About your perceived arrogance. I'm not judging anybody on the Sift. You alone are the one who came here with a single-purpose account to try and convert people to your faith. I'm telling you how you come off and how it's affecting your goal. Your spamming of what I consider nonsense into the middle of what I consider rational discussions and your indifference to the fact you're irritating people, in my mind, gives me licence to be blunt. You could accept it as honest criticism and go from there.

I think you, and many other people here, see me through a fun-house mirror made up of your preconceived notions about God and Christians in general. The reasons I am here are not so cut and dry, but I certainly feel that God wants me to talk to people here.

About evidence. You and your religion are the ones showing up uninvited and making incredible claims. If you're making the claim, it's to you to provide a way to prove it. The only way a claim has any meaning is if there's some way to falsify it. But your claim is designed in such a way that it is literally impossible to falsify it. That's the weakness that inspired the spoof deities like FSM and the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Bertrand Russell's Teapot: in practice, one is exactly as falsifiable as the other. In theory, your faith has seemingly falsifiable statements, but in practice, every time one of them is falsified, theologians and apologists work endlessly to somehow "make" it still hold true, sometimes by changing the meaning of words retroactively, or claiming retroactively it was just a metaphor or whatever. Sometimes it's a legitimate save, but usually it's intellectually dishonest. When someone points that out, you come up with some other intellectually dishonest way of getting out of that too.

This website is open to the public, is it not? If so, then in what sense am I uninvited?

My claim isn't "designed", it is simply the fact of what I believe. I don't modify it to escape someones inquiry. You like to make some bold claims about what it is, or isn't, but you never happen to back them up with evidence. As I told you earlier, it is falsifiable. You could prove it to be logically inconsistent. You could find the body of Jesus. You could disprove the major facts of the bible. You cannot claim it is unfalsifiable. The problem with your spoof deities is that they have no explanatory power. A flying teapot explains exactly nothing..

Here's an example of what I mean: You make the claim that God is all-loving. To me, if words have meaning, "all-loving" that means God will only do loving things. But he commits mass murder several times. Now, any human that even once had ever beat somebody up, even in the heat of passion, would be disqualified from the category of "all-loving". But for God, there's always an apologist loophole because you'd decided beforehand that God was all-loving and will stop at nothing to make sure that label sticks.

What the scripture says is that God is love. Not that He is loving, but that He is love itself. Yes, it is true that God took the lives of thousands of people in the Old Testament because of disobedience. That is indisputable. What you're claiming is that this was "mass murder". The fundamental question being posed here is, does God have the right to take a life? If He does, then there is nothing unjust about what He did, and therefore it is not inconsistent with His love.

Now, God is the author and sustainer of life. Meaning, that life is a gift and a privilege for human beings. There is no fundamental right to be alive. Neither is there anything we can do to continue our life a second longer than God ordains. When we are born and when we die is entirely in His hands. He is the one who is causing our lungs to receive breathe, who is maintaining the coherence in our atomic structure. So what life we do have is a tender mercy from God, especially considering the fact that all of us abuse His creation and spit in His face on a constant basis.

Further, God has ordained that the punishment for sin is death. The people you speak of in scripture were all sinners, and most of them grievous sinners at that. Why is God unjust for enforcing His law? What is wrong with God enforcing His law at His prerogative?

Considering that we live because of God, and that it is a gift which can be revoked at any time because of sin, why is it unjust for God to do so? If you're going to say I am being intellectually dishonest, then prove it and explain why. Where is the flaw in my reasoning here?

Or the claim of intercessory prayer. Of the rigorous studies that have been done, all have said there is no correlation between prayer and positive health effects, even when religious groups sponsor the study. To anybody using reason, this proves that prayer doesn't work. But you need so badly for it to be true that you ignore the statistical evidence, and rely instead on anecdotes or the studies (however rigorous) that showed a positive effect, or you dismiss all the studies because they are science, and science is a false religion, or whatever. Regardless, as the result, "Prayer doesn't work" is unacceptable, any results by any method you will invent fault with, even if you agreed to the method beforehand.

Some Christians may feel that way, but only because they don't understand scripture:

Luke 4:12

And Jesus answered him, “It is said, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

The Lord doesn't perform on camera for skeptics because He isn't a guinea pig subject to our experiments. Those who test the Lord will not get any results.

Hebrews 11:6

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

>> ^messenger

About your perceived arrogance. I'm not judging anybody on the Sift. You alone are the one who came here with a single-purpose account to try and convert people to your faith. I'm telling you how you come off and how it's affecting your goal. Your spamming of what I consider nonsense into the middle of what I consider rational discussions and your indifference to the fact you're irritating people, in my mind, gives me licence to be blunt. You could accept it as honest criticism and go from there.

About evidence. You and your religion are the ones showing up uninvited and making incredible claims. If you're making the claim, it's to you to provide a way to prove it. The only way a claim has any meaning is if there's some way to falsify it. But your claim is designed in such a way that it is literally impossible to falsify it. That's the weakness that inspired the spoof deities like FSM and the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Bertrand Russell's Teapot: in practice, one is exactly as falsifiable as the other. In theory, your faith has seemingly falsifiable statements, but in practice, every time one of them is falsified, theologians and apologists work endlessly to somehow "make" it still hold true, sometimes by changing the meaning of words retroactively, or claiming retroactively it was just a metaphor or whatever. Sometimes it's a legitimate save, but usually it's intellectually dishonest. When someone points that out, you come up with some other intellectually dishonest way of getting out of that too.

Here's an example of what I mean: You make the claim that God is all-loving. To me, if words have meaning, "all-loving" that means God will only do loving things. But he commits mass murder several times. Now, any human that even once had ever beat somebody up, even in the heat of passion, would be disqualified from the category of "all-loving". But for God, there's always an apologist loophole because you'd decided beforehand that God was all-loving and will stop at nothing to make sure that label sticks.

Or the claim of intercessory prayer. Of the rigorous studies that have been done, all have said there is no correlation between prayer and positive health effects, even when religious groups sponsor the study. To anybody using reason, this proves that prayer doesn't work. But you need so badly for it to be true that you ignore the statistical evidence, and rely instead on anecdotes or the studies (however rigorous) that showed a positive effect, or you dismiss all the studies because they are science, and science is a false religion, or whatever. Regardless, as the result, "Prayer doesn't work" is unacceptable, any results by any method you will invent fault with, even if you agreed to the method beforehand.

If you disagree that you're being intellectually dishonest, find a definition of the term that you agree with, and I'll show you what I mean.>> ^shinyblurry:

You have said to me that you attempt to give me the benefit of the doubt, which I appreciate, however most of those here tell me I am wrong, so is that somehow less arrogant in your eyes? In any case, it is both falsifiable and provable. You could find Jesus' grave for instance. It is also provable in that God does reveal Himself, as billions of people today, and billions more throughout history have found out. Whether you believe that or not is beside the point. The point is, if you demand evidence, tell me how we should find it. How would you test for God? If God exists, the entire Universe is evidence for God. How would you tell if you were in a Universe created by God or one created by random chance?>> ^messenger:
"The answer"? Not sure what part of Feynman's interview response you're alluding to or what exactly "the question" was, but the best you personally can say is that you have "an answer", and one which may or may not be true, and which is both unfalsifiable and unprovable. Commenting all over the Sift like you know "the answer" and as if the rest of us are too stupid to just accept it is why people call you arrogant, FYI.>> ^shinyblurry:
It's better to know the answer than remain ignorant of it.

>> ^jimnms:

>> ^lucky760:
>> ^brycewi19:
>> ^lucky760:
GIF isn't pronounced JIF, dummy-heads!

I know! I always have been pronouncing it with a hard "G", not a soft "G". If it were meant to be pronounced with a soft "G" then it would be spelled with a "J"!

Exactly. It's not called the Jraphics Interchange Format.
They'd probably also call that other image format "gay-pegs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_Interchange_Format#Pronunciation

According to Steve Wilhite, the creator of the GIF format, the original pronunciation deliberately echoes the American peanut butter brand, Jif, and the employees of CompuServe would often say "Choosy developers choose GIF", spoofing this brand's television commercials.

>> ^lucky760:

>> ^brycewi19:
>> ^lucky760:
GIF isn't pronounced JIF, dummy-heads!

I know! I always have been pronouncing it with a hard "G", not a soft "G". If it were meant to be pronounced with a soft "G" then it would be spelled with a "J"!

Exactly. It's not called the Jraphics Interchange Format.
They'd probably also call that other image format "gay-pegs."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_Interchange_Format#Pronunciation

According to Steve Wilhite, the creator of the GIF format, the original pronunciation deliberately echoes the American peanut butter brand, Jif, and the employees of CompuServe would often say "Choosy developers choose GIF", spoofing this brand's television commercials.

Isn't Portlandia already a spoof? Should this be labeled a tribute, a rip-off, or thematically similar?

This segment seems funny because it reeks epitomicol of the manner in which corporate news media disseminates all information pumped into the minds of the masses; News coverage and reporting in our so-called modern, civilized, society has become a machine that Joe Goebbels himself would be proud to call his baby.

A spoof of the news here in the form of a sad, ironic parody.

>> ^curiousity:

False. This exact video is called out as a spoof video based on this untruth.
http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/porkworm.asp


I stated earlier that I had seen that, and they couldn't recreate it. No little white dots appeared and rose up. I've done this on my own with chops.

So to say that's a proven false is ambiguous at best.

Edit: Everyone should try it on their own. Each of the times I did at Sunflower Market, it happened. This was with organic, free range pork chops. I really don't know if they're worms, but we called them worms then and it was definitely yucky looking and worth a laugh in the back rooms.

False. This exact video is called out as a spoof video based on this untruth.
http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/porkworm.asp

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Google, Glasses, Project, Glass, Parody, Spoof, Hurt, Yourself' to 'Google Glasses, Project Glass, Parody, Spoof, Hurt Yourself' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^jqpublick:

I think it's meant to be a spoof... dude's name is "Dr. Steel" after all.


Nope, he's totally serious.
The Dr. Steel Show: Episode 1

I think it's meant to be a spoof... dude's name is "Dr. Steel" after all.

>> ^Arkaium:

>> ^zaust:
Never encountered Mr Rogers before and have to say his very disturbing. Beyond creepy, is this a spoof trailer of a horror movie?

You're kidding, right?


I can understand when you're not a child it seems weird. That's not really the guy who plays Mr. Rogers fault though. He had to read off of a script that was vetted by child psychiatrists. Even if he improvised a word they had to go back a re-record the scene as it was written and vetted. So some of his wooden line delivery and carefully chosen wording does seem a bit odd to me now. When I was a child though, he was my neighbor and I loved watching him.

>> ^zaust:

Never encountered Mr Rogers before and have to say his very disturbing. Beyond creepy, is this a spoof trailer of a horror movie?


You're kidding, right?

>> ^zaust:

Never encountered Mr Rogers before and have to say his very disturbing. Beyond creepy, is this a spoof trailer of a horror movie?


Growing up in Canada without cable, I seldom watched Mr. Rogers (we had Mr. Dressup ) so I can understand how his demeanor can seem a little... different than how most people operate on television or in person. I found the way Mr Rogers spoke a little hard to get used to, but over the last few years I've come to appreciate the way the man can speak simply and directly, right through the television screen. His words can be simultaneously piercing and comforting, yet always kind.

Without the sift I'd never have discovered the kind of impact he has had *promoting honesty and good nature over a generation of children and grownups.

These clips are among my favorites:
http://videosift.com/video/Rare-Interview-With-Mister-Rogers-1986
http://videosift.com/video/Mr-Rogers-v-the-GOP-1969
http://videosift.com/video/Fred-Rogers-Accepts-the-Lifetime-Achievement-Award-1997

Never encountered Mr Rogers before and have to say his very disturbing. Beyond creepy, is this a spoof trailer of a horror movie?