was sorely needed, but it sure does open Pandora's box about what the gov't can and can't regulate. Regulation of interstate commerce allowed for things like environmental regulation, the formation of the EPA, etc. But it sure can cause the gov't to regulate things it shouldn't, too.

The formation of an Air Force though is an easier argument constitutionally, and it's a useful thing to review because it illustrates the thought process of the Supreme Court. When something isn't outright said in Article I, Section 8, those powers in combination with interpretting other sections such as the Preamble ("provide for the common defense..."), or sometimes other documents the forefathers wrote such as the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, etc., provide ideas about their intent. It's clearly implied that since they could form an Army and Navy for defense, once flight was possible, it's implied we need an Air Force.

As to the things below you're saying should be put to a vote, they are, but not directly by the people. That's how the Amendment process works. Should it be a direct vote by the people? In my opinion, that would be a horrible idea. The people simply for the most part do not understand the ramifications of amending the Constitution.

>> ^NetRunner:

@heropsycho ahh, but you do need to be careful with the whole "enumerated powers" malarkey. After all, there's nothing in Article I, Section 8 about Congress being able to create an Air Force -- just an Army and a Navy. The Air Force is unconstitutional.
Also too, it doesn't say the government is allowed to build roads, just "Post roads" for the post office's use! Don't even get us started on things like power lines or telephone cable.
According to the likes of Ron Paul, the Constitution isn't open to even a little bit of reinterpretation, but instead that it's a straightjacket that should constrain the Federal government from doing anything that isn't explicitly listed in Section 8.
Hell, he's even implied that since the Constitution uses the verb "coin" to describe Congress's authority to create money, that paper currency (backed by gold or otherwise) is also unconstitutional.
IMO, I'd be fine with that interpretation, as long as people stopped pretending that the constitution was some holy scripture filled with infinite wisdom passed down to us by messiahs. We should be rewriting and re-ratifying the Constitution to fit with our modern ideals of how things should function.
For example, there should be something in the constitution about the nexus of money and politics, but there isn't.
There should be something more about the legal definition of "people" -- do fetuses or corporations count?
There should be something in there about the Air Force, and the Marines too, for good measure.
Do we have a right to privacy, or don't we?
Right now we mostly let the Supreme Court decide these things by letting them "interpret" a 200 year-old document based on their supposed ability to divine the mental state of the long-dead authors of the sections they feel are relevant.
Why shouldn't those questions be put to a vote?

@heropsycho ahh, but you do need to be careful with the whole "enumerated powers" malarkey. After all, there's nothing in Article I, Section 8 about Congress being able to create an Air Force -- just an Army and a Navy. The Air Force is unconstitutional.

Also too, it doesn't say the government is allowed to build roads, just "Post roads" for the post office's use! Don't even get us started on things like power lines or telephone cable.

According to the likes of Ron Paul, the Constitution isn't open to even a little bit of reinterpretation, but instead that it's a straightjacket that should constrain the Federal government from doing anything that isn't explicitly listed in Section 8.

Hell, he's even implied that since the Constitution uses the verb "coin" to describe Congress's authority to create money, that paper currency (backed by gold or otherwise) is also unconstitutional.

IMO, I'd be fine with that interpretation, as long as people stopped pretending that the constitution was some holy scripture filled with infinite wisdom passed down to us by messiahs. We should be rewriting and re-ratifying the Constitution to fit with our modern ideals of how things should function.

For example, there should be something in the constitution about the nexus of money and politics, but there isn't.

There should be something more about the legal definition of "people" -- do fetuses or corporations count?

There should be something in there about the Air Force, and the Marines too, for good measure.

Do we have a right to privacy, or don't we?

Right now we mostly let the Supreme Court decide these things by letting them "interpret" a 200 year-old document based on their supposed ability to divine the mental state of the long-dead authors of the sections they feel are relevant.

Why shouldn't those questions be put to a vote?

His painful laugh at 1.05 warranted an empathetic upvote.


>> ^longde:The fact that this video gets so many votes says volumes about the dominant demographic of the sift.



There's something we can agree on. I hate this place when I see a video titled "Cute Girl [verb] [noun]"

>> ^bobknight33:

I 'll take luck over skill any day.


Skill is cold-hearted, hard-working; calculated. Luck is a party animal that will put its dick into anything and then marry it in the morning, living a life of devotion without fail; though most of time it's a pretty average, uneventful life, every once in a while the gods smile down upon him. To luck! A true hero amongst verbs!