>> ^scannex:

The normalization of obesity is a problem. The letter while technically unkind was done in a calm and constructive manner.
This woman IS in the public eye, and she does have the capacity to change her appearance.
People in this thread have drawn all sorts of parallels that just do not work, such as homosexuality.
A proper parallel would be something that is negative to her health, negative to the health of those that choose to follow her example, and something that is remediable...
Her obesity, by overwhelming odds is likely to be a behavioral issue, not a medical issue.
Therefore a more proper parallel would be her smoking while in front of the camera. Its not healthy, it is difficult but possible to modify the behavior, and it sets a poor example.
Do we bully people every time we tell them not to smoke? This woman did not appreciate being eluded to as fat. End of story, this guy wrote her a letter. He didn't soapbox in front of her kids school.


If millions lose weight by exercise and eating right and a few are clinically depressed because of it, I think that speaks to a psychological/neurological issue.

Or, they just haven't found the right foods to eat. I'd go insane if I ate rice cakes everyday, but it's not my body's fault that I'm depressed.

The normalization of obesity is a problem. The letter while technically unkind was done in a calm and constructive manner.
This woman IS in the public eye, and she does have the capacity to change her appearance.

People in this thread have drawn all sorts of parallels that just do not work, such as homosexuality.
A proper parallel would be something that is negative to her health, negative to the health of those that choose to follow her example, and something that is remediable...
Her obesity, by overwhelming odds is likely to be a behavioral issue, not a medical issue.

Therefore a more proper parallel would be her smoking while in front of the camera. Its not healthy, it is difficult but possible to modify the behavior, and it sets a poor example.
Do we bully people every time we tell them not to smoke? This woman did not appreciate being eluded to as fat. End of story, this guy wrote her a letter. He didn't soapbox in front of her kids school.

@shinyblurry

[me:] … invited … yadda yadda. [you:]I get your overall point.

That's all that matters. And I'll add that I too think you're a valuable member. I've even taken to defending you around the place, if you can believe that.

Now on to the other topics.

Apparently you haven't heard of Chiastic structure:

You're right, I hadn't heard of it. That's neat stuff. But it doesn't change the fact that Matthew's choice to use that structure created *an error in the text*.

No, they can't be scientifically measured. You would never know during your test whether God was simply feeding you a certain kind of result. Think about it. God knows the entire time that you're trying to test for His existence outside of what He ordained (faith in Jesus Christ). His choice is either to give you results that will prove His existence outside of Christ or results that will make it ambiguous. What do you think He is going to do?

As far as I can tell, either you don't understand science or my mind is incapable of understanding how all the things you're saying about God can be true at once. This is going nowhere. I'm dropping this prayer/science topic.

You're acting is if I have no evidence for my beliefs.

No. I'm acting as if you are not giving appropriate weight to the evidence on both sides. All evidence against your beliefs, you massage into being compatible with some very, very loose rules, to the point now where words in the Bible don't even count as words anymore. Yet any mote of evidence against my beliefs (even things that aren't evidence at all, such as lack of an answer --which is entirely consistent with a world without a God) you throw around like it's absolute proof not only that I'm wrong, but further that you're right. You even tell me that I'm suffering cognitive dissonance—not that you *think* I might be, but that I am. Basic statements of humility elude you, like, "Humans are far too complicated even for humans to understand, and therefore any argument from complexity/arrogance/hubris applies to belief in the existence of God just as much as it applies to belief that humans invented God." And even after you say something like that (I believe you did acknowledge in another thread that it's technically possible you're wrong), you continue to speak like you're right and I’m wrong. In a nutshell, I come to the table with my beliefs, I acknowledge they are my beliefs, and I act towards you as if they are only beliefs, not absolute fact. And that's the basic humility I'm asking for in return, and which frankly I require to have a real conversation about the existence of God.

My worldview is internally consistent, and it is also rational.

I disagree that it's rational, for the fact that you hold it to be absolutely true, bar nothing. From where I stand, it's irrational for a mere human to hold that they are absolutely correct about their interpretation of anything as complex, critical and subjective as the things you claim about God and the Bible.

you reject the evidence I have receive apriori.

As a rational actor, I must be sceptical of your subjective evidence. To accept it OR dismiss it would be irrational of me.

To you there must always be some other explanation … You've already come to the conclusion that … Rather than letting the evidence interpret the conclusion, you are interpreting the evidence through the conclusion.

Anybody willing to look can see that there are internally consistent plausible alternatives to your beliefs. I say again and again only that there are alternative possibilities. I have come to no "conclusions" about anything. As a scientific-minded person, I simply cannot think so rigidly, ever, especially not about something as important as the nature of the universe. I mostly see how the evidence could fit in your worldview. Sometimes I don't, and that's OK. I suggest that there are other possibilities with words like, "could", "maybe", "I think," "From where I stand," and so forth. And nearly every time you treat me like I'm claiming atheism is absolutely 100% correct, end of conversation. The only thing I believe I'm 100% correct about is *that I have proposed* internally consistent plausible alternatives to the existence of God. That's all I'm ever saying: other things could be possible. Read all my messages again; I'm pretty consistent. So I'll ask you again, please read my words literally, not with some defensive filter like every sentence of mine is a skewer.

It was only when I questioned that and investigated the evidence that I found [the Bible was right and science was wrong].

What evidence do you have that science is wrong? I'm not saying science is perfect (it's human), but you're no expert to claim that what you've read is scientifically valid. To be frank, you've got a reputation on the Sift for quotemining and have been caught at least once on the Steven Pinker quote. People with insignificant scientific backgrounds and/or clear non-scientific primary agendas don't count.

It's only a literal reading [of the Bible] that makes any sense.

A literal reading of the Bible gives two different accounts of the same genealogy. That doesn't make sense.

Even atheists know that:

You mean, "at least one atheist once thought that, maybe". A quick out of context copy-paste from christianforums.com of a vague quote from a 1978 periodical by a group that neither speaks for nor represents atheists. Why bother? You can do better.

i have to agree with @xxovercastxx
while this video brings up questions i have always found interesting.the speaker does cherry pick to build an argument for a pre-determined conclusion.
a conclusion which promotes his view of the world.

to suggest that an atheist or agnostic has no meaning,or can never find meaning in their lives due to an absence of religion,is not only intellectual dishonesty but lacks imagination.

the reason why this confounds or eludes many religious folk is because religion is externalized.
they derive meaning through submission to a higher power ie:god,jesus,allah,(fill in deity here).
they adhere to a doctrine and dogma that the atheist/agnostic does not.so both parties view/experience their worlds in very different manners.so it should be no surprise that there would be a disconnect between these two parties,because they approach the "meaning of life" question from very different perspectives.

a curious striation
in the bone
teeth marks wouldn't
do this alone
was he well done
when he was served
did you taste
the little boy
after you sampled
the hor d'ourves?
a carving knife
the very thing
to plate him up
next to the asparagus
a life most delicious,
he went well with
dijon vinegrate.

edit: wrote this verse after we were talking about tulpas, thought I'd show it to you. Totally forgot about it

a tulpa born of brooding
a shadow light eluding
a sound that keeps intruding
as you're hiding and colluding

I think they were trying to create a visual spectacle that resembles a medieval tapestry for a couple's wedding. So it's not exactly an opera, but more of a wedding show. The theme is consistent as the performance takes place in a giant church, in front of what looks to be a map of the known world in medieval times. The choir sings in a Bulgarian Orthodox chant style (http://youtu.be/js2Ga92Ta14), again the theme of Medieval church.

So the theme is consistent, but still I'm having trouble getting the overall message. I see that there are two couples that are highlighted, so my guess is that the message is about 'relationships' or 'love'. At first the play starts in still motion and everything peaceful. Then it goes through various emotions. Pain, joy, excitement, turbulence, etc. This part may be eluding to what love or relationships are like. And finally, after the couples kiss, everyone breathes, and sighs, to signal that the craziness is over and we can now rest. At the moment of their kiss the cherubs of the world (probably their close friends) are stretching their arms towards them and blesses their unification.

So the Kitchen Pals aesthetic has thusfar eluded discerning sifters.
Please allow me to *beg for another chance for this truly WTF gem.

Pause the vid around the :50 mark...look at the expression on their faces...and check this out.

"...He also relayed how Boris Yeltsin's late-night drinking during a visit to Washington in 1995 nearly created an international incident. The Russian president was staying at Blair House, the government guest quarters. Late at night, Clinton told Branch, Secret Service agents found Yeltsin clad only in his underwear, standing alone on Pennsylvania Avenue and trying to hail a cab. He wanted a pizza, he told them, his words slurring.

The next night, Yeltsin eluded security forces again when he climbed down back stairs to the Blair House basement. A building guard took Yeltsin for a drunken intruder until Russian and U.S. agents arrived on the scene and rescued him...."

This story is taken from an interview with Clinton, read more here http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-09-21-clinton-tapes_N.htm

>> ^darkrowan:

Uhm... ok so in searching for the original "Powers of 10" video, which is the name that eludes you @ant, I hit up on this vid. Does this make it a dupe? The other vid is there in response to the original, which was narrated rather than a music video.
>> ^ant:
>> ^kir_mokum:
this isn't a fan made video. i'm pretty sure it's a public domain science education video. DJ shadow use to use it for his live performances. very cool video though.

Yeah, I can't remember its video name. It had no music IIRC.



I would say a dupe. I think you show throw this to SiftTalk.

Uhm... ok so in searching for the original "Powers of 10" video, which is the name that eludes you @ant, I hit up on this vid. Does this make it a dupe? The other vid is there in response to the original, which was narrated rather than a music video.
>> ^ant:

>> ^kir_mokum:
this isn't a fan made video. i'm pretty sure it's a public domain science education video. DJ shadow use to use it for his live performances. very cool video though.

Yeah, I can't remember its video name. It had no music IIRC.

>> ^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?

>> ^marinara:

Could Israel bomb Iran without escalation? I suppose so.

I guess I feel like naked aggression (like bombing) ought to be punished... by something or other.


Israel has a knack for eluding punishment. They repeatedly bombed civilians with white phosphorus in 2006 and, as far as I'm aware, the worst punishment they endured was a few people saying, "Hey, that's fucked up."

How many false arguments can one put in a post?

Protecting individual sovereignty is always the best solution and like I previously eluded to, sacrificing individual sovereignty to exist as a society is not only delusional thinking, but self-destructive.

*dead

The "backup" syntax has always eluded me. Here's a working embed if anyone would like to fix this:

<div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;">The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive