The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.

It is an entirely worthless endeavor to debate someone who cannot be reasoned with. Shiny is blind to all but dogma and any attempts to use logic or rational arguments will not succeed in penetrating to the point of consideration on his part. Much like that of an animal (I'm not calling him names, but rather making a comparison to another lifeform which does not use reason or critical thought to evaluate ideas.) he goes about as he is wired. Indeed religion (not merely Christianity, but most) teachs their flock (the reference to sheep not being without irony, in my opinion) that their god exists outside logic and reason, and to dismiss any doubts stemming from such attempts to question using either methods. He has demonstrated no capacity to challenge or logically consider of that which was apparently ingrained in him through his upbringing and will likely, and regrettably, repeat the same for the duration of his lifespan.

A better example might even be to liken it to debating a computer program which will only respond from the parameters of its code. What is programmed is all it "knows" and attempts to inquire or have it respond in a manner which exceeds the parameters of its coding will yield no results.

I expect no response from Shiny in regards to the above statements, nor would I feel compelled to respond further as I would find no value in what I expect will be yet another of the same dogmatic responses as has been supplied in his posts above.

To those of you who continue to engage him, I wish you much patience. May the Hitchens be with you. ; )

>> ^hpqp:

@shinyblurry
Lather, rinse, repeat... ad infinitum.
Someone points out the worthlessness of your arguments (strawman, argument from personal experience, etc) and in response you do it all again. And then you wonder why people "run away" from "discussions" with you? You sound like a godbot on repeat (no offense @siftbot, we <3 you )
About the HS: so anyone who grew up christian (and thus "received the HS") gets a free pass, no matter what? Sweet! goes off to eat some freshly born babies
God on child rape (=sex with children under the age of consent): there are several passages in the OT in which it is ordered that all men, women and boys (even livestock sometimes) be killed, and only virgin girls/women be taken as slaves/wives. Are you suggesting not a single one of these were under the age of consent?

There is no saying God will let you live another day, so I wouldn't recommend pushing your luck. As far as this discussion, when you substitute some salient points for the usual empty rhetoric, perhaps you'll get a formal reply..if you didn't spend the entire post trying to establish your superiority with cheap shots and hyperbole, perhaps a miracle would occur and this conversation would move beyond the petty ridicule that you seem to think makes for a coherent argument.

>> ^hpqp:
@shinyblurry
Lather, rinse, repeat... ad infinitum.
Someone points out the worthlessness of your arguments (strawman, argument from personal experience, etc) and in response you do it all again. And then you wonder why people "run away" from "discussions" with you? You sound like a godbot on repeat (no offense @siftbot, we <3 you <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/wink.gif"> )
About the HS: so anyone who grew up christian (and thus "received the HS") gets a free pass, no matter what? Sweet! goes off to eat some freshly born babies <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/troll.gif">
God on child rape (=sex with children under the age of consent): there are several passages in the OT in which it is ordered that all men, women and boys (even livestock sometimes) be killed, and only virgin girls/women be taken as slaves/wives. Are you suggesting not a single one of these were under the age of consent?

None taken.>> ^hpqp:

@shinyblurry

Lather, rinse, repeat... ad infinitum.

Someone points out the worthlessness of your arguments (strawman, argument from personal experience, etc) and in response you do it all again. And then you wonder why people "run away" from "discussions" with you? You sound like a godbot on repeat (no offense @siftbot, we <3 you )
About the HS: so anyone who grew up christian (and thus "received the HS") gets a free pass, no matter what? Sweet! goes off to eat some freshly born babies

God on child rape (=sex with children under the age of consent): there are several passages in the OT in which it is ordered that all men, women and boys (even livestock sometimes) be killed, and only virgin girls/women be taken as slaves/wives. Are you suggesting not a single one of these were under the age of consent?

@shinyblurry

Lather, rinse, repeat... ad infinitum.

Someone points out the worthlessness of your arguments (strawman, argument from personal experience, etc) and in response you do it all again. And then you wonder why people "run away" from "discussions" with you? You sound like a godbot on repeat (no offense @siftbot, we <3 you )
About the HS: so anyone who grew up christian (and thus "received the HS") gets a free pass, no matter what? Sweet! *goes off to eat some freshly born babies*

God on child rape (=sex with children under the age of consent): there are several passages in the OT in which it is ordered that all men, women and boys (even livestock sometimes) be killed, and only virgin girls/women be taken as slaves/wives. Are you suggesting not a single one of these were under the age of consent?

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"

@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? )


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"

That's a laugh..the first thing you did in our "debate" is try to argue I am a troll. Then we had a little contentious back and forth in which my answers were perfectly adaquete..the problem was that you copped out and ran away. Here is our final exchange:

"@shinyblurry

I was going to leave you in the metaphorical pit of self-contradiction and nonsense you had dug yourself into, but then you had to go insult my eloquence... jk, I was going to address your answers anyway:

Would you condemn and punish someone's child for something their parents did? Why should anyone respect - much less worship - a being whose moral standards are far inferior to those of the worst among us humans (or "sinners" as you call us)?

2. "Special Revelation"... and yet it is those who use reason and evidence who are "arrogant", or have a "fevered ego", right? But let me try to grasp this "Holy Spirit" thing once and for all:

Basically, a Christian cannot deny the HS, otherwise he was never a Christian? But one can only reject the HS if they have it, i.e. if they are a Christian... do you see where this is going? Moreover, this suggests a deterministic outlook: some have been chosen, the rest can suck it (you did not answer the part of my question which asks what happens to those that are not "chosen").

So God makes an exception, giving them the knowledge of good and evil only so that they do not obtain the knowledge of good and evil... Even if this fantastic extrapolation of yours was not a direct insult to the textual integrity of the Bible (which is about the only integrity that thing has got), it would only confirm my point vis-à-vis God/religion's reliance on blind obedience.

Which brings me to another tasty tidbit of yours:

He doesn't coerce your love, but he will let you reap the consequences of the evil that you do [...]
Mafia boss says: you don't have to pay up, but I'll beat the shit out of you if you don't.

Does the irony escape you?"

My reply:

1. You're still not getting it. Before Adam and Eve sinned, they were spiritually perfected. When they sinned their spirit became corrupt and could no longer be in the presence of God. This is why Creation fell. Human nature has been corrupted since then. This is why we live in a fallen world. Instead of starting over, God bore all of this out with us. He had a plan to restore Creation, which He did by sending His Son to die for our sins. Jesus is the name under which man is reconciled back to God and spiritually perfected, so we can again live with God. It's not about punishment, it's about restoration.

You say it's immoral for God to punish people..I'll explain why it's not but first, lets examine your hypocripsy here. You're an atheist so you believe death is the end. Yet, I bet you adovocate the death penalty or life in prison for serious crimes. You're perfectly fine with humans meting out ultimate justice on other humans, which is the same as God punishing someone forever, because if this life is all we have then a death sentence is forever. Life in prison is just as good. Yet, you somehow have a problem with God punishing people, who as our Creator and the moral authority not only has the perrogative, but indeed would be immoral if He didn't do so.

Think about it this way. You don't like God and you don't respect His authority. You certainly don't want to live forever with Him. So, though He loves you and wants to share eternity with you, He will allow you to make your choice as to whether to love Him or not. He's let you know the consequences over and over again, mostly recently through this dialogue. You are choosing directly to be seperated from God, indeed you have made it a mission to spread your ignorance about Him. So why then should you be surprised when you earn the reward you had hoped for? It's entirely moral, and entirely your choice.

2. It doesn't suggest anything of the sort. Only a Christian could receive the Holy Spirit, they are saved. A person who professes a belief in Christ yet does not accept His Spirit has committed blasphemy against the Spirit. They are not saved. A person who does not believe in Christ will never receive the Spirit, nor can they even perceive it, so they cannot commit blasphemy against Him. This is the meaning of the passage:

"Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS."

3. What was your question?

You never answered to any of this. This was your final reply:

Shiny quoted conserva-facts-don't-affect-me-pedia.com; conversation ended. You fail.

You used the excuse that I had quoted conservapedia about zooasterism to Enoch to run away from our debate. So please get off your high horse..and you never provided an intelligent or comprehensive position..most of it was simply rooted in your amatuer understanding of scripture.


>> ^hpqp:
You'd really crack me up if I didn't know you were dead serious. Remember our very first debate Mr Shiny? The one under you first sifted video? There was no quoting Leviticus, instead I provided serious questions to the ideology stemming from the Creation and Fall myths, to which you were unable to adequately reply. As for spewing Bible verses, it's a two-way street, although you definitely take it more than anyone else here, and with the added stupidity of actually thinking that an ancient collection of ideological, mythological and historical texts - compiled and edited over hundreds of years - is actually the divinely inspired word of your sky dictator. So yeah, sometimes myself and others will quote contentious scripture just to remind you that it's only manmade text (although even you go to some lengths to try and make the worst of it make sense... (re: your attempt at rationalising having to marry one's rapist)).
Most people who tried to have an intelligent debate with you here have given up. If you still can't understand why, maybe you should pore over your responses to people's questions and have a long, hard think (yes, I know that's hard).
Yours satanically,
Lucy Furr
edit: I missed part of your comment when first responding... nobody "created" us, shiny. Most secular humanists and atheists come to the conclusion that religion is bullshit all by their lonesomes, usually in their childhood or teens.. you know, when rational thought starts to outweigh parental authority. While it's nice to have speakers defending reason with arguments we could only dream of formulating so eloquently - speakers who certainly helped some who were already in doubt to make up their minds - it's not as if one needs a prophet. Maybe one reason why you have the impression you're always debating Dawkins and Hitchens is because their arguments are some of the most salient against religion, arguments that have been made since the ancient Greeks btw.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I already told you, if you go to the minute mark that I provided you will find someone talking directly about it. If you don't want to do that, or you don't believe the person in the video, that's your problem. It doesn't change the fact of what Dawkins said.
As far as arguments, I have many. I never get that far with you though. Your idea of a rational debate is to quote contentious verses in Leviticus. If you want to talk about one trick ponies..
I don't want to generalize atheists but the fact is dawkins and hitchens created a lot of you, and I feel often times I am debating them instead of the person I am talking to. In any case, it doesn't matter..I was just somewhat amused that you seemed to think that atheists are never illogical or say anything stupid.
>> ^hpqp:
Pretty rich coming from someone whose whole argument boils down to "personal revelation nananana!!!" and "God/the Bible says it so ITS TRUE!!!" All your gross generalisations based on personal experience (which could very much be made up for all we know) are but chaff to the wind, shiny.
And no, I'm not going to sit through 1h20 to try to find something that you claim Dawkins said; it's your evidence, you provide it.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Yes, atheists actually do construct arguments which merely appeal to authority and engage of all sorts of logical fallacies, all the time. You seem to be under the illusion that atheists are in general more intelligent than the average person. I debate atheists all the time all over the internet and I can safely put that theory to rest for you. It's more that atheists are completely blinded by their certitude and think that everything they say is just so forceful and compelling, like they are the sole possessors of logic and reason in the world. After you speak to few hundred or so you start to see the group think they all share and that most of their ideas are originating from a Dawkins or a Hitchens. Many of you just parrot the things they say in their debates almost word for word.
As far as your evidence, it's buried somewhere in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw
If you go to 1 hour 17 you'll find someone talking about it.
edit; I will admit I speak to some very bright people, people are people after all..but atheism is not an exclusive group of deep thinkers..if you think that you haven't been around the internet lately.
>> ^hpqp:
[citation needed]
This is not the first time you put words in Dawkins' mouth you know.
edit: and even if Dawkins, Hitchens and the FSM all got together to argue for the historicity of Jesus, they would have to bring compelling arguments to the table. Unlike some religious people, atheists don't just go "oh since Dawkins says it it must be true, no need to think/research for myself!!"
>> ^shinyblurry:
Even Dawkins admitted Jesus is a historical figure. There are virtually no historians who support that view, so scratch probably and insert "extremely unlikely".
>> ^hpqp:
Well, considering that the Jeebs is probably a fictional character altogether , it's not surprising that there is differences between the ways different authors imagined him to be.
http://religion.videosift.com/video/Lecture-Examining
-the-Existence-of-a-Historic
al-Jesus
>> ^messenger:
People in power usually do represent God in Jesus' parables. That's why this one seems so odd to me. Maybe I just haven't read enough of them to realize that Jesus himself preached violence against beings other than fig trees. (Mark 11: 12-14)>> ^hpqp:
That nobleman stands in for God/Jeebs in that parable. But you should ask shiny, for him we're all slaves to the all-powerful dictator, only some of us (that is the evil atheists) are rebellious against his power.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Lawdeedaw.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Lawdeedaw.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by marinara.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by geo321.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by geo321.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by geo321.

>> ^handmethekeysyou:

You're right, still not a single study or report devoted to statistics.
Lots moe sensationalist stories, though.>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^handmethekeysyou:
I tried googling this. Not a single report or study devoted to "
how many traffic stops per year result in shootings" on the first page. Unsurprisingly, many sensationalist news stories.>> ^MrFisk:
How many cars are pulled over in the U.S., in a year? How many result in a fatality to the officer? I'm trying to figure out if it's more likely they'll be shot, hit by lightning, or bitten by a shark.


Try googling "cop killed during traffic stop"



Weird... I guess you'll have to do it yourself.