>> ^Stu:

haha i got way too good a laugh from this>> ^Yogi:
How is the ref a bum? Have you ever refereed? Because from that angle that certainly had to look like a foul, he called what he saw that doesn't make him a bum.
ON TOP OF THAT the referee admitted his mistake and called a drop ball instead of a penalty kick which he is absolutely within his rights to insist. This is an honest referee, who listens to the players and doesn't just act like a jerk.
If you think he's a bum for making a mistake and then copping to it, you're an asshole.



You're still an asshole and an idiot. I've reffed games and been threatened with knives, if I knew you I'd beat the living shit out of you.

haha i got way too good a laugh from this>> ^Yogi:

How is the ref a bum? Have you ever refereed? Because from that angle that certainly had to look like a foul, he called what he saw that doesn't make him a bum.
ON TOP OF THAT the referee admitted his mistake and called a drop ball instead of a penalty kick which he is absolutely within his rights to insist. This is an honest referee, who listens to the players and doesn't just act like a jerk.
If you think he's a bum for making a mistake and then copping to it, you're an asshole.

How is the ref a bum? Have you ever refereed? Because from that angle that certainly had to look like a foul, he called what he saw that doesn't make him a bum.

ON TOP OF THAT the referee admitted his mistake and called a drop ball instead of a penalty kick which he is absolutely within his rights to insist. This is an honest referee, who listens to the players and doesn't just act like a jerk.

If you think he's a bum for making a mistake and then copping to it, you're an asshole.

Wrong, the referee should have stopped the game, there were people out on the court when that last ball was shot.

umpires/referees -> no accountability

Players, coaches, fans, and even owners can be fined for mistakes. But no matter how badly a ump botches a call (including blowing a perfect game), they can't be touched. It's long past time to demand accountability from those that make the calls.

Yeah, she's a terrible referee.

*controversy

Your probably right I admit I am a bit ignorant of this particular sport, and after watching it again there wasn't any real time between when the ref. got there and when the ball hits them. So the ref. very may have been in the process of telling the guy to get up or get off the field. I guess I just got the impression the first time I watched it that the ref. was basically taking the guys word that he was injured and was fixing to issue a penalty. I could be wrong in this case though because not enough time elapsed for the ref. to even make a decision. Still my final word is like or not he was right the guy was obviously faking it. And the only fair call in my mind would have been to penalize them both for unsportsmanlike conduct.
>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Auger8:
I see your point and at the same time I don't yes I agree it's wrong to hurt people for no reason. Do I think one very slow air ball that barely tapped both guys hurt them, no. Do I think the ref. has any capacity to tell if someone is faking an injury, no. Do I agree with how Beckham handled the situation, no. Do I think this might open the eyes of a lot of people, refs. included who see players take glancing blows and suddenly cry whiplash knowing the other team will be penalized, I hope so. In the short time I played Football in junior high I quickly realized how corrupt these sports have become. We were taught to fake injury at the slightest touch if we thought we could get away with it and if the resulting penalty would help our team win the game. Bending the rules to win isn't good sportsmanship. Now neither is kicking balls at someone who's on the ground claiming to be hurt.
But tell me if you knew, I mean absolutely knew that the guy was faking it but knew the ref. wasn't going to listen to you, because either you were the supposed offender or just because you were on the opposing team. What would you do?
I might not exactly agree with Beckham's ultimate choice here to ferret out a rat. But ferret one out he certainly did and if it makes the refs. more careful when assessing injuries then the sport is better for it. I personally think the reason they didn't Red Card him was because the refs. knew they fucked up and knew they fucked up big time. If they Red Carded Beckham they would have had to do the same to the other player for feigning injury.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Auger8:
I could tell he kicked two balls at him in the video here not real clearly but I saw it.
My question is this: So you don't agree that the guy on the ground was intentionally faking an injury? A leg injury at that. He seemed to run just fined after Beckham. Beckham may be a douche but in this instance he was right. Like it or not.
>> ^Yogi:
By the way what this video doesn't show is that Beckham actually kicked TWO balls at Sam Cronin...only one was off target.
Beckham is such a Douchenozzle in the MLS it's embarrassing. He runs that league like it's his own private playground, constantly screaming at officials and telling them "Fuck You" to their faces over and over for nothing. I've lost whatever respect I've had for him since he's show'd what a cruel and insolent jackass he can be.
The MLS is a joke of a league for not dealing with him properly. For this the referee didn't give him a red card, when it clearly is. The league then suspended him for one game and fined him an undisclosed amount of probably $1000 which is pointless for Beckham. It's just nuts, American Football cannot grow with these shit people.


So you hit people when they're faking an injury? What are you 8? So what he was faking, it's up to the referee to get him up and add time, kicking balls at him and hitting him and the referee is a red card offense. It doesn't matter that he was faking an injury.
This is just like on Cops when the police are talking to a guy who just hit his wife "Yeah but she said..." It Doesn't Matter! You can't hit people!


Ok I'll preface this with saying I've been a soccer referee for the last 15 years. When I'm confronted by this situation I confront the individual and I get them up. If they don't want to get up I call on their coach and he has to leave the field, and his team plays short a man because of it (unless they want to sub which if he's faking probably not) and I add time if it's necessary. The players do nothing, they have no rights to grab him, pick him up, or tell me he's faking, it's my job to deal with the "injury," manage the clock and get the game going again.
So I don't know what you're saying about the officials knew the "fucked up" what in the world did they do wrong? He did exactly what he was supposed to. He went over to the player and told him to get to his feet, big deal get on with the game. Beckham is causing problems that makes the referees job harder cause now their could be a serious altercation after the match, possibly with serious consequences.

>> ^Auger8:

I see your point and at the same time I don't yes I agree it's wrong to hurt people for no reason. Do I think one very slow air ball that barely tapped both guys hurt them, no. Do I think the ref. has any capacity to tell if someone is faking an injury, no. Do I agree with how Beckham handled the situation, no. Do I think this might open the eyes of a lot of people, refs. included who see players take glancing blows and suddenly cry whiplash knowing the other team will be penalized, I hope so. In the short time I played Football in junior high I quickly realized how corrupt these sports have become. We were taught to fake injury at the slightest touch if we thought we could get away with it and if the resulting penalty would help our team win the game. Bending the rules to win isn't good sportsmanship. Now neither is kicking balls at someone who's on the ground claiming to be hurt.
But tell me if you knew, I mean absolutely knew that the guy was faking it but knew the ref. wasn't going to listen to you, because either you were the supposed offender or just because you were on the opposing team. What would you do?
I might not exactly agree with Beckham's ultimate choice here to ferret out a rat. But ferret one out he certainly did and if it makes the refs. more careful when assessing injuries then the sport is better for it. I personally think the reason they didn't Red Card him was because the refs. knew they fucked up and knew they fucked up big time. If they Red Carded Beckham they would have had to do the same to the other player for feigning injury.

>>




Ok I'll preface this with saying I've been a soccer referee for the last 15 years. When I'm confronted by this situation I confront the individual and I get them up. If they don't want to get up I call on their coach and he has to leave the field, and his team plays short a man because of it (unless they want to sub which if he's faking probably not) and I add time if it's necessary. The players do nothing, they have no rights to grab him, pick him up, or tell me he's faking, it's my job to deal with the "injury," manage the clock and get the game going again.

So I don't know what you're saying about the officials knew the "fucked up" what in the world did they do wrong? He did exactly what he was supposed to. He went over to the player and told him to get to his feet, big deal get on with the game. Beckham is causing problems that makes the referees job harder cause now their could be a serious altercation after the match, possibly with serious consequences.

I see your point and at the same time I don't yes I agree it's wrong to hurt people for no reason. Do I think one very slow air ball that barely tapped both guys hurt them, no. Do I think the ref. has any capacity to tell if someone is faking an injury, no. Do I agree with how Beckham handled the situation, no. Do I think this might open the eyes of a lot of people, refs. included who see players take glancing blows and suddenly cry whiplash knowing the other team will be penalized, I hope so. In the short time I played Football in junior high I quickly realized how corrupt these sports have become. We were taught to fake injury at the slightest touch if we thought we could get away with it and if the resulting penalty would help our team win the game. Bending the rules to win isn't good sportsmanship. Now neither is kicking balls at someone who's on the ground claiming to be hurt.

But tell me if you knew, I mean absolutely knew that the guy was faking it but knew the ref. wasn't going to listen to you, because either you were the supposed offender or just because you were on the opposing team. What would you do?

I might not exactly agree with Beckham's ultimate choice here to ferret out a rat. But ferret one out he certainly did and if it makes the refs. more careful when assessing injuries then the sport is better for it. I personally think the reason they didn't Red Card him was because the refs. knew they fucked up and knew they fucked up big time. If they Red Carded Beckham they would have had to do the same to the other player for feigning injury.


>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Auger8:
I could tell he kicked two balls at him in the video here not real clearly but I saw it.
My question is this: So you don't agree that the guy on the ground was intentionally faking an injury? A leg injury at that. He seemed to run just fined after Beckham. Beckham may be a douche but in this instance he was right. Like it or not.
>> ^Yogi:
By the way what this video doesn't show is that Beckham actually kicked TWO balls at Sam Cronin...only one was off target.
Beckham is such a Douchenozzle in the MLS it's embarrassing. He runs that league like it's his own private playground, constantly screaming at officials and telling them "Fuck You" to their faces over and over for nothing. I've lost whatever respect I've had for him since he's show'd what a cruel and insolent jackass he can be.
The MLS is a joke of a league for not dealing with him properly. For this the referee didn't give him a red card, when it clearly is. The league then suspended him for one game and fined him an undisclosed amount of probably $1000 which is pointless for Beckham. It's just nuts, American Football cannot grow with these shit people.


So you hit people when they're faking an injury? What are you 8? So what he was faking, it's up to the referee to get him up and add time, kicking balls at him and hitting him and the referee is a red card offense. It doesn't matter that he was faking an injury.
This is just like on Cops when the police are talking to a guy who just hit his wife "Yeah but she said..." It Doesn't Matter! You can't hit people!

>> ^Auger8:

I could tell he kicked two balls at him in the video here not real clearly but I saw it.
My question is this: So you don't agree that the guy on the ground was intentionally faking an injury? A leg injury at that. He seemed to run just fined after Beckham. Beckham may be a douche but in this instance he was right. Like it or not.
>> ^Yogi:
By the way what this video doesn't show is that Beckham actually kicked TWO balls at Sam Cronin...only one was off target.
Beckham is such a Douchenozzle in the MLS it's embarrassing. He runs that league like it's his own private playground, constantly screaming at officials and telling them "Fuck You" to their faces over and over for nothing. I've lost whatever respect I've had for him since he's show'd what a cruel and insolent jackass he can be.
The MLS is a joke of a league for not dealing with him properly. For this the referee didn't give him a red card, when it clearly is. The league then suspended him for one game and fined him an undisclosed amount of probably $1000 which is pointless for Beckham. It's just nuts, American Football cannot grow with these shit people.



So you hit people when they're faking an injury? What are you 8? So what he was faking, it's up to the referee to get him up and add time, kicking balls at him and hitting him and the referee is a red card offense. It doesn't matter that he was faking an injury.

This is just like on Cops when the police are talking to a guy who just hit his wife "Yeah but she said..." It Doesn't Matter! You can't hit people!

I'd like to add that in the EPL, Rooney one of the biggest players there threw the ball towards a referee, didn't even hit him and got a red card immediately. Brek Shea a player for FC Dallas in the MLS earlier in the year kicked a ball at a ref and got 3 games...Beckham got banned 1 extra game, that's bullshit.

I could tell he kicked two balls at him in the video here not real clearly but I saw it.

My question is this: So you don't agree that the guy on the ground was intentionally faking an injury? A leg injury at that. He seemed to run just fined after Beckham. Beckham may be a douche but in this instance he was right. Like it or not.

>> ^Yogi:

By the way what this video doesn't show is that Beckham actually kicked TWO balls at Sam Cronin...only one was off target.
Beckham is such a Douchenozzle in the MLS it's embarrassing. He runs that league like it's his own private playground, constantly screaming at officials and telling them "Fuck You" to their faces over and over for nothing. I've lost whatever respect I've had for him since he's show'd what a cruel and insolent jackass he can be.
The MLS is a joke of a league for not dealing with him properly. For this the referee didn't give him a red card, when it clearly is. The league then suspended him for one game and fined him an undisclosed amount of probably $1000 which is pointless for Beckham. It's just nuts, American Football cannot grow with these shit people.

By the way what this video doesn't show is that Beckham actually kicked TWO balls at Sam Cronin...only one was off target.

Beckham is such a Douchenozzle in the MLS it's embarrassing. He runs that league like it's his own private playground, constantly screaming at officials and telling them "Fuck You" to their faces over and over for nothing. I've lost whatever respect I've had for him since he's show'd what a cruel and insolent jackass he can be.

The MLS is a joke of a league for not dealing with him properly. For this the referee didn't give him a red card, when it clearly is. The league then suspended him for one game and fined him an undisclosed amount of probably $1000 which is pointless for Beckham. It's just nuts, American Football cannot grow with these shit people.

Just out of interest a bit. I'm a referee, I used to referee American football but now it's just Soccer (Football). High schools are not the best competition but they pay well and it's steady so I do those games sometimes cause they're easy. Nearly every school I go to has a million dollar almost turf field for all their sports. The larger schools have stadiums with huge stands and scoreboards and just ridiculous amounts of money being thrown everywhere.

Also the kids are the worst...complete idiots who are entitled as hell. Who wouldn't feel entitled when they get this huge stadium to play their really bad (Seriously these kids suck) level of soccer in and a really expensive coaching staff to coach them. Badly I might add, either that or they just don't listen.

That's education...training morons to be absolute stars at a sport in high school. None of these kids is going to get a scholarship to a college for the sport either because that will go to awesome club players. Awesome club players hardly ever play for High Schools, most coaches won't let them.

We have money...it's priorities. You see parents spending THOUSANDS on fucking Prom...one fucking night of these peoples sad miserable lives. Get a fucking education instead of just being absolute nothings that don't matter.

You've done some nice cherry picking here. Sepacore, my hope in this conversation is that you will be intellectually honest to address the substance of the arguments, rather than trying to find some angle to make your point so you can *avoid* addressing the substance. I don't think that is too much to ask.

My point exactly.
Therefore to call it 'evidence' rather than 'subjective experience' is an at best misleading if not false claim, as the term 'evidence' used in conversation with others generally refers to something provable to others.

To say something like "I had a subjective experience that is evidence to me" would be fine, as it has a buffer around the term to denote that 'evidence' in this case is in no way substantial or transferable to others, i.e. not evidence to others and can be discarded.. and any line of poetic words can not change this.

Jesus made a claim, that if I put my faith in Him, He would send me the Holy Spirit to supernaturally transform me, and live within me. If that happens, it is objective evidence that His claim is true. You may have other theories as to why it happened to me, or that it happened at all and I am simply deluding myself, but something has happened, and I have changed. Whether it is subjectively experienced, it can be objectively observed in my life. I am a different person, and those in my immediate family and circle of friends have certainly noticed it.

Let's look at the definition of evidence:

ev·i·dence
   [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing.
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

As you can see, not all evidence can be empirically tested. Personal testimony is sufficient to send people to the electric chair in our court system. My personal testimony, and the testimony of billions of others, does count as evidence. This is all beside the point:

If you understand the above point (one you made yourself), then you may agree that those who 'require evidence' (regardless of what some guy poetically said), can not genuinely accept your use of the word 'evidence' as having the same value as what now has to be refereed to as 'actual evidence' for clarity after the term has been devalued to host a non-transferable personal experience (i.e. not evidence to others), and therefore swapping out this term for a personal 'reason to believe' is not only required for more clearly followable terminology within a conversation but is more accurate in general discourse of 2 opposing views.

You have completely ignored the entire point of my argument, and it seem you deliberately left out the key part of what I was saying:

"but it is something you can test on your own"

I am not telling you, I experienced God so believe in God on that basis. I am telling you that Jesus made a claim which you can empirically test. You have constantly objected that there is no empirical evidence for God, yet you have failed to validate whether this is true. You have merely assumed it is true, through many other lines of reasoning, except the one that would, if the claim was true, produce any results. Again, Jesus said directly that you would have no experience of God outside of going through Him, and your experience directly matches His claim; No have no experience of God. You assume its because there isn't a God, which is natural to assume, but Jesus said it is because there is no way to even approach God or know anything about Him except through Jesus.


Re Jesus said, Jesus said etc

The notion that one would give another great tools/resources like logical processing, rational thought and critical thinking and then put forward a reward of 'subjective experience based evidence' only achievable by those that disregarded such 'gifts' enough so as to have a chance of achieving this form of evidence is absurd.

If there is a God, then you are using none of these tools correctly. If you've ever read the book "flatland", then you can understand how two dimensional creatures would consider the possibility of a 3D world illogical and irrational. Thus, so does a materialist consider the spiritual reality to be illogical and irrational. This is why I say atheism is a religion for people who have no experience of God.

The bible anticipates your argument and your skepticism:

1 Corinthians 1:18-22

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Men have always taken great pride in their intellectual accomplishments, yet none of them have ever given even one shred of revelation about Almighty God. The wisdom behind the cross is much higher than this worldly wisdom, and it in fact proves it all to be vanity and foolishness, but the world cannot see that, because it is wise in its own eyes:

Romans 1:22

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

No offense taken as you've missed the point. Firstly there is a difference as i do not claim to 'know' that God doesn't exist. I claim to have 'reasons to believe' that it is unlikely. Knowledge of mental deficiencies, emotions, subjective experiences, experience recognition mental softwares and the way humans make mass assumptions to quickly gain degrees of understandings of any/every situation alone take me right up to that hairsbreadth away point. Whereby it can take time and effort explaining to people the difference between agnostic (don't know/care), agnostic-atheist (don't know, doubt it) and atheist (believe not), I'm happy to wear the tag as a generality in non-specific and non-in-depth discussions.

However I'm aware that a God identical to your claims 'could' be hiding in the shadows just outside of human detection and actual evidence as the religious coincidentally claim to those who request proof (yet then in the same breath can state 'but I have personal evidence'.. yes, seems convenient and unlikely).
Just like I'm aware that there 'could' be a 700 story tall pink dragon that farts rainbows named Trevor that simultaneously exists and doesn't exist inside both of my kidneys without being split into 2 parts..
Or someone 'could' prefer their beliefs enough to unknowingly and automatically do mental acrobats around anything that would disrupt them including acknowledging that their position is unsubstantiated outside of a mind that wants to believe (this is in fact what can occur when someone suffers from a delusion).
Debating possibilities is a waste of time, whereas debating probabilities is where you might actually get some results or at least supportable reason to belive.

I'm not talking about probabilities. Jesus was a real person, and He made claims. These claims can be tested.

As far as the difference between God and trevor goes, one has explanatory power and one doesn't. Neither does anyone believe in trevor; he isn't plausible. He isn't even logically coherent. No one believes in flying tea pots, and flying tea pots don't explain anything. God does explain something, and in many cases, is a better explanation for the evidence, such as information in DNA and the fine tuning of our physical laws. Asking whether the Universe was intelligently designed is a perfectly rational question and there is evidence to support this conclusion. Do you know that 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians believe in a personal God? I am not appealing to an authority here, but I think this statistic shows that people trained in science do believe that the evidence points towards God.

understanding of stellar evolution is actually very primitive

The arguments relating to 'we don't know everything yet' is not a basis in which to claim 'X is just as, if not more so, likely to be true'. Claims require their own 'evidences' to support them. Pushing ideas onto people requires 'transferable evidence' and just because there is a question mark at a stage whereby most other aspects of a theory hold true enough to be accurately predicted during tests, does not reflect on another theory being more likely but may indeed reflect on another theory as being less likely.

Again, this is just cherry picking and I think you have lost track of the thread, or you don't want to follow it. You said that part of your skepticism about God creating the Universe was that we understood things about stellar evolution, which is to say we don't need to invoke God as an explanation. I pointed out that not only is our understanding primitive, but even if it were perfect, how does that rule out a Creator? You are confusing mechanism for agency. The stars didn't create themselves, the laws that govern the cosmos caused them to form, and ultimately the laws that caused them to form also had an origin. You have to explain the agency before you can say you don't need God to explain something.

I won't reply much to this as it merely shows that you're already geared to ignore actual evidences that would support the idea of the universe not requiring a God (note that this readiness to disregard facts is what occurs within delusions so as to keep degrees of stability withing fantasized worlds).

I can just as easily say this:

And I won't reply much to this as it merely shows that you're already geared to ignore actual evidences that would support the idea of the universe requiring a God (note that this readiness to disregard facts is what occurs within delusions so as to keep degrees of stability withing fantasized worlds)

Although we haven't figured everything out yet, we've only had about 400 years worth of good studying and scientific thinking on the matter of a 13.7 billion year old case... how much can you honestly expect us to know definitively when so much of our combined time goes towards supporting notions that can't actually be proved?

I don't, and therefore, I wouldn't expect you to say that what has been described actually proves anything one way or the other.

Yes I know that humans must make assumptions so as to figure things out, in fact it was one of the if not THE main focus of my previous post.
Could you ask your question if their wasn't uniformity in nature? No. The fact that there is, is what allows for those that can question it to arise. Our mere being here says nothing as to whether there is a God, in fact nothing in science thus far (to my knowledge) says anything as to whether there IS a God, however some things do say as to whether or not a God is required.

So what is the experiment that proves science is the best method for obtaining truth if you have to assume things you cannot prove to even do science?

Our being here doesn't prove there is a God, necessarily, but we should be surprised to find ourselves in a Universe that is so finely tuned for life.

Scripture (your one and others) say a lot of things, some things vaguely, somethings specifically, and some things contradictorily (Google 'bible contradictions' for examples), but most of all, it says things poetically somewhat like a manipulating salesman whose product you're not allowed to touch, until you've handed over the money. Scripture also doesn't say things as well as some writers over the years could have, but hey it's only the word of God.. I'm interested in things outside of scripture, things that are testable, things that are comparable to an alternate source than where they came from.

You're cherry picking, and dodging the substance, and now even the point of the argument. You were agreeing with Sageminds contention that if God is perfect, then He is also perfectly evil. I pointed out that scripture describes God different, and I also gave you a logical argument outside of scripture for it:

It would be less perfect for God to be a mixture of good and evil versus being perfectly good.

Do you have a response to that argument?

Cheap shot: proof please. I require it in order to respond to the statement & question.
Na just kidding I don't expect any proof for these claims, just like I can't provide you any proof about Trevor.. * whispers: because Trever doesn't actually exists *. In these cases we'll just dismiss each others unsubstantiated claims until the other provides either evidence or acceptable reason to believe said claims.

It's your claim that God does evil in the bible, and so I am asking you why, hypothetically, is it wrong for God to take a life? Since we're talking about the God of the bible, He is the creator of all things, and so has ultimate responsibility over His creation. He is responsible for every aspect of your life, and has the say over your continued existence. Therefore, what makes it wrong for Him to take life just as He gives and maintains life?

Conflict.

Christian claim: God gave humans free will and allows them to use it whereby they will be judged in the afterlife.
Christian claim: God may affect the world in your benefit if you pray (or as your hypothetical, affect the world against you if you're naughty).
Christian claim: God exists outside of detection.
Christian claim: God can do anything.
Christian claim: God.
Christian claim: God is mysterious / we can not understand the will of God
Christian claim: God likes X, God doesn't like Y.

Or to summarize: God exists outside of known existence and has the ability to create and destroy anything without exception.
This is the result of human intelligence evolving to the point of getting one of our psychological survival drives (hope) to an indisputable peak of performance.

My point is that believers over time have given themselves so much wiggle room, when we start talking about 'why God X, why not Y, can God Z' etc, then we enter the realm of imaginative flexibility where the desperate and delusional can simply change the variables of what they want to use regardless of the conflicts, and ignore any logical positions by getting caught up on their preferred ideological technicalities while rejecting other physical or metal technicalities or proofs.

Again, this is a hypothetical scenario involving the God of the bible. It's your claim that God has done evil, so you can back it up with a logical argument? I've outlined a few scenarios and asked you if God would be evil for doing any of those things. I am not talking about mysterious ways, I am talking about specifics.

I have to say 'proof please' again. The words of 1 source (the Bible) are not good enough, evidence requires testability and multiple sources of confirmation. Too much imagination and you can slip away from reality.

Again, we are speaking hypothetically of a scenario you engaged in; "how would you react if the God of the bible showed up at your door". You said you would react in such and such way, which is unrealistic considering how the God of the bible is described, which is what I pointed out to. Based on your modified understanding of the God of the bible, do you think you would react the same way?

Would have replied sooner, but was busy and then D3 launched =D

No problemo..take your time? How is D3?

>> ^Sepacore

@shinyblurry

I cannot prove to you that this has happened to me

My point exactly.
Therefore to call it 'evidence' rather than 'subjective experience' is an at best misleading if not false claim, as the term 'evidence' used in conversation with others generally refers to something provable to others.
To say something like "I had a subjective experience that is evidence to me" would be fine, as it has a buffer around the term to denote that 'evidence' in this case is in no way substantial or transferable to others, i.e. not evidence to others and can be discarded.. and any line of poetic words can not change this.

If you understand the above point (one you made yourself), then you may agree that those who 'require evidence' (regardless of what some guy poetically said), can not genuinely accept your use of the word 'evidence' as having the same value as what now has to be refereed to as 'actual evidence' for clarity after the term has been devalued to host a non-transferable personal experience (i.e. not evidence to others), and therefore swapping out this term for a personal 'reason to believe' is not only required for more clearly followable terminology within a conversation but is more accurate in general discourse of 2 opposing views.

Re Jesus said, Jesus said etc

The notion that one would give another great tools/resources like logical processing, rational thought and critical thinking and then put forward a reward of 'subjective experience based evidence' only achievable by those that disregarded such 'gifts' enough so as to have a chance of achieving this form of evidence is absurd.
For this irony to be the foundation to salvation, God would have to be a smartass of an asshole. This is not a sane, righteous or respectable approach given that most humans adopt their parents religious beliefs and are therefore largely disqualified given the amount of pressure some religious people put on family to remain loyal to that which they were born into.

A point that they still have a chance of finding your God has truth to it despite whether your God is actually real as we can't discount the subjective realness of delusions, but to make such a claim is to discount the difficulties and almost impossibilities in some cases due to lack of legitimate opportunity.


If you are that close to being an atheist, what is the practical difference? To maintain a hairbreadth of uncertainty so as to hold the "intellectual honesty" card is actually intellectually dishonest I think, no offense. I don't think being certain and being a hairsbreadth away from certainty is really much different.

No offense taken as you've missed the point. Firstly there is a difference as i do not claim to 'know' that God doesn't exist. I claim to have 'reasons to believe' that it is unlikely. Knowledge of mental deficiencies, emotions, subjective experiences, experience recognition mental softwares and the way humans make mass assumptions to quickly gain degrees of understandings of any/every situation alone take me right up to that hairsbreadth away point. Whereby it can take time and effort explaining to people the difference between agnostic (don't know/care), agnostic-atheist (don't know, doubt it) and atheist (believe not), I'm happy to wear the tag as a generality in non-specific and non-in-depth discussions.

However I'm aware that a God identical to your claims 'could' be hiding in the shadows just outside of human detection and actual evidence as the religious coincidentally claim to those who request proof (yet then in the same breath can state 'but I have personal evidence'.. yes, seems convenient and unlikely).
Just like I'm aware that there 'could' be a 700 story tall pink dragon that farts rainbows named Trevor that simultaneously exists and doesn't exist inside both of my kidneys without being split into 2 parts..
Or someone 'could' prefer their beliefs enough to unknowingly and automatically do mental acrobats around anything that would disrupt them including acknowledging that their position is unsubstantiated outside of a mind that wants to believe (this is in fact what can occur when someone suffers from a delusion).
Debating possibilities is a waste of time, whereas debating probabilities is where you might actually get some results or at least supportable reason to belive.


understanding of stellar evolution is actually very primitive

The arguments relating to 'we don't know everything yet' is not a basis in which to claim 'X is just as, if not more so, likely to be true'. Claims require their own 'evidences' to support them. Pushing ideas onto people requires 'transferable evidence' and just because there is a question mark at a stage whereby most other aspects of a theory hold true enough to be accurately predicted during tests, does not reflect on another theory being more likely but may indeed reflect on another theory as being less likely.


Even if scientists understood this perfectly, what does that actually prove?

I won't reply much to this as it merely shows that you're already geared to ignore actual evidences that would support the idea of the universe not requiring a God (note that this readiness to disregard facts is what occurs within delusions so as to keep degrees of stability withing fantasized worlds).
Although we haven't figured everything out yet, we've only had about 400 years worth of good studying and scientific thinking on the matter of a 13.7 billion year old case... how much can you honestly expect us to know definitively when so much of our combined time goes towards supporting notions that can't actually be proved?


Did you know that scientists must make fundamental assumptions, such as a uniformity in nature, to even do science? Can you answer why there is a uniformity in nature?

Yes I know that humans must make assumptions so as to figure things out, in fact it was one of the if not THE main focus of my previous post.
Could you ask your question if their wasn't uniformity in nature? No. The fact that there is, is what allows for those that can question it to arise. Our mere being here says nothing as to whether there is a God, in fact nothing in science thus far (to my knowledge) says anything as to whether there IS a God, however some things do say as to whether or not a God is required.


Scripture says differently

Scripture (your one and others) say a lot of things, some things vaguely, somethings specifically, and some things contradictorily (Google 'bible contradictions' for examples), but most of all, it says things poetically somewhat like a manipulating salesman whose product you're not allowed to touch, until you've handed over the money. Scripture also doesn't say things as well as some writers over the years could have, but hey it's only the word of God.. I'm interested in things outside of scripture, things that are testable, things that are comparable to an alternate source than where they came from.


For instance, God is the giver of life. He gives everyone a body and soul, air to breathe, water to drink, and He even upholds the atoms that comprise your being. Life is only possible because of what God is doing for you in this very moment, and every moment.

So, if this is true, why is it wrong for God to take it away, at the time of His choosing?

Cheap shot: proof please. I require it in order to respond to the statement & question.
Na just kidding I don't expect any proof for these claims, just like I can't provide you any proof about Trevor.. * whispers: because Trever doesn't actually exists *. In these cases we'll just dismiss each others unsubstantiated claims until the other provides either evidence or acceptable reason to believe said claims.


Let's say someone is doing something terribly evil, and causing many people to greatly suffer. The evil he is doing is going to cause many people to miss the boat on what God had planned for them. Is God wrong for judging this person and taking away his life to serve the greater good? Now lets say this is a nation, which is causing many other nations to suffer in the same way. Is God wrong for judging that nation? Wouldn't God actually be evil for ignoring it and allowing people to suffer needlessly? How about if the entire world becomes corrupt? Wouldn't God be evil for allowing it to continue that way?

Conflict.

Christian claim: God gave humans free will and allows them to use it whereby they will be judged in the afterlife.
Christian claim: God may affect the world in your benefit if you pray (or as your hypothetical, affect the world against you if you're naughty).
Christian claim: God exists outside of detection.
Christian claim: God can do anything.
Christian claim: God.
Christian claim: God is mysterious / we can not understand the will of God
Christian claim: God likes X, God doesn't like Y.

Or to summarize: God exists outside of known existence and has the ability to create and destroy anything without exception.
This is the result of human intelligence evolving to the point of getting one of our psychological survival drives (hope) to an indisputable peak of performance.

My point is that believers over time have given themselves so much wiggle room, when we start talking about 'why God X, why not Y, can God Z' etc, then we enter the realm of imaginative flexibility where the desperate and delusional can simply change the variables of what they want to use regardless of the conflicts, and ignore any logical positions by getting caught up on their preferred ideological technicalities while rejecting other physical or metal technicalities or proofs.


I think you are suffering from a lack of imagination. Here is the being that has created everything you have ever loved, appreciated, been in awe of, who is intimately familiar with your comings and goings, all of your thoughts and feelings. He gave you your family, your friends, your talents, your purposes. He understands you better than you understand yourself.

I have to say 'proof please' again. The words of 1 source (the Bible) are not good enough, evidence requires testability and multiple sources of confirmation. Too much imagination and you can slip away from reality.

Would have replied sooner, but was busy and then D3 launched =D