https://youtu.be/sbVr5FvASYU

Yeah...Americans are fed up with the Democrats. Lol. So deluded.
If you lived in this country, you would know better. Almost 1/3 fewer Republicans than 3.5 years ago, support among independents has fallen from >46% to <36%, and among democrats it's within the margin of error to say he has 0% of democratic votes...in fact recent polling indicates Democrats have almost twice the percentage of the remaining Republican's votes than vise versa....about 8% R voting D vs 4% D voting R.
Trump is president. If he can't lead the entire country, not just the parts that are so sycophantically Stockholm syndromed that they wouldn't think of complaining about his deadly failures or contradicting his lies, he's unqualified.

BTW, DeJoy's ploy to make mail in voting fail are in trouble. A federal judge just barred the usps from any changes at all until after the election, after reversing all the slow down methods DeJoy implemented, and ordered any post office that needs their equipment returned to petition the court directly and the court will order it's reinstallation. No word what they'll do about the equipment that was intentionally destroyed, I can only hope it will be repurchased at DeJoy's expense, but I doubt it.

Looks like Trump hired another unqualified felon for his swamp....because he only knows crooks.

Never going to answer @wtfcaniuse? What has Trump accomplished that's"great" for America?
Just like you won't answer me when I ask you to bring up just one single case of the widespread, well known voter fraud schemes by Democrats, while I've been happy to point out a half dozen cases of Republican frauds totaling thousands of instances of vote fraud (some cases involved thousands of votes).

So sad, Bob. Sad that your ilk was thrown out of the mental institutions by Regan and you think that indicates you are well....it doesn't.

My interpretation was wrong, and your right about pointing out truths or untruths. It is something I will have to remind myself. I apologize for not understanding, and thank you for your response.

I asked about your posting because I was interested in, well, lack of a better way to say it, tickles your fancy. I've learned some interesting new things from your comments, even looking up a word or two, so I imagine your posts would be the same.

I agree with your last paragraph as well. Discussion is positive, something I enjoy. I like to see and understand a persons point of view, it's how I learn so much. I think I can't quite read the tone of some comments, and it is something I am working on, to ask more questions than jump to conclusions. I couldn't agree with your last sentance more.

In my mind I imagine you to be a writer, journalist, or maybe even a college professor. It is silly, I know, but I like how you turn a phrase. I also know I need to ask more questions to gain understanding, instead of doing it all wrong by assuming. Thanks for answering me Harlequinn, and I hope to run into you again on a comment thread soon! Have a great rest of the day.:)

Just fail dude.
I never claimed to be an expert in geology, just to have enough knowledge to understand the science involved, unlike you.
EDIT: but your millionaire uncles HAVE talked about money with you, right...so you understand, say, interest?
Uniformitarianism as stated was proven false in the early 1800's. Many factors are involved in the time frame for feature formations, they are not uniform.
Yes, you are consistently anti-science here. You completely ignore the scientific method when making obviously false claims like 'that proves it was caused by a giant flood'.
Oh dude, no where in your fairy tale book does it ever say the earth is 6000 years old, you've been duped by idiots with agendas. Give it up, even your religious 'leaders' have realized the insanity of that stance and the requirement to suspend reality for it to be correct. Try listening to them.
There is absolutely zero evidence for a 'world wide flood' unless you can create some out of thin air with your level of faith in ridiculousness. There is not a single whit of actual evidence, which would take the form of a single, homogeneous layer of sediment world wide at the same geologic age. Doesn't exist. Sorry, you're just plain wrong about what you claim.
The 'evidence' in this video is evidence that landslides happen fast, not that layered non-volcanic sediments can be put down in tens of thousands of distinct and differing layers in an instant, then massive erosion can happen also in an instant, as you claim it does. True enough, erosion can happen fast, but doesn't often, and sedimentary layering simply can't...neither can fossilization. (oops, forgot, the devil put those stone bones there to fool me...but since I AM the devil, I'm not fooled)
Your claim that there is a homogeneous sediment layer all over the world is a complete fabrication. It does not exist. If it did, that would be HUGE scientific discovery heard on every network and science program for years to come, not one only heard about in church and/or afterwards in the lobby.
Once again...fail....as I suspect you did in your science classes.

EDIT:...and I love that your 'proof' video includes Uluru, the oldest large rock in the known world, which is proven by numerous differing methods to be well over 550 Million years old (that's how long ago it was rotated, it existed well before then) I guess the devil/gawd made that too, in order to confuse scientists? I'm not going to watch more time wasting ridiculous unscientific propaganda by the scientifically challenged, so it goes unwatched.
and good job with the cut and paste in order to quote me and answer me without me noticing,...sorry, didn't work.
SECOND EDIT: Do you not notice that on one side you claim uniformitarianism is wrong, but you also insist it's held as a major tenant of modern geology? If it's that obvious to you, an admitted lay person, don't you think it might be more obvious to professionals?

You're hilarious @bobknight33...and a hypocrite. You claim that I'm not worth answering to, yet you still @ my name so you know I would see it...thus..answering me. I see you still haven't backed up your claim, coward

@newtboy Don't let him change the subject. He claims biblical morality is superior to secular morality. Then he changes the subject to evolution, which has nothing to do with his claim. Once again, a creationist is trying to shift the burden of proof. He somehow doesn't have to back up his claims, but we have to somehow disprove god...which science doesn't care about. Science only cares about claims you can back up, which the coward bob will never do.

Bob's got the five D's of Dodgeball down pat.

why call it self linking huh?no further links attach in this post.why call it self linking then?answer me

I agree with pretty much everything except that I'd LOVE to debate against this Jones character. I mean, you don't even have to say anything and you win the argument.

Honestly. Honestly answer me this. Who would you be more comfortable with as your next door neighbour. Slimey Morgan or this nutjob Jones with his gun collection.

No. I'm not going to study theology to help you make your case. Where you show you don't understand science or logic, I try and explain it to you. You are the self-proclaimed god expert in the room, and the one who wants us all to believe what you're saying, so when I ask you a fair question about Yahweh, I expect you to either give me an answer, admit you can't explain it, or accept that your original assertion is false.

"Why did God do X" isn't the right question because it relies on the assumption that God exists and in fact did X. A better question is, "Is it reasonable to believe that a god who does X, Y, and Z exists?"

So yes, you gave me a lot to work with in the sense that you wrote a lot, but the way you write makes it very hard to make connected arguments if I have to come back and ask you for clarifications and detail on your fantastic assertions, and you reply either defensively or with more vague and fantastic assertions. Surely you can put yourself in my shoes and anticipate my questions at least a little bit. Unlike most here, I'm actually trying to understand your point of view, so it's worth using words that I'm more likely to accept.>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^messenger:
@shinyblurry
Please keep in mind when you answer me that I’m not asking you for the details because it’s an interesting story and I want to know all of the lore like a Star Wars fanboy. I’m asking because -- unlike the majority of people you probably speak with -- I’m giving your faith every benefit of the doubt I reasonably can as a rational person. For me to accept the story, it must hold together. For it to hold, all apparent problems must be resolved without relying on tautology.
My main thrust in this particular comment thread is dealing with the issue that for everything that appears impossible or utterly fantastic to me, when I raise it, you explain it, but with something else equally fantastic (Asserting that God has to punish us for our sins is just as fantastical as asserting that God doesn’t want to punish us), so I’m not left understanding things any better. So, I challenge that new thing, and on it goes until you run out of scripture.
Then, although my questions are as valid as before, you have no real answers. At these times you give quasi-answers: you phrase your answers in the passive voice (“…what was required…”); you answer with a leading question that asserts a comparison without your having to say they're equal (“Wouldn’t you…?”), with a rhetorical question (“Could it be that…?”), or a poor analogy rather than a declarative (The King’s law about adultery, or comparing rapists going to prison with lapsed church-goers (one example of a mortal sin) being sent to Hell); or you criticize how I’m thinking (“…instead of trying to constantly falsify it, you might actually try studying what Christian theologians (and not skeptics) have said about it.”; and, “use some common sense”). So my question doesn't get answered.
So, as you're talking to a group of mostly logical, scientific-minded sceptics here, why not frame your answers so they make sense to your audience? Ask yourself the next logical sceptical question that springs from the answer you just gave until you arrive at something that really makes sense.

I gave you quite a bit to work with in my replies. The reason I suggested reading the works of theologians is because they discuss the very things you are inquiring about "Why did God do X?", and that very in depth. These are issues which are not entirely concrete because God does not always tell us why He does "X". Some things can be inferred, some things can be logically deduced, and some things are yet a mystery.

>> ^messenger:

@shinyblurry
Please keep in mind when you answer me that I’m not asking you for the details because it’s an interesting story and I want to know all of the lore like a Star Wars fanboy. I’m asking because -- unlike the majority of people you probably speak with -- I’m giving your faith every benefit of the doubt I reasonably can as a rational person. For me to accept the story, it must hold together. For it to hold, all apparent problems must be resolved without relying on tautology.
My main thrust in this particular comment thread is dealing with the issue that for everything that appears impossible or utterly fantastic to me, when I raise it, you explain it, but with something else equally fantastic (Asserting that God has to punish us for our sins is just as fantastical as asserting that God doesn’t want to punish us), so I’m not left understanding things any better. So, I challenge that new thing, and on it goes until you run out of scripture.
Then, although my questions are as valid as before, you have no real answers. At these times you give quasi-answers: you phrase your answers in the passive voice (“…what was required…”); you answer with a leading question that asserts a comparison without your having to say they're equal (“Wouldn’t you…?”), with a rhetorical question (“Could it be that…?”), or a poor analogy rather than a declarative (The King’s law about adultery, or comparing rapists going to prison with lapsed church-goers (one example of a mortal sin) being sent to Hell); or you criticize how I’m thinking (“…instead of trying to constantly falsify it, you might actually try studying what Christian theologians (and not skeptics) have said about it.”; and, “use some common sense”). So my question doesn't get answered.
So, as you're talking to a group of mostly logical, scientific-minded sceptics here, why not frame your answers so they make sense to your audience? Ask yourself the next logical sceptical question that springs from the answer you just gave until you arrive at something that really makes sense.


I gave you quite a bit to work with in my replies. The reason I suggested reading the works of theologians is because they discuss the very things you are inquiring about "Why did God do X?", and that very in depth. These are issues which are not entirely concrete because God does not always tell us why He does "X". Some things can be inferred, some things can be logically deduced, and some things are yet a mystery.

@shinyblurry

Please keep in mind when you answer me that I’m not asking you for the details because it’s an interesting story and I want to know all of the lore like a Star Wars fanboy. I’m asking because -- unlike the majority of people you probably speak with -- I’m giving your faith every benefit of the doubt I reasonably can as a rational person. For me to accept the story, it must hold together. For it to hold, all apparent problems must be resolved without relying on tautology.

My main thrust in this particular comment thread is dealing with the issue that for everything that appears impossible or utterly fantastic to me, when I raise it, you explain it, but with something else equally fantastic (Asserting that God has to punish us for our sins is just as fantastical as asserting that God doesn’t want to punish us), so I’m not left understanding things any better. So, I challenge that new thing, and on it goes until you run out of scripture.

Then, although my questions are as valid as before, you have no real answers. At these times you give quasi-answers: you phrase your answers in the passive voice (“…what was required…”); you answer with a leading question that asserts a comparison without your having to say they're equal (“Wouldn’t you…?”), with a rhetorical question (“Could it be that…?”), or a poor analogy rather than a declarative (The King’s law about adultery, or comparing rapists going to prison with lapsed church-goers (one example of a mortal sin) being sent to Hell); or you criticize how I’m thinking (“…instead of trying to constantly falsify it, you might actually try studying what Christian theologians (and not skeptics) have said about it.”; and, “use some common sense”). So my question doesn't get answered.

So, as you're talking to a group of mostly logical, scientific-minded sceptics here, why not frame your answers so they make sense to your audience? Ask yourself the next logical sceptical question that springs from the answer you just gave until you arrive at something that really makes sense.

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

@shinyblurry

I would rather ignore you, but I will not stand by your false accusations of me having "nothing to back up my [so-called] posturing and derision", or of "suppressing" what doesn't agree with my alleged "narrow views".

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

Back to Job; since you like Bible quotes so much, here's one:

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.

If I represent the one that did this to you
Then can away the part that represents the thing that scarred you
I say, Get up, stand up, get up, stand up, get on it
Yessir, I am no longer who you thought this one would be

We end up around the mountain that I climb to lose you
I said, I said give me the business that business could work through,
I say, Ask me but all my wisdom departed
Tell me but all my wisdom departed
But help please at least answer me this,
Answer me, answer me

What's the business, yeah
Don't take my life away
Don't take my life away

From a distance, yeah
Don't take my life away
Don't take my life away

I'm a victim, yeah
Don't take my life away
Don't take my life away

I'm addicted, yeah
Don't take my life away
Don't take my life away

If you just press your fingers down under my skin (Go on and do it)
Lift up, dig up, lift up, dig up and bleed for me
I say, I'll bleed if you ask me
I'll bleed if you ask me
That's when, that's when, he said no

What's the business, yeah
Don't take my life away
Don't take my life away

From a distance, yeah
Don't take my life away
Don't take my life away

I'm a victim, yeah
Don't take my life away
Don't take my life away

I'm addicted, yeah
Don't take my life away
Don't take my life away

I'm addicted, yeah
From a distance, yeah
I'm a victim, yeah
What's the business, yeah

I'm addicted, yeah

(instrumental)

What's the business, yeah
What's the business, yeah

>> ^A10anis:

Answer me one question. Given the luck and privilege of his life, how many of you, given the same good fortune, could not do what he does? Given the time and money, would you not indulge in fun pursuits? Hell, i'd love to learn how to fly a jet or helicopter. I'd love the fame to be invited to drive an F1 car.This is not envy talking, it is reality. Best of luck to him. But, please, don't tell me he is special. Of course his fans will say he is supremely talented..Hmm, ok.


If I had his money, I'd buy one of these

Answer me one question. Given the luck and privilege of his life, how many of you, given the same good fortune, could not do what he does? Given the time and money, would you not indulge in fun pursuits? Hell, i'd love to learn how to fly a jet or helicopter. I'd love the fame to be invited to drive an F1 car.This is not envy talking, it is reality. Best of luck to him. But, please, don't tell me he is special. Of course his fans will say he is supremely talented..Hmm, ok.

*boogies*
Ah ah ah ah level five, level five, level fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiive...
>> ^rottenseed:

I'll answer you the same way somebody answered me. Nope. In order to fix the quoting you'll have to become a level 5 HTML programmer and fix every individual quote yourself.
I don't think there's a such thing as a "level 5 HTML programmer" I just thought it sounded fun.