Er you mean the CRUSADE? Begun by a born again Christian? With biblical chapters etched into our gunsights? Where we 'don't do bodycounts?'

The excuses are secular (OIL THEFT) but how do you think half a million radicalized angry orphans see it? I guess our kids will find out..

I miss it too. It was fun and engaging back in the day.



Anyway, on to this topic.

Your definition of "God" makes him capable, uniquely among all things in the universe, of proving his existence to a human. (What about me? Don't I prove my existence to you by communicating with you? Or if I showed up in your neighbourhood and had a beer with you, wouldn't that prove my existence? What do you mean, "only God can prove Himself"?)

At the same time, my definition of human --and I hope you agree on this-- includes that humans can be 100% convinced of false things. There is plenty of evidence of this in the many religions and folk beliefs of the world, as well as in mental health documentation and police records. Agreed? Assuming yes, it is fully consistent with your experience then that you SB could be 100% convinced of a false thing. You, as a human, are incapable of telling the difference between 100% conviction of a false thing, and 100% conviction of a true thing. The proof of this is that you are human, and people exist who 100% believe things that are incompatible with what you believe, so it must be possible for a human to 100% believe something false.

Well, let me connect the thoughts in these two paragraphs. You certainly do prove your existence to me by communicating with me. If you showed up in my neighborhood and we had a beer together(i dont drink but i would drink one with you), I would come away being 100 percent certain that you exist. I'm fairly sure you will agree that my certainty about your existence would be justified. Does this 100 percent certainty about your existence mean I could 100 percent prove it to someone else, or even to myself? Certainly not. No matter what evidence I had, even a video tape, someone could say that I am really just sea turtle dreaming this and none of it is real. Is that plausible? Not even remotely, but I couldn't disprove that hypothesis using evidence, empirical or otherwise.

So I think the disconnect here is that you are equating 100 percent certainty with 100 percent proof. Yes, it is technically true I could be a sea turtle dreaming all of this, and I could never disprove that, but I am 100 percent certain that isn't the case. To believe otherwise would make rational thought impossible. Therefore rationality is impossible without first assuming you are capable of rational thought. I have to believe this even though I cannot necessarily prove it. This poses a problem for the atheist. Essentially, all an atheist can say is that "my reasoning is sound because my reasoning says it is"..which begs the question as to why the chemical soup in the brain of an exalted ape fizzing a particular way should be called rationality. Whereas I can say that I am rational because I was created in the image of a rational being, God. Both arguments do use circular reasoning, but the atheist argument is viciously circular.

So, this comes to my point about my belief in God. To me, His existence has been sufficiently proven to the point where I can claim complete certainty, just as if we hung out together I would claim complete certainty that you exist. There is no real difference there and in fact, God has provided me better evidence of His existence because He is with me all of the time. whereas you could only be with me some of them time. I cannot prove to you that God is with me, or that He runs my life, but it doesn't diminish the reality of what He has proven to me.

So I think this leaves you in the position of having to claim that we can be certain of nothing, but in actuality the argument is self-defeating because it requires you to be certain of something (that nothing is certain). It's just the same as trying to claim that only relative truth exists ("is that absolutely true?") Otherwise you will have to say there is a possibility my certainty is justified.

Maybe there are no gods, or maybe I simply am not perceiving your Yahweh while he chooses not to directly reveal himself to me. Both conditions appear identical from my point of view, and I am incapable of telling which is true, so long as I don't perceive Yahweh.

I agree, and think about this. When I got saved I quickly realized that I had been living in an information bubble my entire life. Living in secular culture, you get confronted with this illusion which makes it seem like you have your finger on the pulse of reality. You are consuming all of this information about where we are, where we are headed, where the culture is, the scientific advances, the dreams and aspirations of those who think like you, and you get this sense of being connected to what is going on in planet Earth.

But what I found out is that this is all just basically confirmation bias. I thought that because I had an extremely wide feed and a diversity of interests that my filter was very nimble and narrow and was just sloughing off all of the trivial and non-essential things, when in fact the filter was wider than the feed and I was staring into a hall of mirrors. When that happens it means you are actually just consuming everything that mostly confirms what you already believe, such as what television shows and movies you watch, and what music you listen to, and what books you read. People also tend to hang out with people who think like they do. The seeming diversity of secular interests is actually a very narrow band which reflects very little truth so you end up in a little bubble (which seems like a Universe).

Both of our experiences with direct communication with gods are consistent with both of our beliefs (me: no contact => there are no gods or just no contact yet; you: contact => there is a god or you're wrong because you're human). The difference is that I freely admit that either is possible, while you insist that your view is correct. Get it?

To you either could be possible, because both experiences look the same to you. Whereas, to me only one is possible because the two experiences are alien to eachother. When you look at me, you have no way to tell the difference because you see no difference, therefore you allow the possibility. If you allow the possibility therefore, it isn't necessarily wrong to think that I am justified in believing I am right.

As for what I've said about Yahweh, you must be confusing me with someone else. I have never said I don't want him to reveal himself. I once, on your recommendation, got down on my knees and prayed for it, remember? I really, really, really want to understand the human condition and the true nature of the universe. If that includes the fact that Yahweh actually is our supreme being exactly as described in the Bible I would be very upset to learn that (just as I would be upset to find that I had been sold into slavery), but if that were the case, I'd want to know so I could make informed decisions for my future.

Yes, you're right, I think I did confuse you with someone else. Sorry about that.

I believe you when you say you just honestly want to know the truth, even if that truth wouldn't be pleasing to you. I think it reveals a lot about your character and the way that you think. I admire that kind of personal integrity.

Just before I became a Christian, when I found out that Jesus is the way God has chosen for us, I was resisting it because I knew that it meant that I had to stop living for me. I knew I was going to lose my right to my own personal autonomy and would have to place it in the care and trust of my Creator. What I found out though is that what I thought was freedom was slavery, and that the slavery I thought I was signing myself into was the true freedom. When you are born again, God makes you a new person and sets you free from all of the bondage of sin, and your present condition and your past suffering. This is literal and it is transformative. There is a tangible weight that lifts from your shoulders the moment you accept Christ and your sins are forgiven. It is a weight that is bowing you down all of your life. Everyone has their own theory about where the weight comes from..such as other people, the government, or even religion as some atheists like to think..but the weight is a spiritual weight stemming from the judgment against your sin. People become slaves of many things because they promise to remove that weight, but the weight always remains in the end because only God can set us free from it.

I do remember that prayer. One of the ways that God reveals Himself is through the reading of His word. Would you be willing to take it one step farther and read the gospel of John? I'm sure you've probably read it before, but this would be specifically for God to reveal Himself to you in a way that you can understand and relate to. You could pray before reading it..God, I once prayed for you to reveal yourself to me..I am asking that you do that through the reading of this book. Please help me understand what is being said and use it to give me revelation of your existence. Then read through it slowly..perhaps a chapter at a time, and going over each verse until you understand what it is saying. Pray each time before you read for revelation. I feel the Lord leading me to tell you this so I believe God will honor it and guide you.

In any case, it is good to talk to you again. God bless.

Hmm... funny, a couple posts ago, you were arguing against Empiricism... and yet, you can't offer up anything that isn't Empiricist, or suffer from the same logical problems that Empiricism has.

"Truth" isn't a democracy... it doesn't matter how many people do or don't believe in a God. (Though I argue that in this country, the demonization of the non-religious scares people into continuing to go to church, despite their belief... though I say that through self experience, as it's hard to poll about that). The "truth" is that you'll never be able to use Science or Philosophy argue for or against the very abstract idea of whether there is a God or not.

One can, certainly, use logic to determine that the bible is self-contradictory, and biblical scholars (and believers) have determined that not a single book in the bible is the "original"... they've all been modified well after it had already been proclaimed to be the "Word of God". There is utterly no logic as to how a perfect being could have such a shoddy and terrible track record with his followers. It certainly doesn't make sense that he could create wars where his followers kill each other (see any and all European Wars.).

The truth is that all science and philosophy points to Christianity being bullshit. And you've already pointed out the holes in the only possible philosophical arguments that could allow you to maintain belief while being truthful to yourself.


And honestly, if you think that someone praying, and then seeing a piece of Toast with Jesus' image on it, or some mold in their bathroom in HIS image is proof enough to devote your life to that sham... well, you really don't have any sort of a grasp on what philosophy is about.

You have no "proof" but one book written by hundreds of people over hundreds of years, translated into so many different versions... and despite the revisions, it's not possible to get through the first chapter without having MAJOR inconsistencies.

But unlike you, I have truly examined the logic of my situation. I know exactly what would convince me of a super-natural power... it's exactly what would convince me of Aliens or Telepathy. A personal experience that can be independently verified by people I trust, and cannot be explained by hallucinations, slight-of-hand or illusions.

That is ALL it takes. It should be the smallest of things for an omnipotent being... after all, he certainly was never shy with appearances or miracles, according to the bible...

But alas, there remains nothing, no shred of evidence... for Jesus or for Telepathy, or for Aliens.... though I imagine that the Aliens at least have a good reason for not making their presence known.

That's interesting. In his Democracy in America Vol 2, Chapter XX "HOW AN ARISTOCRACY MAY BE CREATED BY MANUFACTURES", Baron de Tocqueville warned of these dangers (in 1840!):

In proportion as the principle of the division of labor is more
extensively applied, the workman becomes more weak, more
narrow-minded, and more dependent. The art advances, the arti-
san recedes. On the other hand, in proportion as it becomes more
manifest that the productions of manufactures are by so much the
cheaper and better as the manufacture is larger and the amount
of capital employed more considerable, wealthy and educated
men come forward to embark in manufactures, which were here-
tofore abandoned to poor or ignorant handicraftsmen. The mag-
nitude of the efforts required and the importance of the results to
be obtained attract them. Thus at the very time at which the sci-
ence of manufactures lowers the class of workmen, it raises the
class of masters.

While the workman concentrates his faculties more and more
upon the study of a single detail, the master surveys an extensive
whole, and the mind of the latter is enlarged in proportion as that
of the former is narrowed. In a short time the one will require
nothing but physical strength without intelligence; the other
stands in need of science, and almost of genius, to ensure success.
This man resembles more and more the administrator of a vast
empire; that man, a brute.

The master and the workman have then here no similarity, and
their differences increase every day. They are connected only like
the two rings at the extremities of a long chain. Each of them fills
the station which is made for him, and which he does not leave;
the one is continually, closely, and necessarily dependent upon the
other and seems as much born to obey as that other is to com-
mand. What is this but aristocracy?

Then in Vol 3, Chapter VI, "WHAT SORT OF DESPOTISM DEMOCRATIC NATIONS HAVE TO FEAR" he goes on, describing a situation where a democratic nation has become
subject to a despotic government, and when the people give up and stop participating in democracy:

Subjection in minor affairs breaks out every day and is felt by
the whole community indiscriminately. It does not drive men to
resistance, but it crosses them at every turn, till they are led to
surrender the exercise of their own will. Thus their spirit is grad-
ually broken and their character enervated; whereas that obedi-
ence which is exacted on a few important but rare occasions only
exhibits servitude at certain intervals and throws the burden of it
upon a small number of men. It is in vain to summon a people
who have been rendered so dependent on the central power to
choose from time to time the representatives of that power; this
rare and brief exercise of their free choice, however important it
may be, will not prevent them from gradually losing the faculties
of thinking, feeling, and acting for themselves, and thus gradually
falling below the level of humanity.

Or in other words, once you have managed to oppress the people of a democratic nation, the very equality that defines a democratic nation leaves them powerless and unable to organise together and throw off their chains.

As far as I understand it from the Bible, God created farming as a punishment:

"17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-Chapter-3/

*sigh, I live in Chico, and yes that is a law on the books. It came about in the 60's in protest to nuclear testing, and the city became one of the first "Nuclear-free-zones". They also wanted to keep the local state university out of nuclear research. The actual ordinance is

No person shall produce, test, maintain, or store within the city a nuclear weapon, component of a nuclear weapon, nuclear weapon delivery system, or component of a nuclear weapon delivery system under penalty of Chapter 9.60.030 of the Chico Municipal Code.

I do believe the punishment includes up to 6 months in jail, in addition to the $500 fine

When Wings of Liberty came out, I was sincerely excited for the reignition of a series that had given me so much joy with the first game. I held off of buying it on the first day to make sure that I wasn't getting a polished turd. As someone that rarely gets to play something more than once all the way through these days, I have to make sure that I am getting my money's worth. I watched many of my friends purchase SC2 and play through it within a disapointing amount of time. I can assure you that they did not "speed run" through it. That is all I am saying. I will wait for the trifecta, the triumvirate of all three elements. Marines, Zerg, and Protoss. The game will be so much better when I can get through the complete story line without having to wait 2 years for the next chapter.

All that the Archer/Assassin act in the middle needed was an Oliphant or two. And the elven female mage was HOT (yes, pun intended).
-----

What bugs me about this is it's where Bethesda's attention is going to go for the next four years instead of concentrating and putting out the next quality single-player chapter in what is all of a mature and proven franchise, a genre that they own, and a immersive play experience that they are the absolute benchmark in. MMO's where the money's at, sure, but they made a KILLING with Skyrim and its single-player sequel would have been an absolute sure bet to do same.

Makes me sad as they've been very consistent at releasing a new chapter every 5-6 years for the previous 3 chapters, and this means Elder Scrolls VI is now likely to be much further out than 2016.

Once you spend 10 or so more years into your take on Jesus and his trip downstairs, you may relax into the seasoned believer's shoes, who take to heart Jesus' words in Mathew Chapter 6, verse 6, where the master of life and death implores, "But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

Or here, when he encourages his disciples on their proselytizing quest for more guests at the never-ending worship fest and ice cream social in the sky..."Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." -Matthew 7:6

Perhaps this isn't the best place to let your light so shine before men, eh??...Unless of course you have a knack for racking-up crowns online on other rabid-liberal-pseudo-intellectual circle-jerk web forums??

...chose wisely which pages to roll with-Key chapter and verse missing evokes hopelessness and despair in .07% of all motel patrons keen on flipping through available pages...Always good to leave a pressed-bud when removing any Daniel, Ecclesiastes, or Book-a Revelation when you cop dem Jah-Rizzla for-a-dem nefarious purposes!

Unintentional stand up comedy?>> ^shuac:

Perhaps that's the next chapter for Ms. Bachmann. Stand-up comedy.

Perhaps that's the next chapter for Ms. Bachmann. Stand-up comedy.

>> ^Payback:

This fucktard is OK with the idea of a God that forces someone to rape another?
Can someone look up the chapter and verse of at least one instance of God calling on an Apostle to "teach that skanky little whore a thing or two about respect"?


(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

The language is a little different, but it's pretty much exactly what you asked for!

There are plenty more where that came from.

OK, Chrysler went bankrupt and had to be bought out to survive - I may be corrected (and that's fine) but my point has still been made. Obama didn't make them go bankrupt (he kept people employed) - Obama did what he could to stop them from dissolving altogether. He could have done nothing and watched every Chrysler employee loose their jobs, from the factories, to the mechanics to the sales teams, to all the little companies that manufacture parts.

A few years back, we had a factory in my town as well. White Western Star. They manufactured diesel trucks and they were the largest employer in town.

They were bought out by Freightliner (a US company - a foreign company) a subsidiary of Daimler Trucks, (A German company - also a foreign company).

The factory was shut down when Freightliner acquired them. Putting half the town out of business that catered parts and services to the factory. Times were tough and we are still recovering.

My point is, I know how it could have gone in the US and on a much larger scale. Obama didn't let this happen. But Romney is making it look like Obama was the one at fault here - which is pure lies.
>> ^deedub81:

Chrysler DID go through Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. A foreign auto manufacturer bought the majority of the shares from the U.S. (Fiat) and the new chairman of the newly formed Chrysler Group, LLC has said that they will be moving "Jeep output" to China as demand rises. >> ^Sagemind:
"Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy" WTF - Obama bailed them out so they wouldn't go bankrupt.
Most people were against it but he helped them out anyway to keep them afloat and their workers employed. So how does this attack make any sense?

Chrysler DID go through Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. A foreign auto manufacturer bought the majority of the shares from the U.S. (Fiat) and the new chairman of the newly formed Chrysler Group, LLC has said that they will be moving "Jeep output" to China as demand rises. >> ^Sagemind:

"Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy" WTF - Obama bailed them out so they wouldn't go bankrupt.
Most people were against it but he helped them out anyway to keep them afloat and their workers employed. So how does this attack make any sense?