So, let me get this straight, because our primitive ancestors were afraid of the unknown, they came up with religion -a system of beliefs and practices based on mythical stories of the past about how we got here (creation) and prophetic visions about where we are going in the future depending on what we do in the present (doing X will lead to paradise, not doing X will lead to endless misery). Now that we have technology and scientifically enlightened minds, we should do away religion and base our knowledge on facts and evidence...

and this argument is presented to us by way of a mythical story of the past which presents no facts or evidence for many of its major claims -"we were confused when we opened our eyes", "we got scared," "we held our chests high and we feared no enemies, but we entered into a world of mystery", etc. (On what basis can we claim to know anything about the thoughts/feelings/motivations of primitive humans?) Then we get a prophetic vision of the future intended to change our behavior in the present -change and we can live in peace with nature and everyone else, have our lives fulfilled, and "connect to the true wonder of the universe." However, if we don't change, we're doomed to a future of suffering, terror, and violence.

So- doing X will lead to paradise, not doing X will lead to endless misery. And the problem with religion is...our "X" is true and theirs isn't. And, though we lack facts or evidence to support crucial elements of our belief that X is true, we can have faith that it is so because...

uh-oh

1. You didn't answer whether you'd condemn someone's children for their parents' crime. All you did was spout the usual christian creed about fall/redemption, with which I am perfectly familiar.

I don't know what I would or wouldn't do regarding Adam and Eve. I'm not God, and have no idea what He was weighing on the scales. What I am trying to get you to understand is that although we are born in a corrupted world, because of Adam and Eve, we all still have the same chance as Adam and Eve to get it right. So, although we are born in a less ideal world than the paradise they had, we still have a chance which is equal to the pre-fall state of things. We're all still presented with the same choice He offered them, to obey His law, or to try it our own way, with the exact same consequences.

2. You make numerous assumptions about me, and then base your sorry excuse for an argument on them. No, I'm NOT fine with "humans meting out ultimate justice on other humans", and even if I was, it is nothing like an all-powerful, supposedly all-benevolent being punishing all humanity for the "crime" of two people (and for eternity on top of it). And how in hell can you equate "serious crimes" (I imagine mass murder or serial child rape... oh wait, God condones those), with not loving and believing in a hypothetic being? Thought crime much?

How do you propose that criminals should be handled? Should they get a good talking to and sign a paper promising never to do it again? How should a murder be handled, for instance, if someone is clearly guilty?

The sins that you will stand before God for will be your own. You haven't been punished yet, and it won't be for the crimes of Adam, it will be for the crimes of hpqp.

Now there hasn't been a human being who has ever lived who has not broken Gods laws. That isn't the point. It is not so much sinners that get punished, it is unrepentant sinners who love evil who get punished. God forgives sins, but not wicked people. Your crime isn't not loving God so much as it is loving evil more than God. You see, if you knew who God was you would understand that all the good things that have happened in your life came from Him. You don't know how God loves you, or the ways He has shown it to you. You only see this sad characterization you have of God from your uninformed ideas about who He is supposed to be. You've never understand your practical, experiential relationship with Him because you are spiritually blind. God takes care of everyone, the good and the bad. Every good gift is from the Father of lights. You actually do have love for God but you give the credit to other things.

3. Your "Think about it this way" paragraph is a long convoluted way of rephrasing the "mafia boss" tactic that I had already mentioned, also known as coercion. "It's your choice, you don't like the don, you don't respect his authority, fine, you don't have to pay protection money. He's your friend, you know, the whole neighbourhood's friend, but it's okay, it's your choice, friend. He's not going to force you to pay up. ...just don't be surprised when your bistro catches fire and your wife falls off a balcony."

God doesn't create rules to boss His creatures around. If God wanted to rule over His creatures in that way, He would be sitting on a throne on Earth right now and we'd all be groveling before Him. He creates rules because He knows good and evil. He knows which behaviors lead to death and corruption, and which lead to life and perfection. The rules are for our benefit.

Gods rules aren't hard to live by. Don't lie, don't steal, don't murder, dont worship other gods, dont make idols, dont lust, dont covet, dont blasphemy and honor your mother and father. Love your neighbor as yourself.

Here is the one you have a problem with: Love the Lord thy God with all your heart, and all your mind, and all your spirit and all your strength.

What you hate about God is His authority. You enjoy breaking some of those commandments and you resent that you would ever be held accountable for doing so. You enjoy your autonomy to sin. So you refuse to follow that greatest commandment, to love God. You have all sorts of excuses why not, but the real reason is, you don't want to stop living life the way you do. You love your sin more than the truth. So you hate God and work dilligently to suppress the truth. Look at your profile on this site..a lot of your work is anti-religious, and specifically anti-christian.

4. If you can't see the internal incoherence of your 2nd point (about the HS) than you are absolutely lost logic-wise. And before saying "you're avoiding the issue!!!", I'm not, the dilemma I posed remained completely unanswered, my question remains the same, scroll up if you've forgotten it.

I believe your question centered on the blasphemy challenge, that since you made a little video saying you denied the Holy Spirit that you had committed the unforgivable sin and could never be saved. That's what I was disputing.

At the time, I thought blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was simply rejecting the Holy Spirit by denying Christ while you were a Christian. Since then, I have found that isn't the case. I have frequently sensed the presence of the Spirit in ex-christians, which confused me for a bit until I realized that although they were done with Christ, Christ wasn't done with them. Meaning, if you ever had the Spirit, nothing that you do will necessarily force Him to leave. Basically, when you believe in Jesus, you receive eternal life, not conditional life, so you could not commit an eternal sin.. The concensus is that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit isn't possible today, that it was only possible specifically against Jesus Himself, when people suggested His power came from demons.

5. I'm guessing that your scripture quoting is a way of say - without committing yourself to it - that those who aren't chosen are going to hell.... including all those who are simply not christian?

I don't believe in predestination for all believers, although I do believe God does have plans for specific people, like His prophets for example.

Also, what is this nonsense of God approving of serial child rape? That is patently false. As far as murder, God has used people to execute His sovereign will. That isn't murder. Under the law, the penalty of sin is death. So, His judgement was lawful.

>> ^hpqp:
@shinyblurry
Can you really blame me for being suspicious that a probie named "shinyblurry", posting a shiny and blurry video with a title stating so seriously "God DOES exist!", but which contained nothing but a pathetic argument from personal experience, was not trying to stir the pot (of a rather atheistic-leaning site) in a trollish manner? But you're right, you're not a troll, you're a fundagelical. I'm not sure which one is less flattering.
And no, there really is no debating you intelligently. Just look at your answer to my questions above:
1. You didn't answer whether you'd condemn someone's children for their parents' crime. All you did was spout the usual christian creed about fall/redemption, with which I am perfectly familiar.
2. You make numerous assumptions about me, and then base your sorry excuse for an argument on them. No, I'm NOT fine with "humans meting out ultimate justice on other humans", and even if I was, it is nothing like an all-powerful, supposedly all-benevolent being punishing all humanity for the "crime" of two people (and for eternity on top of it). And how in hell can you equate "serious crimes" (I imagine mass murder or serial child rape... oh wait, God condones those), with not loving and believing in a hypothetic being? Thought crime much?
3. Your "Think about it this way" paragraph is a long convoluted way of rephrasing the "mafia boss" tactic that I had already mentioned, also known as coercion. "It's your choice, you don't like the don, you don't respect his authority, fine, you don't have to pay protection money. He's your friend, you know, the whole neighbourhood's friend, but it's okay, it's your choice, friend. He's not going to force you to pay up. ...just don't be surprised when your bistro catches fire and your wife falls off a balcony."
3. Another assumption about me: "I don't like God". WRONG, I don't believe in god(s); what I don't like is people indoctrinating their kids with lies and fear about supernatural non-entities, killing/hating/preaching at others, keeping science and moral progress back, basing laws and morals on the thoughts of tribal desert-dwellers, etc etc.
4. If you can't see the internal incoherence of your 2nd point (about the HS) than you are absolutely lost logic-wise. And before saying "you're avoiding the issue!!!", I'm not, the dilemma I posed remained completely unanswered, my question remains the same, scroll up if you've forgotten it.
5. I'm guessing that your scripture quoting is a way of say - without committing yourself to it - that those who aren't chosen are going to hell.... including all those who are simply not christian?
Yes, I "ran away" from the "debate", in order to retain my sanity and occupy my time more productively. (only reason why I'm answering you now is 'cause I'm procrastinating something I don't feel like doing... mmm, idleness is such a lovely workshop, I wonder whose is it? <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/wink.gif"> )
As for "you never provided an intelligent or comprehensive position..most of it was simply rooted in your amatuer understanding of scripture.", let me simply quote yours truly:
Preach on, brotherman. It's a sick kind of irony to do the very same thing you're accusing someone else of doing, especially whilst doing said accusing.
p.s.: Satan says "Hi"

I knew you'd be able to handle it. I don't know what every one was so worried about.
>> ^shinyblurry:

This is just sour grapes for Fusionauts failed attempt to ban me. That being said, I enjoyed it so I will upvote.
I will also take this opportunity to say that I do love Jesus, with all that I am, and that I am grateful beyond words for his mercy and love. That he saved me, an insignificant undeserving sinner, though I didn't most certainly didn't deserve it. That He loved me before I even knew Him, and even that little things in my life concern Him.
He is the way the truth and life, and the only way to eternal life. This world is perishing and nothing here will last..but His words will never pass away, and He is there for all that are in need, all who are suffering and downcast and degraded by this world. He is the light of the world, who gave His life as a ransom for many, so you and I could be forgiven and receive life eternal with Him in paradise. May His kingdom come soon!
1 Timothy 1:17
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

This is just sour grapes for Fusionauts failed attempt to ban me. That being said, I enjoyed it so I will upvote. I have no problem being identified with someone who obviously loves the Lord.

I will also take this opportunity to say that I do love Jesus, with all that I am, and that I am grateful beyond words for his mercy and love. That he saved me, an insignificant sinner, though I most certainly didn't deserve it. That He loved me before I even knew Him, and even that little things in my life concern Him.

He is the way the truth and life, and the only way to eternal life. This world is perishing and nothing here will last..but His words will never pass away, and He is there for all that are in need, all who are suffering and downcast and degraded by this world. He is the light of the world, who gave His life as a ransom for many, so you and I could be forgiven and receive life eternal with Him in paradise. May His kingdom come soon!

1 Timothy 1:17

Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

>> ^hpqp:

Every action has some form of motivation, even a psycho's mass murdering spree; it's all good and fine to look for it, but in the meanwhile it's the protective action that counts, something the police force in GB took ages to do. As for the "bonehead militias", most of them were simply groups of neighbours and friends trying their best to protect their livelihoods. Most of them were immigrants who had worked hard to build a life for themselves abroad, only to find everything ruined because of unruly misguided youths high on violence.
As for blaming the violence on the bad decisions concerning social services, I beg to differ. Look at the protests/riots in Greece, Spain, etc. All of them had major peacefull counterparts, with actual demands being made. It's not like the so-called "disenfranchised youths" (and they were not all poor, nor young btw) of London and elsewhere did not have recent examples of protests that did not involve using social networking to best loot the fashion shop, and burning people's homes (Arab Spring anyone?).
I agree about the ridiculous consummer identity we have going on in society... "you are what you buy" really sickens me to the bone. As does the corporate criminels going on with their billionaire, society-crushing lifestyles. But is it possible to send a more counterproductive message than the one we've seen in England?
p.s.: what's and ASPO?
Judging by the public statements of officials, the "protective action" is bound to overshoot. Like I said, pillories, assembly-line-justice, the calls for harsher sentences, the calls to have the rioters' housing/benefits stripped, the thought of using the military -- civil liberties are put on notice, and that's putting it mildly. Let the rozzers do their job within the regular frame of the law, play it by the book, don't give them any reason whatsoever for another backlash. Take the kettle off the stove. Forcing a lid on the spout will only make matters worse sooner than later.


As for the Greece/Spain comparison, I would like to submit this: UNICEF 2007: An overview of child well-being in rich countries. Prior to the economic meltdown, Greece and Spain were paradise for kids, compared to the UK. I wouldn't dare to make comparisons nowadays, not with 40%+ youth unemployment in Spain and Greece. But it's clear that the UK has been growing worse over years and years. The lid was bound to blow someday. I figured it would be mass protests, nonviolent ones I might add. I certainly didn't see it taking the shape it has, but in retrospect, signs were abundant -- and ignored. The alarming streak of suicides among kids in recent years alone should have been more than enough.

These are long-term developments, long-term failures, not just the recent cuts. But they sure as hell didn't help, and neither does the prospect of even more cuts down the road. Small example: youth centers are closed down, so now you have kids bored out of their minds who are not allowed to loiter (see: ASBO).

That's what I meant when I said disenfranchised. The state has been on the retreat since Thatcher, the educational system is focused on testing, intolerance for kids in public places has been on the rise for decades and the social gap is wider than anywhere else in Europe. So the ones who drew the short straw are fucked. And so are their children. And theirs, until the cycle is broken. Look at the UN report, page 22: "Relationships" and page 26: "Behaviour and Risks". That doesn't appear overnight, it's at least two generations of failure. No stable relationships, no communities, no values, no respect, no prospect.

As for ASPOs: that's a typo. Or more precisely, a brain failure, because typing a P instead of a B is not an error I can blame on my fingers.

ASBO or anti-social behaviour order is the tool of choice to stop kids from loitering. Anywhere. The street, the park, the yard, the staircase, you name it. It is the formalized dislike for children in the public space. There are, of course, reasonable uses for it, but in certain areas it is used to harass kids. At least it was, no idea if it still is.

Quasi ein Platzverweis, der keines Anlasses benötigt.

I watched some of your video..I may finish it at some point. I have to give it credit, it's quite a sophisticated attack vehicle for atheism. It attempts to decontruct the mechanisms for faith but so far it has some glaring errors. In the video covering prayer in the deconstruction process, it has a fundemental misunderstanding of Gods omniscience and the purpose of prayer. While it is true that God knows our needs before we ask

Matthew 6:8

Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

it isn't true that God has already decided a matter before we ask about it.

Genesis 18:17-25

Then the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.”

Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the Lord. Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?”

“If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”

Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?”

He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”

Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”

He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”

Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?”

He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”

Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”

He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

Now this is a special case, but Abraham negotiated with God and He decided what to do based on that negotiation. It is the same with prayer. The Lord may be set to do one thing, but may change His mind based on intercessory prayer done by one or several Christians. He may impart a blessing upon someone that normally wouldn't have received it if no one had asked about it.

Prayer is more than just asking for things, it is about communion and growth. Your friend made the mistake of making the Lord completely impersonal, by thinking he was just receiving commands from the master control. Ironically, he thought this was bringing him closer in his personal relationship with God when it was actually driving him apart. This is what happens when people think they know better than God.

1 Thessalonians 5:17

Pray without ceasing.

Luke 6:28

bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.

etc

I feel bad for him, specifically because of this scripture:


Hebrews 6:4-6

For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

It is quite shameful what he has done, and I can tell you there is more to this story than he is saying. It's not that I doubt the essential truth of his story, that he was once a devout Christian. That much was obvious to me the first time I heard him speak and looked in his eyes. There is just another spirit at work here which doesnt match the atheistic mindset. It's hard to say what his agenda is but it's not pro-atheist. It's pro-something else, but whatever it is, it's anti-christianity. The pretense of respect he is giving God is just a subterfuge..he doesn't have any respect for God what so ever..it's just to make the medicine go down smoother. The repetitive music is another clue to the disingenuousness of the presentation.

As for me, I don't fit any of his criteria. I was once just like you. Blind to the spirit, a strict materialistic, and suspicious of all religion and all supernatural claims. I rejected most of it as outright nonsense. I grew up that way and saw no reason to change.

One day God tapped me on the shoulder and let me know He was there. Your guess is as good as mine as to why. It's not as if I deserved to know. If I had to guess it would be that I was honestly interested in what the truth was, and I was willing to change my ways if necessary. It was more important for me to know the truth than to be right.

To convince myself God isn't there I would have to give myself a lobotomy. I would have to gouge my eyes out and pour superglue in my ears. I would have to do it deliberately, in spite of Him..meaning, I would have to deliberately deceive myself but I am fairly certain He wouldn't let me forget.

In reference to your scenerio, I think you make a mistake about Gods omniscience as well. God doesn't have absolute foreknowledge in this scenerio. For instance in Gen. 15:13-18 God predicts that the fourth generation of israelites will reach Cannan. But it is actually the fifth generation that reaches it because of disobedience. This means His prediction was based on probability.

For a being to truly have free will, their actions must to a certain extent be unpredictable to God. After God had Abraham prove his loyalty to Him by going through with sacrificing Issaic, God said "Now I know you love me". The verse suggests that until that moment, God didn't know that for sure.

This isn't to suggest God doesn't have foreknowledge at all. He obviously does, since He prophicies about things hundreds or thousands of years away and they come true. It is to suggest that God limited Himself for our sake. We have evidence of this in the person of Jesus Christ. Though He was God, He put aside His power and capability and knowledge to be fully submitted to the Fathers will. He depended on the Father for everything. Not just as an example, but for His mission to be accomplished through His revelation of the Father to the people.

It goes to the ontological argument, of what is the greater being. The one who cannot do anything original because everything he could do has already been done in His mind, or the one who can craft something even He couldn't fully anticipate. I go for option 2. It doesn't make sense for God to get mad at someone for doing something He already knew was going to happen.

My theory is the scenerio itself is certain. It has a beginning, it has an end. What is inbetween He may have certain ideas about, but obviously open to modification. He may plan for every possible scenerio but never quite know which will unfold because He has given us a measure of unpredictability.

So in this scenerio..

God creates a perfect world, giving man a blank slate for good or evil

Man chooses evil, God enforces the rules, death comes into the world and creation falls

Man is corrupted from sin and does continual evil that God is always trimming back and correcting

God works within the evil man creates, but it reaches the point of no return..

God is ready to give up on humans but finds one human he can work with

God resets the world, gives man another chance through Noah

Man is up to his old tricks but God sends His Son into the world this time to redeem Creation

Jesus imputes His righteouness and sinless nature into humanity, restoring them, takes our just punishment onto Himself and dies on the cross for our sins

He rises again breaking the power of death over humanity (which came from sin) and giving everyone the way to eternal life

God sets a date to judge the world, and will send His Son back when the church has spread the gospel to the four corners..

Jesus returns, comes back for His church and destroys the kingdom of the antichrist.

God judges the world and repays each according to their deeds
After the judgement, God destroys the corrupt creation and remakes it entirely new, and this time it will be permanently perfect. Thanks to Christ, the ones who believed in Him will have perfected natures and will sin no more and live forever in paradise

If you want to talk about greed and self-interest that is fine. I am a student of the human nature, and have many logical proofs I can offer even from a secular perspectives. My communication can always use fine tuning, however, I endevour that people should know the truth, because though they may stubbornly reject it at this point, will at some point need it, and more than that, just plain need to hear it. You discount the power of God completely, but I know He is always at work and the truth will facilitate that every time. I also appreciate that you noticed the unfair treatment I am receiving from other sifters. There is no reason to downvote these videos. They are well made and aren't masquarading as anything other than what they are. It's not as if they're in danger of becoming popular. They sin when they do this, and this is written about them:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I do dig Ecclesiastes - easily the most raw, human and cynical chapter of the good book.
http://videosift.com/video/Scorpion-vs-Black-Widow-Intense-sheesh?loadcomm=1#comment-290039
In short, here is why I think the main, overarching plot of the Bible is silly.
Summary:
God creates flawed humans.
Flawed humans do flawed things.
God punishes all present and future humans because of the flaws in his prototypes.
After many generations, God drowns 99.9% of his land dwelling creatures save two of each. (not sure why the fish get off so easy)
Despite this massive genocide, humans are still flawed.
God impregnates a human virgin woman - in a committed relationship - without consent - who gives birth to a human/God hybrid son. (Kinda weird and rape-y to be honest)
The son is tortured and 'dies for our sins'. (What does that even mean, couldn't God just forgive us without this cruel theatrical charade that so few people of the world are physically able to witness?)
Jesus comes back from the dead (which isn't really that big of a deal, considering he is a part God).
Finally, after all of this violence and suffering, God decides to destroy the world, and take those who believe in him to heaven, and to punish those with skeptical or scientific minds with eternal suffering.
I mean, I guess I can understand mass murder, if God thinks so little of us that our destruction is no more tragic than Atari burying thousands of copies of E.T. in the desert. But if we are insignificant ants, then why the strict moral code that forbids murder? Are we unique and special creatures, or just crash test dummies to be toyed with?
None of the actions of God seem wise for a being of such knowledge and power. The Bible sounds like mythology. It sounds like a combination of campfire stories, moral parables, juicy pulp fiction, dirty jokes, political posturing, medical advice and pre-scientific speculation. It sounds like an anthology of the best of the best literature of early human civilization.
If God were real, why doesn't he just openly and clearly communicate it? Why all the rites and rituals? "Hey, dft, this is God you atheist schmuck.... or should I say ex-athiest schmuck. Put down the pork and put on your beanie!" That would be clear and to the point, and if done convincingly, would add a pretty decent guy to the ranks of his faithful.
Also, his followers are so hung up on pride, that they miss a good chance of making a connection. I told you that I don't believe in Satan, but that I do oppose the greed and ruthless self interest that your Satan seems want to champion. If you cared more about the principles of the bible than the principals in the Bible, wouldn't you be serving your lord better? Shouldn't you nurture the things we have in common and downplay the stuff I think is absurd? Baby steps. Religionists have no strategy or common sense when it comes to apologetics. You argue with me as if I believe in God and Satan.
Anyway, I've made these points so many times, and they just bounce off the framework of faith, just as your points bounce off my framework of reason. There will be no headway because our criteria for belief run so contrary. I think it's cool that you fight for what you believe in so passionately, and wish people wouldn't downvote your videos to the point that they are killed. I do think you could come up with more productive styles of argument.
I'd be curious to get your opinion on this video: http://videosift.com/video/Why-I-am-no-longer-a-Christian-Must-Watch

>> ^quantumushroom:

Fedgov has zero Constitutional authority to "educate" anyone. If it got out of the education racket I imagine children would still be educated, just more efficiently and for FAR less money.
A "tax break" as the left likes to call it, is a bully allowing the extorted to keep a few cents of their lunch money. We have the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world behind Japan.
How about giving US a break, socialists? How about going after the pr1cks who loot 60 billion from your wonderful Medicarecaid EVERY year?
Or mayhap you're right, tis better to just RAISE TAXES on the herd. After all, we live only to serve your wonderful leviathan government.


So just how much more of the nation's total wealth do the richest people need before this utopian capitalist paradise blossoms? I mean They've been slowly getting more and more, I kinda figured the top 20% having 85% of the total wealth would have been enough, but guess they don't have enough. So its up to you sifters, open those check books, and sign over those titles and certificates to your favorite millionaire. Maybe once they own 95% of the total wealth jobs, healthcare and education will bloom out of their asses and we can all dance gleefully through the golden showers of prosperity.

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^direpickle:
LIBERTARIAN PARADISE

If this is a Libertarian paradise, does that make life in the Matrix a Liberal paradise?

What?


Well I assumed that if you think Libertarianism is equivalent to Anarchy that you must have similar distorted views about Liberalism. You would prefer to have all nourishment, mental and emotional stimulation pumped into you by "the system" and you would be free to sleep in your pod and dream wonderful, idyllic dreams 24/7, right? That would be a roughly equivalent exaggeration.

Or were you just trolling?

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^direpickle:
LIBERTARIAN PARADISE

If this is a Libertarian paradise, does that make life in the Matrix a Liberal paradise?

What?

>> ^direpickle:
LIBERTARIAN PARADISE


If this is a Libertarian paradise, does that make life in the Matrix a Liberal paradise?

>> ^mxxcon:

How the fuck can that country have so many cars yet so little traffic rules?
It's like all those jaywalkers think that they are harder than a car
eia


LIBERTARIAN PARADISE

"why is this baby dying, while God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent?"

Not a hard question. If you look at our ability to grasp concepts, we tend to compare things only in contrasts.

Today is cold--because we know what hot (Or warm) is.

Think of a child born without a nerves to feel pain without even knowing it is doing so. The child will gauge its eyes out if left to itself. You know love because you know pain, happiness because you know sadness, life because you know death.

If I was God, I would do things exactly the same way He supposedly did things. Of course, I don't believe in God, so the point is moot.

And as a last joke, I would burn in hell all the sick Christians and save all the good aethists.

>> ^jmzero:
Pains me to do it - but I am going to agree with ShinyBlurry in that he has a correct conception of how many Christians view the situation and that that view is not internally inconsistent. There are, of course, Christians who view it a bit differently in one way or another, but those differences don't really impact the question we started with here.
In general, the starting point question is "why is this baby dying, while God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent?" This is a good question: shouldn't God, being omnipotent, should be able to realize all his goals (including this baby surviving, since he's benevolent) without compromising any other principles or goals?
It depends on what kind of definition you have for "omnipotent". Is it "the ability to make true anything that can be stated?" (ie. He can make 2+2=7). Is it the weaker "he can, without limits, control physical and spiritual reality" (ie. he can make gravity go backwards and make electrons "more wet")?. Is it the weaker "limitless control over the physical configuration of the universe" (ie. he can turn the universe into a pretzel, but gravity will still work the same)? One can make similar distinctions about His omniscience, how it extends into the future, how it interacts with free will, and how it extends into paradox.
It also depends on self or otherwise imposed limits. Does He have bounds in terms of what He can and/or will do? Does He mess with "free will"? Can he create and/or destroy "souls"? Did he create "Satan" or evil or good or law, and what is his relationship with the law?
How you (or an individual Christian) answers the above question dictates, to an extent, how they resolve the question. However, for most Christian groups that I'm familiar with, the presence of evil and bad outcomes in the world is (one way or another) the result of God's unwillingness or inability to limit free will, and the cascade of related mishaps ever since the fall of Adam. The flip side is, for a dead baby like this, that they'll get a good go of it in heaven (or Paradise Earth, or whatever).
The specifics of how this is resolved and stated varies with Christian groups and people, but the overall point is usually pretty similar and, as before, I don't think it's internally inconsistent.
Similarly, the oddity of Jesus (being God) praying to the Father (also God) is resolved in a few different ways (all of which restore consistency in one way or another). Sometimes it is, as sb points out, the idea that though the same in many ways, Jesus was a separate being and was legitimately asking (or sometimes just communicating, with no real desire to be spared). Or you can see it as an instructive, rhetorical thing - demonstrating how normal people are supposed to deal with God (even though Jesus didn't need to communicate or deal in that way). Or there's probably 10 other resolutions that are internally consistent, again depending on exact definitions of God's nature and what not.
All in all, it's natural that Christians are going to have a lot of leeway on something like this. The Bible doesn't spend a lot of time nailing down the properties of God (and it only spends a few chapters literally nailing Him anywhere) - so complaining about it is kind of like complaining about the magic in Lord of the Rings.

Pains me to do it - but I am going to agree with ShinyBlurry in that he has a correct conception of how many Christians view the situation and that that view is not internally inconsistent. There are, of course, Christians who view it a bit differently in one way or another, but those differences don't really impact the question we started with here.

In general, the starting point question is "why is this baby dying, while God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent?" This is a good question: shouldn't God, being omnipotent, should be able to realize all his goals (including this baby surviving, since he's benevolent) without compromising any other principles or goals?

It depends on what kind of definition you have for "omnipotent". Is it "the ability to make true anything that can be stated?" (ie. He can make 2+2=7). Is it the weaker "he can, without limits, control physical and spiritual reality" (ie. he can make gravity go backwards and make electrons "more wet")?. Is it the weaker "limitless control over the physical configuration of the universe" (ie. he can turn the universe into a pretzel, but gravity will still work the same)? One can make similar distinctions about His omniscience, how it extends into the future, how it interacts with free will, and how it extends into paradox.

It also depends on self or otherwise imposed limits. Does He have bounds in terms of what He can and/or will do? Does He mess with "free will"? Can he create and/or destroy "souls"? Did he create "Satan" or evil or good or law, and what is his relationship with the law?

How you (or an individual Christian) answers the above question dictates, to an extent, how they resolve the question. However, for most Christian groups that I'm familiar with, the presence of evil and bad outcomes in the world is (one way or another) the result of God's unwillingness or inability to limit free will, and the cascade of related mishaps ever since the fall of Adam. The flip side is, for a dead baby like this, that they'll get a good go of it in heaven (or Paradise Earth, or whatever).

The specifics of how this is resolved and stated varies with Christian groups and people, but the overall point is usually pretty similar and, as before, I don't think it's internally inconsistent.

Similarly, the oddity of Jesus (being God) praying to the Father (also God) is resolved in a few different ways (all of which restore consistency in one way or another). Sometimes it is, as sb points out, the idea that though the same in many ways, Jesus was a separate being and was legitimately asking (or sometimes just communicating, with no real desire to be spared). Or you can see it as an instructive, rhetorical thing - demonstrating how normal people are supposed to deal with God (even though Jesus didn't need to communicate or deal in that way). Or there's probably 10 other resolutions that are internally consistent, again depending on exact definitions of God's nature and what not.

All in all, it's natural that Christians are going to have a lot of leeway on something like this. The Bible doesn't spend a lot of time nailing down the properties of God (and it only spends a few chapters literally nailing Him anywhere) - so complaining about it is kind of like complaining about the magic in Lord of the Rings.

Boy, this video brought back some really nice memories for me. I spent a year living in West Papua (the other half of the island that belongs to Indonesia). Although the people I worked and lived with were not seeing white people for the first time, it was still one helluva a culture difference.

>> ^KnivesOut:

This video gave me chills. The first contact, with the armed warriors approaching the camera-wielding white ghosts.... That could have gone really poorly. What brave people, on both sides.


Never once did I worry about anything like that. While it is true that there is near constant tribal fighting on the island, I would contend that the larger society is extremely peaceful. Always welcoming and trustful with huge smiles and even bigger feasts for anyone that came to their villages.

Basically, violence there comes in downward spirals that start with directed aggression. That mostly has to do with the fact that they believe wholeheartedly in equality. If one tribe raids a village and kills someone, then retribution must be made and one person form the attacking tribe must be killed. Of course, the raid that seeks retribution ends up killing two people, so then the attacks start again. This goes on and on until the numbers are equal on each side, which can take a while. However, if you come in peace, there is nothing to worry about.

As pointed out in Guns, Germs, and Steel, they are also an extremely democratic society. There is no chief, only a 'big man' whose job it is to facilitate discussions and carry out the final decisions. In this way, it is unlikely that one person would freak out and somehow cause something terrible to happen since they must rely on the consent of the entire tribe.

>> ^raverman:

I come bringing viruses and diseases you have no immunity to and no medicines to treat. Here eat my food and handle my possessions.


It's not quite the same situation as it was with Native Americans or those tribes still surviving in the Amazon. While these people may have never had direct contact with a white person before, they certainly had indirect contact. Europeans have been visiting the island since the spice trade began in the 14th century.

The tribes can be roughly divided into coastal peoples and mountain peoples. The coastal peoples have had contact with Europeans for hundreds of years and built up tolerances to their diseases. Mountain people sometimes comes to the beach, and vice-versa, so in this way, resistances to common European diseases are pretty well dispersed among the population.

Actually, it is the white people that are in much more danger of falling ill. We are poorly equipped to handle malaria, dengue, and yellow fever. This, in part, is why there were still 'uncontacted' tribes well into the 20th century.


It's been almost a year since I lived there, and I must say that it is the one place I constantly dream of returning to. They could really use the money from tourism so if you are looking for something off the beaten path without being extremely dangerous, I suggest you check it out. It really is a paradise.

@SDGundamX

(just so you know, I do not agree with everything Harris says, but he makes quite a few good points).

Interesting extract from this article (bold=added): http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/holy-terror


Of course, the Bible is not the only ancient text that casts a shadow over the present. The social policy that can be derived from the Koran currently poses even greater dangers. According to this text, it is the duty of every Muslim man to make war on unbelievers (Koran 9:73 and 9:123), and such men are promised eternal happiness after death. It is true that many Muslims seem inclined to ignore the Koran’s solicitations to martyrdom and jihad, but we cannot overlook the fact that many are not so inclined, and they now regularly murder innocent noncombatants for religious reasons. The phrase “the war on terrorism” is a dangerous euphemism that obscures the true cause of our troubles in the world, because we are currently at war with precisely the vision of life prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran. Anyone who reads this text will find non-Muslims vilified on nearly every page. How can we possibly expect devout Muslims to happily share power with “the friends of Satan”? How can we expect the faithful to feel about people who God himself is in the process of “mocking,” “cursing,” “shaming,” “punishing,” “scourging,” “judging,” “burning,” “annihilating,” “not forgiving,” and “not reprieving”? While there are many charges that can be fairly leveled at men like Osama bin Laden, perverting the teachings of the Koran is not among them. Why did nineteen well-educated, middle-class men trade their lives in this world for the privilege of killing thousands of our neighbors? Because they believed that they would go straight to Paradise for doing so. It is rare to find the behavior of human beings so fully and satisfactorily explained. And yet, many of us are reluctant to accept this explanation.

Religious faith is always, and everywhere, exonerated. It is now taboo in every corner of our culture to criticize a person’s religious beliefs. Consequently, we are unable to even name, much less oppose, one of the most pervasive causes of human conflict. And the fact that there are very real and consequential differences between our religious traditions is simply never discussed. Anyone who thinks that terrestrial concerns are the principal source of Muslim violence must explain why there are no Palestinian Christian suicide bombers. They, too, suffer the daily indignity of the Israeli occupation. Where, for that matter, are the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? The Tibetans have suffered an occupation far more brutal. Where are the throngs of Tibetans ready to perpetrate suicidal atrocities against the Chinese? They do not exist. What is the difference that makes the difference? The difference lies in the specific tenets of Islam.