3. I never downvoted any of your comments
2. You need to chill out and relax
1. I like boobs

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
1. I said nothing about objectification or about the suffering of those particular women. I just said that boobies are not a good reason for an upvote.
2. This isn't a battle, this is a defense of a harmless comment.
3. My original comment was meant to be taken lightly, not to be downvoted by everyone and their dog. I would argue that it is all of those people who need to grow a sense of humor.

Lol

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
Please, please, please stop voting for this video! Please?

I admire your boldness in spite of the fact that your opinions tend to be ill-favored on the sift. Congratulations for seeing through so many lies.

Do you by chance have a Gmail account? And by gmail, I mean GChat.

Congratulations on reaching new heights on VideoSift. You have earned yourself 26 stars, earning you status of Silver Star member. You have been awarded 1 Power Point for achieving this level. Thanks for all your contributions.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Charles-meets-Obama#comment-563458

This is a pretty big answer, so I've split it in chunks with their own headline.

We may have some common ground, but it is smaller than you've indicated. I said I was inclined to think that the universe always existed somehow, but this does not spread to other ideas - I don't think that we existed always or that something other than the universe existed always. My assumption here is actually not reasonable, but I make it because it has no descernable effect on my daily life.

Re: Believers are just as logical as non-believers
For purely principle reasons it is obvious that the scientific method cannot directly prove nor disprove God, but there is a difference in the two. We can gather evidence that indicate, if not directly proves/disproves something. Take the Loch Ness Monster. While we cannot directly disprove it unless we do an exhaustive search of the lake, we can take the many observations and searches as "evidence" or at least conjecture that the monster probably does not exist. If someone thinks that the monster does exist for whatever reason, it is their responsibility to prove that it does, not everyone else's to prove that it does not. So, while there may not be directly contradicting evidence to God's existence there is plenty of evidence that makes more sense if he does not, in addition the religion around this God has plenty of "plot holes" about God, which also leads us to think that it does not make sense. For instance, if God is the God of Young Earth Creationists, then there absolutely IS evidence that he does not exists. You'll agree to this, right? Whenever Science gets closer, it seems that God conveniently retreats into the unknown areas, which again is the God in the Gaps. I think that people who believe in God ARE less logical or reasonable than those who do not.

Which is the reasonable assumption to make, when there is absolutely no evidence for or against something?

I have not seen any evidence that contradicts the existence of fairies, but I have neither seen evidence that support it; which should I assume? There are three possible assumptions:

1) I'm fairy-agnostic - they may or may not exist, but I make no assumptions one way or the other.
2) Fairies probably do not exist, because if they did, evidence that supported their existence would have come about, and as such I can assume that they do not exist.
3) Fairies probably exist, because there has been found no evidence against them.

I would in general choose the second option, because if things exist they tend to show themselves - somehow. I think that people who take the third option of believing that fairies exists are making an unreasonable assumption, because there is neither evidence that supports it, nor traces of evidence such as fairy-droppings, fairy houses or something similar. Do you follow my logic that people who believe in this way are less reasonable/logical?

Your definition of your God and my arguments against him
* God is perfect (a perfect being).
* God is not bound by time and space in the same way we are.
* God does not break "natural laws".
* God has always existed, in one form or another.
* God created all created things, but not all things.

This is the definition you provided, and I will base my arguments on that.

There are some words that need further specification.

"Perfect" is a very big, vague and subjective word. Do you mean that God is infallible or all knowing? It must include that he cannot be perfected in any way: become any better.

"Natural laws" is also a bit vague. Your example, the principle that nothing comes from nothing, is a logical argument, but natural laws are something else. Newtons law, Einsteins theory of relativety, how temperature spreads, gravity: those are natural laws, but if God is not bound by time/space then he obviously is not bound by gravity. I think the point here is that you mean God does not engage in logical paradoxes: "Can God make a toast so hot that he himself couldn't eat it?" But if he is perfect, then he must and by being perfect he proves that he cannot exist.

God created all created things? Well, that can be true, but if nothing is created that is explained away. I doubt you'll be satisfied by that answer though, so I'll argue that this again breaks your definitions. What did he create all created things from? Nothing? Was God created? You'll obviously argue no, because then he needs a creator of his own and we'll have en infinite regress. But if God was not created, did he come from nothing?

"God has always existed in one form or another, as have we. We were "something" before we were "created.""
The first part can only be answered, perhaps, if he exists. Concerning humans, you are of course technically correct, but not in the way that you think. "We" are who we are, I am me and you are you. "We" have never existed in any other form in any reality. Our bodies, however, is merely a collection of atoms, which of course always were something before they were coagulated and rearranged into the meta-structure that is our bodies. it is this way with all things, the atoms and molecules have always existed somehow, but have been shaped into the arrangments they have now by our environement.

I was obviously not created by God, I naturally grew in my mother womb as a direct result of massive cell-generation which started with the combination of sperm and egg. This was a rearrangement of atoms from food and energy into matter, namely my body ("me"). Nothing created me, I naturally grew.

Curveballs and God-theory
By curveballs I just meant that it was tough questions.

The two first explanations are exactly more logical than the God-theory because the God-theory falls back on either 1 or 2 at some point. The God-theory is a non-explanation for the existance of the universe, because it just moves the question one step - instead of asking "how did the universe come into existence", it is "how did God come into existence, so he could created the universe". And if we use the same explanation for god, that he was created by a super-god, then it becomes "How did super-god come into existence, so that he could create God who could create the universe" this is an infinite regress and is a non-explanation for anything. It must be grounded somehow, which both the other explanations do.

I submit again that the three explanations may not be exhaustive, because the Universe is far more mysterious than we can scientifically explain at this point, so there may be some fourth explanation that covers it. In any case, the God-theory does not explain it.

Faith and logic
There are parts of the bible which are directly opposed to one another? How do you interpret your way out of those? Genesis directly contradicts reality, how do you interpret your way out of that?
In my mind interpreting an answer from the Bible is just picking and choosing which parts fit your point of view and ignoring the parts that don't fit. This is a Bad Thing.

"You said that the fact that we have never had empirical evidence to disprove the existence of God "does seem to show a tendency.""
That's not true. I said that the distinct lack of evidence for the existence of God show a tendency. As I explained above, if the evidence for and against something both is zero, then the reasonable assumption is that it does not exist.


In reply to this comment by thepinky:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by thepinky:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by thepinky:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
[snip]

I've just seen your response, but I have no time to make a proper response right now.. I'll make a real argument tomorrow, suffice to say, I disagree!

Re: evidence against God:
Well, obviously this is a tough one, because you can never prove a negative. The problem is you cannot prove it positively either. Or rather, no one has. We can prove that zebras exist, because there are pictures/videos, many, many people have seen zebras and the thought "makes sense" to us. While I have not seen a zebra, I take it faith, for lack of a better word, that they exist and that it is not an elaborate scheme or conspiracy. It is also relatively easy to verify the theory of a zebra at any given time. It is not all that easy to verify a proof of God, because all the "evidence" are aberrations: Jesus in a can of beans, someone being healed of some disease or being awed by nature. Do you see my point?
To be able to dispute a claim of God, I have to have a definition to go on. Many times when someone disproves a definition, people go "well, but that's not my God". If you make a hypothesis of your God, I'll do my best to disprove that hypothesis.

The Christian Creation theory is not just illogical it is blatantly false and foolish. Creation makes very definite claims, for instance young earth Creationism (earth <10.000 years old) is provably false, the claim that God made all species they way they are now with no transitions is provably false. When a religious doctrine makes such definite claims about our natural world the scientific method has crushed them every time. God seems to retreat into more muddy waters every time science proves him wrong; "God in the gaps".

Re: faith and logic
Your argument that you are able to correlate your faith and logic is more indicative of your ability to overlook some scripture and accept other parts. To make the Bible, for instance, cover the world as we see it now, we have to pick-and-choose which parts we really want to follow and which parts are just gibberish. I think this is a wrong way to go about it. There is a reason the Bible is as it is, you have to either accept it or not. Christianity as an idea is also "evolved" over time, into the many, many variations we see now. Some differences are greater than others, and some are minute. I am troubled by the pick-and-choosing, because that is not the way we learn things about the world. I view the Bible as the evidence that Christians use, and in that case you have to be able to fit everything into your theory, if it doesn't fit, you must acquit. Or make a new theory.

I respect your reverence of your parents, but they can be wrong too. Not that you should questions everything they say, but my point is that they may not really have the answer you are looking for.

The Scientific method is not well equipped to handle moral or ethical questions, because they are not (yet, anyway) a countable, measurable thing. We can't observe moral in its pure form, only the effects it has on people. It is possible to form theories about how it has originated through social sciences and anthropology, but "hard science" has trouble with it. Concerning philosophical questions, it really depends on what kind of philosophical question it is. Some are surprisingly easily bounded in biological evidence, while others are more ethereal.

If God chose to reveal himself, he would manifest in our natural world and thus the scientific method would suddenly apply to at least that avatar in our world. We could then do tests and gather evidence on this manifestation and, at least, get some ideas of how he exists. The fact that this has never happened, does seem to show a tendency.

Re: Existence of the universe
You're just throwing curve balls, aren't you?

Your third possible answer is the same as number two or one. The unmoved mover would need an origin too, and either he has his own 3 or he came from nothing or he always existed.

The problem with inserting God in that theory is that it can never explain anything. You enter into an infinite regress, that goes: "Us <-- God <-- superGod <-- supersuperGod" and so on (<-- "made by").
We have very little scientific evidence that shows the origin of the universe, but that does not mean that we should insert a prime mover into the equation, because that does not logically add up.

I will submit that the nature of the universe may be more mysterious than we think now and that the three possibilities does not adequately cover what "really" happened. Time could be cyclical, or something entirely different from a different point of view than our 3 dimensional world. I'm inclined to that the universe always existed in some form or another, but I have no scientific basis for that thought.

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by thepinky:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
[snip]

Probably a good move to move the discussion away from the sift talk.

I've gotten more and more angry with religion as of late, which is why I worded it like that, also I was being a bit of a smartass. I don't want to claim that I am intellectually superior than you or any other religious sifter, just because I don't believe any supernatural being. That would be arrogant of me. I still believe that there is only one conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence. When I say evidence, I don't mean that you have to look at "everything", but I have yet to see a single piece of evidence that points to a God to exist. Obviously you can't be completely objective, no one can, but to get to the conclusion that God exists, you have to make some pretty big jumps in logic.

I've found that when I see videos with debates about religion, it is always the atheist who is the opnen-minded one and the theist who dismisses the idea and typically ends with something like "I have faith that I am right" or similar, which says absolutely nothing. When a debater says this, he has lost the debate. I agree that faith is harder to accept than hard evidence, but I think that is because it requires us to "turn off" our reasonable thinking. Universally accepted evidence of God would require quite a lot from me, because the very theory of a supernatural being makes so little sense. It logically does not add up.

I was being a bit of a smartass with the shackles remark, but I do think that having faith is like wearing intellectual shackles. If you come across something that does not line up with your faith, do you accept it or dismiss it? The very idea of faith is that you accept a forgone conclusion in spite of evidence - I don't care for that. Indeed, if you made similar but opposite remarks to me, there are quite a few atheists that cry wolf quite quickly; videosift is Liberal Atheists Central after all.

I fail to see how the metaphor would add up in that case though, because I see faith as hampering your reason (in my mind faith < reason), but not the other way around.

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
[snip]

NOT THE MAMA! *frying pan to the head*

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
Thanks for the ayuda, Deedub, but you drew attention to my terrible comments and now more people (ex.Gwiz) have chosen to downvote. I deserved it, though.

Do you want to hear my sad confession? No? I'm gonna tell you, anyway. Sometimes I don't even mean the things I type. It's like diarrhea of the fingers. I have an childish impulse to stir the pot, and much of the time I am half-joking, making fun of myself, being facetious, or not 100% convinced of what I'm spewing. But people get REALLY pissed off at me. That's probably because I'm silly.

There is a big difference between touching base with someone that you like and identify with, or pestering somebody repeatedly because they're tired of dealing with your inane conservative bullshit.

As I told DeeDub, we can argue here till hell freezes over, and nobody's mind will be changed, but when we argue out in public, on a post, then we might change the minds of people who are reading the post, people who haven't made up their minds. That's worth the time and the effort.

I'm taking a break from the Sift for a while because coming here has been more of a downer than an upper as of late, an exercise in futility.

I do appreciate your last note, though.

See you around someday.

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
What if I have something nice to say to you like, "Geez, Rougy, you're a capital guy!" Should I just comment on a video and hope that you read it someday? Okay, this really is the last comment.

I'm sorry I falsely accused you. I was so sure that it was you that I didn't even take a second to check. No hard feelings.

In reply to this comment by rougy:
It wasn't me who downvoted your comments.

You really are a piece of work.

I went off on Deedub because I told him over and over not to bother me on my profile page.

I'm now asking the same of you.

I had to ask him three or four times to stop bugging me.

Wonder how many times I'll have to ask you?

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
Between yesterday and today someone went through my recent comments and downvoted nearly all of them. I wonder who that was. It hurt my feelings oh so much. *sniff*

It wasn't me who downvoted your comments.

You really are a piece of work.

I went off on Deedub because I told him over and over not to bother me on my profile page.

I'm now asking the same of you.

I had to ask him three or four times to stop bugging me.

Wonder how many times I'll have to ask you?

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
Between yesterday and today someone went through my recent comments and downvoted nearly all of them. I wonder who that was. It hurt my feelings oh so much. *sniff*

You don't know shit about my relationship with Deedub.

So butt out.

You really are as big a pain in the ass as everybody said you were.

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
Wow, Rougy. I stumbled across this comment and I have to say that I'm quite ashamed of you. This is beneath you, not to mention against the rules.

In reply to this comment by rougy:
First, it's spelled "propaganda" you dumb fucking redneck. Figures you're too goddamned lazy to check your spelling.

What does the anchorwoman say in the video at 1:15?

"The email's author is anonymous." Yet, true to your dipshit, shit-kicker bones, you have attributed these emails to the Obama campaign. Why am I not surprised? Oh, yeah, that's not why you posted this. You're still an idiot, but I stand corrected.

Then Obama says "I don't take from oil companies or washington lobbyists" which, according to this video, is true.

So what's you're fucking point? That we liberals have to hold Obama to a "higher standard"? Which is another way of saying that Obama can't play the game like your hero, McCain?

People like you have turned this country to shit. Fuck off and die.

This isn't something you're likely to contribute to, but I thought you might be interested in reading the discussion:

http://www.videosift.com/video/FOX-News-Obamas-Redistribution-of-Wealth