To paraphrase the joker "you were a vicious bastard, Maggie. I'm glad you're dead"

I miss it too. It was fun and engaging back in the day.



Anyway, on to this topic.

Your definition of "God" makes him capable, uniquely among all things in the universe, of proving his existence to a human. (What about me? Don't I prove my existence to you by communicating with you? Or if I showed up in your neighbourhood and had a beer with you, wouldn't that prove my existence? What do you mean, "only God can prove Himself"?)

At the same time, my definition of human --and I hope you agree on this-- includes that humans can be 100% convinced of false things. There is plenty of evidence of this in the many religions and folk beliefs of the world, as well as in mental health documentation and police records. Agreed? Assuming yes, it is fully consistent with your experience then that you SB could be 100% convinced of a false thing. You, as a human, are incapable of telling the difference between 100% conviction of a false thing, and 100% conviction of a true thing. The proof of this is that you are human, and people exist who 100% believe things that are incompatible with what you believe, so it must be possible for a human to 100% believe something false.

Well, let me connect the thoughts in these two paragraphs. You certainly do prove your existence to me by communicating with me. If you showed up in my neighborhood and we had a beer together(i dont drink but i would drink one with you), I would come away being 100 percent certain that you exist. I'm fairly sure you will agree that my certainty about your existence would be justified. Does this 100 percent certainty about your existence mean I could 100 percent prove it to someone else, or even to myself? Certainly not. No matter what evidence I had, even a video tape, someone could say that I am really just sea turtle dreaming this and none of it is real. Is that plausible? Not even remotely, but I couldn't disprove that hypothesis using evidence, empirical or otherwise.

So I think the disconnect here is that you are equating 100 percent certainty with 100 percent proof. Yes, it is technically true I could be a sea turtle dreaming all of this, and I could never disprove that, but I am 100 percent certain that isn't the case. To believe otherwise would make rational thought impossible. Therefore rationality is impossible without first assuming you are capable of rational thought. I have to believe this even though I cannot necessarily prove it. This poses a problem for the atheist. Essentially, all an atheist can say is that "my reasoning is sound because my reasoning says it is"..which begs the question as to why the chemical soup in the brain of an exalted ape fizzing a particular way should be called rationality. Whereas I can say that I am rational because I was created in the image of a rational being, God. Both arguments do use circular reasoning, but the atheist argument is viciously circular.

So, this comes to my point about my belief in God. To me, His existence has been sufficiently proven to the point where I can claim complete certainty, just as if we hung out together I would claim complete certainty that you exist. There is no real difference there and in fact, God has provided me better evidence of His existence because He is with me all of the time. whereas you could only be with me some of them time. I cannot prove to you that God is with me, or that He runs my life, but it doesn't diminish the reality of what He has proven to me.

So I think this leaves you in the position of having to claim that we can be certain of nothing, but in actuality the argument is self-defeating because it requires you to be certain of something (that nothing is certain). It's just the same as trying to claim that only relative truth exists ("is that absolutely true?") Otherwise you will have to say there is a possibility my certainty is justified.

Maybe there are no gods, or maybe I simply am not perceiving your Yahweh while he chooses not to directly reveal himself to me. Both conditions appear identical from my point of view, and I am incapable of telling which is true, so long as I don't perceive Yahweh.

I agree, and think about this. When I got saved I quickly realized that I had been living in an information bubble my entire life. Living in secular culture, you get confronted with this illusion which makes it seem like you have your finger on the pulse of reality. You are consuming all of this information about where we are, where we are headed, where the culture is, the scientific advances, the dreams and aspirations of those who think like you, and you get this sense of being connected to what is going on in planet Earth.

But what I found out is that this is all just basically confirmation bias. I thought that because I had an extremely wide feed and a diversity of interests that my filter was very nimble and narrow and was just sloughing off all of the trivial and non-essential things, when in fact the filter was wider than the feed and I was staring into a hall of mirrors. When that happens it means you are actually just consuming everything that mostly confirms what you already believe, such as what television shows and movies you watch, and what music you listen to, and what books you read. People also tend to hang out with people who think like they do. The seeming diversity of secular interests is actually a very narrow band which reflects very little truth so you end up in a little bubble (which seems like a Universe).

Both of our experiences with direct communication with gods are consistent with both of our beliefs (me: no contact => there are no gods or just no contact yet; you: contact => there is a god or you're wrong because you're human). The difference is that I freely admit that either is possible, while you insist that your view is correct. Get it?

To you either could be possible, because both experiences look the same to you. Whereas, to me only one is possible because the two experiences are alien to eachother. When you look at me, you have no way to tell the difference because you see no difference, therefore you allow the possibility. If you allow the possibility therefore, it isn't necessarily wrong to think that I am justified in believing I am right.

As for what I've said about Yahweh, you must be confusing me with someone else. I have never said I don't want him to reveal himself. I once, on your recommendation, got down on my knees and prayed for it, remember? I really, really, really want to understand the human condition and the true nature of the universe. If that includes the fact that Yahweh actually is our supreme being exactly as described in the Bible I would be very upset to learn that (just as I would be upset to find that I had been sold into slavery), but if that were the case, I'd want to know so I could make informed decisions for my future.

Yes, you're right, I think I did confuse you with someone else. Sorry about that.

I believe you when you say you just honestly want to know the truth, even if that truth wouldn't be pleasing to you. I think it reveals a lot about your character and the way that you think. I admire that kind of personal integrity.

Just before I became a Christian, when I found out that Jesus is the way God has chosen for us, I was resisting it because I knew that it meant that I had to stop living for me. I knew I was going to lose my right to my own personal autonomy and would have to place it in the care and trust of my Creator. What I found out though is that what I thought was freedom was slavery, and that the slavery I thought I was signing myself into was the true freedom. When you are born again, God makes you a new person and sets you free from all of the bondage of sin, and your present condition and your past suffering. This is literal and it is transformative. There is a tangible weight that lifts from your shoulders the moment you accept Christ and your sins are forgiven. It is a weight that is bowing you down all of your life. Everyone has their own theory about where the weight comes from..such as other people, the government, or even religion as some atheists like to think..but the weight is a spiritual weight stemming from the judgment against your sin. People become slaves of many things because they promise to remove that weight, but the weight always remains in the end because only God can set us free from it.

I do remember that prayer. One of the ways that God reveals Himself is through the reading of His word. Would you be willing to take it one step farther and read the gospel of John? I'm sure you've probably read it before, but this would be specifically for God to reveal Himself to you in a way that you can understand and relate to. You could pray before reading it..God, I once prayed for you to reveal yourself to me..I am asking that you do that through the reading of this book. Please help me understand what is being said and use it to give me revelation of your existence. Then read through it slowly..perhaps a chapter at a time, and going over each verse until you understand what it is saying. Pray each time before you read for revelation. I feel the Lord leading me to tell you this so I believe God will honor it and guide you.

In any case, it is good to talk to you again. God bless.

We already give women (and men) control over their reproductive habits. It's pretty apparent that a large portion of these men and women don't deserve that control, since they reproduce without any thought or consideration to their impact on the rest of society. If everyone were mature and responsible, there would be no such thing as abusive or negligent parents. Parenthood should be a privilege, not a right. As an aside, in 2010 the divorce rate in the U.S. was over 50%. If 50% of married couples aren't even mature or responsible enough to sustain a marriage, how can these people be expected to raise mature and responsible children? Hell, how many of those couples had kids before they divorced? You ask me to have faith in people but the numbers really don't give me any reason to.

As for these young men, I'm guessing they had lousy parents who never taught them to respect other people or the law. That's probably why they raped a girl, peed on her unconscious body and took pictures of it all. If they hadn't been caught, do you really think they would have regretted their actions and turned themselves in? No, they would have just continued life as usual, grown up, had kids and raised them with the same twisted values. It's a vicious cycle that exists because we have no regulation over reproduction. Instead of wasting taxpayer money trying to rehabilitate them (and very likely fail; the vast majority of sexual predators can't break their habits), why not just end the cycle right then and there? Humanity is hardly on the verge on extinction, so getting rid of the trash and cleaning up the gene pool would only help make life better for future generations.

All that said, you're right that issues like poverty, lack of education, etc, are all relevant here. But would those still be issues if everyone were raised to be contributing members of society, as opposed to worthless parasites that exist solely for the sake of existing? There are a finite number of jobs and classrooms out there. There aren't enough to accommodate every living person. That's why we need population control. If you extend yourself beyond your own means by having kids you can't afford to feed or send to school, you're just making the problem worse.

Those poor defenseless clams. What a vicious old man!

Oh ya poor dear, dealing with all the tedium... Well how about the tedium of reading a report from the ASPCA recommending against breed specific bans...

http://www.aspca.org/about-us/policy-positions/breed-specific-legislation-1.aspx

See, I've yet to see any hard scientific data proving that nature > nurture in terms of dogs, and it seems like the ASPCA (who you'd think would know a thing or two) agree with me... The biggest factor they estimate? Male dogs that aren't neutered (not breed specific), which is a nurture issue.

Oh yeah, my dog has been around my 3 year old son since he was an infant and has never even been vaguely aggressive. My son can also order the dog off a bone and she'll obey because (surprise surprise) I've trained her that he sits higher in the hierarchy. You know, the sort of thing a responsible dog owner does.

It speaks volumes, though, that a person so concerned with banning supposed vicious breeds can't spend their time contributing to the discussion without attacking other posters who disagree with them. And while animals might turn on people, they are animals without the benefit of higher sentience. What's your excuse?

Maybe you should reconsider just what "succinct" means, before you start insulting people who disagree with you.

The entire thrust of your comment was an implication that it's perfectly reasonable to outlaw pit bulls. And you're wrong, it's as simple as that. public flogging or pillorying the people who abuse them, and make that action widely known, and you'd have a lot few abused dogs who are vicious (of any breed).

In the meantime, I don't have time to spare on assholes, so if you intend to continue behaving like one, please let me know.

"In the wrong hands they are lethal and [...]", A10anis.
"If the problem is caused by the dog being in the wrong hands, [...]", Stormsinger.
"If the gun is taken care of, and used properly, it won't suddenly take off and kill a seeing eye dog any more than a properly cared for pitbull.", Payback.
"Pit's can be as vicious or as gentle as you make them.", Asmo.

Are any preventive action possible? Maybe people with criminal record or mental issues shouldn't be allowed to have those dogs?

What we should "weigh more heavily." in making a choice, is the experience of people on the front line. The people who, daily, are called to yet another attack by a fighting dog. The professional people who see these dogs in the wrong hands and, unable to lawfully restrict ownership, see no alternative to a ban on breeds whos origin was specifically for fighting. I shouldn't need to point out that, though other dogs can be vicious, their origins were NOT ripping other animals to bits, and are not the preferred choice of certain anti-social people.

1. The pup would be what we Australian's lovingly refer to as "a little battler" (typically someone who is deficient in some way but gives it their all).

2. Pit's can be as vicious or as gentle as you make them. The reason they make great fighting dogs is because they are almost undying in their loyalty to their master. They can be treated far harsher than most other dogs, who would either turn or break, and so can be trained to reach heights of viciousness other breeds can't hope to match. This obviously involves a lot of cruelty and it's something I abhor particularly, considering just how loving this breed can be.

3. Our half pit has only snapped at me once (during bone training, where I would force her to surrender a meaty treat frequently to establish dominance so that if someone came close to her while she had one, she wouldn't snap at them). My wife had half her face mauled by a shepherd when she was young even though the thing had always been completely docile. My son was bitten by his great grand fathers yippy mini dog who we had to chain up because it kept coming at him. My aunty had a horse who was so gentle blind kids rode it who tried to kick and bite me... What does this prove? Abso-fucking-lutely nothing, dogs are animals and animals may turn, often without an obvious reason why. It's part and parcel of owning pets, acknowledging there is a risk.

4. People who can't watch a harmless video about a puppy (typically videosift gold) without bitching about dog breeds really need to watch the video again and appreciate teh funneh...

First off, the treadmill is healthy for the dog, and burns off energy, making the easier to control let alone giving him "something to do". Some people just don't have the time to exercise their dog for the hour or so every day like every dog NEEDS to, no matter what the breed. You have 7 acres of squirrels? Good for you! There's a lot of people who live in condos and apartments where taking the dog for a walk is more dangerous to this dog AND handler than this pit probably is to anyone else.

Your statistics aren't complete...

There are more "vicious" attacks on people by Shepherds worldwide then there are actual pitbull dogs. THAT'S a statistic too.

Dogs can be looked at like guns.

Chihuahua = Ether gas BB gun
Jack Russell = .22 target pistol
Shepherd = .308 bolt action hunting rifle
Pitbull - AK47

If the gun is taken care of, and used properly, it won't suddenly take off and kill a seeing eye dog any more than a properly cared for pitbull.

Is the owner lazy or does he/she just want to build up the muscles on an already intimidating fighting dog. ALL fighting dog breeds should be banned. And before you say; "It's the owner who makes them vicious, they are really cuddly, cute and so friendly," look at the figures on attacks by these breeds on adults/kids/dogs. Look at all the sickening videos.The latest statistic is the number of seeing eye dogs being attacked. There are 5 of these dogs in my area and ALL are a problem to people and other dogs. Their owners want them for the wrong reasons, reasons that are obvious. Of course any dog can be made violent, but these breeds have innate aggression, unpredictability, terrific strength and sheer tenacity. In the wrong hands they are lethal and, be honest, it is usually the wrong hands who own them. I have had three German Shepherds and currently have a Tamaskan (mighty Wolf) so please don't tell me I am anti-dog.

Agreed @Payback. This could be a vicious circle where Gus has been blundering around for years with no idea he's causing trouble and poor Lexi has been getting into trouble because her ever-growing (and rational) fear of the mess is mistaken for guilt. Perhaps.

Cats are even more like this - if you don't tell off a cat right in the act, it's a waste of time that will just teach the cat that you're crazy.

This is all obviouslly very tragic.
@BoneRemake . School shootings are not only an american phenomenon. There have been similar tragidies all over the world. I believe one of the more famous ones happened in england, some guy shot a bunch of children. The outrage led to the gun control that england now has.
@Kofi, instead of talking about banning guns for all citizens, we should talk about what to do with the mentally ill. Im guesing this shooter is going to be on some kind of prescription phsycoactive drugs. I think most of the people that do this kind of thing are always found to be on meds. and under a doctors "care".
Also, its not front page news for some reason but, A man in china slashed 22 children in a vicious knife attack today (no , Im not kidding) . I hear its a growing trend , with many mass slashings lately, and some blame the bad economy.

Who is man to think he has all the answers in a simple convenient package called "God"?

What arrogance to assume that we know the universe and all there is to it.

What stupidity to not aspire to learn the intricacies of reality.

What viciousness to force others to abandon their search for light in the void of space.

We should strive to be the best we can be, but the chains of faith are keeping us down in the mud.