Relevant xkcd http://xkcd.com/326/
>> ^berticus:

IT'S "AFFECT" GOD DAMN YOU !!!!! ARRRRRRRRRGH FUCK IT I'M CANCELLING MY... OH.
WELL WHATEVER I'M TOTALLY LEAVING !!!!! FOR AN HOUR
>> ^alien_concept:
>> ^Hybrid:
Here we go again. Thanks for reinforcing my decision to cancel my charter subscription and become inactive on the sift.
I too, feel I should be punished for this, and would like to be banned voluntarily from this day forth. I feel that if dft was allowed this privilege then so should I.
I want that custom banned icon next to my name dammit.

This really surprises me, honestly. It's so strange when you don't recognise what random things will effect different people.

>> ^berticus:

IT'S "AFFECT" GOD DAMN YOU !!!!! ARRRRRRRRRGH FUCK IT I'M CANCELLING MY... OH.
WELL WHATEVER I'M TOTALLY LEAVING !!!!! FOR AN HOUR
>> ^alien_concept:
>> ^Hybrid:
Here we go again. Thanks for reinforcing my decision to cancel my charter subscription and become inactive on the sift.
I too, feel I should be punished for this, and would like to be banned voluntarily from this day forth. I feel that if dft was allowed this privilege then so should I.
I want that custom banned icon next to my name dammit.

This really surprises me, honestly. It's so strange when you don't recognise what random things will effect different people.



Fuck you I was steaming when I wrote that. Stay.

IT'S "AFFECT" GOD DAMN YOU !!!!! ARRRRRRRRRGH FUCK IT I'M CANCELLING MY... OH.

WELL WHATEVER I'M TOTALLY LEAVING !!!!! FOR AN HOUR

>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^Hybrid:
Here we go again. Thanks for reinforcing my decision to cancel my charter subscription and become inactive on the sift.
I too, feel I should be punished for this, and would like to be banned voluntarily from this day forth. I feel that if dft was allowed this privilege then so should I.
I want that custom banned icon next to my name dammit.

This really surprises me, honestly. It's so strange when you don't recognise what random things will effect different people.

Don't be such a drama queen.
>> ^Hybrid:

Here we go again. Thanks for reinforcing my decision to cancel my charter subscription and become inactive on the sift.
I too, feel I should be punished for this, and would like to be banned voluntarily from this day forth. I feel that if dft was allowed this privilege then so should I.
I want that custom banned icon next to my name dammit.

>> ^Hybrid:

Here we go again. Thanks for reinforcing my decision to cancel my charter subscription and become inactive on the sift.
I too, feel I should be punished for this, and would like to be banned voluntarily from this day forth. I feel that if dft was allowed this privilege then so should I.
I want that custom banned icon next to my name dammit.


This really surprises me, honestly. It's so strange when you don't recognise what random things will effect different people.

Here we go again. Thanks for reinforcing my decision to cancel my charter subscription and become inactive on the sift.

I too, feel I should be punished for this, and would like to be banned voluntarily from this day forth. I feel that if dft was allowed this privilege then so should I.

I want that custom banned icon next to my name dammit.

lol back to campaigning for the presidency. Here we go again.

Miss you? I like you and find you interesting as a person, but I find discussions with you about God's nature mostly unfulfilling. The reason is that you start with a conclusion (the Biblical God exists; the New Testament is literally true), and mishear, ignore and twist every other input you receive to match your conclusion.

By and large the people on the sift attack me and not my arguments, as you're doing here. You and the rest have your own preconceived notions about reality which you zealousy defend. And to imply I am ignorant or logically inconsistant is bull. I used to be like you and think like you; I came from the secular world and I reject it as delusional.

The evidence you have given is a psychotic break you once had. Any other evidence is meaningless to you, so there's no sense even talking to you about these issues. By God's lack of definition, he cannot be proven not to exist. But even if he were clearly defined, and it were possible to categorically prove that he doesn't exist, you wouldn't accept this information because you have suffered a mental injury that prevents you from doing so. (Do you still love me? )

Sometimes you make it hard to love you but I still do. Yes, everyone who has had a spiritual experience is crazy, which is a good slice of the world population. Have you ever thought that maybe you're the one who isn't right? I mean you have to believe that you know better than over 90 percent of the planet and most everyone who has ever lived. No wonder your ego is out of control.

But this is the internet, and what I'm doing at the moment leaves significant gaps of time with nothing to attend to, so here we go, again: As before, I think you're filtering out and twisting what you don't want to hear. Qualia isn't saying God doesn't exist (and he never does, except where someone's definition of God presents a logical impossibility). Rather, he's dismantling Craig's ontological argument by showing that the premises on which it rests are false, and therefore the conclusion is not necessarily true. He's not arguing that it's false, just that Craig's premises are. He's not trying to prove anything, only Craig is. Qualia is showing that Craig's proof in this instance is invalid. And in that, he does a good job, and only proves that Craig's argument doesn't hold because he cannot prove the premises.

Are you kidding me? Listen, read my post, and then try to imagine I am a lot more intelligent than you give me credit for, and then read it again. I know exactly what Qualia was doing, and I showed it up for what it is, a bunch of opinion and fallacy masquarading as logical argumentation. He utterly failed to refute Craig, and it amazes me that anyone could fail to see how weak his arguments are. If you think I am wrong then show me why.

I am not out to prove Gods existence, I am here to tell people they can prove it to themselves. If you prayed to Jesus in humility and asked Him for the truth, He would show it to you. You don't need to trust my experience, you can find out for yourself.

>> ^messenger:
Miss you? I like you and find you interesting as a person, but I find discussions with you about God's nature mostly unfulfilling. The reason is that you start with a conclusion (the Biblical God exists; the New Testament is literally true), and mishear, ignore and twist every other input you receive to match your conclusion.
The evidence you have given is a psychotic break you once had. Any other evidence is meaningless to you, so there's no sense even talking to you about these issues. By God's lack of definition, he cannot be proven not to exist. But even if he were clearly defined, and it were possible to categorically prove that he doesn't exist, you wouldn't accept this information because you have suffered a mental injury that prevents you from doing so. (Do you still love me? <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smile.gif"> )
But this is the internet, and what I'm doing at the moment leaves significant gaps of time with nothing to attend to, so here we go, again: As before, I think you're filtering out and twisting what you don't want to hear. Qualia isn't saying God doesn't exist (and he never does, except where someone's definition of God presents a logical impossibility). Rather, he's dismantling Craig's ontological argument by showing that the premises on which it rests are false, and therefore the conclusion is not necessarily true. He's not arguing that it's false, just that Craig's premises are. He's not trying to prove anything, only Craig is. Qualia is showing that Craig's proof in this instance is invalid. And in that, he does a good job, and only proves that Craig's argument doesn't hold because he cannot prove the premises.

Miss you? I like you and find you interesting as a person, but I find discussions with you about God's nature mostly unfulfilling. The reason is that you start with a conclusion (the Biblical God exists; the New Testament is literally true), and mishear, ignore and twist every other input you receive to match your conclusion.

The evidence you have given is a psychotic break you once had. Any other evidence is meaningless to you, so there's no sense even talking to you about these issues. By God's lack of definition, he cannot be proven not to exist. But even if he were clearly defined, and it were possible to categorically prove that he doesn't exist, you wouldn't accept this information because you have suffered a mental injury that prevents you from doing so. (Do you still love me? )

But this is the internet, and what I'm doing at the moment leaves significant gaps of time with nothing to attend to, so here we go, again: As before, I think you're filtering out and twisting what you don't want to hear. Qualia isn't saying God doesn't exist (and he never does, except where someone's definition of God presents a logical impossibility). Rather, he's dismantling Craig's ontological argument by showing that the premises on which it rests are false, and therefore the conclusion is not necessarily true. He's not arguing that it's false, just that Craig's premises are. He's not trying to prove anything, only Craig is. Qualia is showing that Craig's proof in this instance is invalid. And in that, he does a good job, and only proves that Craig's argument doesn't hold because he cannot prove the premises.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
This is proof that free markets fix everything, especially education.

What do you think free markets are, just curious? I mean, in your own words what comes to mind when you hear "free market"? I tend to think of people interacting freely without coercion. But you may conjure images of the Kochs and multinational monopolies.
I see an innocuous system where people have the freedom to trade and create trade systems that best suit their needs. You seem to conflate free markets to the current US market. That's not a free market, it's the result of a false market created that forces the people to trade using one currency and one central bank system (as opposed to competing market forces), and where the legislators create a restrictive market that grants subsidies and welfare to the rich (Corporations) and robs from the middle and lower class (depletes opportunity, thus depletes employment).
But I'm sure you disagree.


What comes to mind when I see "free market" in most contexts is "here we go again, someone's trying to conflate markets with freedom".

To give a more rigorous definition, I'll go ahead and crib Wikipedia's: "A free market is a market in which economic intervention and regulation by the state is limited to tax collection, and enforcement of private ownership and contracts."

I think where we differ is our assessment of free markets, not their definition.

My assessment is that free markets can't be created, and if somehow one was created it wouldn't be stable (i.e. they'd stop being "free" quickly), and even if they could be created and stabilized, wouldn't constitute a just society.

Here we go again.

Take it away, Cos.


(2004) Bill Cosby, “The Pound Cake Speech”

Wrong answer Shiny. You're supposed to say that God IS nothing... and EVERYTHING. (big booming voice) THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA!!!

Sorry, I had to make that joke.

And I'm sorry I misunderstood. But you did say literally that, "the universe was created from nothing". But we're still left with the idea that either the universe just popped into existence, has always existed or was created by something that has always existed. Now, the first two of those options are suggestions, even where Dawkins is concerned. The third however, you're positing as fact. All three seem just as irrational as any other. In fact, when I think about it, the third sounds just a little more unlikely considering that the first two include only one element: the universe, which we can see. And the other involves two, the universe we can see and an immortal god that we can't.

And I'd just like to clarify: it IS that physics breaks down right before the theoretical singularity. We don't know that time and space didn't exist before then because we can't describe what was going on based on observation. For all we know, they did exist, but that's the point, we don't know. At this point it's all just a guess. And that includes, by the way, whether or not the universe began there. It certainly might have, but it just as certainly might not have. Or it might (oh no, here we go again) NOT be the only universe out there.

Oh, and I only mentioned Georges Lemaitre because of what you said earlier about satan having his hand in the affairs of the church. But he was a scientist too, so I understand if you use his theory to back up your own.

<ahem>

Yes, here we go again, give you more, nothing lesser
Back on the mic is the anti-depressor
Ad-Rock, no pressure, yes, we need this
The best is yet to come, and yes, believe dis
Leggo my Eggo while I flex my ego
Sip on prosecco, dressed up tuxedo
Sippin coffee, playin Keno in the casino
Wanna lucky number, ask Mike Dino
I burn the competition like a flamethrower
My rhymes age like wine as I get older
I'm getting bolder, competition is wanin
I got the feelin and assume the lane
And we got a party on the left, a party on the right
We gonna party for the motherfuckin right to fight,


MAKE SOME NOISE IF YA WIT ME!

Yes, here we go again, give you more, nothing lesser
Back on the mic is the anti-depressor
Ad-Rock, no pressure, yes, we need this
The best is yet to come, and yes, believe dis
Leggo my Eggo while I flex my ego
Sip on prosecco, dressed up tuxedo
Sippin coffee, playin Keno in the casino
Wanna lucky number, ask Mike Dino
I burn the competition like a flamethrower
My rhymes age like wine as I get older
I'm getting bolder, competition is wanin
I got the feelin and assume the lane
And we got a party on the left, a party on the right
We gonna party for the motherfuckin right to fight,


MAKE SOME NOISE IF YA WIT ME!

MONEYCHANGERS AND MERCHANTS

Roll on up Jerusalem,
Come on in Jerusalem,
Sunday here we go again,
Live in me Jerusalem.
Here you live Jerusalem,
Here you breathe Jerusalem,
While your temple still survives,
You at least are still alive.
I got things you won't believe,
Name your pleasure I will sell.
I can fix your wildest needs,
I got heaven and I got hell.
Roll on up, for my price is down.
Come on in for the best in town.
Take your pick of the finest wine.
Lay your bets on this bird of mine.
What you see is what you get.
No one's been disappointed yet.
Don't be scared give me a try,
There is nothing you can't buy.
Name your price, I got everything.
Hurry it's going fast.
Borrow cash on the finest terms.
Hurry now while stocks still last.

Roll on up Jerusalem,
Come on in Jerusalem,
Sunday here we go again,
Live in me Jerusalem.
Here you live Jerusalem,
Here you breathe Jerusalem,
While your temple still survives,
You at least are still alive.
I got things you won't believe,
Name your pleasure I will sell.

JESUS

My temple should be a house of prayer,
But you have made it a den of thieves.

Get out! Get out!