Requiring the application of historical standards to fascism is like claiming a country that allows women to vote isn't a real democracy. How the athenians did things, or how the italians did things shouldn't matter to us; we live in the real world, not the past.

I can't allow comparative politics. Whether other states are more or less militaristic, more or less authoritarian than the US doesn't concern us. Let's look at what it actually is.

The US is smotheringly authoritarian. Try walking down the street without modestly covering your genitalia, try openly using unapproved drugs. Obama believes the state owns your body chemistry, and has the sole authority to decide how you may or may not alter it. This is one of the most authoritarian principles imaginable.

The US overflows with militaristic sentiment - everywhere there is glorification of the armed forces. Politicians regularly campaign on US military strength. Military culture indoctrinates recruits to believe those who haven't served aren't real citizens, ask them, they'll tell you.

All language is metaphor (this is literally true). I don't have a particular grudge against fascists; it's any authoritarian or tribalist I hate. I'm going to continue to refer to modern political figures as fascists, because the term does fit and because the associations it produces are fitting.

*backup=[...snipped...]

Having watched the first 30 seconds again and thought about it, with Craig's ...Premise Two cannot be proven, and that's Craig's argument completely sunk, and it could have been the end of the video too.

I think you're looking at the argument from the wrong perspective. Let's examine the premises:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist:

The basic question here is, in the absence of God, is there is any objective difference between good and evil? That, if there is no God, is the difference between good and evil like the difference between coke and pepsi? An example Craig gives is, is the difference like which side of the road that you drive on, which varies from culture to culture?

So, this is where you would make an argument for valid and binding objective moral values outside of Gods existence. You can invalidate the whole argument right here, but you have to provide a logical foundation. I have yet to see anyone refute premise one.

2. Objective moral values do exist

Now, to say this premise is false is to admit that objective moral values do not exist. IE, you will have to admit that torturing babies for fun isn't actually wrong. I have actually debated people who tried to defend it, but I give them credit for being intellectually honest, because that is the logical conclusion; that if objective moral values do not exist, torturing babies for fun isn't absolutely wrong. However, I think we both know that it is, therefore objective moral values do exist.

So, this is a rather tricky argument for an atheist. Qualia soup gets the whole thing wrong here. The basic trouble for you is, if you want to dispute premise one, you have to come up with a foundation for objective moral values outside of God. If you admit there is no such foundation, then we move to premise 2, and there you have to argue that objective moral values do not exist. If you can not argue it, or if you admit objective moral values do exist, then you are forced to accept premise 3, that therefore God exists.

For example, can we just accept that you and I exist, one independent of the other, neither a figment of the other's imagination? Can we accept that our normal external sensory input can be accepted as correct for the purposes of this conversation, (except in the trivial cases of optical illusions and so forth)? You probably know what I'm saying. I hate it when I get into an argument and think I've made a very strong point, only to have my opponent come back with, "Everything's subjective; you can't prove anything is real," or, "Maybe you imagined the whole thing, I mean, you can't prove you didn't," or, "You can prove anything with facts," or, "Well, you have your beliefs and I have mine," or some crap like that where I'm not talking about subjective facts or my own beliefs.

Yes, I can agree with all of this. I believe that the Universe is tangibly real, and is generally how it appears to be, in that it is not a malicious deception or a meaningless illusion. I believe we are both individuals made in the image of God with an independent existence and a soul. I believe we can come to meaningful conclusions about reality, and that there is a truth which is tangible, accessible to reason, and which does not change based on our interpretation or personal preferences.

Also, in theological arguments, I must insist on a couple things. The first is that words must have meaning. If you say something, you can't later say that it's not to be taken literally, or that that word has a different meaning when applied to God. The second is that everything logically entailed by a statement must stand with the original statement, and any other statement. If there's any inconsistencies, then at least one of the statements must be false.

I am very consistent when it comes to meanings. This is one of the hallmarks of literal interpretation, that the words in the bible, while they can sometimes be applied in a metaphorical sense, always have an intended meaning which is absolutely true in all circumstances.

Also, please don't assert supernatural things like the existence of Satan, or your knowledge of how he works, telling me these things like I'm ignorant of them, rather than fully aware of the stories, but sceptical. Say that it's what you believe or have come to believe or whatever, but don't say it like objective fact. Same goes for Bible verses. I don't accept them as fact any more than you'd accept Skeletor quotes as fact. To me that book is best treated as fiction, though it's possible it conveys some details of events that really happened, but pronouncements of the way the world is I absolutely do not accept as the word of God, especially since I don't believe he exists. I don't care if the Bible predicts atheists/sceptics. All that tells me is that people have been doubting the veracity of the word for 2,000 years, and someone took the precaution of adding a word or two against non-believers into the text so believers down the line would have justification "from God" for dismissing my arguments as guided by Satan, or whatever.

I generally won't propose arguments that would take faith to accept. I understand your natural skepticism because I used to be equally skeptical. I will just submit that when you are deceived, you don't know you are deceived:

2 Corinthians 4:4

In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

I admit the possibility that I could be deceived, so I think if we both can admit this, we will have a more fruitful conversation.

know you don't think Qualia's line of reasoning holds, but I don't know what you think of Craig's argument. Is it valid, in your mind? And here, I'm mostly interested in how you think. As I've said, the video was only intended to take apart the argument of one Christian apologist, and not to prove or disprove anything.

I think it is logically airtight. That if you cannot prove there is a foundation for objective moral values outside of God, and you cannot disprove that some actions are objectively wrong, that you must accept the conclusion of the argument.

I'm 99% sure you said in a comment somewhere that you're dubious of science. Could you explain what you mean by that? Science isn't a system of faith or a set of theories. It's a process of testing theories. Are you dubious of the process? What parts of it specifically do you mean?

I am dubious of the philosophy of empiricism upon which science is founded upon. Empiricism assumes that truth can only be discerned through our senses, and that our minds merely processes and categorizes this truth. I reject this view because there are clearly truths that empiricism cannot evaluate, including the validity of empiricism itself. I'll bring in craig again for this one:



I apologize for the title..it's just the best clip I could find.

Is it accurate to say that the sum of your experience of God is subjective, that's to say, is based solely on your own experience in your head, and possibly in things in the objective world that you have interpreted in a subjective way, and is not borne out in any demonstrable way in the measurable material world?

I would say my experience is generally subjective but is objectively confirmed, both by other people, and my daily life. You can say I have interpreted those experiences subjectively, and I am just fooling myself, of course. Personal experience is something hard to prove, as the other person is naturally skeptical of the other persons ability to evaluate what is true. All I can say is that truth is paramount to me and I am incapable of believing something just because I want it to be true. I would rather have nothing and die a meaningless death than live out a comfortable lie.

Please describe God. Where is he? When is he? What is he capable of? What does he feel? Is he immutable? Please add anything you can about why he did things like create the universe and animals and us and disease and suffering and inequality and joy, why he cares for us, why he cares what we do, why he made some things moral and some things evil, and any other informative facts. Is there a God the Father anymore, or just Jesus? Did Jesus have a human form and a godly form, or did he transmute from one to the other? What was Jesus before he was born? Was he born of the virgin Mary?

This is a rather large subject. I'll do my best..

God is perfect. He is holy, loving, and just. He exists outside of time and space in His own realm, which is called Heaven. He is capable of doing anything that can be done. As far as what God feels, that can be hard to quantify. For instance, you can say God feels love, but by definition, God is love. In general, from the bible, it seems God can be pleased, can be jealous, has compassion, is kind, is loving, can be grieved and can be angered. His nature is immutable, in that He is goodness itself. He is light and there is no darkness in Him. That doesn't change. He can however change how He interacts with us.

God created us out of the abundance of His love. It wasn't out of a need, as He already had perfect love within the relationships of the Holy Trinity, but it was an overflowing of that love. He created us to be in relationship to Him, as His children.

There were no diseases, or any inequality before the fall. He created the world perfectly, and He set us in paradise, to learn and grow under His care. However, because robots would be undesirable, He gave us free will to be obedient to Him or not. Unfortunately, we abused that, and broke fellowship with God. Sin and death were brought into the world because of it, and since then this has been a fallen creation. If you have something perfect, and introduce an imperfection, then it is no longer perfect and neither can anything perfect ever come from it. Sin and death ruined that perfection, and they are the cause for all of the disease and inequality today.

Because of this, God brought the law into the world, to give us a minimum standard for moral behavior. The law in itself was not capable of fixing the situation, as everyone fell short of the law, but rather it highlighted our need for a savior. This is the reason Jesus Christ came.

He came to Earth, putting aside His glory and position to live as a man, being the first human being since Adam to be born without sin. He lived a perfect life, though He was tempted in every way that we are, and fulfilled the entire law. Finally, He sacrificed Himself on the cross for the sins of mankind, as a substitutionary atonement for our crimes, and He tasted death for all men. God proved all of this by raising Him from the dead. So, Christ defeated death and sin on the cross, and imputed His righteousness, the righteousness of God, back into mankind. Therefore, anyone who accepts His Lordship will have his sins forgiven and receive eternal life. It is by the imputation of Gods perfect righteousness and substituionary atonement that the effects of the fall have been countered, and we are again reconciled to God and can enjoy perfect relationship to Him as His children.

God is three persons, the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus ascended to Heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father, making intercession on our behalf. Jesus was born of a virgin, and was both God and man; He had two natures, which were united for one purpose in submission to the Father. Jesus, before He was born as a human being, existed as God. "Before abraham was, I am."

John 1:1-3

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Hope that answers your questions.



>> ^messenger:

@shinyblurry

The only "sock puppets" I see here are those who resort to name calling (instead of rational arguments) to defend this millionaire rockstar physicist.

He carried on banging hot chicks and writing best-selling books long after he murdered those people. Obviously that guilt really put a cramp in his style.



em>>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^The_Ham:
I dont like how smug he is about murdering 246,000 people.

246,000 people.

This one's for you The_Ham
<div id="widget_765087041"><script src="http://videosift.com/widget.js?video=204823&width=500&comments=15&minimized=1" type="text/javascript"></script><div style="display: none; margin: 0pt; padding: 5px; width: 510px; height: 562px; background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(79, 179, 226); -moz-border-radius: 5px 5px 5px 5px; border: 1px solid rgb(31, 146, 199);" id="vsvid_659173547"><embed style="display: block; margin: 5px;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/gOmlkeLuEZg?version=3&controls=1&autoplay=0&cc_load_policy=0&loop=0&egm=0&modestbranding=0&a
mp;showinfo=0&theme=dark&version=3&color2=0x4fb3e2&showinfo=1&modestbranding=1&fs=1&border=0&rel=0&showsearch=0&am
p;iv_load_policy=3" width="500" height="432"><div style="float: left; border: 1px solid rgb(31, 146, 199); background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(167, 217, 240); margin: 5px 5px 0pt 0pt; font-size: 14px; -moz-border-radius: 4px 4px 4px 4px; font-weight: bold; letter-spacing: -1px; font-family: Verdana,Lucida Sans,Helvetica,sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" id="vsvote_659173547"><a rel="nofollow" href="#" title="Sift this video up!" style="text-decoration: none; padding: 3px 5px; color: rgb(31, 146, 199); display: table-cell;">▲ 18</div><div style="padding: 3px 5px 0pt 0pt;"><a rel="nofollow" style="text-decoration: none; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; letter-spacing: -1px; font-family: Verdana,Lucida Sans,Helvetica,sans-serif; color: rgb(215, 237, 248);" title="View Full Video and Comment Listing at VideoSift" target="_blank" href="http://videosift.com/video/How-to-Make-a-Sock-Puppet">How to Make a Sock Puppet<a rel="nofollow" style="float: right;" title="Visit VideoSift.com" target="_blank" href="http://videosift.com"> </div><div style="height: 0pt; font-size: 0pt; clear: both;"></div><div style="margin-top: 5px; padding: 5px; overflow: auto; width: 500px; max-height: 100px; border: 1px solid rgb(31, 146, 199); background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(167, 217, 240);"><div style="padding-bottom: 5px;"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/video/How-to-Make-a-Sock-Puppet" target="_blank" title="View Full Video and Comment Listing at VideoSift" style="font-family: tahoma,sans-serif; font-weight: bold; font-size: 10px; color: rgb(31, 146, 199); text-decoration: none;">Showing 5 of 6 Comments</div><div style="margin-bottom: 3px; font-size: 10px; font-family: Tahoma,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<div style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(239, 239, 239); border: 1px solid rgb(153, 153, 153); padding: 3px; font-size: 11px;">
Sock Puppets on Videosift?
</div>
<div style="font-size: 10px; text-align: right; margin-bottom: 5px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">
written by <strong style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">Boise_Lib
</div>
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 3px; font-size: 10px; font-family: Tahoma,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<div style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(239, 239, 239); border: 1px solid rgb(153, 153, 153); padding: 3px; font-size: 11px;">
A name for a sock puppet?

@votedem
@progressivevideo
@CaptainObvious
@Keanu_

Any other nominations?
</div>
<div style="font-size: 10px; text-align: right; margin-bottom: 5px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">
written by <strong style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">bareboards2
</div>
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 3px; font-size: 10px; font-family: Tahoma,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<div style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(239, 239, 239); border: 1px solid rgb(153, 153, 153); padding: 3px; font-size: 11px;">
promote the creativity, planning abilities, and tech savvy of our resident puppets.
</div>
<div style="font-size: 10px; text-align: right; margin-bottom: 5px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">
written by <strong style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">bareboards2
</div>
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 3px; font-size: 10px; font-family: Tahoma,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<div style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(239, 239, 239); border: 1px solid rgb(153, 153, 153); padding: 3px; font-size: 11px;">
I'm going to name mine choggie.
</div>
<div style="font-size: 10px; text-align: right; margin-bottom: 5px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">
written by <strong style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">Zifnab
</div>
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 3px; font-size: 10px; font-family: Tahoma,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<div style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(239, 239, 239); border: 1px solid rgb(153, 153, 153); padding: 3px; font-size: 11px;">
This video was seriously horrible but I up-voted for the description. Nicely done.
</div>
<div style="font-size: 10px; text-align: right; margin-bottom: 5px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">
written by <strong style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">CelebrateApathy
</div>
</div><a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/video/How-to-Make-a-Sock-Puppet" target="_blank" title="View Full Video and Comment Listing at VideoSift" style="font-family: tahoma,sans-serif; font-weight: bold; font-size: 10px; color: rgb(31, 146, 199); text-decoration: none;">View Full Video and Comment Listing at VideoSift</div><div style="text-align: right; margin-top: 5px;"><div style="float: left; font-family: tahoma,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Logged in as <a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/The_Ham" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none; border: 0pt none;">The_Ham!</div><a rel="nofollow" style="text-decoration: none; font-size: 11px; font-weight: bold; letter-spacing: -1px; font-family: Verdana,Lucida Sans,Helvetica,sans-serif; color: rgb(167, 217, 240);" href="#">close</div><script async="" src="http://videosift.com/widget.js?action=load&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvideosift.com%2Fvideo%2FRichard-Feynman-on-helping-the-Manhattan-Project%3Floadco
mm%3D1%23comment-1292807&video=204823" type="text/javascript"></script></div><a rel="nofollow" href="#" style="display: table-cell; text-align: center; margin: 0pt; padding: 5px; background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(79, 179, 226); -moz-border-radius: 5px 5px 5px 5px; border: 1px solid rgb(31, 146, 199);" id="vsthm_659173547"> </div><script>s=document.createElement('script');s.type='text/javascript';s.src='http://videosift.com/widget.js?video=204823&width=500&comments=15
&minimized=1';document.getElementById('widget_765087041').appendChild(s);</script>

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I edited your post and it looks to be OK now. I just included everything between the [object] tags.

In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
Help! I can't embed anything from FoD because it gives me these enormously long embed codes when I request to use the old embed and I have absolutely no idea where and when to crop it, could you point it out for me at all? :

<object width="640" height="400" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" id="ordie_player_f01628a6d8"><div style="text-align:left;font-size:x-small;margin-top:0;width:640px;"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/f01628a6d8/grand-theft-auto-nice-city" title="from Jason Horton">Grand Theft Auto: Nice City - watch more <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.funnyordie.com/" title="on Funny or Die">funny videos <iframe src="//www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?app_id=138711277798&href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.funnyordie.com%2Fvideos%2Ff01628a6d8%2Fgrand-theft-auto-ni
ce-city&send=false&layout=button_count&width=150&show_faces=false&action=like&height=21" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="border:none; overflow:hidden; width:90px; height:21px; vertical-align:middle;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe>
</div>

This is the submission I made: http://videosift.com/video/Grand-Theft-Auto-Nice-City first of all it said it was invalid when I copied and pasted the entire thing, then I cropped it and it was ok, but it doesn't show up to be able to watch it...

Help! I can't embed anything from FoD because it gives me these enormously long embed codes when I request to use the old embed and I have absolutely no idea where and when to crop it, could you point it out for me at all?

<object width="640" height="400" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" id="ordie_player_f01628a6d8"><div style="text-align:left;font-size:x-small;margin-top:0;width:640px;"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/f01628a6d8/grand-theft-auto-nice-city" title="from Jason Horton">Grand Theft Auto: Nice City - watch more <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.funnyordie.com/" title="on Funny or Die">funny videos <iframe src="http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?app_id=138711277798&href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.funnyordie.com%2Fvideos%2Ff01628a6d8%2Fgrand-theft-auto-ni
ce-city&send=false&layout=button_count&width=150&show_faces=false&action=like&height=21" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="border:none; overflow:hidden; width:90px; height:21px; vertical-align:middle;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe>
</div>

This is the submission I made: http://videosift.com/video/Grand-Theft-Auto-Nice-City first of all it said it was invalid when I copied and pasted the entire thing, then I cropped it and it was ok, but it doesn't show up to be able to watch it...

<object width="640" height="400" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" id="ordie_player_f01628a6d8"><div style="text-align:left;font-size:x-small;margin-top:0;width:640px;"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/f01628a6d8/grand-theft-auto-nice-city" title="from Jason Horton">Grand Theft Auto: Nice City - watch more <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.funnyordie.com/" title="on Funny or Die">funny videos <iframe src="http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?app_id=138711277798&href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.funnyordie.com%2Fvideos%2Ff01628a6d8%2Fgrand-theft-auto-ni
ce-city&send=false&layout=button_count&width=150&show_faces=false&action=like&height=21" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="border:none; overflow:hidden; width:90px; height:21px; vertical-align:middle;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe>
</div>

>> ^MarineGunrock:

It's only sane to think that one should have to prove eligibility to vote in a certain district.

Sure, but why does the proof have to be a driver's license or state ID?

Right now in Ohio you can use any photo ID (including things like student ID, or employee ID badges), or alternatively you can use a utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, or any government document that includes your name and address.

They want to change the law here as well, so that it has to be a driver's license, state ID, passport, or military ID.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
It's not really a roadblock, though. ... Drivers licenses and ID cards come at a price, but where ever this is gives the ID FOR FREE if you need it to vote.


Again, it most certainly is a roadblock. First, you need to know about the change in the law, apparently at least 2 weeks in advance. Second, you need to get the documentation required for a state ID, which may require a trip to the courthouse and more fees. Third you need to find the time to go stand in line during business hours on weekdays, which isn't even easy for someone like me with a flexible work schedule, a car, and no kids. Fourth, you need to fill out all the forms, answer all the questions, and know that the only way to make it free is to check a special box on the application form, because they won't tell that to you.

Oh, and the next bit of news I've heard this evening is that now Wisconsin (which is where this is from, BTW), is now closing down the DMV's in 10 districts, reportedly mostly the ones in heavily Democratic districts. To compensate for the reduction in service, they're lengthening the hours of DMV's in some other, more Republican, districts to make sure Republicans don't have any problems voting deal with the overflow...

For the most part though, my question is what problem is this supposed to solve? In Ohio there have been next to zero cases of even attempted voter fraud, and none successful.

Surely you concede that doing this will result in some people, who are eligible to vote, trying to vote legally, will be prevented from voting. Why is that necessary?

Even if I assume this is being done out of real concern about fraud, this is like arresting everyone in a neighborhood because someone thinks maybe someone in there could have committed a crime, even though they don't have evidence to prove that a crime was even committed in the first place...

<div class="movieclips-player" style="background:#000; margin:0; padding:7px 0; width:560px; -moz-border-radius:7px; -webkit-border-radius:7px; border-radius:7px;">
<object width="560" height="304" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://movieclips.com/e/vaBbp/" style="display:block; overflow:hidden;">






<div style="display:block; margin:7px 0 0; padding:0; width:560px; height:27px; text-align:center; font:normal 11px/11px Helvetica, Arial, Sans-serif; color:#666;">
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://movieclips.com/vaBbp-the-jerk-movie-thats-all-i-need/" style="display:inline; font-size:12px; line-height:1.23em; color:#00AEFF; text-decoration:none; background:#000;">
That's All I Need!



<a rel="nofollow" href="http://movieclips.com/aSNKP-the-jerk-movie-videos/" style="display:inline; color:#888; text-decoration:none; background:#000;">
The Jerk

— MOVIECLIPS.com
</div>
</div>

>> ^shinyblurry:

Since you asked, I'll tell you why I believe in God. Up until 8 years ago I was agnostic. I was raised agnostic, without any religion. We celebrated Christmas and Easter, but that was about it. I wasn't raised to like or dislike religion, I was simply left free to decide what I believed.
At the time I became a theist, I didn't believe in a spiritual reality, or any God I had ever heard of, because like most of the people here I saw no evidence for it at all. I actually used to go into christian chat rooms and debate christians on what I saw to be inconsistances in the bible. A lot of what people have said in this thread are thoughts that I once had and arguments I used to use myself.
Then one day it all changed. I guess you could say my third eye was opened. I had something akin to a kundalini awakening, spontaneously out of nowhere. When it was over, I could suddenly perceive the spiritual reality. I didn't quite know what I was looking at, at the time..didn't truly understand what had happened to me (though through intuition i understood the great potential of it). It was only after researching it online and finding out about the chakras did I start to understand.
It's an amazing, truly truly amazing thing to find out everything you know is wrong. It is really utterly mind blowing. This however, was the conclusion I was forced to immediately reach however, because the evidence for it was right in front of my face. Everything that I had known up until the point I could perceive the spiritual was missing so many essential elements that I may as well have been just born.
I started to receive signs..little miracles, I would call them..like stepping in front of a vast panarama of nature and suddenly seeing it at an angle impossible to human sight, where everything is in focus at the same time, that produced such startling beauty it filled me to overflowing with estatic joy. I started to perceive there was a higher beauty, a higher love that had always been there but I had somehow missed it. I started to get the point, that there was something more. That there was a God.
When I conceded it was possible, to myself, it was then that I started to hear from Him directly. He let me know a couple of things, and proved to me that I wasn't just imagining Him. He showed me that He had been there my entire life, teaching me and guiding me as a child on, only I had been totally unaware of it. He showed me how we "shared space", and that not only could He read my mind, but in some essential way that He was what my mind is. That He is mind itself. He showed me how my thought process was more of a cooperative than a solitary thing.
Now before you say I just jumped at all of this because everyone wants to imagine a loving God, etc etc..untrue in my case. When I first found out He was definitely real, i was scared shitless. Up until that point, my thoughts about God were all negative. I figured if He did exist He probably hated me. You see, that is what I had gleaned growing up in a Christian society without actually knowing anything about it.
At this point I became a theist. I thought of God as a He because He seemed masculine rather than feminine, and also I thought of Him as the Creator. I didn't know anything about the bible, or the Holy Trinity, or what a messiah was, or any of that. I thought the God I knew must not be generally known because I had never seen anything out there that pointed to a loving God.
For the next 6 yeears I was on a spiritual journey. I studied all the various belief systems, spiritual or otherwise, all the religious history..east and west, north and south. I studied philosophy and esoteric wisdom, gurus and prophets. The one I really hadn't studied though, was Christianity. The reason being I didn't believe Jesus actually ever existed so I dismissed it out of hand.
Before I knew anything about Christianity, God taught me three important things about who He is. One, He taught me His nature is triune, that God is three. I didn't understand what that meant precisely, I just knew that was His nature. He also taught me that there was a Messiah. He taught me that there was someone whose job it was to save the world. The third thing and most important thing He taught me was about His love. That He loved everyone, and that He secretly took care of them whether they believed in Him or not. He showed me His perfect heart.
What led me to the bible was this: I asked Him who the Messiah was and He told me to look in a mirror. At the time I had been away from civilization for a few months and my beard had grown out for the first time in my life. I hadn't seen a mirror since I was clean shaven. I sought one out and when I saw my reflection I couldn't believe my eyes. I looked exactly like Jesus Christ. I mean to a T.
It was then I was forced to accept the possibility that Jesus was real. To be honest, I really didn't want to. I felt like I had a really special relationship with the Father and that Jesus could only get in the way of that. I didn't even feel like I could pay Him any real respect, because I knew the Father was greater than He was. But, I couldn't ignore what He was showing me, so I started to read the bible. To my surprise, I found out it was about the God I already knew.
Everything I read in the bible matched what I already knew about God . The Holy Trinity matched His triune nature. That there was a Messiah and Jesus was it. And most of all His love, His great and majestic love, for all people, was perfectly laid out in ways I had never before comprehended. The bible was the only information on Earth that accurately described what I already knew about God. That is how I knew it was true from the outset.
So that's when I became a Christian. I couldn't ignore the evidence. My journey to Christianity was based on rationality and logic, believe it or not, albiet with miracles and spirituality mixed in. Even the miracles themselves were logical, as God showed me how He worked from a meta-perspective, and that time and space didn't restrict Him at all. So there you have it..an interesting testimony to be sure.
I am unusual in that I didn't come to God on my own. God chose me, I didn't choose Him. I might never have come to God if He hadn't. I found out later that this means I was elected..in that, before God made the world He had already planned to create me to do His will. After He woke me up it never really took much faith to believe in God because He demonstrated to me His amazing power and ASTONISHING intellect in ways that were impossible to refute. Whatever brick wall I would put up, He would smash it down into oblivion. He favored me because I stayed hungry. I knew the truth was knowable, and I gunned for it 200 percent. I would have died for it.
So I empathize with the people here. Some of you might actually be elected too, it just is not your time to know. Some are probably angry/scared/rebelliious, while still others are intellectually incurious and swayed by hyperbole. I'm pretty sure not many people here have actually read the bible. I hadn't either..I was simply arrogant at the time.
So what I would say to people here is..there is far more going on than seems apparent..if you don't believe at least that there is a spiritual reality, you're practically rubbing two sticks together. God definitely exists and will prove it to you if you humble yourself, come to Him in sincerity, with your total heart and pray. Admit you're a sinner, and ask Him to be your Lord and Savior. Anyone can know God is real. I wish I had read it earlier..would have saved me a hardship. Save yourself the trouble and find out the truth for yourself, that God is real He loves you. God bless..


Wow, thanks for that detailed reply. Forgive me, but I've broken it down to basics here. Can you confirm that I've understood you correctly?:

OK, so in short:

- You were an atheist from birth.

- You had a dramatic and sudden spiritual awakening and began to perceive an extra spiritual dimension in the material world around you.

- You began to have visions that were akin to out of body experiences or remote viewing, but with an extra dimension of spiritual perception. You interpreted these experiences as little miracles, and that they were provided by a higher being: a god.

- At this point god spoke you directly and explicitly, and proved to you that you were not imagining him. He explained that he permeated *everything*, including your being, and that in many respects he *was* you.

- Over the next 6 years you studied, and were guided and tutored directly by god who explained to you more specifically about his nature, and what the bible was all about.

Or to break this down even further!:

You believe there is a god because, after a sudden spiritual awakening he spoke to you directly and proved to you that he exists.

Have I got the basics correct here? Just the very basics?

Since you asked, I'll tell you why I believe in God. Up until 8 years ago I was agnostic. I was raised agnostic, without any religion. We celebrated Christmas and Easter, but that was about it. I wasn't raised to like or dislike religion, I was simply left free to decide what I believed.

At the time I became a theist, I didn't believe in a spiritual reality, or any God I had ever heard of, because like most of the people here I saw no evidence for it at all. I actually used to go into christian chat rooms and debate christians on what I saw to be inconsistances in the bible. A lot of what people have said in this thread are thoughts that I once had and arguments I used to use myself.

Then one day it all changed. I guess you could say my third eye was opened. I had something akin to a kundalini awakening, spontaneously out of nowhere. When it was over, I could suddenly perceive the spiritual reality. I didn't quite know what I was looking at, at the time..didn't truly understand what had happened to me (though through intuition i understood the great potential of it). It was only after researching it online and finding out about the chakras did I start to understand.

It's an amazing, truly truly amazing thing to find out everything you know is wrong. It is really utterly mind blowing. This however, was the conclusion I was forced to immediately reach however, because the evidence for it was right in front of my face. Everything that I had known up until the point I could perceive the spiritual was missing so many essential elements that I may as well have been just born.

I started to receive signs..little miracles, I would call them..like stepping in front of a vast panarama of nature and suddenly seeing it at an angle impossible to human sight, where everything is in focus at the same time, that produced such startling beauty it filled me to overflowing with estatic joy. I started to perceive there was a higher beauty, a higher love that had always been there but I had somehow missed it. I started to get the point, that there was something more. That there was a God.

When I conceded it was possible, to myself, it was then that I started to hear from Him directly. He let me know a couple of things, and proved to me that I wasn't just imagining Him. He showed me that He had been there my entire life, teaching me and guiding me as a child on, only I had been totally unaware of it. He showed me how we "shared space", and that not only could He read my mind, but in some essential way that He was what my mind is. That He is mind itself. He showed me how my thought process was more of a cooperative than a solitary thing.

Now before you say I just jumped at all of this because everyone wants to imagine a loving God, etc etc..untrue in my case. When I first found out He was definitely real, i was scared shitless. Up until that point, my thoughts about God were all negative. I figured if He did exist He probably hated me. You see, that is what I had gleaned growing up in a Christian society without actually knowing anything about it.

At this point I became a theist. I thought of God as a He because He seemed masculine rather than feminine, and also I thought of Him as the Creator. I didn't know anything about the bible, or the Holy Trinity, or what a messiah was, or any of that. I thought the God I knew must not be generally known because I had never seen anything out there that pointed to a loving God.

For the next 6 yeears I was on a spiritual journey. I studied all the various belief systems, spiritual or otherwise, all the religious history..east and west, north and south. I studied philosophy and esoteric wisdom, gurus and prophets. The one I really hadn't studied though, was Christianity. The reason being I didn't believe Jesus actually ever existed so I dismissed it out of hand.

Before I knew anything about Christianity, God taught me three important things about who He is. One, He taught me His nature is triune, that God is three. I didn't understand what that meant precisely, I just knew that was His nature. He also taught me that there was a Messiah. He taught me that there was someone whose job it was to save the world. The third thing and most important thing He taught me was about His love. That He loved everyone, and that He secretly took care of them whether they believed in Him or not. He showed me His perfect heart.

What led me to the bible was this: I asked Him who the Messiah was and He told me to look in a mirror. At the time I had been away from civilization for a few months and my beard had grown out for the first time in my life. I hadn't seen a mirror since I was clean shaven. I sought one out and when I saw my reflection I couldn't believe my eyes. I looked *exactly* like Jesus Christ. I mean to a T.

It was then I was forced to accept the possibility that Jesus was real. To be honest, I really didn't want to. I felt like I had a really special relationship with the Father and that Jesus could only get in the way of that. I didn't even feel like I could pay Him any real respect, because I knew the Father was greater than He was. But, I couldn't ignore what He was showing me, so I started to read the bible. To my surprise, I found out it was about the God I already knew.

Everything I read in the bible matched what I already knew about God . The Holy Trinity matched His triune nature. That there was a Messiah and Jesus was it. And most of all His love, His great and majestic love, for all people, was perfectly laid out in ways I had never before comprehended. The bible was the only information on Earth that accurately described what I already knew about God. That is how I knew it was true from the outset.

So that's when I became a Christian. I couldn't ignore the evidence. My journey to Christianity was based on rationality and logic, believe it or not, albiet with miracles and spirituality mixed in. Even the miracles themselves were logical, as God showed me how He worked from a meta-perspective, and that time and space didn't restrict Him at all. So there you have it..an interesting testimony to be sure.

I am unusual in that I didn't come to God on my own. God chose me, I didn't choose Him. I might never have come to God if He hadn't. I found out later that this means I was elected..in that, before God made the world He had already planned to create me to do His will. After He woke me up it never really took much faith to believe in God because He demonstrated to me His amazing power and ASTONISHING intellect in ways that were impossible to refute. Whatever brick wall I would put up, He would smash it down into oblivion. He favored me because I stayed hungry. I knew the truth was knowable, and I gunned for it 200 percent. I would have died for it.

So I empathize with the people here. Some of you might actually be elected too, it just is not your time to know. Some are probably angry/scared/rebelliious, while still others are intellectually incurious and swayed by hyperbole. I'm pretty sure not many people here have actually read the bible. I hadn't either..I was simply arrogant at the time.

So what I would say to people here is..there is far more going on than seems apparent..if you don't believe at least that there is a spiritual reality, you're practically rubbing two sticks together. God definitely exists and will prove it to you if you humble yourself, come to Him in sincerity, with your total heart and pray. Admit you're a sinner, and ask Him to be your Lord and Savior. Anyone can know God is real. I wish I had read it earlier..would have saved me a hardship. Save yourself the trouble and find out the truth for yourself, that God is real He loves you. God bless..



>> ^TheSluiceGate:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, according to the dictionary:
dict.org
Atheism \A"the ism\, n. [Cf. F. ath['e]isme. See Atheist.]
1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or
supreme intelligent Being.
merriam-webster.com
Definition of ATHEISM
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
a·the·ism   /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled
[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
dictionary.reference.com
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
The definition of atheism is very clear; the belief that there is no God. If you don't really believe that, IE .0001 percent, then you're not an atheist. You can't just reinvent the definition so you have no burden of proof. That .0001 might as well be 99 percent for all the difference it makes. Personally, I think the definitions people are trying to use today for atheism are extremely intellectually dishonest.

The problem here, as MaxWilder suggested, is that arguing about what the word atheist means is just semantics. We could both quote dictionaries until the cows come home, but it would make no difference to the central argument. It's for reasons like this that other new terms such as "rationalist" or "humanist" are being coined all the time as a way of distancing traditional atheism from the word atheist itself. I realise now that me trying to clarify the manner in which many people commonly define their lack of a belief in a god is actually quite pointless. I'm even going to disregard that you didn't respond to the reason why it doesn't take faith to be an atheist. This thread needs to be brought down to brass tacks.
Let's simplify the central point here, the central point of both the video you posted, and of all the arguments in this thread: Can you give one reason why you , shinyblurry, personally believe that there is a god? Just your one best argument for a god's existence.
For my part, and in the interest of fairness, I will tell you briefly how I arrived at being an atheist. (You can comment on this separately if you wish, but please, not before addressing the above question!)
I was about 13 years old when, as a child brought up a catholic and attending weekly mass, I began to question the morality of the god described in the bible. I looked at the atrocities he committed and asked myself what I would think of a real flesh and blood person alive today who behaved in the manner of the actions attributed to him in the bible, and whether or not this person would be worthy of the praise and admiration heaped upon him. This central idea led to an increased questioning of all the aspects of the religion I had been brought up in, and an awareness that although there were many great ideas and philosophical truths in catholic teachings, there was no conclusive proof either in the bible, or in the world in general, for the existence of a supernatural god of any kind.
So if you, shinyblurry, were recording a video in the style of the one that you have posted, what would you be saying on camera was the one central reason for your belief?

>> ^bcglorf:

<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Bombs-for-peace-UN-completely-disgraced-in-Libya?loadcomm=1#comment-1173434'>^blankfist</a>:<br />
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/bcglorf" title="member since July 23rd, 2007" class="profilelink">bcglorf</a>, I'm glad you're a fan of war and death and violence. Good for you. You're right up there with the neocons. Kudos.<br> <br> I like how Dennis Kucinich put it, "Bombing villages to save villages, we've been through that in Vietnam." <br> <br> Here's the whole video: <br> <div id="widget_119510214"><script src="http://videosift.com/widget.js?video=193991&width=540&comments=15&minimized=1" type="text/javascript"></script><div style="display: none; margin: 0pt; padding: 5px; width: 550px; height: 562px; background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(79, 179, 226); -moz-border-radius: 5px 5px 5px 5px; border: 1px solid rgb(31, 146, 199);" id="vsvid_370811317"><embed style="display: block; margin: 5px;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sjJWsbAcG_I?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&color2=0x4fb3e2&border=0&rel=0&showsearch=0&iv_load_policy=3" width="540" height="432"><div style="float: left; border: 1px solid rgb(31, 146, 199); background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(167, 217, 240); margin: 5px 5px 0pt 0pt; font-size: 14px; -moz-border-radius: 4px 4px 4px 4px; font-weight: bold; letter-spacing: -1px; font-family: Verdana,Lucida Sans,Helvetica,sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" id="vsvote_370811317"><a rel="nofollow" href="#" title="Sift this video up!" style="text-decoration: none; padding: 3px 5px; color: rgb(31, 146, 199); display: table-cell;">▲ 1</a></div><div style="padding: 3px 5px 0pt 0pt;"><a rel="nofollow" style="text-decoration: none; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; letter-spacing: -1px; font-family: Verdana,Lucida Sans,Helvetica,sans-serif; color: rgb(215, 237, 248);" title="View Full Video and Comment Listing at VideoSift" target="_blank" href="http://videosift.com/video/Kucinich-War-is-a-swamp-Obama-Libya-action-unconstitutiona">Kucinich: War is a swamp, Obama Libya action unconstitutiona</a><a rel="nofollow" style="float: right;" title="Visit VideoSift.com" target="_blank" href="http://videosift.com"> </a></div><div style="height: 0pt; font-size: 0pt; clear: both;"></div><div style="margin-top: 5px; padding: 5px; overflow: auto; width: 540px; max-height: 100px; border: 1px solid rgb(31, 146, 199); background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(167, 217, 240);"><div style="padding-bottom: 5px;"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/video/Kucinich-War-is-a-swamp-Obama-Libya-action-unconstitutiona" target="_blank" title="View Full Video and Comment Listing at VideoSift" style="font-family: tahoma,sans-serif; font-weight: bold; font-size: 10px; color: rgb(31, 146, 199); text-decoration: none;">Showing 1 of 1 Comment</a></div><div style="margin-bottom: 3px; font-size: 10px; font-family: Tahoma,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<div style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(239, 239, 239); border: 1px solid rgb(153, 153, 153); padding: 3px; font-size: 11px;">
A role model for Democrats.
</div>
<div style="font-size: 10px; text-align: right; margin-bottom: 5px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">
written by <strong style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">blankfist</strong>
</div>
</div><a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/video/Kucinich-War-is-a-swamp-Obama-Libya-action-unconstitutiona" target="_blank" title="View Full Video and Comment Listing at VideoSift" style="font-family: tahoma,sans-serif; font-weight: bold; font-size: 10px; color: rgb(31, 146, 199); text-decoration: none;">View Full Video and Comment Listing at VideoSift</a></div><div style="text-align: right; margin-top: 5px;"><div style="float: left; font-family: tahoma,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Logged in as <b><a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/bcglorf" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none; border: 0pt none;">bcglorf</a></b>!</div><a rel="nofollow" style="text-decoration: none; font-size: 11px; font-weight: bold; letter-spacing: -1px; font-family: Verdana,Lucida Sans,Helvetica,sans-serif; color: rgb(167, 217, 240);" href="#">close</a></div><script async="" src="http://videosift.com/widget.js?action=load&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvideosift.com%2Fvideo%2FBombs-for-peace-UN-completely-disgraced-in-Libya%3Floadco

mm%3D1%23comment-1173434&video=193991" type="text/javascript"></script></div><a rel="nofollow" href="#" style="display: table-cell; text-align: center; margin: 0pt; padding: 5px; background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(79, 179, 226); -moz-border-radius: 5px 5px 5px 5px; border: 1px solid rgb(31, 146, 199);" id="vsthm_370811317"> </a></div><script>s=document.createElement('script');s.type='text/javascript';s.src='http://videosift.com/widget.js?video=193991&
;width=540&comments=15
&minimized=1';document.getElementById('widget_119510214').appendChild(s);</script><br></em>
I'm as big a fan of war as you are of genocide.
Or, maybe you should be quite while the big people talk about grown up things.
Do you deny that Gadhafi was in the process of implementing the genocide he promised to commit?


Sorry, I have a hard time understanding the grown ups when they leave comments like this. Or maybe I should just be quite.

>> ^ghark:

>> ^kceaton1:
>> ^ghark:
man that description is a bunch of nonsense, they are still the same band they just softened up their music and used heaps of slo-mo in the video.

Haters got to hate.
This is also the most mellow song on the album. I can agree with a lot of what you said. In fact I initially a few songs of LPs when they came out. Then I hated them by their second album and I still can only listen to remixes of a few songs; the rest feel like I'm getting an ear infection drilled into place. The albums to me are far "pop" aimed and were a complete teenage angst phase type music, in my music listening experience (it also explains their initial fan base. But, they're getting older and their tastes as well as their music will change). They were very young when they started. I know that from when I was twenty to know that my music (hell, everything) dramatically shifted.
I used to be an old school rap enthusiast and now I'm more of a Tool--metal/rock/progressive rock fan (like The Mars Volta, Lacuna Coil, Boston, The Beatles, Dream Theater, Soilwork, and Opeth--and on occasion I listen to Dr. Dre, Snoop Dog, The College Boyz, Cypress Hill, Icecube, and Eminem--who happens to be the only current rapper I musically like, Kanye West is O.K., but his personality tries my ability to like those songs, harshly.
Look at the video below that comes up at the bottom of this video(Linkin Park: Waiting For The End). See if that has any different value to you. Hopefully, it's listed below or you'll have to find it (I doubt you will look for it though, as it sounds like you hated them the day they came out and never gave them a second chance, especially since you took time out of your day to post your hate; I rarely do the same either, as bands do accrue a "reputation", like Nickelback--who I hate fiercely). It has much more impressive visuals than this slow-motion video, but shows "a bit" of their differences on the album. That's as far as I go in defending their NEW album; but you're free to go ahead and hate.
I doubt you've heard the album at all (the full thing not just the radio elements). As I'd guess you'd have slightly more meat to your hate, or a full opinion. In other words, you hate them for a lot of the reasons I hated them; also due to the fact that it was popular to do so.
This album is episodic; each part starting from the last, which just from that perspective, is a more traditional album and not like LP in the past. That is their main evolution. I should have been more specific that they seem to be -slowly- taking a more rock'n'roll/progressive approach to newer stuff. That's the biggest change. There sound has matured slightly. Mostly the hip-hop/rap styles/styling and the biggest change is in their synthetic/midi board use. Anyway, don't think I'm giving them the easy way out and complete, unflinching support, that has yet to be earned. Maybe in two more albums--if they continue in the same direction...
small edit- I hope I don't sound to harsh talking about you opinion, as I only wanted to make my viewpoint clear. I also changed various areas in my description that I think created your hate to "overflow". I meant evolution in only the most modest of terms, they are still very much a band that needs to change. But, they are taking some of those steps and I commend them for it. Most bands stagnate and rely only on what they know. Again, if you don't think they've evolved their sound I don't think you've given them a fair chance (not that you have to; just don't post your opinion and expect it to be left alone).

I'm not hating on the music, I really like Linkin Park, I'm just stating that I think your description of the music is taking things too far, adding lots of slow motion shots and screaming less is not growing up. Their new music is a bit knee jerk imo, they copped a lot of criticism and they are trying to overcompensate to please people, instead they should follow their own path, and personally I do not believe that they are doing this. So I guess that is where our opinions differ.


Alright, I see where you're coming from. We can agree to disagree; I think your point is very valid, as their music could have gone in a thousand different directions. I happen to like this direction and you don't; I can deal with that. It was more the attack on the description that irked me. But, I don't blame you as after re-reading it, it comes off as a "you-should-have-this-point-of-view". I appreciate your feedback. I hope you do as well. I like what they've become (I haven't paid much attention to them in the past to be honest, so if their hand "musically" was a forced issue--I'd be on your side most likely).

I'm an artist, drawing wise, and if someone was hating on my artistry I wouldn't change it for them no matter what. As I do it for myself and to express myself how I want. If you sell that out, I'd have to say that you've lost any credibility you had (and if LP did that; it makes me think less of them now). But, more importantly you lose your "heart", which you need badly in any art. You lose that aspect and you'll grow to hate yourself (the downward spiral so to speak).

>> ^kceaton1:

>> ^ghark:
man that description is a bunch of nonsense, they are still the same band they just softened up their music and used heaps of slo-mo in the video.

Haters got to hate.
This is also the most mellow song on the album. I can agree with a lot of what you said. In fact I initially a few songs of LPs when they came out. Then I hated them by their second album and I still can only listen to remixes of a few songs; the rest feel like I'm getting an ear infection drilled into place. The albums to me are far "pop" aimed and were a complete teenage angst phase type music, in my music listening experience (it also explains their initial fan base. But, they're getting older and their tastes as well as their music will change). They were very young when they started. I know that from when I was twenty to know that my music (hell, everything) dramatically shifted.
I used to be an old school rap enthusiast and now I'm more of a Tool--metal/rock/progressive rock fan (like The Mars Volta, Lacuna Coil, Boston, The Beatles, Dream Theater, Soilwork, and Opeth--and on occasion I listen to Dr. Dre, Snoop Dog, The College Boyz, Cypress Hill, Icecube, and Eminem--who happens to be the only current rapper I musically like, Kanye West is O.K., but his personality tries my ability to like those songs, harshly.
Look at the video below that comes up at the bottom of this video(Linkin Park: Waiting For The End). See if that has any different value to you. Hopefully, it's listed below or you'll have to find it (I doubt you will look for it though, as it sounds like you hated them the day they came out and never gave them a second chance, especially since you took time out of your day to post your hate; I rarely do the same either, as bands do accrue a "reputation", like Nickelback--who I hate fiercely). It has much more impressive visuals than this slow-motion video, but shows "a bit" of their differences on the album. That's as far as I go in defending their NEW album; but you're free to go ahead and hate.
I doubt you've heard the album at all (the full thing not just the radio elements). As I'd guess you'd have slightly more meat to your hate, or a full opinion. In other words, you hate them for a lot of the reasons I hated them; also due to the fact that it was popular to do so.
This album is episodic; each part starting from the last, which just from that perspective, is a more traditional album and not like LP in the past. That is their main evolution. I should have been more specific that they seem to be -slowly- taking a more rock'n'roll/progressive approach to newer stuff. That's the biggest change. There sound has matured slightly. Mostly the hip-hop/rap styles/styling and the biggest change is in their synthetic/midi board use. Anyway, don't think I'm giving them the easy way out and complete, unflinching support, that has yet to be earned. Maybe in two more albums--if they continue in the same direction...
small edit- I hope I don't sound to harsh talking about you opinion, as I only wanted to make my viewpoint clear. I also changed various areas in my description that I think created your hate to "overflow". I meant evolution in only the most modest of terms, they are still very much a band that needs to change. But, they are taking some of those steps and I commend them for it. Most bands stagnate and rely only on what they know. Again, if you don't think they've evolved their sound I don't think you've given them a fair chance (not that you have to; just don't post your opinion and expect it to be left alone).


I'm not hating on the music, I really like Linkin Park, I'm just stating that I think your description of the music is taking things too far, adding lots of slow motion shots and screaming less is not growing up. Their new music is a bit knee jerk imo, they copped a lot of criticism and they are trying to overcompensate to please people, instead they should follow their own path, and personally I do not believe that they are doing this. So I guess that is where our opinions differ.

>> ^ghark:

man that description is a bunch of nonsense, they are still the same band they just softened up their music and used heaps of slo-mo in the video.

Haters got to hate.


This is also the most mellow song on the album. I can agree with a lot of what you said. In fact I initially a few songs of LPs when they came out. Then I hated them by their second album and I still can only listen to remixes of a few songs; the rest feel like I'm getting an ear infection drilled into place. The albums to me are far "pop" aimed and were a complete teenage angst phase type music, in my music listening experience (it also explains their initial fan base. But, they're getting older and their tastes as well as their music will change). They were very young when they started. I know that from when I was twenty to know that my music (hell, everything) dramatically shifted.

I used to be an old school rap enthusiast and now I'm more of a Tool--metal/rock/progressive rock fan (like The Mars Volta, Lacuna Coil, Boston, The Beatles, Dream Theater, Soilwork, and Opeth--and on occasion I listen to Dr. Dre, Snoop Dog, The College Boyz, Cypress Hill, Icecube, and Eminem--who happens to be the only current rapper I musically like, Kanye West is O.K., but his personality tries my ability to like those songs, harshly.

Look at the video below that comes up at the bottom of this video(Linkin Park: Waiting For The End). See if that has any different value to you. Hopefully, it's listed below or you'll have to find it (I doubt you will look for it though, as it sounds like you hated them the day they came out and never gave them a second chance, especially since you took time out of your day to post your hate; I rarely do the same either, as bands do accrue a "reputation", like Nickelback--who I hate fiercely). It has much more impressive visuals than this slow-motion video, but shows "a bit" of their differences on the album. That's as far as I go in defending their NEW album; but you're free to go ahead and hate.

I doubt you've heard the album at all (the full thing not just the radio elements). As I'd guess you'd have slightly more meat to your hate, or a full opinion. In other words, you hate them for a lot of the reasons I hated them; also due to the fact that it was popular to do so.

This album is episodic; each part starting from the last, which just from that perspective, is a more traditional album and not like LP in the past. That is their main evolution. I should have been more specific that they seem to be -slowly- taking a more rock'n'roll/progressive approach to newer stuff. That's the biggest change. There sound has matured slightly. Mostly the hip-hop/rap styles/styling and the biggest change is in their synthetic/midi board use. Anyway, don't think I'm giving them the easy way out and complete, unflinching support, that has yet to be earned. Maybe in two more albums--if they continue in the same direction...

small edit- I hope I don't sound to harsh talking about you opinion, as I only wanted to make my viewpoint clear. I also changed various areas in my description that I think created your hate to "overflow". I meant evolution in only the most modest of terms, they are still very much a band that needs to change. But, they are taking some of those steps and I commend them for it. Most bands stagnate and rely only on what they know. Again, if you don't think they've evolved their sound I don't think you've given them a fair chance (not that you have to; just don't post your opinion and expect it to be left alone).