@newtboy
"i know you are but what am i i"?

that had me cackling like a loon.bravo my friend.

please understand guys my comment is in reference to this particular thread,not any previous private or otherwise.

my commentary was also tongue-n-cheek and not to be taken too seriously.
i was poking the hornets nest...like a boss..who also happens to be a dick.

please forgive.

as for conflicting private to public messages.
well..that would infuriate me as well newt.you wont get an argument from me on that point.
that speaks to a persons character and integrity and explains a ton in regards to your attitude towards @chingalera.

our integrity is all we have.
when you take away everything,the only thing left we have to trade is our word.
our honor.
our respect for another human being.
when we lose that trust....we lose everything.

i do not know the particulars on how you all conversed in private.its none of my business and not my place to judge.

but if what you are saying is true newt (and i have no reason to believe it isnt.there is a past precedent in that regard) then i have to ask @chingalera why?

why say one thing in private and then another in public?
that is so disengenuious and un-necessary my man.
you make good solid points..often,and often i agree with them.
so why would invalidate them by interacting with such duplicity?

you cant call out newt for disregarding or dismissing your points because it was YOU who invalidated those points by your interactions with him.

and you know this.
dont act like you dont because i know your smarter than the average bear.so dont insult my intelligence by feigning innocence.

you owe newt an apology.period.

and dont prove @VoodooV right.we both were there when you flamed out and it was ugly.
and you made it ugly by taking it personal.
i never judged you for that..still dont.
but that does not mean i condoned how you played that closing scene out.
real people had real feelings hurt...including you.

now i realize this thread is destroyed and i dont even know who i need to apologize to.
so...
to the original poster:i am truly sorry for this tragic hi-jacking of your thread.

but it appears necessary.

@chingalera i realize that much of what you do is to shock people out of complacency.
to get them to perceive a situation with different goggles.
many times the weapons you use are confrontational language and a persistence that rivals the most glorious case of OCD.

those intentions are noble.
i agree and am of a similar mindset.this is probably why i can read choggie-speak with little trouble.

i understand what you are trying to do.

but how can you expect someone like @newtboy to listen to anything you have to say when you cant keep even basic correspondence open and honest?
it invalidates everything you attempt from then on out.
your words have to have the weight of your integrity behind them for them to have ANY impact.
you lose that and your words become dust.

sounds like you will have to work to gain the respect from @newtboy.i wish you well in that endeavour.

please understand i consider you a friend @chingalera and hearing this has upset me a great deal.

and @VoodooV,
you may be right brother.i do not know what the future brings.hopefully ching will prove you wrong.i know he could if he wanted.

but i disagree with keeping the riff raff out.
i dont mind confrontation or arguments.in fact i LOVE them and @chingalera has a talent for poking the hornets nest and shattering the monotone-vanilla-circle-jerk-clones into a frenzy.

and that my friend..is a good thing.

@chingalera keeps the locals buzzing,constantly challenging pre-concieved notions and ideologies and i love that fucker for that.he keeps this site interesting.his antics bring lurkers to actually comment/post and others who usually side-line to jump in.

all good things.

but...
i cannot abide the darker side.
the hurtful side.
maybe i am being naive'....i always see redemption for those who the entrenched masses see as unredeemable.i always feel i can save those who are truly lost.

i always see the human first and the actions last.

so you may be right.i just hope you are wrong.
maybe this thread will impact my friend and remind him we are all humans.

i dont know.........
i hope though...
i hope.

@ChaosEngine again,as i told newtboy,no argument here.
hopefully this derailed thread has cleared some air and brought the things to the table that needed to be discussed.

which from my viewpoint is about integrity.
you cant admonish people for being egocentric and then turn around and be egocentric yourself.
it weakens the very position you were trying to make in the first place.(ching,not you CE).
it is hypocritical.

i am a dissident.
a radical.
a subversive.
even to the church i am an apostate.
so i understand @chingalera on a certain level.he has never treated me other than a friend and compatriot.so it pains me to see how he deals with those he disagrees with,and just how far he will take a story to a painful conclusion.
this does not give be joy or pleasure.

he is a righteous dude.passionate,sensitive and creative and has soooo much to offer.
im sorry ya'all didnt get to see that side of him.
but maybe thats on him,because you all should.

there is a reason he has been invited back multiple times and its not because he whined about it but rather he truly is an exceptional human being.

maybe he should show that side more.
takes honesty and courage,but that boy has a huge capacity for that.

@chingalera
balls in your court brother.
what ya gonna do?

*note* for all those who read to this point.
cookies and milk will be served in the back storage room.
free fondlings for the ladies.
dont forget to tip your bartenders and waitresses!

I love a good ol marijuana arrest. It's been a while since I last put on the BDSM police cuffs. Read me my Miranda rights and I'll utter the safe word: GUILTY!

Treat me bad, sir. I'm sooooooooo guilty. I smoke mary jane to enjoy the brutality. Front row to the masters of the state.

All this is great info. The best piece of advice the guy gives here, hands down, is: "don't rush". Everything else kind of follows afterward.
Proceed slowly, do research, and compare prices. I would generally call or walk into a place and say "I have this model for this price from this dealer. Can you beat it?" and 9/10 times they would, despite the fact that I would start the bidding at the so-called "invoice" price.
Then I'd leave and call/go to the next dealer and repeat the process. (In person is much better). I would do this for weeks, and revisit the same dealers multiple times. It's a slow process, but eventually you find that you're pulling their game over their own eyes by writing your own contract every time you visit.
I've met a few hard-core dealers through this method though. Dealers who treat me that same way. "Not willing to play the game? No dice, go somewhere else". That's always a slap in the face, but they're few and far between. Hopefully they won't learn to network amongst one another any time soon.

TOMAS YOUNG: "In July of last year, I began to experience sharp pains in my abdomen. And I went to the VA, and they treated me like I was a second-class citizen, a junkie looking for pain medicines just to get high, even though I was genuinely in pain."

Your video, Treat me like a pirate and GIVE ME THAT BOOTY, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

@shinyblurry

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

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

Now on to the other topics.

Apparently you haven't heard of Chiastic structure:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

you reject the evidence I have receive apriori.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even atheists know that:

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

Yes, I do.

Different relatives treat me to dinner. So the celebrations are not just confined to the actual day.

Great talk.

It took me about a year to seek help because of the shame/stigma. Now I feel like I have a responsibility to be more open to people about my mental health. I don't want people to treat me differently, but I don't want it to be perceived as a secret to keep to yourself either.

I posted this once before, so I am simply reposting this. What do you make of it? Am I a lesser person because of my views? Is the amoral world of politics shadier because it uses race everyday to achieve its agendas, both for and against minorities?

If you wish to be elected, and pander to racists, but then use your power to remain neutral or even help the cause, what then? And if you were racist 20 years ago, but never again benefited from it, does it really matter?

I am all about forgiving though--all people, even the worst of the worst (Just remember that too.)


"You know I am racist right? I don't like it--but that is how life has formed me... A group treats me with hate, I treat them back in kind motherfucker... The same reason I hate redneck country bumpkins... much like the hate spewed against Cops, Conservatives and the religious on this site, now that I think of it. (Oh, and it's also the reason I am fine with African Americans. For the most part I have had great experiences with most.)

Now, there are limits. I don't allow it to affect the way I treat people--all are equal. I don't teach it to my children. And I don't preach it.

But to blame Paul for writing (Perhaps he did or did not, I don't care) a paper years ago is utterly ridiculous. People change, who knows. You certainly don't. All I know is he hasn't wrote new hate since then, or at least it isn't widely known.

And, I might add, politicians have done far worse... Like John Edwards."

>> ^truth-is-the-nemesis:

gandalf is right! - ron burgundy Paul is a Anti-war candidate, unless of course all members of congress agree by a large percentage to invade Iran or Syria, then it's just fine & dandy. & what are the chances of THAT happening?...



Actually, he is still against war and is for dialog... I think he has stated that in EVERY speech and debate he has ever made... Face it, that argument of yours is superficial at best and beneath you Mr. Truth...

In fact, Paul goes on to include sanctions in the category of war--something "anti-war" hypocritical advocate as an alternative to war. (Like tazing someone in the head 20 times instead of shooting him...)

@marinara

I will only support DTF if he gives out free promotes to me!

@dystopianfuturetoday

You know I am racist right? I don't like it--but that is how life has formed me... A group treats me with hate, I treat them back in kind motherfucker... The same reason I hate redneck country bumpkins... much like the hate spewed against Cops, Conservatives and the religious on this site, now that I think of it. (Oh, and it's also the reason I am fine with African Americans. For the most part I have had great experiences with most.)

Now, there are limits. I don't allow it to affect the way I treat people--all are equal. I don't teach it to my children. And I don't preach it.

But to blame Paul for writing (Perhaps he did or did not, I don't care) a paper years ago is utterly ridiculous. People change, who knows. You certainly don't. All I know is he hasn't wrote new hate since then, or at least it isn't widely known.

And, I might add, politicians have done far worse to obtain office than pander to the racist elements. (I still don't condone it.)

good one!

In reply to this comment by enoch:
i withheld any comment i might have on this topic to see what reaction this video might incur and in what form.
i was not disappointed.

over the past 30 years we have seen the rise of the fundamentalist christian (there is a reason for that) conversely we have also seen the rise of fundamentalist islam (over a longer period).
there are many factors why this has happened which i will not get into but suffice to say that they exist.there are causality reasons for this rise and those reasons are not contended.

i am a man of faith but my faith puts me in a precarious cross hairs between the religious fundamentalist and the secular fundamentalist (yeah.i used the term.get over it because they exist).
i am reviled and ridiculed by BOTH sides of that equation.so i am in a unique position to comment on both schools of thought because both schools have harassed me.

those who admonish me usually practice a subtle passive aggressive form of rebuke but always with the intention of calling me stupid,unworthy and wrong.veiled insults disguised as a debate or discussion.

a typical discussion with a militant atheist:
"you are a man of faith enoch? wow..just wow.and i took you for a person of some intelligence"
and then they try to smooth over their overt insult by remarking "well,i guess thats your thing but i cant see how anybody with critical thinking skills could be a person of faith"
this is the epitome of sanctimonious self-righteous belief in ones own perfect understanding of everything based on their own limited understanding but they feel perfectly justified to project their own hubris upon me,even when i have not spoken ONE word on where my faith resides.they based their entire understanding on me simply on there formulated creation of their own imagination.

my conversations with a fundamentalist christian/muslims does not fare much better and oftentimes even worse.because i do not give authority to holy writ.this does not mean i do not find wisdom nor a certain poetry in sacred writings but rather through my studies it has become apparent that these books are not only man-made but borrowed from each other.
so i can appreciate the words within for their beauty and poetry (and brutal violence) but ultimately have to disregard the edicts within for the simple fact they are not only incomplete but rife with human corruption.

so the christian fundamentalist will revile me as an apostate or even worse:heretic and condemn me to hell,to be damned for eternity.while this self-righteous judgment is FAR more direct than a militant atheist may treat me,what i find most despicable and cowardly is how a christian will hide behind the bible and actually attempt a false compassion (pray for my soul) while simultaneously revile me as an unclean agent controlled by satan.

i find BOTH these positions weak and pathetic and here is why:
fundamentalism,in any form,is the stagnation of the mind and deadening of spirit.
it hinders our ability to question and wonder and to push the boundaries of our known perceptions.
the fundamentalist is convinced (by whatever means)that they are correct with a certitude that is immovable,unshakable and to even allow the possibility of a contrary ideology (very specific in relation to this conversation) is tantamount to admitting oneself to be../gasp..wrong.

now let me stop here for a moment and ask my atheist friends how my comment has made you feel?
are you getting angry with me? irritated? annoyed?
and if so.why?
have i specifically called YOU out?
no.i have not and the reason is most atheists i have had discussions with here on the sift are NOT militant.they are just atheists.normal regular people without an agenda nor a desire to purge me of my faith.

sam harris is a militant atheist and no matter how he may wish to paint it, his writings define him as such.
his attacks on the religious are painted with such broad strokes as to encompass anyone who may have a modicum of faith.he may attempt to smooth over his rough edges but the core message is still there.
and he also seem to be under the impression (falsely imo) that if everyone abandoned faith that somehow human society would miraculously be a better and more utopian world.
total.infantile.naivete'.
this is the reason hedges calls him out on his fundamentalism.harris tends to ignore not only human nature but the preceding centuries of history and thats why i find his arguments to be lacking.

now please understand i am vehemently against fundamentalism and religion is the main offender without a doubt.so when i call harris out as being a secular fundamentalist i do so with that truth in mind and i believe harris is totally unaware that he could be perceived that way (as revealed by many of his posts).

hitchens had it right from the get-go.
he didnt use that broad brush harris uses but rather was specific in his criticisms and rightly so.he understood the history and theology and exposed the wretched hypocrisy which dwelt in the underbelly of all fundamentalism.he went after the church.he went after those who would pervert the word in order to dominate and control the poor and un-educated and he was vicious in his admonishments.

the bible,torah,quran are all tangible books.doctrine is written down to be read and studied and they SHOULD be discussed and debated and not treated like some sacred cow that is untouchable.hitchens was the master of using the very doctrine put forth by the church (or imam) to eviscerate any argument in favor of said doctrine to expose the utter hypocrisy.

i have read hitchens and harris is no hitchens.

i withheld any comment i might have on this topic to see what reaction this video might incur and in what form.
i was not disappointed.

over the past 30 years we have seen the rise of the fundamentalist christian (there is a reason for that) conversely we have also seen the rise of fundamentalist islam (over a longer period).
there are many factors why this has happened which i will not get into but suffice to say that they exist.there are causality reasons for this rise and those reasons are not contended.

i am a man of faith but my faith puts me in a precarious cross hairs between the religious fundamentalist and the secular fundamentalist (yeah.i used the term.get over it because they exist).
i am reviled and ridiculed by BOTH sides of that equation.so i am in a unique position to comment on both schools of thought because both schools have harassed me.

those who admonish me usually practice a subtle passive aggressive form of rebuke but always with the intention of calling me stupid,unworthy and wrong.veiled insults disguised as a debate or discussion.

a typical discussion with a militant atheist:
"you are a man of faith enoch? wow..just wow.and i took you for a person of some intelligence"
and then they try to smooth over their overt insult by remarking "well,i guess thats your thing but i cant see how anybody with critical thinking skills could be a person of faith"
this is the epitome of sanctimonious self-righteous belief in ones own perfect understanding of everything based on their own limited understanding but they feel perfectly justified to project their own hubris upon me,even when i have not spoken ONE word on where my faith resides.they based their entire understanding on me simply on there formulated creation of their own imagination.

my conversations with a fundamentalist christian/muslims does not fare much better and oftentimes even worse.because i do not give authority to holy writ.this does not mean i do not find wisdom nor a certain poetry in sacred writings but rather through my studies it has become apparent that these books are not only man-made but borrowed from each other.
so i can appreciate the words within for their beauty and poetry (and brutal violence) but ultimately have to disregard the edicts within for the simple fact they are not only incomplete but rife with human corruption.

so the christian fundamentalist will revile me as an apostate or even worse:heretic and condemn me to hell,to be damned for eternity.while this self-righteous judgment is FAR more direct than a militant atheist may treat me,what i find most despicable and cowardly is how a christian will hide behind the bible and actually attempt a false compassion (pray for my soul) while simultaneously revile me as an unclean agent controlled by satan.

i find BOTH these positions weak and pathetic and here is why:
fundamentalism,in any form,is the stagnation of the mind and deadening of spirit.
it hinders our ability to question and wonder and to push the boundaries of our known perceptions.
the fundamentalist is convinced (by whatever means)that they are correct with a certitude that is immovable,unshakable and to even allow the possibility of a contrary ideology (very specific in relation to this conversation) is tantamount to admitting oneself to be../gasp..wrong.

now let me stop here for a moment and ask my atheist friends how my comment has made you feel?
are you getting angry with me? irritated? annoyed?
and if so.why?
have i specifically called YOU out?
no.i have not and the reason is most atheists i have had discussions with here on the sift are NOT militant.they are just atheists.normal regular people without an agenda nor a desire to purge me of my faith.

sam harris is a militant atheist and no matter how he may wish to paint it, his writings define him as such.
his attacks on the religious are painted with such broad strokes as to encompass anyone who may have a modicum of faith.he may attempt to smooth over his rough edges but the core message is still there.
and he also seem to be under the impression (falsely imo) that if everyone abandoned faith that somehow human society would miraculously be a better and more utopian world.
total.infantile.naivete'.
this is the reason hedges calls him out on his fundamentalism.harris tends to ignore not only human nature but the preceding centuries of history and thats why i find his arguments to be lacking.

now please understand i am vehemently against fundamentalism and religion is the main offender without a doubt.so when i call harris out as being a secular fundamentalist i do so with that truth in mind and i believe harris is totally unaware that he could be perceived that way (as revealed by many of his posts).

hitchens had it right from the get-go.
he didnt use that broad brush harris uses but rather was specific in his criticisms and rightly so.he understood the history and theology and exposed the wretched hypocrisy which dwelt in the underbelly of all fundamentalism.he went after the church.he went after those who would pervert the word in order to dominate and control the poor and un-educated and he was vicious in his admonishments.

the bible,torah,quran are all tangible books.doctrine is written down to be read and studied and they SHOULD be discussed and debated and not treated like some sacred cow that is untouchable.hitchens was the master of using the very doctrine put forth by the church (or imam) to eviscerate any argument in favor of said doctrine to expose the utter hypocrisy.

i have read hitchens and harris is no hitchens.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

promote
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/12/In-Memo
riam-Christopher-Hitchens-19492011
gets teary eyed


Thanks for the promote Jigga, I didn't see this one the 1st time around. I'm gonna miss the Hitchslaps...

A friend of mine found this quote from Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan's wife, after he died. Found it pretty inspiring:

"When my husband died, because he was so famous and known for not being a believer, many people would come up to me - it still sometimes happens - and ask me if Carl changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don't ever expect to be reunited with Carl. But, the great thing is that when we were together, for nearly twenty years, we lived with a vivid appreciation of how brief and precious life is. We never trivialized the meaning of death by pretending it was anything other than a final parting. Every single moment that we were alive and we were together was miraculous - not miraculous in the sense of inexplicable or supernatural. We knew we were beneficiaries of chance… That pure chance could be so generous and so kind… That we could find each other, as Carl wrote so beautifully in Cosmos, you know, in the vastness of space and the immensity of time… That we could be together for twenty years. That is something which sustains me and it's much more meaningful…

The way he treated me and the way I treated him, the way we took care of each other and our family, while he lived. That is so much more important than the idea I will see him someday. I don't think I'll ever see Carl again. But I saw him. We saw each other. We found each other in the cosmos, and that was wonderful."

To the wonderful, generous, anonymous sift elf that treated me to a charter...
I cannot say thank you enough. What an excellent treat, it is so appreciated!!!
Wow, I'm stunned!

>> ^bobknight33:

SS is broke and empty.

Social security isn't broke.

Oh, and if you appreciate me, then you should treat me with just a little respect.

If you really want to prove you're right, and I'm wrong, start by attacking my ideas, not my character.