good ole boy network destroying a user site. nothing like a bunch of old shit vids sifted because of vanity and politics instead of content.

In this age of technology, one must practice a sense of vanity to develop decent handwriting.>> ^Deano:

He's got great handwriting. Mine is terrible now and I squarely blame computers for that. At school it wasn't uncommon for us to use fountain pens at one time, the cheap stuff you could buy in the high street.
I recall them being fun to use if slightly messy.

>> ^Auger8:

My thoughts exactly what a jackass!
>> ^Morganth:
"I'll help you in a moment, just let me check my bumper first."



Make that a consensus! Never mind the guy in the sideways truck, just make sure your vanity license plate is still there. Maybe the guy was in shock...Im sure he was pissed...but come on. Douche.

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

>> ^ChaosEngine:
You act as though the labour and resources went into a black hole. Engineers were employed, research was done, factories were built, money was made and families were fed.
A crime against humanity? Are you seriously comparing owning a fucking car to this, or this or this? I really hope you're joking.

This is the broken window fallacy.

At least mass murder is good for the environment. Burning the equivalent of five man-years of labour on one car just to feed your vanity, and making the whole world poorer in the process, is a pure evil.

Haven't had a chance to watch the clip yet, but I just had to add my 2¢ on this. I wouldn't describe Moyers as liberal or fair. He's progressive and his shows are definitely agenda-driven. And that's a good thing, because he's really good at what he does. The difference between Moyers and someone like Limbaugh or Olbermann is this: Moyers has thoughtful discussions on important political and cultural topics with scholars and experts on the topic at hand, with rational, fact-based arguments (which are neither infallible nor unassailable) presented with great articulation; Limbaugh and his ilk instead offer screeching opinions based largely on emotion (usually fear and/or anger) with just enough facts laced in to make any outright lies or other deceptions believable. They're all just as motivated by an agenda as any other broadcaster. The difference is the usefulness of the content and the style with which it's presented.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Bill Moyers is about as fair as you get when it comes to media. He definitely sees the world through a prism of liberal empathy, so I can see where you might find him unbalanced. Every newsperson and newswriter is biased towards what they believe to be true, and it's not really a problem so long as you are fair about it. The problem with FOX is not that it presents a far right perspective on the news, it's that they do it in such a dishonest way, and then call it 'fair and balanced.' Do you ever think how ridiculous it is that the phrase you choose to use so often 'fair and balanced' comes from the largest and sleaziest propoganda outfit in the history of the planet? >> ^quantumushroom:
For all of you that chide Fox, Moyers's trumpeting shows are nothing close to being fair or balanced, he's a mirror for liberal vanity. At least Rush does his schtick on how own dime and creates wealth, which the Moyers's of the world then siphon away for who-knows-what.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Probably not, but do you notice how calm, reasoned and intelligent his show is? Why is it, do you think, that publicly funded media is so vastly superior to privately funded media? >> ^quantumushroom:
Has Moyers ever had a show that taxpayers didn't have to pay for?

Bill Moyers is about as fair as you get when it comes to media. He definitely sees the world through a prism of liberal empathy, so I can see where you might find him unbalanced. Every newsperson and newswriter is biased towards what they believe to be true, and it's not really a problem so long as you are fair about it. The problem with FOX is not that it presents a far right perspective on the news, it's that they do it in such a dishonest way, and then call it 'fair and balanced.' Do you ever think how ridiculous it is that the phrase you choose to use so often 'fair and balanced' comes from the largest and sleaziest propoganda outfit in the history of the planet? >> ^quantumushroom:

For all of you that chide Fox, Moyers's trumpeting shows are nothing close to being fair or balanced, he's a mirror for liberal vanity. At least Rush does his schtick on how own dime and creates wealth, which the Moyers's of the world then siphon away for who-knows-what.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Probably not, but do you notice how calm, reasoned and intelligent his show is? Why is it, do you think, that publicly funded media is so vastly superior to privately funded media? >> ^quantumushroom:
Has Moyers ever had a show that taxpayers didn't have to pay for?

>> ^quantumushroom:

For all of you that chide Fox, Moyers's trumpeting shows are nothing close to being fair or balanced, he's a mirror for liberal vanity. At least Rush does his schtick on how own dime and creates wealth, which the Moyers's of the world then siphon away for who-knows-what.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Probably not, but do you notice how calm, reasoned and intelligent his show is? Why is it, do you think, that publicly funded media is so vastly superior to privately funded media? >> ^quantumushroom:
Has Moyers ever had a show that taxpayers didn't have to pay for?




One uses facts and respected intellectuals or authors. One is a guy with a microphone who is only there to make money.

For all of you that chide Fox, Moyers's trumpeting shows are nothing close to being fair or balanced, he's a mirror for liberal vanity. At least Rush does his schtick on how own dime and creates wealth, which the Moyers's of the world then siphon away for who-knows-what.


>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Probably not, but do you notice how calm, reasoned and intelligent his show is? Why is it, do you think, that publicly funded media is so vastly superior to privately funded media? >> ^quantumushroom:
Has Moyers ever had a show that taxpayers didn't have to pay for?

She was in a Californian beauty pageant a few years ago (because homosexuality is bad in the Bible, while vanity is just super). While I hate what she said, it's more wrong for her to have been asked in public and have her own opinion broadcast as if she meant a damn thing to the world.


>> ^luxury_pie:

I have no fucking idea >> ^FlowersInHisHair:
>> ^luxury_pie:
@3:05 I just want to roundhousekick her stupid plastic face to the ground.
Sometimes I don't like my thoughts.

Who the fuck is she?

>> ^artician:

I'm so curious to why people reject that notion. Is it purely fear of other religions and cultures? Are that many americans actually for invading other countries? I've never encountered that state of mind before, at all. From my experience most people are pretty quick to equate War with Evil.


Ha, ignorant one, it is because of self-importance, vanity, and pride. What is it that other countries are? Oh yes, savage tribes all! Mwhahaah...

(I cannot make this post sarcastic because that is the way a typical American thinks...)

This is footage of Warsaw.
The Youtube uploader is being purposely misleading--and is proud of it.

Deception is a fairly large part of the YouTube-Machiavellian Culture. I built an OWS mousetrap that was designed to entertain mice that smelled the cheese. The music (I added) fits in pretty well with subject matter. YouTube traps are not always related to integrity. This isn't exactly Vanity Fair here...

HyperMediaNews 1 week ago

Just a heads-up, but if you quote someone they get an email telling them what you wrote instantly. So if you go back and edit your comment (as you did in this case) I still get to read your original remarks. Something to consider before hitting the submit button next time, if you didn't realize that. I'll respond to your original post:

Yeah, you used your sad little line once already. I know you think it makes you sound smart, but it just makes you seem like a tool. Care to actually engage in a debate with facts and opinions?

Yes, I would very much like to engage in a debate with facts and...opinions (can you have a debate without opinions)?

Regardless, I would also like to engage in a debate where people avoid logical fallacies rather than zealously pursuing them (for instance, that pesky ad hominem that so many people on the Sift have a hard time avoiding). And unfortunately I've learned that kind of debate just doesn't happen here often enough, which is why (as I said in my original post) I've moved on to debating on other forums where people are more interested in reasonable discussion than comment upvotes or making themselves feel clever by insulting others.

By the way, just in case you still don't understand the point of my original post, I suggest you read my answer to hpqp in which I spell it out clearly.

Or you can keep insulting me and continue proving my point.

Also, since you asked so nicely, here are some facts for you:

-- Hitchens in 2003 he wrote that his daily intake of alcohol was enough "to kill or stun the average mule" (Vanity Fair, March issue)
-- In the same article, he mentions that some people need alcohol to avoid self-destructing even more quickly... self-referential? Who knows.
-- According to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans moderate drinking is defined as no more than two drinks a day. Yet according to his own auto-biography Hitchens was drinking far in excess of that, including half a bottle of red wine (no less) at lunch alone in addition to his other drinks throughout the day.
-- As per hpqp's quote, he knew it was bad for him but continued to drink anyways... right up until the cancer. In fact I could find no information stating that he has given up drinking despite the cancer.

Of course, Hitchens denies that he's an alcoholic... but so do most alcoholics so I don't give that much credence.

In the end, though, whether or not he is an alcoholic is actually a moot point. The excessive drinking (if you prefer that term) has contributed to his cancer and an early grave. Thus it strikes me (and Shinyblurry) as peculiar to honor him with a toast. You disagree and that is your right. But instead of stating your case, you (and to be fair, a lot of others) came out flaming those who disagreed with you. And that is how we ended up having this conversation.

(P.S. I am indeed a tool. But I am a tool who carefully considers what his opponents say and can argue his point without having to insult the opposing side.)

In reply to this comment by ChaosEngine:
Wow, what an original and clever response.

In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
Upvoted for both missing the point and proving it at the very same time.

In reply to this comment by ChaosEngine:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/SDGundamX" title="member since March 2nd, 2007" class="profilelink">SDGundamX, Hitchens was not an alcoholic. It is possible to enjoy a few drinks without being an alcoholic.

As for your response to @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://fletch.videosift.com" title="member since August 9th, 2006" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#FF4500">Fletch, I fail to see how he either missed or proved your point. All I can see is that he refuted your bullshit with facts and logic. But I guess those aren't really popular with your ilk.

I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and behold, all is vanity and a chasing after the wind - Ecclesiastes 1:14

>> ^bareboards2:

According to my Mormon brother, the Mormon Church is the fastest growing church in America. And the Unitarians -- they seem to be healthy. I don't think this guy is talking about them.
Plus -- why so many loving shots of his own face? Way to make a vanity movie, guy.


2/3 of the young people leaving the church? So there is still hope for America.

Even if the Mormon Church grows by lets say 1% each year and no other church does, then they would be the fastest growing church.(just showing that such a statement has no value without giving absolute values)

Why so many loving shots of his face?
I bet he likes to be an evangelist with his own mega church, those guys always love to see and hear themselves; they want to feel important.