To actually take the point at face value, it's an evolved response.

Let's say there was a group of early humans who felt intense grief at every death. They would be constantly grieving and never getting on with life, never doing anything productive with our lives, because someone, somewhere is always dying. Eventually, the more pragmatic humans who be more successful.

Equally, if there was a group that didn't feel a greater loss at the death of someone close to them, they would be less inclined to protect their tribe, and less inclined to co-operate. Again, the people that stick together would be more successful.

That's my theory anyway.

For the rest of you, here's some quotes from shinyblurry from another thread, just so you know where he's coming from.

----------------------------------

shinyblurry says...

Since you asked, I'll tell you why I believe in God. Up until 8 years ago I was agnostic. I was raised agnostic, without any religion. We celebrated Christmas and Easter, but that was about it. I wasn't raised to like or dislike religion, I was simply left free to decide what I believed.

At the time I became a theist, I didn't believe in a spiritual reality, or any God I had ever heard of, because like most of the people here I saw no evidence for it at all. I actually used to go into christian chat rooms and debate christians on what I saw to be inconsistances in the bible. A lot of what people have said in this thread are thoughts that I once had and arguments I used to use myself.

Then one day it all changed. I guess you could say my third eye was opened. I had something akin to a kundalini awakening, spontaneously out of nowhere. When it was over, I could suddenly perceive the spiritual reality. I didn't quite know what I was looking at, at the time..didn't truly understand what had happened to me (though through intuition i understood the great potential of it). It was only after researching it online and finding out about the chakras did I start to understand.

It's an amazing, truly truly amazing thing to find out everything you know is wrong. It is really utterly mind blowing. This however, was the conclusion I was forced to immediately reach however, because the evidence for it was right in front of my face. Everything that I had known up until the point I could perceive the spiritual was missing so many essential elements that I may as well have been just born.

I started to receive signs..little miracles, I would call them..like stepping in front of a vast panarama of nature and suddenly seeing it at an angle impossible to human sight, where everything is in focus at the same time, that produced such startling beauty it filled me to overflowing with estatic joy. I started to perceive there was a higher beauty, a higher love that had always been there but I had somehow missed it. I started to get the point, that there was something more. That there was a God.

When I conceded it was possible, to myself, it was then that I started to hear from Him directly. He let me know a couple of things, and proved to me that I wasn't just imagining Him. He showed me that He had been there my entire life, teaching me and guiding me as a child on, only I had been totally unaware of it. He showed me how we "shared space", and that not only could He read my mind, but in some essential way that He was what my mind is. That He is mind itself. He showed me how my thought process was more of a cooperative than a solitary thing.

Now before you say I just jumped at all of this because everyone wants to imagine a loving God, etc etc..untrue in my case. When I first found out He was definitely real, i was scared shitless. Up until that point, my thoughts about God were all negative. I figured if He did exist He probably hated me. You see, that is what I had gleaned growing up in a Christian society without actually knowing anything about it.

At this point I became a theist. I thought of God as a He because He seemed masculine rather than feminine, and also I thought of Him as the Creator. I didn't know anything about the bible, or the Holy Trinity, or what a messiah was, or any of that. I thought the God I knew must not be generally known because I had never seen anything out there that pointed to a loving God.

For the next 6 yeears I was on a spiritual journey. I studied all the various belief systems, spiritual or otherwise, all the religious history..east and west, north and south. I studied philosophy and esoteric wisdom, gurus and prophets. The one I really hadn't studied though, was Christianity. The reason being I didn't believe Jesus actually ever existed so I dismissed it out of hand.

Before I knew anything about Christianity, God taught me three important things about who He is. One, He taught me His nature is triune, that God is three. I didn't understand what that meant precisely, I just knew that was His nature. He also taught me that there was a Messiah. He taught me that there was someone whose job it was to save the world. The third thing and most important thing He taught me was about His love. That He loved everyone, and that He secretly took care of them whether they believed in Him or not. He showed me His perfect heart.

What led me to the bible was this: I asked Him who the Messiah was and He told me to look in a mirror. At the time I had been away from civilization for a few months and my beard had grown out for the first time in my life. I hadn't seen a mirror since I was clean shaven. I sought one out and when I saw my reflection I couldn't believe my eyes. I looked *exactly* like Jesus Christ. I mean to a T.

It was then I was forced to accept the possibility that Jesus was real. To be honest, I really didn't want to. I felt like I had a really special relationship with the Father and that Jesus could only get in the way of that. I didn't even feel like I could pay Him any real respect, because I knew the Father was greater than He was. But, I couldn't ignore what He was showing me, so I started to read the bible. To my surprise, I found out it was about the God I already knew.

Everything I read in the bible matched what I already knew about God . The Holy Trinity matched His triune nature. That there was a Messiah and Jesus was it. And most of all His love, His great and majestic love, for all people, was perfectly laid out in ways I had never before comprehended. The bible was the only information on Earth that accurately described what I already knew about God. That is how I knew it was true from the outset.

So that's when I became a Christian. I couldn't ignore the evidence. My journey to Christianity was based on rationality and logic, believe it or not, albiet with miracles and spirituality mixed in. Even the miracles themselves were logical, as God showed me how He worked from a meta-perspective, and that time and space didn't restrict Him at all. So there you have it..an interesting testimony to be sure.

I am unusual in that I didn't come to God on my own. God chose me, I didn't choose Him. I might never have come to God if He hadn't. I found out later that this means I was elected..in that, before God made the world He had already planned to create me to do His will. After He woke me up it never really took much faith to believe in God because He demonstrated to me His amazing power and ASTONISHING intellect in ways that were impossible to refute. Whatever brick wall I would put up, He would smash it down into oblivion. He favored me because I stayed hungry. I knew the truth was knowable, and I gunned for it 200 percent. I would have died for it.

So I empathize with the people here. Some of you might actually be elected too, it just is not your time to know. Some are probably angry/scared/rebelliious, while still others are intellectually incurious and swayed by hyperbole. I'm pretty sure not many people here have actually read the bible. I hadn't either..I was simply arrogant at the time.

So what I would say to people here is..there is far more going on than seems apparent..if you don't believe at least that there is a spiritual reality, you're practically rubbing two sticks together. God definitely exists and will prove it to you if you humble yourself, come to Him in sincerity, with your total heart and pray. Admit you're a sinner, and ask Him to be your Lord and Savior. Anyone can know God is real. I wish I had read it earlier..would have saved me a hardship. Save yourself the trouble and find out the truth for yourself, that God is real He loves you. God bless..

-------------------------------------

>> ^rex84:

Brave guy. One question: why is he screaming "I'm hit!" rather than using his comm/radio. No comm?


Not too many units where every member carries a radio. Mostly just special forces, and even then only some of the time. Small units like this are supposed to work as a unit, that means they stick together most of the time. And it's pretty obvious that this guy is not trained to a level where he's competent to be off on his own.

I spent the winter on the verge of a total breakdown
While living in Norway
I felt the darkness of the black metal bands
But being such fawn of a man
I didn't burn down any old churches
Just slept way too much, just slept

My mind rejects the frequency
It's static craziness to me
Is it a solar fever?

The TV man is too loud
Our plane is sleeping on a cloud
You turn the dial, I'll try and smile
We've eaten plastic weather
This family sticks together
We will escape from the south to the west side

My mind rejects the frequency
It's just verbosity to me

I spent the winter with my nose buried in a book
While trying to restructure my character
Because it had become vile to its creator
And through many dreadful nights
I lay praying to a saint that nobody has heard of
And waiting for some high times to come again

My mind rejects the frequency
It's static craziness to me
Is it a solar fever?

The TV man is too loud
Our plane is sleeping on a cloud
You turn the dial, I'll try and smile
We've eaten plastic weather
This family sticks together
We will escape from the south to the west side

My mind rejects the frequency
It's just verbosity to me

Dirty old shadow, stay away
Don't play your games with me
I am older now, I see the way you operate
If you don't hurt me then you die

My mind rejects the frequency
It's static craziness to me
Is it a solar fever?

The TV man is too loud
Our plane is sleeping on a cloud
You turn the dial, I'll try and smile
We've eaten plastic weather
This family sticks together
We will escape from the south to the west side

My mind rejects the frequency
It's just verbosity to me

That was my exact thought too.

>> ^Sagemind:

The purpose of stirring food as it cooks is not to make it go in circles but to separate the pieces of food and stop it from sticking.
With this, everything still sticks together but now it also spins as one big glob...

The purpose of stirring food as it cooks is not to make it go in circles but to separate the pieces of food and stop it from sticking.

With this, everything still sticks together but now it also spins as one big glob...

You know these types of playlists are great, because you can literally have a science teacher in let's say High School on a field day (or basically a day to let the students goof around a bit) set up a screen at the front of the class with audio of course and just sit there and play videos out of this. People that stick together all these playlists typically do most of the hard work and create a source for the teacher to show hundreds if not thousands of videos on science, ranging from every topic their is.

Obviously, the teacher must do a bit of pre-watching or other types of authentication to make sure he isn't going to start showing porn in the middle of class. Another reason why I love Videosift, it's self auditing by its members ensures that almost every video is exactly the type of beast that the listings, tags, headers, and description say it is.

I truly think that video (and audio video) is a sadly underused resource that teachers SHOULD have easy access to and I believe sites like Videosift are EXACTLY the type of sites they need to not only create their own, but use others without being horribly worried. AS well, the students could even become involved in the site and the process--maybe in the future creating "group" playlists. Students can become involved in playlists, discussion, and blogging or even journaling from the class they are in. But, I think the correct foundation to make it work properly IS what Videosift uses right now.

Playlists like this one are specific and are good at teaching you a bit about the world fairly quickly in a relatively short amount of time. I like to bookmark all playlists like this (in aim), so i would like to thank you for putting it together. This is part of what makes our Sift the great experience and place that it is!

Thanks,
Kimball Eaton - @kceaton1

>> ^harlequinn:

Thank you, apology accepted. Perhaps I should have worded my question as one sentence, the second question was only meant to refine the first question - text communication is an imperfect medium.
You raise a very interesting point. I believe arranged marriage in most cultures is equally unfair on both males and females since they are both under duress to marry. In this clip we can only assume the males are under duress to compete for marriage. If she is their prize, they are equally her prize. And there will be two loser's on the male side but none on the female side.
Is fighting tradition a good thing? Apparently arranged marriages stick together more than traditional ones ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage - just looked it up, who knew!!)
In regards to the female in this clip: Is the abandonment of feminine characteristics a good thing? And the adoption of masculine characteristics a good thing?
In this particular instance they diminish the natural advantage males have in physical activities (an undeniable scientific fact) and make a statistically improbable situation. In a warrior culture, males are unlikely to be this incompetent.
>> ^hpqp:
@harlequinn, my apologies for assuming that your question was simply rhetorical, but concede that, since you give an answer to your own question (albeit slapped with a question mark), it comes off as very rhetorical indeed.
So is this the best way to remedy this? Make a movie measuring a girl's worth against her ability to do or better exactly what boys do?
And it's that "answer" that prompted my (dismissive, I admit) comment. This clip shows the main character shooting arrows better than the male contestantsy yes, but that is not the point; the point is, why is she doing that? Because she does not want to be married off; she is confronting the role of "princess to be married" because she wants to be able to make her own decisions about her life. I could go on about how women have historically gained rights by proving their worth in so-called "male" occupations (WWII anyone?) but I think the point is clear enough.



Your answer contains a large amount of assumptions that seem to support my first point, and further underline the importance of media challenging the perception of gender-roles.

1. Arranged marriage is equally unfair in most cultures: half true. Firstly, in cultures where older men choose younger wives (e.g. Middle East), the men have a say while the women do not. Moreover, most cultures throughout history using arranged marriage allow(ed) the male to have mistresses (or even several more wives/concubines), but not vice-versa.

2. If she is the prize, there are 2 male losers but no female ones: Really? So getting married off to someone you don't care for does not count as a "loss"? This is sexist to both the men and the woman in this scenario, while contradicting your previous point about the men being under duress. Now it's the ones who lose that are deprived (of the "prize" that is a wife), while the princess "wins" because she gets a husband. See the problem here?

3. Is fighting tradition a good thing? Arranged marriages last longer: two main underlying assumptions here: "long-lasting marriage" is assumed to be a positive thing, and because arranged marriage relates to "tradition" in the first phrase, it is suggested that tradition is not all that bad. Of course arranged marriages last longer: most of the time they are relationships of dependency (particularly financial, but also psychosocial), and leaving such a relationship would often leave the woman in a very precarious situation (sometimes life-threatening). It is far healthier to be able to leave a loveless relationship when one wishes. More generally, ethical and social progress has always been made by going against the grain of tradition, the latter being the instinct to stick to what's known and familiar out of fear of change.

4. Feminine/masculine characteristics: assumption that such a thing exists, when they are almost all socially constructed. Question: what are the "feminine characteristics" you see being abandoned in this clip? Humble obedience/subservience? What are the "masculine characteristics" you see as being taken on by the character? By answering these two questions you should be able to see what's wrong with those assumptions.

The last paragraph is just ridiculous. Yes, men naturally have more muscle-mass than women, but that has no bearing here (and, generally, anywhere): archery is not about strength (the first contender is so strong he only pulls the string half-way) but skill. That you would see it - and combat in general - as typically male just shows how gender stereotypes are deeply ingrained over time. As for "statistically improbable situations", puh-leez, this is still a cartoon we're talking about, and heroes/heroines will always be "better" than the comedic accessories.

To paraphrase a close friend: the fact that we're discussing the feminism of a cartoon about an adventurous princess just goes to show we have a ways to go before achieving gender equality.

_{oh boy, I went on a rant, didn't I? Sorry for the wall of text!}

Thank you, apology accepted. Perhaps I should have worded my question as one sentence, the second question was only meant to refine the first question - text communication is an imperfect medium.

You raise a very interesting point. I believe arranged marriage in most cultures is equally unfair on both males and females since they are both under duress to marry. In this clip we can only assume the males are under duress to compete for marriage. If she is their prize, they are equally her prize. And there will be two loser's on the male side but none on the female side.

Is fighting tradition a good thing? Apparently arranged marriages stick together more than traditional ones ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage - just looked it up, who knew!!)

In regards to the female in this clip: Is the abandonment of feminine characteristics a good thing? And the adoption of masculine characteristics a good thing?

In this particular instance they diminish the natural advantage males have in physical activities (an undeniable scientific fact) and make a statistically improbable situation. In a warrior culture, males are unlikely to be this incompetent.

>> ^hpqp:

@harlequinn, my apologies for assuming that your question was simply rhetorical, but concede that, since you give an answer to your own question (albeit slapped with a question mark), it comes off as very rhetorical indeed.
So is this the best way to remedy this? Make a movie measuring a girl's worth against her ability to do or better exactly what boys do?
And it's that "answer" that prompted my (dismissive, I admit) comment. This clip shows the main character shooting arrows better than the male contestantsy yes, but that is not the point; the point is, why is she doing that? Because she does not want to be married off; she is confronting the role of "princess to be married" because she wants to be able to make her own decisions about her life. I could go on about how women have historically gained rights by proving their worth in so-called "male" occupations (WWII anyone?) but I think the point is clear enough.

thanks for the response my friend.
you need to realize something,for it will save you a huge amount of time.
i am already aware of your theosophy so you dont have to reiterate every time we converse.
more practical that way.

Sure, always a pleasure my friend. I didn't get notification of your reply, otherwise I would have replied to this sooner. If I am reiterating anything it is to respond to bold claims and assertions about Jesus or the word of God that you're making.

I understand that in your eyes you have dissected the scripture for its "true" meaning, and that in comparison, you think I am rubbing two sticks together. Before I became a Christian and had gnostic beliefs, that is the way I approached scripture as well. I am not ignorant to your point of view, or your methodology. What I am trying to tell you is that by searching for the "true" meaning you have lost the true meaning.

i knew you would have a strong disagreement with not only my take on sin but how i dealt with those in a crisis of faith.
was to be expected. please remember that condensing 40 years down in to a few paragraphs much will be lost. so the answer would be:
no hell (not the version given by the church)
nor satan (again,not the version given by the church)
but i do not teach that salvation is a solo job.christ was the way and the light.
the path has been lit we need but to follow.
love and forgiveness are the first step towards that goal.

John 10:1

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber.

The first step is to submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. What we need foremost is Gods love and forgiveness; that is how we are validated as human beings. This is the reason I am disagreeing with you, because you are distorting what Jesus said. You're teaching people to make up their own gospel, and thus, their own Jesus. This is what is called idolatry. You're teaching people to make Jesus into a false idol. Don't like the idea of eternal punishment? No problem! Jesus didn't really mean that..He loves you and accepts you just the way you are. Don't like the idea of Satan? No problem! Evil is just a state of mind..you don't really have an enemy trying to destroy you. God would never allow that, He loves you!

What you're doing is divesting Jesus and His word of its authority and teaching people to be a judge over scripture. Instead of conforming to Gods standards, you're teaching people to make God conform to their standards, and showing them how they can justify it. It's wrong, and you're doing them more harm than good, because what you're teaching them is in fact in opposition to everything Jesus taught us to do.

i dont really understand your disagreement with my internalization/externalization example

because then you turn around and kind of make my point and even back up MY perspective.
that was interesting.

I disagree because it is all the work of the Holy Spirit. No, it is not what I happen to call the Holy Spirit and you call something else. I am talking about the literal Spirit of God, who has a mind and is God Himself. I am talking about the Spirit who searches the deep things of God, and leads into all truth. It isn't a metaphor I am using. This is where we're disagreeing. The Holy Spirit is the one who transforms us into the image of Christ, and apart from the Spirit we are chasing our own tails.

You say the Holy Trinity = body mind spirit. This is the problem with gnosticism, that it makes all sorts of connections that aren't really there. By making these kinds of associations you are actually divesting it of its true meaning. The Holy Trinity is God, there is nothing to compare God to, or associate God with. God is God and no one and nothing is like God. The equation isn't body mind and spirit in any case, it is body soul and spirit.

http://bible.org/seriespage/man-trinity-spirit-soul-body

nor do i understand your reticence to being called a baptist.it is what most closely aligns to your theosophy.sometimes we need labels to help us relate.thats why i use gnostic.
ah well.not a big point really..was just curious.

They are closer to what I believe than other denominations but what they believe doesn't represent what I believe. That's why I reject the label. I am simply a follower of the Way, a disciple of Jesus Christ.

i was thinking of a long line of questions but feel they not express the revelation i desire.
so.let me ask you this ONE question:
did god create us so he could be worshiped?

God created us to be in relationship with Him, which includes love, worship, fellowship, and service. He didn't create us because He needed anything, He created us out of the abundance of His goodness.

Let me ask you a question. Do you feel God isn't worthy of worshipped, or that He doesn't want to be worshipped?

This is something people bring up, that they don't feel they should have to worship God. My position is, if you don't feel like worshipping God then you clearly don't know Him. He is worthy of all honor, all praise, and all glory.

i have to admit being a bit tickled by some of your responses.they actually fit quite well from a gnostic perspective.i know you didnt mean them that way..hence me getting the giggles.
so i agree in spirit.we ARE all ONE.
this is why i end many of my letters with:namaste
what a great word.

2 Corinthians 6:14

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?

We are one when we are joined together in Christ. The body of Christ is the unity that God has set apart for Himself, separate from the world. We are all made in the image of God, true, but the spirit apart from Christ is dead in its sins and is incapable of pleasing God. The family of God is made up of adopted sons and daughters, and outside of that, there is no fellowship or unity.

OH.almost forgot (because "someone" keeps using bullet form responses)
when it comes to the bible the only thing i really give any authority to is the ministry of jesus.
the old testament is the old covenant and lets be honest.god is kind of a huge dick in that book.jesus made it irrelevant.and i have read all the gospels i could get my hands on,researched the meanings,the mistranslation,other theologians hypothesis and came to two conclusions:
1.jesus was most certainly here.
2.the bible is an incomplete text,fascinating as it may be.(boring to most though,but im a dork).

It might have skipped your attention but Jesus verified the Old Testament as the truth. He verified Genesis, Noah, Jonah, and many other things. It most certainly is not irrelevent for that reason, and for the reason that it is the prophecies in the Old Testament that predict the coming of Christ, prophecies which Jesus literally fulfilled. You can read the entire OT as being a type of the Messiah to come:

http://videosift.com/video/True-and-Better

However you might see the actions of God, He was dealing with a stubborn and evil people, who defied Him at every turn. Remember when He brought Moses up on the mountain? What is the first thing the israelites did? They made a golden calf and worshipped it saying "here is the god who brought us out of egypt." This was after God had done all of these mighty miracles before them. If anything, God was way too lenient.

I'm glad we can at least agree that Jesus was here. So let me ask you two 1/2 questions:

1: why don't you think Jesus is literally God (not someone who attained it, but is the literal creator of this reality)?
1a: was He raised from the dead, and if yes, by whom and for what purpose?
2: why is the bible "incomplete"? What do you think is missing?

ps:great book for ya right here.
http://frimmin.com/books/cosmicchrist.php

I've actually seen and read similiar books to these. They attempt to turn Christianity into a universalist enlightenment religion. The 12 steps to being as God is. It is to believe everything in general without believing anything in particular. It is the same thing the serpent said to Eve:

"ye shall be as gods"

Saying, we have to become as Christ to fix the Earth. That isn't what Jesus taught. He taught us that we are servants serving in His house, and that He has been given all authority under Heaven and Earth. He said in very plain language that He is the judge of the living and the dead, and that He is going to return to this fallen world and establish His Kingdom.

There is only one Jesus Christ, and we're not it. Why do you ignore the scripture that talks about His Lordship over Heaven and Earth but then embrace everything else?

and look up christ conciousness.
thats where my general theosophy lays.

It is indeed true that we need to have the mind of Christ, but again we can't do that without the Spirit of Christ. I think it is a noble pursuit to want to be like Jesus, but you can't do that by just emulating Him. You need His Spirit, the one that raised Him from the dead. We don't get the Spirit of Christ unless we are born again and confess Jesus as Lord. It is all a work of God, and apart from Him we can do nothing.

Galatians 5:22-23

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

I hope you don't see my reply as being too harsh, because I am stating the truth of what I believe, just as you are. If you have taken any offense, please accept my apology. I don't compromise on truth, and I am only meeting you with it at the places where you have drawn the lines. Take care my friend.

>> ^enoch

>> ^HenningKO:

Man, that sure is an effective way to stick together whatever those two things are.


You can't tell what that is? It's a wheel.

Man, that sure is an effective way to stick together whatever those two things are.

Fact is, you are explaining the existence of something from nothing by creating something else from nothing.

There never was nothing, that's the entire point. Either "someting" is eternal, or you couldn't have anything. If time and space began at the big bang, the cause of the Universe is immaterial and transcendent. You have the idea of nothing never existing which means the ultimate cause is eternal. So between those two things you have a match to God, who is immaterial transcendent and eternal. A Creation is indeed the simpliest explanation for this.

Somehow you've also convinced yourself this is the simplest explanation. Not to mention that not only must there be an all knowing, all powerful and all seeing god to you but he must be the judeo Christian god which assumes an almost endless list of events and facts from the bible, many of which we know to be false.

Like what?

Congratulations you've accomplished nothing but demonstrating your dogmatic adherence to a system of belief that 2/3 of the living world disagree with and belief in which is on the whole determined overwhelmingly by one factor, that the person in question was born in a country and familial environment where it was the dominant religion.

Not that numbers prove anything, but Christianity is the worlds biggest religion. I would think that the true God would have the #1 religion. Don't forget that 4/5's of the world disagrees with your conclusion that there isn't a God in the first place.
>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^mentality:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I know all about the schitzophrenic nuance militant atheists attempt to interject into the debate ..which really is because atheism is completely indefensible as a belief. At least someone like Christopher Hitchens is intellectually honest enough to say he doesn't believe..but many atheists try to hide behind an ambiguous definition by redefining atheism as not making any particular claims, which is patently false. I really don't care what wikipedia says, I'll go with the dictionary on this one, as well as personal experience. I've yet to meet an atheist who said he "lacked" belief who didn't unequivocably assert he is right, and not only right, but so right that I was in comparison intellectually inferior. Which is amusing to me, because as far as I am concerned an atheist might as well be rubbing two sticks together for all the discernment about reality.
Wrong. It is not a "redefinition" of atheism. It's a way of classifying different kinds of atheism. The kind of atheism that you're used to dealing with is merely a subset of atheists, the explicit/strong kind. Did you even try to read the wikipedia article? Oh wait, you're too arrogant to care. How would you like it if people bunched all Christians together, and viewed all of you as the Westboro Baptist Church?
And yet again you ignore the rest of my post. I'll spell it out again for you:
"I know this... I know that... I know all about... I don't care..."
These are all the signs of your own hubris. You don't know. You don't know and you don't care that there are different kinds of atheism. You don't know string theory, or general relativity, evolutionary biology, or even what the word "evidence" means. Yet you have the arrogance to talk like you are an expert. You sound like Ray Comfort - a fool, sure of his own righteousness and superiority. In the end, the only thing you achieve is to marginalize the Christian faith and make religious people look bad.
Try to remember that religion is a personal thing. Faith does not need your silly proofs and God does not need you to defend him.
Goodbye and good luck.

Good luck reasoning with him, mentality. I had a very long and thorough discussion with shiny about the different kinds of atheism, but he trots out that one dictionary definition and shuts off his brain. No amount of reasonable discussion penetrates.
And all of his expertise on various subjects comes from creationist websites that warp science and quote-mine to back up their theological preconceptions.
If you designed a computer program to defend the worst, must unscientific perspective on Christianity, you'd get something like shinyblurry. He's programmed to believe one thing, and nothing anybody says can alter it in the slightest. I doubt he'd pass a Turing test.
I only post messages to him when I feel like venting. It's not anything like a conversation.


>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^mentality:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I know all about the schitzophrenic nuance militant atheists attempt to interject into the debate ..which really is because atheism is completely indefensible as a belief. At least someone like Christopher Hitchens is intellectually honest enough to say he doesn't believe..but many atheists try to hide behind an ambiguous definition by redefining atheism as not making any particular claims, which is patently false. I really don't care what wikipedia says, I'll go with the dictionary on this one, as well as personal experience. I've yet to meet an atheist who said he "lacked" belief who didn't unequivocably assert he is right, and not only right, but so right that I was in comparison intellectually inferior. Which is amusing to me, because as far as I am concerned an atheist might as well be rubbing two sticks together for all the discernment about reality.
Wrong. It is not a "redefinition" of atheism. It's a way of classifying different kinds of atheism. The kind of atheism that you're used to dealing with is merely a subset of atheists, the explicit/strong kind. Did you even try to read the wikipedia article? Oh wait, you're too arrogant to care. How would you like it if people bunched all Christians together, and viewed all of you as the Westboro Baptist Church?
And yet again you ignore the rest of my post. I'll spell it out again for you:
"I know this... I know that... I know all about... I don't care..."
These are all the signs of your own hubris. You don't know. You don't know and you don't care that there are different kinds of atheism. You don't know string theory, or general relativity, evolutionary biology, or even what the word "evidence" means. Yet you have the arrogance to talk like you are an expert. You sound like Ray Comfort - a fool, sure of his own righteousness and superiority. In the end, the only thing you achieve is to marginalize the Christian faith and make religious people look bad.
Try to remember that religion is a personal thing. Faith does not need your silly proofs and God does not need you to defend him.
Goodbye and good luck.

Good luck reasoning with him, mentality. I had a very long and thorough discussion with shiny about the different kinds of atheism, but he trots out that one dictionary definition and shuts off his brain. No amount of reasonable discussion penetrates.
And all of his expertise on various subjects comes from creationist websites that warp science and quote-mine to back up their theological preconceptions.
If you designed a computer program to defend the worst, must unscientific perspective on Christianity, you'd get something like shinyblurry. He's programmed to believe one thing, and nothing anybody says can alter it in the slightest. I doubt he'd pass a Turing test.
I only post messages to him when I feel like venting. It's not anything like a conversation.


>> ^RedSky:
Fact is, you are explaining the existence of something from nothing by creating something else from nothing.
Somehow you've also convinced yourself this is the simplest explanation. Not to mention that not only must there be an all knowing, all powerful and all seeing god to you but he must be the judeo Christian god which assumes an almost endless list of events and facts from the bible, many of which we know to be false.
Congratulations you've accomplished nothing but demonstrating your dogmatic adherence to a system of belief that 2/3 of the living world disagree with and belief in which is on the whole determined overwhelmingly by one factor, that the person in question was born in a country and familial environment where it was the dominant religion.>> ^shinyblurry:
The description of the origin of the Universe is uniquely described by the judeo christian belief as a creation from no prior material. If time and space originated in the big bang, then the cause of the Universe is immaterial. The chance of existence being eternal is 100 percent unless you want to explain how nothing could create something. All of this confirms an eternal transcendent supernatural Creator..the appearance of design in the Universe further confirms it. It is the best and most simple explanation of the origin of all things.
>> ^RedSky:
Replace where I argued it always existed with temporary and impermanent. Im afraid you're pulling a straw man and not answering my question. Tacking on God to anything that we know about the origins of the universe is by definition less plausible. If you disagree, prove me wrong because up to this point the only response you have given to this is the erroneous assumption that it somehow 50/50.
Cosmic background radiation in no shape or form supports the existence of a judeo Christian god than it does the existence of Thor. I'm not kidding or mocking you, and again you are free to try to prove this point wrong.>> ^shinyblurry:
The simpliest explanation is that it was Created. Science agrees with this conclusion by postulating it had a beginning. The discoverers of the cosmic microwave background radiation said there couldn't have been a better discovery which matches up with the unique creation of the judeo christian God. The Universe shows every sign of being temporal and limited, not eternal. It was born and it will die.
>> ^RedSky:
Why is it implausible then for you to imagine then that the universe is eternal? It seems altogether simpler and more plausible.
Also it is not 50/50, just like it raining today is not 50/50 with it raining with thunderstorms. The first is ALWAYS more plausible.>> ^shinyblurry:
Here's basic logic..
nothing comes from nothing
something exists
Meaning, that unless the ultimate cause is eternal nothing would exist. This isn't a 50/50 probability..it's a 100 percent certainty.
>> ^erlanter:
Arrogant atheist: I don't know everything, but love evidence because it sheds light on the amazing world around me. I would believe in a god if there was evidence.
Humble believer: I know god made this amazing world for me. I know what god wants for me. I communicate with god daily. I know anguish awaits those who spurn god. Nothing can shake my faith.
Cheers.

>> ^RedSky:
If you are going to use the how did the Universe get here argument you must first justify how your chosen god came to be. "Always existed" is not good enough and I'm sure you're perfectly intelligent enough to see why.
Until then you must admit we (for the sake of argument, ignoring anything science has discovered on this topic so far) are equally oblivious when it comes to the origins of existence.
Going by basic probability too, that A is always more likely A & B, you should also be able to see how using basic logic, the universe existing because God created it having always existed is a less likely proposition than the universe having always existed in and of itself.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.
Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.
Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.
You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.

>> ^mentality:

>> ^shinyblurry:
I know all about the schitzophrenic nuance militant atheists attempt to interject into the debate ..which really is because atheism is completely indefensible as a belief. At least someone like Christopher Hitchens is intellectually honest enough to say he doesn't believe..but many atheists try to hide behind an ambiguous definition by redefining atheism as not making any particular claims, which is patently false. I really don't care what wikipedia says, I'll go with the dictionary on this one, as well as personal experience. I've yet to meet an atheist who said he "lacked" belief who didn't unequivocably assert he is right, and not only right, but so right that I was in comparison intellectually inferior. Which is amusing to me, because as far as I am concerned an atheist might as well be rubbing two sticks together for all the discernment about reality.
Wrong. It is not a "redefinition" of atheism. It's a way of classifying different kinds of atheism. The kind of atheism that you're used to dealing with is merely a subset of atheists, the explicit/strong kind. Did you even try to read the wikipedia article? Oh wait, you're too arrogant to care. How would you like it if people bunched all Christians together, and viewed all of you as the Westboro Baptist Church?
And yet again you ignore the rest of my post. I'll spell it out again for you:
"I know this... I know that... I know all about... I don't care..."
These are all the signs of your own hubris. You don't know. You don't know and you don't care that there are different kinds of atheism. You don't know string theory, or general relativity, evolutionary biology, or even what the word "evidence" means. Yet you have the arrogance to talk like you are an expert. You sound like Ray Comfort - a fool, sure of his own righteousness and superiority. In the end, the only thing you achieve is to marginalize the Christian faith and make religious people look bad.
Try to remember that religion is a personal thing. Faith does not need your silly proofs and God does not need you to defend him.
Goodbye and good luck.


Good luck reasoning with him, mentality. I had a very long and thorough discussion with shiny about the different kinds of atheism, but he trots out that one dictionary definition and shuts off his brain. No amount of reasonable discussion penetrates.

And all of his expertise on various subjects comes from creationist websites that warp science and quote-mine to back up their theological preconceptions.

If you designed a computer program to defend the worst, must unscientific perspective on Christianity, you'd get something like shinyblurry. He's programmed to believe one thing, and nothing anybody says can alter it in the slightest. I doubt he'd pass a Turing test.

I only post messages to him when I feel like venting. It's not anything like a conversation.

What I am saying is that there is no distinction between atheists, that the distinction is false from the outset (as confirmed by the dictionary). People who hold these combinations of beliefs are just logically inconsistant. This is part of the delusion that is out there, that people try to cloak themselves in this inpenetrable void of unbelief. Sorry, but you are exposed:

Ask yourself this question:

Was the Universe deliberately created by a supreme intellect?

Yes = Theist
No = Atheist
I dont know = Agnostic

It's pretty much that simple. You can muddy it up all you like..but the basic question is fairly simple. Just as the definition of atheism is simple: a disbelief or denial of a god(s)

As far as my knowledge goes, I know quite a bit about all of those subjects, particularly evolutionary biology and general relativity. I am also well versed in philosophy, history, astronomy, biology, theology, and comparative religion. As well as apologetics in general. I know what constitutes a standard of evidence. However, I know God exists; He is as real to me as my own reflection in a mirror. I have plenty of evidence, directly from God. You may not consider it evidence because it personal testimony, but it is clearly evidence to me.

Again, Jesus commanded that we contend for the faith. Which means to preach the gospel and have answers to peoples questions. I never claimed to be perfect..but you know, your testimony here is fairly flawed..telling me to be humble in one breath and insulting me in the other. You ever notice how hypocrites usually contridict themselves within a few sentences? I do..>> ^mentality:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I know all about the schitzophrenic nuance militant atheists attempt to interject into the debate ..which really is because atheism is completely indefensible as a belief. At least someone like Christopher Hitchens is intellectually honest enough to say he doesn't believe..but many atheists try to hide behind an ambiguous definition by redefining atheism as not making any particular claims, which is patently false. I really don't care what wikipedia says, I'll go with the dictionary on this one, as well as personal experience. I've yet to meet an atheist who said he "lacked" belief who didn't unequivocably assert he is right, and not only right, but so right that I was in comparison intellectually inferior. Which is amusing to me, because as far as I am concerned an atheist might as well be rubbing two sticks together for all the discernment about reality.
Wrong. It is not a "redefinition" of atheism. It's a way of classifying different kinds of atheism. The kind of atheism that you're used to dealing with is merely a subset of atheists, the explicit/strong kind. Did you even try to read the wikipedia article? Oh wait, you're too arrogant to care. How would you like it if people bunched all Christians together, and viewed all of you as the Westboro Baptist Church?
And yet again you ignore the rest of my post. I'll spell it out again for you:
"I know this... I know that... I know all about... I don't care..."
These are all the signs of your own hubris. You don't know. You don't know and you don't care that there are different kinds of atheism. You don't know string theory, or general relativity, evolutionary biology, or even what the word "evidence" means. Yet you have the arrogance to talk like you are an expert. You sound like Ray Comfort - a fool, sure of his own righteousness and superiority. In the end, the only thing you achieve is to marginalize the Christian faith and make religious people look bad.
Try to remember that religion is a personal thing. Faith does not need your silly proofs and God does not need you to defend him.
Goodbye and good luck.