I keep getting dark poetry:

The eldritch chains and leather,
The haunting rites of blood,
Instruments of random murder.

Death church.
Sodomy and lust.
Sleepless, no love lost,
Set me free.

Blowing free,
Naked in the rain.
The hanged man,
The pyrrhic victory.
Creepy green light.

Totentanz, the dance of death.
I'm alive - sacrificed.
I'm going home,
Die with me.

Pain.
Burnt.
I'm broken.
Mother, do you love me?

Nightmare lollipop.
Bittersweet.
Red, white and blue.
Witches' brew.

Ruin and misery,
Becoming cold,
Shadows on the horizon,
Death certificate.

Running blood.
I died for you.
Death comes to the Unicorn Prince.
Betrayal. Gloom.

Hero of the day,
Dragged down,
Slaughtered.
Where the slime live,
Where dragons rule.

Drama...intrigue...conspiracy...love...betrayal.

Game of Thrones has NOTHING on this place.

Okay, so I had wrote out a response and saved it in MS Word--and it got deleted somehow on my comp before I posted it. Then I gave up...because that took a long time to write out thoughtfully.... But now that have the free time, I will attempt it again. Plus, I have OCD...

So;

1-Haven't we all? And even if he hasn't, I certainly am not the man to judge.
2-I do assume he would be neutral on race. The problem is his convictions, right or wrong, ere on the side of a dogma-like belief system. His ideals of "liberty" (Whatever that means) above all else is neutral; unfortunately America is not neutral and would turn those ideas into racial superiority somehow. (I.e., he is to stupid and would advocate "freedom" that would open the door for employers to be racist and oppressive, I thinks...)
3-I think John Edward's cheating on his cancer-afflicted wife is far worse than manipulating for power. Nearly every single politician has in some manner stoked the race fires--but not all have betrayed those who loved them personally. Look at the Zimmerman bs and the stoking of that fire pit. America is one big stoke factory whether we like it or not...
4-You don't need to forgive me for being racist, and you don't need to forgive Paul if isn't any longer a racist. In fact, in my case where open and malicious racism was instilled in me early--you should thank me for figuring out a better way. I don't need pitied with forgiveness...and I wish America would stop putting so much emphasis on forgiveness and just move on...
5-Nope... Read 5...
6-Its because its one thing to betray the public--its another to betray those who have loved you. In certain countries or the military Edwards would have been punished with severe prison time or even death. Why? Because such a barbaric betrayal is hard to forgive. A different kind of animal. One is psychotic, the other is opportunistic asshole-ism.

And then

1-When you find yourself smiling at your friend who you have hung out with for over a year, thinking to yourself how much lower he is than you because of his skin, then regretting those thoughts--I attribute it to racism. When you think that his pride in his Hispanic background is nasty--racism... When you try but can't care about his plights of racial injustice, when they stir nothing in your heart--racism.

I am trying to work on it, but that's all I can do. Try. That and be the damned nicest guy I can be, and treat him fairly as a human being should be treated...guess that's all I can do.

2-People can change and they change all the time. I used to hate gays, as I have noted, but now I do not. However, that is not saying I am capable of any change. For example, I doubt I will ever be gay. But who knows--it just isn't happening any time soon. I am more Buddhist in my ways of thinking---it will either change or it will not, and we will either live with it or will not. But try to be the best person you can with what you have and make it the best you can.

>> ^NetRunner:

@Lawdeedaw I think there are several problems with that rant:

1. It assumes Ron Paul has changed
   
2. It assumes Ron Paul would be "neutral" on race
   
3. It assumes John Edwards cheating on his wife is worse than stoking racial animosity for personal gain
   
4. It expects us to forgive Ron Paul's sins, when Paul still denies having made them in the first place
   
5. It expects us to forgive Ron Paul's sins, when Paul hasn't really acted as though this sort of thing is something you need to apologize for and be contrite about
   
6. It expects us to have not forgiven John Edwards, even though he's publicly confessed, and been both contrite and repentant
   

One: Do you believe that Randall should live or die? Plus your reasoning for it. I would suggest remembering his time in town (episode 10) and what he said to Daryl and Karl.

1: I think Randall will say or do whatever it takes to stay alive. He sees a weakness in their group's mindset and tries to play on it. He took the wrong approach with Karl. However his former group left him to die. He knew of the girl and her farm. Why did he not lead his former group to the farm for supplies at least if he a true member of it? I think he realizes numbers = better chance of survival and that the group we're seeing in the story is not very structured or strong. In the end, not living in a zombieland, he should live. However with the story how it is, and how he manipulated and saw how much the group who normally wouldn't have killed outright tried to kill him AFTER beating his ass....I think they need to kill him. I don't agree with it, I can understand it though. He will be the guy who sets the precedent that if they kill him, all future humans (but probably not women or children) will be killed. If they don't kill him, he will betray them and prove their decision wrong.

2: Karl sees everyone he doesn't know as a walker. Whether they are or not. I think seeing the walker kill Dale with it likely being Karl's fault has probably locked in his reaction from here on out. His only exception will be young women, due to Sophia. As for confession of possibly leading the walker, I think at the moment he's leading towards Shane in character so he probably will not confess to anything to the current group. Although I think it will come out eventually because this show is drama more than anything else.

3: Right time? Probably. Immediate reaction was: This is just stupid, he walked off alone into the dark, saw a torn apart cow and just froze like he was confused as to what possible could have caused it. The effect on the group will be seeing the world as uglier but acting as if it wasn't in his name, and it will be largely negative and become a plot device on how they will screw themselves going forward. I don't see Dale as a member with power, Glenn will take up his role and Glenn has actual juice to make it happen since he's the go to guy for getting supplies. There may be the possibility of Daryl and Glenn sharing the role Dale played as the group conscience since Daryl has been on the outs and needs to be brought back in. I have no idea on the television politics, but his character was doing less and less each episode. At least before he was keeping the RV running and things organized. Anymore he barely appeared in the episodes in any significant role. Daryl, Glenn, and Andrea were doing significant amounts of sitting on the RV and playing lookout.

Personally I'd like to see Daryl replace Dale and then have the other "big" group headed up by Daryl's brother who lost the hand in Season 1. Hopefully it'll be action based and cleverness instead of drama and talking. Where Glenn and Daryl are more fixtures in the series, because Im tired of hearing about the baby/pregnancy and Hershel's family is largely just boring as all hell. And that farm looks like possibly the worst possible place to pick for fortifying and they have done nothing to prepare it......like boarding the lower windows.

I may have to look into the books.....in the middle of some other books right now though.

Lots of stuff bugs me about this show. I know the farm is to keep budgets down, but they added a shitload of recurring characters at the same time as they picked a dull setting....so Im not sure how that saved them money.

>> ^packo:

>> ^quantumushroom:
His Earness was never a conservative or "moderate". He's a leftist radical who was somewhat but not all-the-way stopped from furthering federal tyranny. Apparently no one learned from FDR's folly that no nation can spend its way out of a depression.
If POS obamacare is ruled "constitutional" expect further chaos.

he's been wanting to raise taxes... he was the first to say there was a revenue problem
the problem being the Republican keep stalling him because he wants to raise taxes on the wealthy/corporations... NOT your average citizen
he wanted an infrastructure bill, to create jobs, to stimulate the economy... again... denied by Republicans
then Republicans come around and say he's doing nothing about creating jobs, and that he should raise taxes... on who? not the corporations/wealthy... but the average citizen
who is really fighting unions? not the democrats... hard to have their support if they were doing that
who is passing/trying to pass bills (latest Arizona) that are trying to make illegal public sector collective bargaining?
give you a hint.... the party starts with a "R", and has their lips firmly planted on the Koch brother's corn holes


and btw, all this R vs D debate is bs... because whatever party gets into power, or is seen to be the popular party, gets corrupted by money/corporate interest

the differences the parties spout only matter to the people voting, not the parties themselves... its all a dog/pony show

you wanna fix the country, get corporate money outta politics...
the insanity of it just boggles the mind
treason should be redefined to include not just betraying your nation to foreign governments... but to corporations (MOST of whom really owe allegiance to no nation... even those that say they are American - why do they bank offshore then? why do they fire American workers and hire overseas? the economics of it aren't the issue... that they are allowed to pass this off as being PATRIOTIC is)

And the convolution and swiftboating continues ... more things that someone says is what someone else said but has never been heard to say ...


Keep posting links to the newsletters as if reading lies makes them true, thats a funny one.

Murray Rothbard wrote the racist newsletters, he died in 1995. Eric Dondero is a disgruntled ex staffer who ran against paul for office. Any more questions...



http://www.dailypaul.com/196808/while-one-fired-fmremployee-passive-aggressively-betrays-rp-one-finally-clarifies



In 1993, Rothbard wrote about Malcolm X and discussed the possibility of a separate state for blacks, but concluded that it would "require massive "foreign aid" from the U.S.A.". He also described black nationalism as "a phony nationalism" that was "beginning to look like a drive for an aggravated form of coerced parasitism over the white population."

The UK is in no better shape really. We have a third party ofc, I voted for them last election. Ended up having the two main parties without a winning majority, so a coalition government was formed...between the conservatives and the liberal democrats. Most lib dem voters feel betrayed, many will vote for the more centrist Labour party over the leftist 3rd Party just to make sure the Conservatives won't get another term and suddenly our system is even more a 2 party system than it was before.

A referendum was held on how the voting should work, ie whether we should stick with the first by the post system. It was a chance for real voting reform, unfortunately it didn't go through. You should have seen the propoganda against it (coming from the 2 main parties ofc).

So from now on I'm going to use my right to vote to foul my paper. If you're frustrated with your political system I suggest you do the same.

(This is part two as mentioned in my previous comment)

I’ve read and re-read your arguments over the weekend and for a portion of today. I’ve done a lot of research into what you’ve said and I found something particularly interesting which lead me to a significant question. “Where is all of this guy’s information coming from?”

So I did a little experiment. I did a Google search for all of the quotes that you’ve replied with and can you guess what I found? All of your arguments can be taken nearly verbatim or just reworded from creationist websites. Can you honestly expect anyone to believe that you’ve done your own research or read any real books on the subject of thermodynamics or biological evolution? How can you even take yourself seriously if you haven’t spent the time putting in the work to understand what the source material says for yourself?

The problem with your theory is, I have done the research, and I do know what the source material says. I understand the theory of evolution better than most atheists I have met. I use the quotations because they are hostile witnesses to my position which gives the argument even more force. It doesn't matter where I've gotten them from; that is irrelevent. The evidence I am presenting is what is relevent.

If someone has objections about the bible, would you take them seriously if you discovered that they hadn’t actually read it? No, of course not, so how can you expect to be taken seriously if you haven’t read the source material yourself? It’s just an attempt to try to discredit something that you haven’t actually studied yourself which I find to be a bit on the disingenuous side of things.

Most atheists I've spoken to who criticize the bible haven't actually read it. I've already told you my background so you don't have an argument. I have studied these things.

I know that you’re expecting this because every creationist website prepares creationists for this criticism but you’re idea of how thermodynamics works is entirely misinformed and you won’t know by how much until you do yourself a favor and listen to a course in thermodynamics or read a book on it. If you have iTunes, go to iTunes U and search for thermodynamics, spend 12 hours learning and then you’ll see that classical thermodynamics has nothing to say about biological systems. I suspect that you probably read a lot of articles from the Institute for Creation Research website.

You haven't offered any criticism of my position and you haven't demonstrated any actual knowledge of this subject, except that which is patently false. The laws of thermodynamics apply to everything, including biological systems. Evolutionists attempt to weasel out of that by declaring that they are 'open systems' and thus immune to entropy because of the energy from the sun, but as I showed this does nothing to show where information comes from, so you cannot explain it away.

I've read a lot of science textbooks, and a lot of scientific literature. When I was agnostic, I read volumes and volumes of it, and I stay abreast of the latest discoveries. Your accusations all ring hollow, especially considering you have failed to show you understand the subject on your own.

If that is the case and you do frequent ICR then here is something to think about: (Taken directly from the conclusion to their article “Does Entropy Contradict Evolution”)

“If science is to be based on fact and evidence, rather than metaphysical speculations, then entropy does not explain or support evolution at all. In fact, at least until someone can demonstrate some kind of naturalistic comprehensive biochemical predestinating code and a pre-existing array of energy storage-and-conversion mechanisms controlled by that code to generate increased organized complexity in nature, the entropy law seems to preclude evolution altogether. The marvelously complex universe is not left unexplained and enigmatically mysterious by this conclusion, however. It was created by the omnipotent and omniscient King of Creation! If evolutionists prefer not to believe this truth, they can make that choice, but all the real facts of science - especially the fundamental and universal law of entropy - support it.”

Let’s suppose for a moment that the majority of this article is correct and that the 2nd law does indeed contradict evolution. This final conclusion from the article does something very interesting. It jumps from saying that evolution cannot have happened because it violates the 2nd law to it was created by a god. How the heck are they coming up with that conclusion!? By what evidence can they make that leap let alone make the claim that the creator is both omnipotent AND omniscient? This is my problem with how you are arguing; you are doing the same thing. You are suggesting that the math doesn’t add up and that your answer is better but you aren’t providing the math to suggest why your answer is better; you’re just telling us that it’s the answer.

What you're doing is using a logical fallacy known as a strawman argument. You're absolutely right, that is a terrible argument. That isn't the type of argument I have made. When I brought up thermodynamics, I was responding to this comment:

"The notion of design is for people who cannot understand what it means for systems to assemble from the bottom-up because, to them, it makes more intuitive sense that things are designed from the top down. This is not critical thinking and it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science."

I showed it was your position that was betraying a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science. My argument was rational, well founded, and based on solid evidence, yet you have taken the low road of trying to assasinate my character, or outright say that I don't actually know what I am talking about. Again, it is you who have failed to adaquately demonstrate knowledge of the subject matter. Instead of addressing my argument, you have made the argument about me, as you have admitted to, and that is what is dishonest here.

Whether or not you resonate with that that snippet from their article or not, it illustrates how egger some people are to praise some scientific findings when those findings don’t contradict their beliefs and in the same breath, criticizes other scientific findings which do contradict their beliefs. If you encounter something that seems to contradict what you already believe to be true, it is wise to question whether what you believe to be true is actually true rather than searching for information that confirms what you believe.

It's called confirmation bias. A good example of this is looking at the question of the origin of life and believing it must have evolved despite having no actual evidence that it did.

The thing is that I know that you’re going to say that “science” has an agenda, and it does, but not like you think it does and you’ll never understand that agenda until you actually study it for yourself. You believe that it’s all about disproving god, or maintaining naturalism but it’s not.

Science is an institution run by individuals with individual beliefs and goals. Over 40 percent of biologists, astronomers and mathematicians believe in God. Belief in God is not incompatible with doing good science, nor is science in and of itself something bad. There is however a concerted effort, on the part of evolutionists, to push their version of origins on the rest of us, and they have often used legal means to do so. Evolution is pushed on the public like it is a proven fact and it is not.

You are arguing against a set of misunderstandings that you hold about what you believe the science is saying. Everything that you think you know about these matters is either a straw man, a red-haring or blatant misinformation. It would be very hard to impress on you how exactly that is true without you being educated on the source material. This is why we cannot have a conversation regarding these issues. You will just need to start reading the source material instead of going to interpretive websites; its far more interesting that way anyway.

What you're doing is jumping to a bunch of unfounded conclusions and drawing extremely weak inferences about what I have or haven't done, and then extrapolating that to a bunch of highly prejudiced judgements against me personally, and doing so in a haughty way, as if you are talking to a child. You have completely failed to include anything of substance in this reply. It is all just a sad attempt to write me off without actually addressing any of my arguments. Until you actually address the meat of my reply with a point by point refutation, this entire reply can be chopped up to one gigantic ad hom.

I am sorry to say that I find a degree of intellectual dishonesty in your method of arguing against these ideas by primarily pulling information and quotes from these sources without having done the work yourself. You are representing yourself as personally knowledgeable about the subject when you are doing nothing more than copy and pasting in quotes to support you. Besides this being a type of an argument from authority, it shows to me that you have no regard for the context in which the original quote was written. That is the definition of cherry picking and to me; it makes me think that you are more interested in maintaining your beliefs than being honestly interested in expanding your knowledge.

Or you have completely mischaracterized me, as I have demonstrated. Again, you want so badly for this to be about me. Even if I was doing everything you said I am doing, my arguments, if they were accurate, would still stand. You haven't moved one inch closer to disproving anything I've said. It doesn't matter where I've gotten the information, what matters is if it is correct or not. Regardless, I do understand the subject matter, and demonstrably better than you do thus far.

I don’t expect to change your mind. You seem deeply rooted in creationism and as you’ve said, you believe in the biblical god and that you feel that your life was transformed by him. That is a very powerful feeling, one that is very hard to overcome because it is something personal that you probably relate to. Perhaps you feel that your stability rests on the idea that a god exists and that your view of that god must be the correct one based on your personal experiences; I don’t know. I have nothing more to say other than to suggest that you read the source material so that way you can at least honestly say that you know what you’re talking about.

You aren't going to change anyones mind with this low grade excuse for an argument. This isn't about me, it's about the evidence. You say my evidence is invalid because I don't understand the subject matter, which is fallacious. The evidence is valid whether I understand it or not. However, I do understand it, and the problem here is you have no basis to criticize me because you're the one who hasn't demonstrated any understanding. You have even demonstrated the wrong understanding. However, the difference between you and I is that I will give you enough credit to assume you are a reasonably intelligent person who isn't just pretending to understand it. I am still waiting for you to prove it, however. Your attempt to make this argument about me has failed, because I have shown all of your claims about me to be false, and it is logically fallacious in the first place. If you want to continue, address my arguments directly and prove you actually know something. If my arguments are incorrect, feel free to show me why, at any time.


>> ^IAmTheBlurr:

Your video, How Intellectuals Betrayed the Poor, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Another fine sift, Zappa.


It's... *strikes a thoughtful pose* .. what I do.

Mighty generous of you. Thank you.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Another fine sift, Zappa.

A man can believe one thing, and be tolerant of others... as well as have faith that people, if given the choice, will eventually do the right thing... even if though that is different for everyone, the most fit and fair system has a chance to emerge




..." the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem." - Ron Paul



-------------------- So how does this translate to the issues:

Defense of Marriage Act: allows a state to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.

"“The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996 to stop Big Government in Washington from re-defining marriage and forcing its definition on the States,” Rep. Paul said last week in a statement. “Like the majority of Iowans, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected.”

[[ SEE, there is his OPINION and PERSONAL BELIEFS ]]

“I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’ constitutional authority to define what other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state,” he added. “I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts.”"

He's not saying they SHOULD. He's saying the people have a right to choose. Not that they then have a DUTY to vote as he would. He wants people to decide, because he believes that marriage should ultimately not involve government

I see how his logic may appear convoluted, but it is not when taken to the conclusion: People decide (right or wrong), and everyone should be free.
---

In 2004, Paul was one of only 27 House Republicans who voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment.

In 2010, he flipped from a “no” to a “yes” on repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. “I have received several calls and visits from constituents who, in spite of the heavy investment in their training, have been forced out of the military simply because they were discovered to be homosexual," he explained. “To me, this seems like an awful waste.”
------
Eric Dondero is the one telling "eye witness" stories about Ron Paul and he is not exactly credible as a political rival and former staffer...

"After 4yrs of never accusing the Doc of actually knowing directly about it, he comes out full bore accusing he checked off on everyone of them, all the while contradicting himself in the same sentence that he only read about 30% and sent notes off to his staff or ghostwriters to complete the newsletters."

Eric Dondero was FIRED by Paul and wants to run against him for office.

Eric Dondero, a staffer who was fired.
http://www.dailypaul.com/196808/while-one-fired-fmremployee-passive-aggressively-betrays-rp-one-finally-clarifies

Rockwell has denied responsibility for the newsletters' contents to The New Republic's Jamie Kirchick. Rockwell twice declined to discuss the matter with reason, maintaining this week that he had "nothing to say."

Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist "paleoconservatives," producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters

In 1993, Rothbard wrote about Malcolm X and discussed the possibility of a separate state for blacks, but concluded that it would "require massive "foreign aid" from the U.S.A.". He also described black nationalism as "a phony nationalism" that was "beginning to look like a drive for an aggravated form of coerced parasitism over the white population."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard218.html


So who else did the newsletters? Lou Rockwell isn't of interest to me, MURRAY ROTHBARD is.

I am seriously disappointed that people here can connect the dots to Dr. Paul yet Rothbard is clearly innocent.

He just happened to die in 1995... and we've heard nothing about newsletter content as inflammatory as when he was involved, since.

You don't think Murray Rothbard, is worth looking at?

"Equality is not in the natural order of things, and the crusade to make everyone equal in every respect (except before the law) is certain to have disastrous consequences." - Murray Rothbard
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

he (Rothbard) also wrote film reviews under a pen name (anonymously)

Someone did the newsletters... in a way THEY KNEW would ensure their anonymity (because Ron Paul did not write the racist articles), perhaps by their position of trust in the company, or with tacit approval by one or more people attempting to subvert a cause for their own.

written misinformation is surely not all it takes to win you over

Why is it so hard to conceive that an active conspiracy to hide the newsletters from Paul was successful, when the outcome would be exactly the same as the one we're debating? The one where NO ONE has heard Ron Paul ever, EVER say anything like the things in the newsletters?

Ever. Not even HEARD him say it.

I said that God doesn’t exist? Oh yeah? Where exactly did I say that? The last time I checked, saying that I reject an idea isn’t the same as saying that the idea isn’t true. Get your facts straight.

Saying “god did it” doesn’t answer anything. It doesn’t answer any question about mechanism and until someone can come up with a testable model of how god interacts with the universe which we can then make accurate predictions with, it’s a useless and meaningless statement. It doesn’t help us expand the frontiers of our understanding of reality.

The fact of the matter is that it is you who is fundamentally uneducated in everything that you mentioned and that is made obvious by your inability to form your own arguments; you’re just cherry picking quotes that support you’re cognitive bias.

I love it when people like you pull out the second law of thermodynamics card because I know that you can’t name or explain the rest of the laws of thermodynamics without copy and pasting them from Google search. Life isn’t a closed system and the second law of thermodynamics only deals with closed systems. The 2nd law has nothing to do with anything biology or the existence of complex organisms, get your facts straight. If you had any respect for truth, you wouldn’t be making so many entirely misinformed and uneducated statements.

Because I know that none of this is actually going to matter to you, go ahead and enlighten us with more of your church-pamphlet science.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Do you know what "the burden of proof" means?
Yes, and you said that God doesn't exist. You have your own burden of proof.
I realize that you're a christian so I've decided to keep this a bit short for the sake of simply providing you with a potentially new view that isn't your own. You may reject it but hopefully you will at least understand how someone else might think about this topic.
I grew up without any religion and was previously agnostic, so I understand both sides of the argument. I used to have many of the same objections that you and others have raised against the existence of God.
One reason that I reject the notion of designer deities is because the question becomes infinitely regress-able; it explains nothing, it helps clarify nothing, and it opens up more questions than it answers. The notion of a designer god begs the question, who or what designed the designer, then that designers designer, and most importantly, how do these gods operate, by what laws?
The answer is that no one designed God. He is an eternal being and has always existed. A created god isn't really a God. God is the one whom no one else created.
This is actually a problem for your side of the fence, unless you believe that something came from nothing, which would be worse than magic. Since the Universe has a beginning there must either be an eternal first cause or else you are left with an infinite regress of causes.
Suggesting that a creator exists because something doesn't make sense to you isn't a valid way of forming believes if your goal is truth.
I don't believe in God because the world doesn't make sense to me. I believe in God because the evidence points to His existence.
The notion of design is for people who cannot understand what it means for systems to assemble from the bottom-up because, to them, it makes more intuitive sense that things are designed from the top down. This is not critical thinking and it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science.
Actually, to believe that systems become more ordered over time is a fundemental misunderstanding of scientific laws, specifically the second law of thermodynamics. Sir Arthur Eddington says
"...if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.", p.74 Nature of the Physical World.
The second law states that systems become more disordered over time and there is no known exception to this rule. Everything is breaking down and becoming more disorganized. Evolutionary theory claims the opposite, that systems are getting more complex and highly organized over time. This clearly violates the 2nd law, which is why Ilya Prigogin said this:
LIFE WON'T "FORM" Ilya Prigogin (Nobel Laureate) "Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred." Physics Today, Vol.25, p.28.
True, we do have gaps in our knowledge about systems and mechanism but those gaps should remain gaps instead of prematurely filling them with god fluff. But, you are a believer, and believers do not make critical thinkers.
Again, God is a better explanation according to the evidence, such as the information in DNA, the fine tuning in the universe, and the appearance of design in biological systems. It is not a gap theory, it is a better theory.
I just hope that you come to understand that the answer "A creator did it" isn't an intellectually honest way of thinking.
There is nothing intellectually dishonest in believe that God created the Universe. Did you know that nearly half of biologists, mathematicians and physicists believe in a personal God? To dismiss the possibility is what is intellectually dishonest.
>> ^IAmTheBlurr

Do you know what "the burden of proof" means?

Yes, and you said that God doesn't exist. You have your own burden of proof.

I realize that you're a christian so I've decided to keep this a bit short for the sake of simply providing you with a potentially new view that isn't your own. You may reject it but hopefully you will at least understand how someone else might think about this topic.

I grew up without any religion and was previously agnostic, so I understand both sides of the argument. I used to have many of the same objections that you and others have raised against the existence of God.

One reason that I reject the notion of designer deities is because the question becomes infinitely regress-able; it explains nothing, it helps clarify nothing, and it opens up more questions than it answers. The notion of a designer god begs the question, who or what designed the designer, then that designers designer, and most importantly, how do these gods operate, by what laws?

The answer is that no one designed God. He is an eternal being and has always existed. A created god isn't really a God. God is the one whom no one else created.

This is actually a problem for your side of the fence, unless you believe that something came from nothing, which would be worse than magic. Since the Universe has a beginning there must either be an eternal first cause or else you are left with an infinite regress of causes.

Suggesting that a creator exists because something doesn't make sense to you isn't a valid way of forming believes if your goal is truth.

I don't believe in God because the world doesn't make sense to me. I believe in God because the evidence points to His existence.

The notion of design is for people who cannot understand what it means for systems to assemble from the bottom-up because, to them, it makes more intuitive sense that things are designed from the top down. This is not critical thinking and it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science.

Actually, to believe that systems become more ordered over time is a fundemental misunderstanding of scientific laws, specifically the second law of thermodynamics. Sir Arthur Eddington says

"...if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.", p.74 Nature of the Physical World.

The second law states that systems become more disordered over time and there is no known exception to this rule. Everything is breaking down and becoming more disorganized. Evolutionary theory claims the opposite, that systems are getting more complex and highly organized over time. This clearly violates the 2nd law, which is why Ilya Prigogin said this:

LIFE WON'T "FORM" Ilya Prigogin (Nobel Laureate) "Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred." Physics Today, Vol.25, p.28.

True, we do have gaps in our knowledge about systems and mechanism but those gaps should remain gaps instead of prematurely filling them with god fluff. But, you are a believer, and believers do not make critical thinkers.

Again, God is a better explanation according to the evidence, such as the information in DNA, the fine tuning in the universe, and the appearance of design in biological systems. It is not a gap theory, it is a better theory.

I just hope that you come to understand that the answer "A creator did it" isn't an intellectually honest way of thinking.

There is nothing intellectually dishonest in believe that God created the Universe. Did you know that nearly half of biologists, mathematicians and physicists believe in a personal God? To dismiss the possibility is what is intellectually dishonest.

>> ^IAmTheBlurr

It's interesting to read a response like yours.

Do you know what "the burden of proof" means?

I realize that you're a christian so I've decided to keep this a bit short for the sake of simply providing you with a potentially new view that isn't your own. You may reject it but hopefully you will at least understand how someone else might think about this topic.

One reason that I reject the notion of designer deities is because the question becomes infinitely regress-able; it explains nothing, it helps clarify nothing, and it opens up more questions than it answers. The notion of a designer god begs the question, who or what designed the designer, then that designers designer, and most importantly, how do these gods operate, by what laws? Suggesting that a creator exists because something doesn't make sense to you isn't a valid way of forming believes if your goal is truth. The notion of design is for people who cannot understand what it means for systems to assemble from the bottom-up because, to them, it makes more intuitive sense that things are designed from the top down. This is not critical thinking and it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science.

True, we do have gaps in our knowledge about systems and mechanism but those gaps should remain gaps instead of prematurely filling them with god fluff. But, you are a believer, and believers do not make critical thinkers.

I just hope that you come to understand that the answer "A creator did it" isn't an intellectually honest way of thinking.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I have a hard time believing that you understand the function of the the answer "I don't know" (or "We don't know") or how beneficial it really is.
That you don't know what the truth is, or that you believe it isn't knowable, does not preclude me from knowing what it is. It is not beneficial to be ignorant of the truth.
The human race would have been far better off if we'd spent less time making up bullshit stories about gods and spirits to explain natural phenomenon that we couldn't fathom the mechanisms of.
How do you go from "I don't know" to rejecting the existence of God? How does explaining a mechanism rule out agency? Do you understand what I meant earlier about the uniformity of nature?
"We don't know" is a far better answer to a question when we really don't know then the answer "a creator did it".
Not if it's true.
It should be highly discouraged to make up an answer when we don't know something. Teachers in American schools do this, they encourage their students to "give it their best guess" when they don't know the answer. That just perpetuates the issue. Saying "I don't know" doesn't prove or disprove anything but it does function as a stopping point in a dialog so we can know where we should investigate next. Answering with anything but "I don't know" when we don't actually know, takes investigation off course into insanity. Sticking a creator in the gaps prevents further exploration of the question, it's an abominable act which stifles critical thinking.
It's not a God of the gaps when a Creator is a better explanation for the phenomena, such as the fine tuning of the physical laws, the appearance of design in biological systems and the information in DNA. It is an abominable act to dismiss the idea of Gods existence out of hand.
I'm sorry but I don't have faith in a self creating universe just because I don't have the answer as to how it happened and suggesting that I must have faith in that if I don't accept a creator hypothesis is an exercise in a false dilemma.
You certainly have faith in a naturalistic explanation if you reject a creator. Although a purely naturalistic origin is something you cannot prove and have zero evidence for, you believe it anyway, and reject a creator outright, by your own words. That is blind faith.
>> ^IAmTheBlurr