I think the disagreement here basically comes down to whether you consider a particular expression of religion to be a promotion of that religion or one of its doctrines.

I don't see a meaningful establishment of a religion in any of it. I do see a bias towards the 80%-90% of the people who believe in some kind of deity.

The Ten Commandments on the courtroom wall, that's a whole other thread. How can you have a courtroom when the Bible says "Judge not lest ye be judged."


>> ^jonny:

@quantumushroom - I don't understand how you define the boundary of the 1st Amendment's prohibition on government to espouse one religious doctrine over another.
I absolutely agree that in a free society no one has the right to live free from exposure to ideas (or speech or any other expression) that they don't like. But it's one thing to read a prayer on a billboard, and quite another to read it on the wall of a courtroom. When I see the billboard I know that someone cares about that message enough to spend quite a bit of money on it. When I see it in a courtroom, possibly facing the full weight of government authority, I have to wonder if my own religious beliefs will be used against me if they don't conform to what's on the wall.
I don't have a problem with things like a nativity scene in a public park, so long as it is privately sponsored. I don't really have a problem with references to god on money or in the pledge of allegiance. I don't care for it, but in those cases its as much a figure of speech as a religious statement. (The recitation of the pledge in schools is a larger issue, because there you're dealing with kids in an essentially authoritarian environment.)
I think the disagreement here basically comes down to whether you consider a particular expression of religion to be a promotion of that religion or one of its doctrines.

@quantumushroom - I don't understand how you define the boundary of the 1st Amendment's prohibition on government to espouse one religious doctrine over another.

I absolutely agree that in a free society no one has the right to live free from exposure to ideas (or speech or any other expression) that they don't like. But it's one thing to read a prayer on a billboard, and quite another to read it on the wall of a courtroom. When I see the billboard I know that someone cares about that message enough to spend quite a bit of money on it. When I see it in a courtroom, possibly facing the full weight of government authority, I have to wonder if my own religious beliefs will be used against me if they don't conform to what's on the wall.

I don't have a problem with things like a nativity scene in a public park, so long as it is privately sponsored. I don't really have a problem with references to god on money or in the pledge of allegiance. I don't care for it, but in those cases its as much a figure of speech as a religious statement. (The recitation of the pledge in schools is a larger issue, because there you're dealing with kids in an essentially authoritarian environment.)

I think the disagreement here basically comes down to whether you consider a particular expression of religion to be a promotion of that religion or one of its doctrines.

For clarification's sake, and for future reference, which part of my posts are you considering a "personal attack"? Was it this: "Great video, @NetRunner"? (Surely that's not an inappropriate level of sarcasm.) Or my explanation of why I take issue with your posting of an uninformative video (which many other people took issue with) under the title you chose to give it? Or something from another of my posts? Or maybe my use of a Ron Paul quote to call you, humorously, "overly sensitive"?

Sorry, but I don't see anything there that could be construed as a "personal attack." Please don't accuse me of something like that without adequate reason for doing so.>> ^NetRunner:

@aurens Your first problem was that you leveled a personal attack against me for posting a video you didn't like. I didn't make the video, and even the title comes from YouTube.
Your point about the video lacking details was legitimate, but the implicit accusation of dishonesty on my part wasn't. I did provide you with a link to more info so you'd have the sources that back this up, and hopefully get you to cool off a bit.
Your response? Repeating the personal attack, and dismissing the link.
I get it, it's hard when people say nasty things about your personal hero. But you really ought to think long and hard about what's going on with Ron Paul and white supremacists. Lashing out at the messengers doesn't make the problem go away, it's just a way of digging in and refusing to look at what's really bothering you.

@aurens Your first problem was that you leveled a personal attack against me for posting a video you didn't like. I didn't make the video, and even the title comes from YouTube.

Your point about the video lacking details was legitimate, but the implicit accusation of dishonesty on my part wasn't. I did provide you with a link to more info so you'd have the sources that back this up, and hopefully get you to cool off a bit.

Your response? Repeating the personal attack, and dismissing the link.

I get it, it's hard when people say nasty things about your personal hero. But you really ought to think long and hard about what's going on with Ron Paul and white supremacists. Lashing out at the messengers doesn't make the problem go away, it's just a way of digging in and refusing to look at what's really bothering you.

(This is part two as mentioned in my previous comment)

I’ve read and re-read your arguments over the weekend and for a portion of today. I’ve done a lot of research into what you’ve said and I found something particularly interesting which lead me to a significant question. “Where is all of this guy’s information coming from?”

So I did a little experiment. I did a Google search for all of the quotes that you’ve replied with and can you guess what I found? All of your arguments can be taken nearly verbatim or just reworded from creationist websites. Can you honestly expect anyone to believe that you’ve done your own research or read any real books on the subject of thermodynamics or biological evolution? How can you even take yourself seriously if you haven’t spent the time putting in the work to understand what the source material says for yourself?

The problem with your theory is, I have done the research, and I do know what the source material says. I understand the theory of evolution better than most atheists I have met. I use the quotations because they are hostile witnesses to my position which gives the argument even more force. It doesn't matter where I've gotten them from; that is irrelevent. The evidence I am presenting is what is relevent.

If someone has objections about the bible, would you take them seriously if you discovered that they hadn’t actually read it? No, of course not, so how can you expect to be taken seriously if you haven’t read the source material yourself? It’s just an attempt to try to discredit something that you haven’t actually studied yourself which I find to be a bit on the disingenuous side of things.

Most atheists I've spoken to who criticize the bible haven't actually read it. I've already told you my background so you don't have an argument. I have studied these things.

I know that you’re expecting this because every creationist website prepares creationists for this criticism but you’re idea of how thermodynamics works is entirely misinformed and you won’t know by how much until you do yourself a favor and listen to a course in thermodynamics or read a book on it. If you have iTunes, go to iTunes U and search for thermodynamics, spend 12 hours learning and then you’ll see that classical thermodynamics has nothing to say about biological systems. I suspect that you probably read a lot of articles from the Institute for Creation Research website.

You haven't offered any criticism of my position and you haven't demonstrated any actual knowledge of this subject, except that which is patently false. The laws of thermodynamics apply to everything, including biological systems. Evolutionists attempt to weasel out of that by declaring that they are 'open systems' and thus immune to entropy because of the energy from the sun, but as I showed this does nothing to show where information comes from, so you cannot explain it away.

I've read a lot of science textbooks, and a lot of scientific literature. When I was agnostic, I read volumes and volumes of it, and I stay abreast of the latest discoveries. Your accusations all ring hollow, especially considering you have failed to show you understand the subject on your own.

If that is the case and you do frequent ICR then here is something to think about: (Taken directly from the conclusion to their article “Does Entropy Contradict Evolution”)

“If science is to be based on fact and evidence, rather than metaphysical speculations, then entropy does not explain or support evolution at all. In fact, at least until someone can demonstrate some kind of naturalistic comprehensive biochemical predestinating code and a pre-existing array of energy storage-and-conversion mechanisms controlled by that code to generate increased organized complexity in nature, the entropy law seems to preclude evolution altogether. The marvelously complex universe is not left unexplained and enigmatically mysterious by this conclusion, however. It was created by the omnipotent and omniscient King of Creation! If evolutionists prefer not to believe this truth, they can make that choice, but all the real facts of science - especially the fundamental and universal law of entropy - support it.”

Let’s suppose for a moment that the majority of this article is correct and that the 2nd law does indeed contradict evolution. This final conclusion from the article does something very interesting. It jumps from saying that evolution cannot have happened because it violates the 2nd law to it was created by a god. How the heck are they coming up with that conclusion!? By what evidence can they make that leap let alone make the claim that the creator is both omnipotent AND omniscient? This is my problem with how you are arguing; you are doing the same thing. You are suggesting that the math doesn’t add up and that your answer is better but you aren’t providing the math to suggest why your answer is better; you’re just telling us that it’s the answer.

What you're doing is using a logical fallacy known as a strawman argument. You're absolutely right, that is a terrible argument. That isn't the type of argument I have made. When I brought up thermodynamics, I was responding to this comment:

"The notion of design is for people who cannot understand what it means for systems to assemble from the bottom-up because, to them, it makes more intuitive sense that things are designed from the top down. This is not critical thinking and it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science."

I showed it was your position that was betraying a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science. My argument was rational, well founded, and based on solid evidence, yet you have taken the low road of trying to assasinate my character, or outright say that I don't actually know what I am talking about. Again, it is you who have failed to adaquately demonstrate knowledge of the subject matter. Instead of addressing my argument, you have made the argument about me, as you have admitted to, and that is what is dishonest here.

Whether or not you resonate with that that snippet from their article or not, it illustrates how egger some people are to praise some scientific findings when those findings don’t contradict their beliefs and in the same breath, criticizes other scientific findings which do contradict their beliefs. If you encounter something that seems to contradict what you already believe to be true, it is wise to question whether what you believe to be true is actually true rather than searching for information that confirms what you believe.

It's called confirmation bias. A good example of this is looking at the question of the origin of life and believing it must have evolved despite having no actual evidence that it did.

The thing is that I know that you’re going to say that “science” has an agenda, and it does, but not like you think it does and you’ll never understand that agenda until you actually study it for yourself. You believe that it’s all about disproving god, or maintaining naturalism but it’s not.

Science is an institution run by individuals with individual beliefs and goals. Over 40 percent of biologists, astronomers and mathematicians believe in God. Belief in God is not incompatible with doing good science, nor is science in and of itself something bad. There is however a concerted effort, on the part of evolutionists, to push their version of origins on the rest of us, and they have often used legal means to do so. Evolution is pushed on the public like it is a proven fact and it is not.

You are arguing against a set of misunderstandings that you hold about what you believe the science is saying. Everything that you think you know about these matters is either a straw man, a red-haring or blatant misinformation. It would be very hard to impress on you how exactly that is true without you being educated on the source material. This is why we cannot have a conversation regarding these issues. You will just need to start reading the source material instead of going to interpretive websites; its far more interesting that way anyway.

What you're doing is jumping to a bunch of unfounded conclusions and drawing extremely weak inferences about what I have or haven't done, and then extrapolating that to a bunch of highly prejudiced judgements against me personally, and doing so in a haughty way, as if you are talking to a child. You have completely failed to include anything of substance in this reply. It is all just a sad attempt to write me off without actually addressing any of my arguments. Until you actually address the meat of my reply with a point by point refutation, this entire reply can be chopped up to one gigantic ad hom.

I am sorry to say that I find a degree of intellectual dishonesty in your method of arguing against these ideas by primarily pulling information and quotes from these sources without having done the work yourself. You are representing yourself as personally knowledgeable about the subject when you are doing nothing more than copy and pasting in quotes to support you. Besides this being a type of an argument from authority, it shows to me that you have no regard for the context in which the original quote was written. That is the definition of cherry picking and to me; it makes me think that you are more interested in maintaining your beliefs than being honestly interested in expanding your knowledge.

Or you have completely mischaracterized me, as I have demonstrated. Again, you want so badly for this to be about me. Even if I was doing everything you said I am doing, my arguments, if they were accurate, would still stand. You haven't moved one inch closer to disproving anything I've said. It doesn't matter where I've gotten the information, what matters is if it is correct or not. Regardless, I do understand the subject matter, and demonstrably better than you do thus far.

I don’t expect to change your mind. You seem deeply rooted in creationism and as you’ve said, you believe in the biblical god and that you feel that your life was transformed by him. That is a very powerful feeling, one that is very hard to overcome because it is something personal that you probably relate to. Perhaps you feel that your stability rests on the idea that a god exists and that your view of that god must be the correct one based on your personal experiences; I don’t know. I have nothing more to say other than to suggest that you read the source material so that way you can at least honestly say that you know what you’re talking about.

You aren't going to change anyones mind with this low grade excuse for an argument. This isn't about me, it's about the evidence. You say my evidence is invalid because I don't understand the subject matter, which is fallacious. The evidence is valid whether I understand it or not. However, I do understand it, and the problem here is you have no basis to criticize me because you're the one who hasn't demonstrated any understanding. You have even demonstrated the wrong understanding. However, the difference between you and I is that I will give you enough credit to assume you are a reasonably intelligent person who isn't just pretending to understand it. I am still waiting for you to prove it, however. Your attempt to make this argument about me has failed, because I have shown all of your claims about me to be false, and it is logically fallacious in the first place. If you want to continue, address my arguments directly and prove you actually know something. If my arguments are incorrect, feel free to show me why, at any time.


>> ^IAmTheBlurr:

Oh sorry, I thought you were having a conversation, not masturbating.

Now that we all know how great you are for doing the wrong thing even though you're kind-of-sort-of against it, maybe I could just chime in to clarify:

First of all: I can read as well. I know you see a picture from a bad movie when I post. But that doesn't make your regurgitated diatribe about intellectual property rights that can be found anywhere on the internet where there is a dialog about torrents any more intelligent or original than what anyone else has to say.

Second: In no way am I deluded about the concept of intellectual property. I did not ever imply that Louie C.K.'s work has no value. In fact, I called it "stealing" to download it. I also closed my comment by saying that I probably wouldn't download the show.

And I am not under the impression that just because I can't hold something in my hand, that it has no value. All I said was that it's "silly" to think that experiencing someone's comedy can be a crime. The thing about the T.V. is merely to point out the insubstantial nature of the subject. When I go to buy a T.V., I can negotiate sometimes based on whether or not it's a floor model or still in the box. I can't ask a website for a discount if one of Louie's jokes is bad. And with a T.V., I can keep it for a while and then change my mind. Maybe I decide I don't like it and I want to sell it and use the money to pay for part of the next one. Or maybe I've decided to go to Thailand, and I sell the T.V. to my friend Bob for papaya-salad-money. The point is, the two things are different, not that one is worthless and the other isn't.

And you know what the biggest difference is? Someone should not be punished in anywhere near the same way for stealing five bucks worth of Louis C.K.'s material as they should be for breaking into a person's house and stealing their T.V.

Third: Louis C.K. is probably a multimillionaire. I wasn't trying to justify my behavior as much as correcting Kymbos for saying that he wasn't. But now that you mention it: I see that you steal based on DRM and other issues, but (and call me crazy if you want) when I steal, I take into account the financial status of the person I'm stealing from. It might not justify my behavior but it helps me sleep.

Fourth: I steal download things a lot of the time based on whether I think they are fairly priced. I loved the original Conan the Barbarian, mostly for it's kitsch-factor, but I still own the VHS. When the new one came out, I said to myself "that looks like a giant piece of crap taking a crap." So I downloaded it and you know what? I was right. Fuck them. I'm glad I didn't pay twenty-five dollars for ten-cents-worth of soda, two-cents-worth of popcorn and zero-cents-worth of nap time. And all just to grant some Hollywood producer his million dollar reward to play it safe.

One of my favorite things I've ever gotten for Christmas from my wife was the Criterion Collection edition of "Seven Samurai." I love it. It's got this great cover art that looks almost transparent even though it's printed on cardboard. I think it looks so good because it's taken from the original cellulose of the title screen but I don't know. It's also got a great supplemental book, a great CD of special features and anytime I want, I can sit down to three whole hours of good solid movie. I think it cost around sixty-dollars at the time we bought it and it was totally worth it. Meanwhile, somebody gave me the latest "Pirates of the Caribbean" DVD and the ugly yellow text on the menu alone is enough to make me want to burn it for the insult it does to people who paid good money for it.

And you know what else? I doubt that if Louis C.K. were to meet me, that he would hold it against me that I downloaded his show.

I guess I've rambled long enough. I just wanted to make the point that the issues involved with intellectual property are complicated but the concept is something that little children can grasp. So it might not be beneficial to the conversation to write off someone's point that you might disagree with simply because you want to sound righteous. Especially when in the end, you admit that it's all just stealing anyway.

PS: The last book I bought was the hardcover edition of "A Dance With Dragons". I paid the extra money because I find physical copies more satisfying, and I couldn't wait for the paperback.

So it may bring a little more light to your topic above. As I felt this was rather condescending and a personal attack to some degree(even though I am atheist), especially when it comes from someone who claims to have a spiritual connection to God, a good and moral person. There is only ONE Christian way, ONE true religion, and we are all an affront to the light and helpers of the dark. Those that don't hold these beliefs are Gods enemies.

The truth by its nature is exclusive. On the question of what 2 + 2 equals, there are an infinite number of wrong answers and one right answer. Does the fact that there are an infinite number of wrong answers diminish in any way the exclusive truth of the right one? Should we say because there are so many potential answers that there is no actual right answer? Obviously not, so why do you think it is any different for the question of God?

Matthew 12:30

Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

I take heavy stock only in science now. If there is a God it will wait till after my death for my attention--for to follow one here, I may in the end hurt someone. Like in your post above or in broader implications like homosexuality and various other randomly adhered laws and traditions (honor killings, suicide bombers and jihad, corporal punishment, suicidal group pacts, etc...) that consider some people a dangerous threat due to a religion's view.

Hebrews 9:27

And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,

You will not have that opportunity. After you die you will enter into the judgement of God. It is not something you can put off even for tomorrow, but you are not guaranteed tomorrow. You need to get right with God before you die, or you will face judgement for your sins.

Vincit Omnia Veritas, this Latin phrase sums up what I'm willing to follow the most and what I hope is actually true for most of us humans--a true philosophical debate. That is why science gets my attention above all others, philosophy for some moral quandaries and comedy to help in a lot of situations were the outright truth may not.

Only the truth can set you free. Everything else is dwelling in the vain imaginations of mankind.

/I did say I wasn't going to comment on @shinyblurry again, but I thought the way he responded to me was a prime example of a mental attitude towards those he may consider to be in the wrong and that it may give insight into your example above. It seemed almost misanthropic, but I certainly will not label shiny as such as that is up to the person to confirm; certainly not me.

I am telling you what the word of God says. I know that you see me as something else, and you can place any label that you like upon me, but my only intention is to share Gods truth.
>> ^kceaton1

you seem to be advocating a theocracy based on biblical principles to establish a religious based government.
the idea of something like that frightens me more than dealing with any single despot or tyrant and history has shown that theocratic rule is anything but righteous,fair or benevolent.
see:
dark ages.
the inquisition.
the crusades.
even as recent as ireland in the 70's and 80's.
when the church dominated the politics of europe,before the reformation,there was more :murder,rape,torture,oppression under an iron-fisted authoritarian rule than any despot could even HOPE to match.
all in the name of god.

I am advocating a theocratic kingdom, headed by Jesus as King, and nothing else. No government run by human beings is trustworthy. I prefer a capitalist democracy to a dictatorship any day. Unfortunately, that is where we are headed with the one world government.

freedom of religion is one the best and all encompassing tenants of american society because not only does it give you the RIGHT to worship how you choose but gives your neighbor the RIGHT to either worship under a different doctrine,or not at all.
the LAW is the great equalizer (and one of the things that is being corrupted and a main reason for OWS).

I agree, everyone should have a right to choose what they believe. That is a God given right, which the founders supported. We also have the right to deal with the consequences of those beliefs. I agree this is being corrupted in modern society (mostly because the moral framework provided by the bible is being pulled out from under us)

what about me?
you already know that i would considered an apostate to the christian church.
would you watch them burn me?
would you watch in horror as my flesh fell of me like melted ice cream and made yourself feel better by reminding yourself that it was gods will and if only i had accepted the "right" way to be a christian? why did i have to be so stubborn and not see god the way that you did.read the gospel the way you did? believe in the way you did?
would you watch?

Of course not. If they were murdering you, I would be the first one to jump in and try to save you from that madness. We are not judges of one another. Only God is the judge of our lives

and i have to say that i dont fully believe your sincerity when you say jesus would not choose sides,because you know full well that christ walked,talked and ministered to the underbelly of his society at the time.he broke bread with pagans,oracles,the diseased and unwanted.he railed with a savagery against the dominance of the church in his time,the aristocracy and the money makers.
he offered a hope and a freedom.a salvation from those who oppressed.
he pointed to the hill of those in power and told the disenfranchised "my father does NOT reside on that hill.you are NOT forsaken.it is THEY who pretend to hold the key that are lost...but YOU can be found.but not through them but rather through me".(paraphrasing of course).he was the way and the light.

I agree with everything you say here, and it is well put, but that was His first coming, where He came to live on Earth as one of us, and to ultimately suffer and die for our sins. On His second coming, He is returning with power and great glory as sovereign King over this world and as judge of the living and the dead. This is the equation He left us with:

Matthew 12:30

Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

And this is the question on His mind:

Luke 18:8

I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of
Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"

what makes jesus even more intriguing is that,contrary to a common misconception perpetrated by the church (of course).jesus came from an affluent family.
yes..he did.dont argue.
a carpenter now may be seen as common labor but back in jesus's day a carpenter was a craftsman.the ability to build things not only was held in high regard but was usually someone of affluence,wealth and influence.
how humbling is that?
jesus walked away from wealth,power and influence to bring truth to the poor,oppressed and enslaved and started a movement of his own 2000 yrs ago that slowly and totally underground became one of the most powerful messages even to this day.

I'm not sure about His material wealth, but Jesus certainly was rich..and it humbles me that he gave it up to take on the lowly status of a human being:

Hebrews 2:9: “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.”

Philippians 2:7-9 Jesus “made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name” that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,to the glory of God the Father

now of course over the years those who sought power and influence saw the potential of jesus's message and took it over,perverted it and sold it as somehow being divine. so not only do i think jesus would stand with those at OWS (and all over the world for that matter) i think he would rebuke the church as well.

I think He would rebuke both. However, this conspiracy theory of yours doesn't make any sense. If you think the bible has been altered since the 1st/2nd century, that isn't true. We have the early manuscipts and they all match up. If you're talking about the disciples, all but one were all martyred for the gospel. This is very good evidence for the facts of the gospel, because they certainly wouldn't all willingly die for something they knew to be a lie, especially when they could have recanted at any time. The gospels were also written in the memory of living witnesses. So, I'm not sure how you fit your conspiracy in there..because the early church is filled with martyrs who were direct witnesses and felt the evidence was good enough to die for.

The claims of Jesus are unequivocal..He said he was the Messiah who was from Heaven, Gods very Son, and that He was there to take away the worlds sin, and after His resurrection, to take a position at the right hand of power..and to return as King and judge over the whole world. You can't really get great teacher or hero for social justice out of any of that. He was all of those things, but foremost He is Gods Son.

oh the delicious irony if that ever really happened.it tickles me to no end.
in any case.
i always appreciate when you respond my friend.

Anytime bro. It's always enjoyable to engage with you. And it *will* happen, so you need to be ready for it..the signs are all there, especially with the reformation of Israel in 1948.


>> ^enoch:
@shinyblurry
BR>
oh the delicious irony if that ever really happened.it tickles me to no end.
in any case.
i always appreciate when you respond my friend.

I found that apology to be more of an indirect insult, so i can't in all fairness accept it.

I made my second post after you made your tirade against me, and before you made this post. It was not meant to stir anything further.

Regardless, i'll leave it alone if you do.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
is that what you feel i am doing?
then i apologize.
because normally it is not something i tend to worry about.i really dont care.i post what i like.if you like it..great..if not? meh../shrugs.no biggy.
maybe it is my fault for not actually posting the backstory (which i did in comments) which may clear up my reactionary response.
i have a very strong connection with that woman and tend to be extremely protective,always have been of people i love but her especially.the reasons should become clear when you read the backstory.

i tend to side with you in the sense that you were just commenting on the video.taking the opportunity to take a shot (an easy one,lets be honest) at the video while not making it a direct comment on the poster.

i agree with that policy but i did state that i had a personal connection with this young woman,but it seems i should have not been lazy and explained the backstory.

so again,i apologize if it appears im putting the "squeeze" on you.
but i hope i clarified my protective nature concerning this young woman.i really should have anticipated this.i just wanted to share cuz i thought the whole video is funny and it brought back good memories for me.
ah well.epic fail on my part i guess.
we good?

I'm glad you reference your video, which is a perfect example of trying to make illogical moral exceptions for your deity. You accuse my comment of being but "a weak appeal to emotions", but it is actually a succinct argument refuting the video's thesis. But since you clearly cannot understand anything with a hint of subtlety, I will spell it out for you:

The video argues that evil must exist in order for there to be freedom of the will. Fine enough, but that only accounts for the kinds of evils done by humans. The things my comment link to are all examples of evils that are not caused by human actions, but by nature (i.e. "acts of God"), and affect perfectly innocent beings. A child who is born with a genetic disorder that will cause it (and it's parents) to suffer for it's whole life is not a matter of "freedom of the will". Answer me this, with a simple "yes/no" answer please: did the 13-day old baby killed by the family dog deserve it?

I know what you'll say: all of humankind, nay, of creation, is tainted because of "original sin". Remember how we've already discussed this ad nauseum? The concept of original sin relies on the story of Creation and the Fall. I know you literally believe that all of humankind is the offspring of an incestuous clusterfuck that started with Adam and Eve, and was renewed when God killed everyone except one family (incest ftw eh?). Let's put aside how utterly disgusting and impossible that is, and concentrate on how it is also a totally immoral belief. You are saying that God, omni-potent/benevolent, lets every single being be "tainted" with "sin" no matter how they live, and thus deserve anything nature's twisted ways will throw at them? All because ONE person did not blindly follow his orders (although without knowing it was wrong to do so)? Do you even realise what a sick, twisted tyrant of a deity you are defending?

It's clear you didn't understand the argument the video was making, or even your own argument:

The video is outlining Plantigas free will defense which states:

God's creation of persons with morally significant free will is something of tremendous value. God could not eliminate evil and suffering without thereby eliminating the greater good of having created persons with free will who can make moral choices. Freedom (and, often it is said, the loving relationships which would not be possible without freedom) here is intended to provide a morally sufficient reason for God's allowing evil

The FWD neatly solves the logical problem of evil. Now, you make a point from natural evil, but this also addressed by the FWD. The corruption that came into the world was from originl sin. You say it isn't fair that other people have to suffer for the choices of the prior generation, ignoring that every child is impacted by the choices of their parents, and every other generation before them. God would either have had to start over or prevent all evil, and either choice would eliminate free will. What you miss is that people still have the same opportunities to accept or reject Gods offer of salvation, regardless of original sin. Children who have no capacity to make that choice do receive salvation.

What you're really referring to is the Evidential problem of evil which goes like this:

A) It is improbable that an omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent God, would allow gratuitous suffering.
B) Gratuitous suffering does exist.
C) Therefore it is improbable that an omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent exists.

There are a few ways to address this argument. In chaos theory, something small and insignificant, like the flapping of a butterlfys wings, can lead to something large and powerful, like the creation of a hurricane. Likewise, the actions we undertake have a ripple effect that go beyond our finite understandings. In the movie sliding doors, there are two timelines to the story, where the heroine is trying to get on a subway, and either makes it at the last minute, or gets there a few seconds late and misses it. In the timeline where she makes it, she goes on to have a happy and successful life, but is suddenly killed in a car accident. In the other, she endures a lot of suffering but ends up living to a ripe old age.

Only an omniscient God could see how all of this is going to play out. Just because something may seem pointless to us at the time doesn't mean it couldn't turn out to be beneficial later. If God is working towards a greater good, suffering may be part of how that ultimate good is achieved. It's easy to think of examples. Let's say you were going to take a trip to Tibet to climb Mt Everest, but you ended up breaking your leg and cancelling the trip. Later you find out that the plane you were going to take crashed into the ocean. What seemed pointless at the time actually saved your life.

The invasion of Normandy resulted in untold casualities, but served the greater good of serving to end the war. So, it isn't something we can really quantify, whether some suffering is pointless or not. It is also an incomplete sample. You can say yes, when you only consider the suffering in the world, God doesn't seem as likely, but that is part of the picture. When you consider all of the good things, the probability starts to balance out.

1There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.(Job 1:1) The very first verse says Job was perfect. "But that's the narrator speaking!" you might interject. Fine:

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? (Job 2:3) This is God speaking, and he follows by saying that "[Satan] movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause", i.e. "Satan made me do it". It is not Dan who is twisting the story, but you. Unless, of course, the Bible is not inerrant, but there's no way you'll accept that, now is there.

I've already addressed all of this. Although some translations render the word as "perfect", it is referring to an outstanding moral character and piety towards God, not sinlessness. This is proven by Jobs own words:

Job 9:20 If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.

Job 13:26 For thou writest bitter things against me, and makest me to possess the iniquities of my youth.

As far as "the devil made me do it", you fail to understand what is going on. Satan is like a prosecuting attorney in Gods courtroom.

Revelation 12:10

And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.

Satan laid a false accusation against Job, brought him to trial, and Job was tried and tested and found innocent.

Thankfully for you (and everyone else) he is but a figment of your imagination.

You protest too much, hpqp. Your fervent denial shows you have more than a clue. You accuse me of delusion but you're the one fooling yourself.

>> ^hpqp

The only way you can make the argument work is by distorting all the facts. First, job wasn't entirely innocent, by his own words, which I pointed out earlier. Second, there is no logical contradiction between a loving God and the existence of evil, as evidenced in this video:

http://videosift.com/video/Since-Evil-Suffering-Exist-A-Loving-God-Cannot

Which you so disingenuously downvoted, while providing a completely weak appeal to emotion in the comments. It turns out you don't have anything to back up all of your posturing and derision when it comes down to it, and you actively suppress anything which disagrees with your narrow views.

Third, Dans argument does fall falt for exactly the point that SDgundammX made. If the government has the right to enforce rule of law, how much more so does God? It isn't a moral compromise to defer to His authority. I defer to the authority of my government to enforce the law in much the same way. I don't necessarily agree with everything they do but I don't dispute their inherent right to do it, based on rule of law. If you want to make a case for anarchy, feel free, but that is exactly what you'll have to do. Even then it will be a weak argument against Gods authority. Again, note that while Job had outstanding moral character, he was a sinner by his own words, which means that God was legally justified.

Job 9:20 If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.

Job 13:26 For thou writest bitter things against me, and makest me to possess the iniquities of my youth.



>> ^hpqp:
@SDGundamX
I upvoted your comment because you make a well-argumented point (and also because it's nice to see a "wall-of-text" comment that makes a point instead of being the mindless ramblings of a godbot), but I disagree that Dan's point falls flat. One major difference between your analogy and Dan's is that Job is entirely guiltless, something which Dan takes pains to stress. The contradiction between god's omnipotence/omnibenevolence and the story of Job (as well as the very existence of evil in the world in general) is only one of Dan's points though. The other is that the religious mind will make excuses for immoral actions if religiously supported.
The problem with your analogy is twofold; first, a revenge-murder and an execution are not morally equivalent, because they are not done for the same purposes (as you point out) and because the revenge-murderer does not have the legal authority to kill, vested by the people - ideally at least - for the sake of protecting them (fyi I too am a strong opponent of the death penalty which I find totally unethical). And remember, Job is entirely innocent. Second, making special allowances for immoral gvt actions (e.g. torture) is no less morally compromised, imo, than doing so for one's imaginary sky-daddy.
Finally, (and this is what I always say when people say that god can do it cuz he's god): what good is a god who is morally inferior to your average human being?

Dan is the moral monster for trying to turn people against their Creator. Let's see what Job says about the incident:

Job 1:21

And he said, “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.”

Job knew that all he had was from the Lord, and belonged to the Lord. When thrown into tribulation, Job praised His name.

Job had outstanding moral character. Was Job sinless?:

Job 9:20 If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.

Job 13:26 For thou writest bitter things against me, and makest me to possess the iniquities of my youth.

No, he wasn't, by his own words. The only one to ever live on this planet without sin is Jesus Christ.

Now let us examine Job 2:3

And the LORD said unto Satan, Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a blameless and an upright man, one that fears God, and turns away from evil? and still he holds fast his integrity, although you moved me against him, to destroy him without cause.

Dan said this is a confession, which is patently false. God did not commit a crime here, he was acting as a Judge. Satan is the accuser. He brings up charges against people to God like a prosecuting attorney.

Revelation 12:10

And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.

So when God is saying, "you moved me against him to destroy him without cause", He is saying that Satan brought a false accusation against Job. That Job was tried and tested of the accusation and found to be innocent. They are speaking of a legal matter, not some capricious action that God undertook.

Job 42:12-16

The Lord blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the first. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys. And he also had seven sons and three daughters. 14The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch. Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job’s daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers.

After this, Job lived a hundred and forty years; he saw his children and their children to the fourth generation. And so he died, old and full of years.

God restored Job to even more abundance than he had before. The fact of the matter is this: That Job was falsely accused by Satan, put on trial, found to be innocent, and restored when he was cleared of the charge. Neither was he sinless, and he himself praised God even through his trials, and repented in sackcloth and ashes.

It's the stated goal of rabid, militant antitheists like Dan to destroy peoples faith in God. That is what is morally repugnant. A person following the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ, truly following them, is going to be one of the most moral, upright, compassionate people you'll ever meet. If everyone followed what Jesus taught, there would be no war, poverty, violence, greed or hatred. The world would be a near-utopia.

Dans mind is what is compromised, and so is anyone else thinking that Christianity is immoral. You'll notice that these kinds of attacks, that always subtlety twist scripture to lead people astray, don't ever focus on Jesus. That's because Jesus is so obviously righteous that to attack Him would only make them look like fools. Instead, they focus on trying to malign Gods character by framing judgements He made in the OT in a bad light. That is their entire argument against Christianity, and anyone with discernment should see how hollow it really is.

Further, the United States was founded on judeo-christian values, so for any American to criticize them, while enjoying the freedoms they founded, is foolish and ignorant. Dan doesn't know where he comes from, or where he is going. The new atheists blame evil on religion, but it is not a system that creates evil; it is what dwells in the hearts of men. America is not perfect, but it certainly was founded on biblical principles, and you are seeing the results today of when we stop giving God the glory for how He has greatly blessed this nation.

americans combine the notions of christianity and liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible for them to conceive of one without the other.

alexus de tocqueville 1835

I ain't healing nobody! Now go judge your brothers for me!

Sincerely,

- God

>> ^shinyblurry:

Considering your two death threats against me and this comment, a pattern is starting to emerge. You clearly have some deep seated issues. You need to repent of this wickedness and ask God to heal you. Youre headed towards a fall with your faulty conscience, so you had best get right with God now, before it is too late to avoid it and you act on one of your impulses.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Wow, I can see what they are talking about...he is really charismatic. Him talking about all the evil he did, and for some reason, it was hard to hate him...amazing.

Oh I could still kick him violently in the back of the head and feel NOTHING. I wouldn't feel anything I would just go "Oh look he's dead...whatever" and walk on.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Considering your two death threats against me and this comment, a pattern is starting to emerge. You clearly have some deep seated issues. You need to repent of this wickedness and ask God to heal you. Youre headed towards a fall with your faulty conscience, so you had best get right with God now, before it is too late to avoid it and you act on one of your impulses.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Wow, I can see what they are talking about...he is really charismatic. Him talking about all the evil he did, and for some reason, it was hard to hate him...amazing.

Oh I could still kick him violently in the back of the head and feel NOTHING. I wouldn't feel anything I would just go "Oh look he's dead...whatever" and walk on.



You have become a sapient caricature. Whatever your objectives are, you have neutralized your ability to achieve them here by your conduct and repetitious zealotry. You care only that your message is heard, not about the way in which it's received or how you come across.

You are actively doing damage to the image of those ideas you feel are important, and I cannot understand it. Your policies towards people are entirely ineffectual, and you will never accomplish your goals. Perhaps you don't really care.

I'm willing to listen to most people, and I think there's great joy to be had in engaging with the minds of others. But you cast yourself in such a ridiculous light that I frequently wonder if you're just a fucking troll.

I just hope that under all the fanatical drivel, there is actually a human being worth investigating. It seems decreasingly likely.

Hey Yogi. I'll say the same thing I said to @shinyblurry and @mizila.

Could you take this conversation to your personal profile pages, and out of the comment stream on my video?

There is a really interesting conversation developing on that video that is threatening to be derailed into an off-topic pissing match.

Shinyblurry, do you see what has happened here? Again, this started with a personal comment directed out of left field, and now there are two other Sifters jumping in. None of this has anything to do with Jack Abramoff.

I'm not saying don't make the comments, I am asking, shiny, that you make them on personal profile pages and not on video comment streams.

Thanks.

In reply to this comment by Yogi:
>> ^shinyblurry:

Considering your two death threats against me and this comment, a pattern is starting to emerge. You clearly have some deep seated issues. You need to repent of this wickedness and ask God to heal you. Youre headed towards a fall with your faulty conscience, so you had best get right with God now, before it is too late to avoid it and you act on one of your impulses.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Wow, I can see what they are talking about...he is really charismatic. Him talking about all the evil he did, and for some reason, it was hard to hate him...amazing.

Oh I could still kick him violently in the back of the head and feel NOTHING. I wouldn't feel anything I would just go "Oh look he's dead...whatever" and walk on.



I don't remember ever threatening you. I know that I was typing a quote from a friend one time because I am not a veteran.