As I said, if you want to msg me, we can discuss this further. I've posted many reasons why I said what I did, if you don't want to accept them at face value that's your choice.

>> ^VoodooV:

unless you can read minds or they specifically state "I downvote because I hate religion" you can't judge intent that way.
But you're missing the point. It matters not what topic you discuss, if you commit a logical fallacy, people won't respect you and guess what, they're more likely to downvote you here.
understanding and avoiding logical fallacies is like...debate and discourse 101.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
Funny thing is, the article on fallacies is one of the few things that both Wikipedia and Conservapedia agree on, both articles appear accurate. Of course, Conservapedia's examples are radically different
What I see you (and bobknight) do a lot is commit the "appeal to belief" fallacy.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html
you can believe whatever you want to believe, but when you pass your belief off as fact in the public arena without anything to back it up, you lose any credibility you may have earned.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I gave proof in the thread, most notably the 18 discarded posts I have. I'm not going to debate religion with you here. If you want to debate me, then msg me and pick a topic.
>> ^VoodooV:
see here we go with more fallacies.
"People downvote for ideological reasons (they hate religion)"
This is an untrue statement. Unless you've developed some mind reading abilities that I'm not aware of, you simply cannot know why people downvote.
You forget the most simple reason of all: Religion has zero basis in fact and/or reason, therefore it has zero grounds to be treated with any authority. especially in matters of public government."
If you're going to claim they just do it because of hate, you better: 1) back that up with actual evidence and arguments. and 2) ask yourself the very simple question: "If they do hate religion, do they have a good reason why?"
I'd be willing to bet the kids molested by priests can think of a view VERY GOOD reasons's why.

unless you can read minds or they specifically state "I downvote because I hate religion" you can't judge intent that way.

But you're missing the point. It matters not what topic you discuss, if you commit a logical fallacy, people won't respect you and guess what, they're more likely to downvote you here.

understanding and avoiding logical fallacies is like...debate and discourse 101.

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

Funny thing is, the article on fallacies is one of the few things that both Wikipedia and Conservapedia agree on, both articles appear accurate. Of course, Conservapedia's examples are radically different

What I see you (and bobknight) do a lot is commit the "appeal to belief" fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html

you can believe whatever you want to believe, but when you pass your belief off as fact in the public arena without anything to back it up, you lose any credibility you may have earned.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I gave proof in the thread, most notably the 18 discarded posts I have. I'm not going to debate religion with you here. If you want to debate me, then msg me and pick a topic.
>> ^VoodooV:
see here we go with more fallacies.
"People downvote for ideological reasons (they hate religion)"
This is an untrue statement. Unless you've developed some mind reading abilities that I'm not aware of, you simply cannot know why people downvote.
You forget the most simple reason of all: Religion has zero basis in fact and/or reason, therefore it has zero grounds to be treated with any authority. especially in matters of public government."
If you're going to claim they just do it because of hate, you better: 1) back that up with actual evidence and arguments. and 2) ask yourself the very simple question: "If they do hate religion, do they have a good reason why?"
I'd be willing to bet the kids molested by priests can think of a view VERY GOOD reasons's why.

Guys, I'm not kidding. The sift really does seem to have a problem with the rampant trolling.

This has nothing to do with left v right. It has to do with the rampant ad-homs, strawmans, and other logical fallacies committed by various people.

All I want is some more active moderation of these comments to promote a more civil discourse. It's pretty obvious this video wasn't sifted to promote genuine discussion, just to troll up and pick a fight, not debate. It should be clear that there isn't going to be much productive discussion in this thread and very little good will come out of it.

Got some arguments to make? make them. Attack the idea, not the person, and quit playing the victim card when someone calls you out on your bs.

Seriously, look up logical fallacies if you haven't. Hell, even Conservapedia's article on logical fallacies appears accurate.

The bullsh1t is so deep around here I thought you'd appreciate skipping the smell test and getting right to it.

So here's to hoping enough people are awake enough not to get fooled again by The One (and Done).

>> ^VoodooV:

Way to continue your long tradition of reasoned, arguments with no ad-hom attacks @quantumushroom.
nope, no trolling here. We're lucky you're here spreading your pearls of wisdom instead of spending your valuable time at more reputable websites like...Conservapedia.

The truth is, as a group we're too nice, too honest, too forgiving, and too independent, which is why the right ends up eating our lunch so often.

NICE
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/
http://michellemalkin.com/category/unhinged/assassination-chic/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2653895/posts
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.8760/pub_detail.asp
http://conservapedia.com/Liberal_hate_speech
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41108
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hate.html

Liberal/leftist philosophy is prodominantly driven by hatred, not kindness.

HONEST
http://www.ivorydome.us/category/unhinged-liberals/showcases-of-liberal-dishonesty/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1905914/posts
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/4701/long-post-complete-list-obama-statement-expiration-dates
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/10/10/mainstream-media-dishonesty-101-liberal-media-lies/

How do you know a leftist is lying? His lips are moving.

FORGIVING
http://conservapedia.com/Double_standard
http://www.gargaro.com/bias.html
THIS VIDEO

If leftists were 'forgiving' then this video would never have been posted, right?

INDEPENDANT
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2006/04/a-majority-of-american-arent-intellectually-curious/
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/rudin.html
http://www.carolinajournal.com/issues/display_story.html?id=679
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/content/quotes-liberal-bias-education-campus-classroom-college?library_node=67198
http://webpages.charter.net/tomeboy/leftout.html
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/

Most leftists are (politically and intelectually speaking) a bunch of lemming-sheep. When they encounter ideas that oppose thier own, they do not try to mentally adjust to them. They seek to repress them and criminalize free speech that differs from theirs.

Now - this cuts both ways. The right wing is no haven of fairness either. However, to claim the political left is just so gosh-darn nice/tolerant/forgiving is absolute bunk. The political left contains some of the most intolerant, least forgiving, cruellest, bunch of brain-dead robots on the planet. To claim otherwise is to ignore facts and reality.

But on topic - yeah Perry blew it big time and diamonds to dollars he is toast. He just doesn't do well in public speaking. Last night's winner? Newt Gingrich. He kicked @$$.

Lol! Sorry friend, staying off the sift more and more these days so only have time for a quickie or two.

I just want to point out to @dystopianfuturetoday, before I get to my point, that the common defense of those defending a position, "words mean different things to different people;" is, IMO, a weak argument. Those attacking tend to use words definitively, ironically (Conservatives say Obama "hates" America, some say he "loves" America... And both are probably right in a fashion.)

I say that if a word is so broad as to be utterly, entirely, completely useless, then why even have those words? The sun is "hot", oh yeah? To who, or what? And what are the comparisons? Is the sun really hot or is that subjective?

While technically it is correct to say the sun may not be hot, it is a silly argument to make and really makes the word "hot" so subjective that it's pointless to note anything hot. And certainties? OMG, there can never be any certainties with this line of open-ended wording (Except, oddly enough, the certainty that itself is the only certainty...)

I am not the definitive judicator of words and their meaning---but I am a damn good judge. You can be one too. Just take a word and, without the rhetoric or emotions added, think on it.

Sarcasm >>>>> (Freedom must be good. It is choice. But, as noted by a great philosopher, in a world of a million choices, you tend to make less choices because the choices enslave you to an extent...so it's not about choice, that is the rhetorical, American-ized version of freedom...) Urm, how about Sarcasm>>>> (Freedom is great, good and promotes prosperity.) How so? That is subjective as hell and cannot be quantified in any way shape or form.... Or >>>>> (Freedom is found in a democracy...) When a million people have a say, your say is very unimportant...

Just weed through the words and find their core if you can (Some don't have one.) And of course, the words change with society too, so the answer never stays stagnant forever.

Otherwise, if we cannot say this is correct, then I will just start typing anything about anyone and say, Sarcasm>>>>>>>"Hey, words mean different things to different people. dystopianfuturetoday is like Hitler means something completely different to me than you--it is not an insult at all but a compliment!"

>> ^NetRunner:

@Lawdeedaw I want a response too!
What's your answer to a hypothetical liberal, who in all seriousness makes this argument about freeberty vs. real, authentic liberal liberty? (You know liberal is actually the adjective form of liberty, don't you?)
If, as you say, "there is an actual conceptual meaning to ideas such as liberty and freedom", then who's the final arbiter of what that conceptual meaning is?
Is it me? You? Wikipedia? Is it The Encyclopedia of Philosophy? Or is it source like Conservapedia, Mises.org, and Reason.tv who take one particular view and deny the validity of any other way of thinking? (You know libertarian actually means "similar to liberty, but not the genuine article", right?)
Whose definition is authoritative? The people who include all points of view, and not try to declare winners and losers, or the people who say they're right, and everyone else is wrong simply because they say so?
WARNING for the sarcasm-impaired: Parentheticals are purely meant as sarcasm.

@Lawdeedaw I want a response too!

What's your answer to a hypothetical liberal, who in all seriousness makes this argument about freeberty vs. real, authentic liberal liberty? (You know liberal is actually the adjective form of liberty, don't you?)

If, as you say, "there is an actual conceptual meaning to ideas such as liberty and freedom", then who's the final arbiter of what that conceptual meaning is?

Is it me? You? Wikipedia? Is it The Encyclopedia of Philosophy? Or is it source like Conservapedia, Mises.org, and Reason.tv who take one particular view and deny the validity of any other way of thinking? (You know libertarian actually means "similar to liberty, but not the genuine article", right?)

Whose definition is authoritative? The people who include all points of view, and not try to declare winners and losers, or the people who say they're right, and everyone else is wrong simply because they say so?

WARNING for the sarcasm-impaired: Parentheticals are purely meant as sarcasm.

That's a laugh..the first thing you did in our "debate" is try to argue I am a troll. Then we had a little contentious back and forth in which my answers were perfectly adaquete..the problem was that you copped out and ran away. Here is our final exchange:

"@shinyblurry

I was going to leave you in the metaphorical pit of self-contradiction and nonsense you had dug yourself into, but then you had to go insult my eloquence... jk, I was going to address your answers anyway:

Would you condemn and punish someone's child for something their parents did? Why should anyone respect - much less worship - a being whose moral standards are far inferior to those of the worst among us humans (or "sinners" as you call us)?

2. "Special Revelation"... and yet it is those who use reason and evidence who are "arrogant", or have a "fevered ego", right? But let me try to grasp this "Holy Spirit" thing once and for all:

Basically, a Christian cannot deny the HS, otherwise he was never a Christian? But one can only reject the HS if they have it, i.e. if they are a Christian... do you see where this is going? Moreover, this suggests a deterministic outlook: some have been chosen, the rest can suck it (you did not answer the part of my question which asks what happens to those that are not "chosen").

So God makes an exception, giving them the knowledge of good and evil only so that they do not obtain the knowledge of good and evil... Even if this fantastic extrapolation of yours was not a direct insult to the textual integrity of the Bible (which is about the only integrity that thing has got), it would only confirm my point vis-à-vis God/religion's reliance on blind obedience.

Which brings me to another tasty tidbit of yours:

He doesn't coerce your love, but he will let you reap the consequences of the evil that you do [...]
Mafia boss says: you don't have to pay up, but I'll beat the shit out of you if you don't.

Does the irony escape you?"

My reply:

1. You're still not getting it. Before Adam and Eve sinned, they were spiritually perfected. When they sinned their spirit became corrupt and could no longer be in the presence of God. This is why Creation fell. Human nature has been corrupted since then. This is why we live in a fallen world. Instead of starting over, God bore all of this out with us. He had a plan to restore Creation, which He did by sending His Son to die for our sins. Jesus is the name under which man is reconciled back to God and spiritually perfected, so we can again live with God. It's not about punishment, it's about restoration.

You say it's immoral for God to punish people..I'll explain why it's not but first, lets examine your hypocripsy here. You're an atheist so you believe death is the end. Yet, I bet you adovocate the death penalty or life in prison for serious crimes. You're perfectly fine with humans meting out ultimate justice on other humans, which is the same as God punishing someone forever, because if this life is all we have then a death sentence is forever. Life in prison is just as good. Yet, you somehow have a problem with God punishing people, who as our Creator and the moral authority not only has the perrogative, but indeed would be immoral if He didn't do so.

Think about it this way. You don't like God and you don't respect His authority. You certainly don't want to live forever with Him. So, though He loves you and wants to share eternity with you, He will allow you to make your choice as to whether to love Him or not. He's let you know the consequences over and over again, mostly recently through this dialogue. You are choosing directly to be seperated from God, indeed you have made it a mission to spread your ignorance about Him. So why then should you be surprised when you earn the reward you had hoped for? It's entirely moral, and entirely your choice.

2. It doesn't suggest anything of the sort. Only a Christian could receive the Holy Spirit, they are saved. A person who professes a belief in Christ yet does not accept His Spirit has committed blasphemy against the Spirit. They are not saved. A person who does not believe in Christ will never receive the Spirit, nor can they even perceive it, so they cannot commit blasphemy against Him. This is the meaning of the passage:

"Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS."

3. What was your question?

You never answered to any of this. This was your final reply:

Shiny quoted conserva-facts-don't-affect-me-pedia.com; conversation ended. You fail.

You used the excuse that I had quoted conservapedia about zooasterism to Enoch to run away from our debate. So please get off your high horse..and you never provided an intelligent or comprehensive position..most of it was simply rooted in your amatuer understanding of scripture.


>> ^hpqp:
You'd really crack me up if I didn't know you were dead serious. Remember our very first debate Mr Shiny? The one under you first sifted video? There was no quoting Leviticus, instead I provided serious questions to the ideology stemming from the Creation and Fall myths, to which you were unable to adequately reply. As for spewing Bible verses, it's a two-way street, although you definitely take it more than anyone else here, and with the added stupidity of actually thinking that an ancient collection of ideological, mythological and historical texts - compiled and edited over hundreds of years - is actually the divinely inspired word of your sky dictator. So yeah, sometimes myself and others will quote contentious scripture just to remind you that it's only manmade text (although even you go to some lengths to try and make the worst of it make sense... (re: your attempt at rationalising having to marry one's rapist)).
Most people who tried to have an intelligent debate with you here have given up. If you still can't understand why, maybe you should pore over your responses to people's questions and have a long, hard think (yes, I know that's hard).
Yours satanically,
Lucy Furr
edit: I missed part of your comment when first responding... nobody "created" us, shiny. Most secular humanists and atheists come to the conclusion that religion is bullshit all by their lonesomes, usually in their childhood or teens.. you know, when rational thought starts to outweigh parental authority. While it's nice to have speakers defending reason with arguments we could only dream of formulating so eloquently - speakers who certainly helped some who were already in doubt to make up their minds - it's not as if one needs a prophet. Maybe one reason why you have the impression you're always debating Dawkins and Hitchens is because their arguments are some of the most salient against religion, arguments that have been made since the ancient Greeks btw.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I already told you, if you go to the minute mark that I provided you will find someone talking directly about it. If you don't want to do that, or you don't believe the person in the video, that's your problem. It doesn't change the fact of what Dawkins said.
As far as arguments, I have many. I never get that far with you though. Your idea of a rational debate is to quote contentious verses in Leviticus. If you want to talk about one trick ponies..
I don't want to generalize atheists but the fact is dawkins and hitchens created a lot of you, and I feel often times I am debating them instead of the person I am talking to. In any case, it doesn't matter..I was just somewhat amused that you seemed to think that atheists are never illogical or say anything stupid.
>> ^hpqp:
Pretty rich coming from someone whose whole argument boils down to "personal revelation nananana!!!" and "God/the Bible says it so ITS TRUE!!!" All your gross generalisations based on personal experience (which could very much be made up for all we know) are but chaff to the wind, shiny.
And no, I'm not going to sit through 1h20 to try to find something that you claim Dawkins said; it's your evidence, you provide it.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Yes, atheists actually do construct arguments which merely appeal to authority and engage of all sorts of logical fallacies, all the time. You seem to be under the illusion that atheists are in general more intelligent than the average person. I debate atheists all the time all over the internet and I can safely put that theory to rest for you. It's more that atheists are completely blinded by their certitude and think that everything they say is just so forceful and compelling, like they are the sole possessors of logic and reason in the world. After you speak to few hundred or so you start to see the group think they all share and that most of their ideas are originating from a Dawkins or a Hitchens. Many of you just parrot the things they say in their debates almost word for word.
As far as your evidence, it's buried somewhere in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw
If you go to 1 hour 17 you'll find someone talking about it.
edit; I will admit I speak to some very bright people, people are people after all..but atheism is not an exclusive group of deep thinkers..if you think that you haven't been around the internet lately.
>> ^hpqp:
[citation needed]
This is not the first time you put words in Dawkins' mouth you know.
edit: and even if Dawkins, Hitchens and the FSM all got together to argue for the historicity of Jesus, they would have to bring compelling arguments to the table. Unlike some religious people, atheists don't just go "oh since Dawkins says it it must be true, no need to think/research for myself!!"
>> ^shinyblurry:
Even Dawkins admitted Jesus is a historical figure. There are virtually no historians who support that view, so scratch probably and insert "extremely unlikely".
>> ^hpqp:
Well, considering that the Jeebs is probably a fictional character altogether , it's not surprising that there is differences between the ways different authors imagined him to be.
http://religion.videosift.com/video/Lecture-Examining
-the-Existence-of-a-Historic
al-Jesus
>> ^messenger:
People in power usually do represent God in Jesus' parables. That's why this one seems so odd to me. Maybe I just haven't read enough of them to realize that Jesus himself preached violence against beings other than fig trees. (Mark 11: 12-14)>> ^hpqp:
That nobleman stands in for God/Jeebs in that parable. But you should ask shiny, for him we're all slaves to the all-powerful dictator, only some of us (that is the evil atheists) are rebellious against his power.

@shinyblurry

First you affirm that an atheist is someone who believes there is no god, and now it's about whether the universe was deliberately created? Shifting the goalposts much? Btw, you're wrong, answering yes to that question can mean you are a deist, if you believe the creator has no hand in matters since the moment it designed said universe.

As for gnosticism, you refer to the historical sense of the word (of which I am well aware), right after saying that this is a "philosophical" (i.e. atemporal) question. The historical Gnostics were just "heretical" Christians, a diverging sect much like the Mormons are today, and you'd be hard pressed to find any today, since the "true Christians" thoroughly wiped them out.

Finally, the otherwise sound advice of "don't believe everything you read" is hilariously ironic coming from a conservapedia-quoting, I-believe-in-sky-Daddy-talking-snakes-and-incestuous-origins-of-humankind-cuz-my-Book-says-so Christian.

Speaking of book-quoting, why is it that when you (or any other Christian) quotes the "infallible Word of God" it is "supporting evidence", but when an atheist does it it is "ignorant cherry-picking"?

^I don't know, I quite like the zombie theory, at least there is textual precedents (Matthew 27:51-53).

Though some scientists suggest he was a mix of several types of undead...

For more information, check this encyclopaedic article (as scientifically accurate as Conservapedia, but funnier).

http://www.greatcom.org/resources/handbook_of_todays_religions/03chap07/default.htm

>> ^enoch:
/facepalm
ok..fine.sighs.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/zor/index.htm
conservapedia is a known unreliable source.
and you still didnt answer my other queries.
you really should take a look at my profile blurry.
namaste.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Allow me to correct you sir..http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Zoroastrianism
>> ^enoch:
so satan did it.
thats your answer.
would it make a difference if i pointed out that zoroastrianism is pre-judaism?
and therefore could NEVER be a carbon copy since it predates judaism.
you never qualified if you were a preterist nor which theologogical school of thought you subscribed to.
my guess is that you read the KJV and are evidently evangelical.
based on just those factors i would guess calvinism.(see? i even answered one for you bud).
well,
i have to say that was a very unsatisfying answer.
but i do thank you for your prompt reply.

/facepalm
ok..fine.sighs.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/zor/index.htm
conservapedia is a known unreliable source.
and you still didnt answer my other queries.
you really should take a look at my profile blurry.
namaste.



>> ^shinyblurry:

Allow me to correct you sir..http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Zoroastrianism
>> ^enoch:
so satan did it.
thats your answer.
would it make a difference if i pointed out that zoroastrianism is pre-judaism?
and therefore could NEVER be a carbon copy since it predates judaism.
you never qualified if you were a preterist nor which theologogical school of thought you subscribed to.
my guess is that you read the KJV and are evidently evangelical.
based on just those factors i would guess calvinism.(see? i even answered one for you bud).
well,
i have to say that was a very unsatisfying answer.
but i do thank you for your prompt reply.

Allow me to correct you sir..http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Zoroastrianism

>> ^enoch:
so satan did it.
thats your answer.
would it make a difference if i pointed out that zoroastrianism is pre-judaism?
and therefore could NEVER be a carbon copy since it predates judaism.
you never qualified if you were a preterist nor which theologogical school of thought you subscribed to.
my guess is that you read the KJV and are evidently evangelical.
based on just those factors i would guess calvinism.(see? i even answered one for you bud).
well,
i have to say that was a very unsatisfying answer.
but i do thank you for your prompt reply.

@kronosposeidon @dag

You can't realistically stop someone from creating a standard page about a user as @Shepppard has done. This is not unique; I could go right now and create http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronosposeidon, http://www.dokuwiki.org/kronosposeidon, http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Kronosposeidon, http://conservapedia.com/Kronosposeidon, and so on. All we can realistically do about this is make a rule about it and enforce that rule when the problem arises.

User pages can be restricted and quite possibly should be. There's always the discussion page for public commentary.