Don't try and pawn this off on me. It's not my "excuse". I'm closed only to one idea: of my being absolutely certain about anything. I'm not closed to any other idea, period. You have failed to convince me. That's why I don't accept your story. And after all this, you revealed yourself to be absolutely certain of your own judgement that your numinous experiences are coming from God.

Let me get this straight..you're completely closed to the idea of being absolutely certain of something. Think about that for a minute and see if you can spot the inherent contradiction contained within this idea.

If I say there is absolute truth, and someone says no there isn't, and I say are you absolutely sure about that?, this isn't a trivial question. That's what I used to think, that it was some kind of cheap trick, and ultimately meaningless. Don't be like I was and just dismiss this without giving it a great deal of thought. The fact is, you can't deny the idea of absolute truth without confirming it. It's not a cheap parlor cheap of logic, it is a revelation of the framework of reality, of how things really work. That there really is a certain truth, and everything you ultimately believe, flawed logic and all, ultimately points to it. It actually could be no other way. There is a ground for everything we know and understand. The atheist says though that's he is standing on air. The issue is that subjective beings can't know anything about objective reality so they grope around in the dark trying to understand what truth is. An atheism has no route to get beyond his subjective understanding. The only way you can understand truth then is by the light of revelation. IE, someone without objective understanding (an omniscient being) would have to enlighten you. If you've never seen light then you won't understand what darkness is. Jesus said if the light in you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

What I believe is that you were not systematic in trying to understand your experience. When you woke up from it and figured out that you were being led down a path to insanity, you just wrote the whole thing off as being entirely in your mind. I would liken this to coming home one day and finding a group of thieves moving furniture out of your house and loading it into a truck. You ask them what they're doing and they say that they are a moving company and that you called them and set up an appointment 2 weeks ago to move you out, and don't you remember? Oh wow, you say, it must have skipped my mind! It looks like it was just a rash idea of mine, really sorry for this inconvenience! You then proceed to help them move your furniture back into your house.

As you're moving everything back in, you notice the door has been busted open and the house has been ransacked. You ask them about this and they say that just earlier you were here trying to let them into house but you couldn't find your key so you kicked the door in because you didn't want to keep them waiting. You then tore the house apart looking for your keys, and when you found them you left to go get something to eat and that's where you've been this whole time. Pondering this you decide that if you could forget about calling them in the first place then you could most certainly forget about doing all of those other things too.

So you finally get everything back in the house and you again apologize profusely for wasting their time, but as they are leaving, they say don't worry about it because we were never here. We're just part of a dream you're having. Goodbye! You think to yourself, considering the memory problems I've been having, this seems very reasonable. The next day a friend stops by and asks you what happened to your house. Oh, it was all a bad dream, you say. I apparently did all of this in my sleep, but it's over now, not to worry!

I don't know what your experience was; typically, they try to convince you that you're some kind of Messiah-like figure, or that reality is centered around you in some way. What I do know is that things happened to you which you cannot explain; signs and wonders, strange "coincidences", etc. These were the signposts in your journey that reinforced your paradigm and kept you on that road. You want to believe that it was all in your head rather than a strategic plan to destroy you, so you chalk it up to delusion. It wasn't all delusion, though; you were being herded down a path, probably with the goal of getting you to kill yourself, and it's only because they went too far that you woke up from that spell.

You have failed to convince me. That's why I don't accept your story.

I can't convince you of anything. This isn't an intellectual problem that you're having, it is an issue of your heart. Only God can convince you, but your heart is hardened towards Him and you refuse to come near to Him.

And after all this, you revealed yourself to be absolutely certain of your own judgement that your numinous experiences are coming from God.

That's just what I've been saying all along, that there is a certain truth, and God reveals it to those who seek Him. That truth is Jesus Christ. You've admitted that God could convince me, so it isn't an inherently irrational position.

All you're telling me is that you are convinced of something, and FWIW, I believe that you are. You have no grounds to believe that your human perceived conviction is warranted, especially given that you know of many other humans who are equally convicted about things that contradict what you believe. That alone should give you doubt about your convictions, as it gives me doubt. If it doesn't give you doubt, you're not being rational. What's more likely: that you alone are correct among all the millions of equally convicted people, or that all equally convicted people, including you, are wrong? What makes you so special?

Nothing makes me special; I simply responded to Gods calling. I can explain why people follow false religion in imitation of the true God, which is that Satan blinds the eyes of unbelievers so that they cannot know the truth about God. He backs up their experiences with supernatural signs and wonders so that they believe they are on the right path. Satan is an imitator of God:

2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
2Co 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

I DO doubt my own existence -- at least, I don't take it as fact that I exist. I could be a brain in a vat, etc. I don't accept my own senses either as categorical evidence. I live as if they're accurate because it's instinctive and it serves me to do so. Skepticism is not ignorance. Accepting something absolutely and uncritically is ignorance. You expect me to accept your word on faith. Why should I believe you? You're just some random person on their internet soapbox who claims to have visions of god. See how stupid it would be for me to change my life because of that? You wouldn't.

I don't think you're actually that skeptical, because I haven't really seen you critically examine your own presuppositions. You say that you don't have any preference for the truth, but that is clearly not true. You are very slanted in favor of a liberal/humanistic/naturalistic mindset, and you oppose any ideas which contradict it. You clearly do accept some things, like evolution for instance, as the gospel truth. This is very inconsistent with your statements about uncertainty. You've seen the human capacity to delude itself, so you keep saying, but you don't seem to question the thought process that leads you to any of these conclusions.

The reason I came to be a Christian, and no one ever witnessed to me by the way, is because I wanted to know the truth and God showed me what it is. I had sufficient evidence from God to give my life to Jesus, and then Jesus completely transformed me and made me a new person. I didn't expect any of that to happen. I had no idea what it would mean to become a Christian. But it did happen, supernaturally, and I found out later that it matched up to everything the bible said would happen. It's one thing to use confirmation bias to make a bunch of coincidence and happenstance into some kind of experience of God. It's another to be transformed at the core of your being into an entirely new person, losing all the negatives and gaining an unlimited supply of peace, joy, hope and love. Even more so when it happens within a moment in time. I've seen miracles, and I've seen things like demon possession. I am certain because God made me certain, but there is plenty of evidence to justify my certainty.

You are certain about God's revelation to you because God has given you certainty of it. That's tautology, if you're a rational agent.

Actually, it's circular reasoning. You will find that every inductive argument suffers from this problem. You cannot actually ultimately justify a single one of your beliefs to me. The conversation could go like this:

You: (objection to a stated fact or belief)
Me: Is that a rational statement?
You: Yes, it is logical.
Me: How do you know it is logical?
You: Because I reason it to be so.
Me: How do you know your reasoning is valid?
You: Because I reason it to be so.

Repeat ad infinitum. You've admitted that you can't trust your senses, and you just assume that you're rational because it's instinctive, which provides you no ultimate justification for anything you believe. That you're telling me it's wrong to use circular reason is absurd since everything you believe is based on it.

Circular reasoning is not necessarily fallacious because you cannot point to an ultimate authority for any claim without using it. Look at the issues this problem of induction causes when it comes to proving scientific theory:

"Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer-Landau note that “using the scientific method to judge the scientific method is circular reasoning”. Scientists attempt to discover the laws of nature and to predict what will happen in the future, based on those laws. However, per David Hume's problem of induction, science cannot be proven inductively by empirical evidence, and thus science cannot be proven scientifically. An appeal to a principle of the uniformity of nature would be required to deductively necessitate the continued accuracy of predictions based on laws that have only succeeded in generalizing past observations. But as Bertrand Russell observed, “The method of ‘postulating’ what we want has many advantages; they are the same as the advantages of theft over honest toil”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

You cannot use empirical evidence to prove empiricism is valid, just as you can't use the scientific method to prove the scientific method is valid. Therefore science cannot be proven scientifically! It needs an ultimate justification which cannot be proven inductively. Therefore, you would have to use a deductive argument by presupposing the uniformity of nature to justify the continued accuracy of the predictions of science. But again, just assuming the uniformity in nature leads you to the same problem. The only evidence you have that the future will be like the past is in the past. Therefore it would be fallacious reasoning to say the future will be like the past because of the past.

This is where the problem comes in for the atheist, because he must use viciously circular reasoning, which is always fallacious. I can point to God to justify logic, truth, the uniformity in nature, and my own rationality. These concepts don't make any sense in an atheistic worldview, because there is no way to justify them. My reasoning isn't viciously circular..I can point to an ultimate authority. Your reason is viciously circular because you must point to yourself as the authority.

You want God to be real so you deny all evidence even to other *possibilities*, let alone facts.

I didn't originally go looking for God. He tapped me on the shoulder. I didn't become a Christian because I wanted God to be real, I became a Christian because the evidence indicated He is real.

I don't want anything in particular to be real. I only want to be as sure as possible of what I do believe.

I don't think you want the Christian God to be real, and would prefer that He wasn't. What you can be sure of is that you cannot ultimately justify any of your beliefs.

Yes, of course a god could convince you, but just because you're convinced, doesn't mean it was God who did it. That would be a faulty syllogism. Minds can play the most amazing tricks on people. That's documented fact.

How is it that when you have evidence that confirms your belief, it's faulty, but when you reject that evidence, it's rational? Just because you can potentially falsify an idea doesn't mean it has been falsified. I have a path to the truth, as you've admitted. God could make me certain, and He could reveal truth, so it isn't irrational to believe it, considering the overwhelming evidence that I have received, and continue to receive, each and every day. When God touches your life, you have a justified true belief in Him. In every case, when God makes someone certain, they are going to justified in saying that they're certain. You would say all these people are delusional, but you have no way to be able to tell the difference. Only the individual could really know that they've been touched by God. The only way you could find out is if you were yourself touched by God. That's what I've been trying to tell you all along. I can't convince you, but God can. He loves you and He is waiting for you to soften your heart and seek His face. That is the only thing which will prove or disprove my claim.


>> ^messenger:

stuff

>> ^deathcow:

Amazing album. Excessive heroin really helped their creative process.


Probably so, right up until it wore him down to a shell his former self and eventually killed him. R.I.P. Layne Staley.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Irish O'bama is ignorant of Tea Party ideals. One cannot expect a Eurosocialist to understand a healthy fear of government power, the sole reason our American government is divided in TREES.

"It is said by the proponents of government-run health care that 47 million people go without health care in the United States. For example, during the so-called Cover the Uninsured Week event in 2008, Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi issued a statement declaring that this is the “time to reaffirm our commitment to access to quality, affordable health care for every American, including the 47 million who live in fear of even a minor illness because they lack health insurance…In the wealthiest nation on earth, it is scandalous that a single working American or a young child must face life without the economic security of health coverage.” This is more deceit.
"In 2006, the Census Bureau reported that there were 46.6 million people without health insurance.
About 9.5 million were not United States citizens.
Another 17 million lived in households with incomes exceeding $50,000 a year and could, presumably, purchase their own health care coverage.
Eighteen million of the 46.6 million uninsured were between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four, most of whom were in good health and not necessarily in need of health-care coverage or chose not to purchase it.
Moreover, only 30 percent of the nonelderly population who became uninsured in a given year remained uninsured for more than twelve months. Almost 50 percent regained their health coverage within four months.
The 47 million “uninsured” figure used by Pelosi and others is widely inaccurate."
--Mark Levin, Liberty and Tyranny


Even one humanbeing left without a basic health care is a travesty in a civilized country. This really baffles me, how can US even consider of not providing a basic human rights to all it's citizens. In my opinion the basic human needs are food, shelter and heatlhcare. The obejctive is that everyone can provide themselves with the first two while the healthcare is in the hands of professionals. You can claim that then goverment should provide free housing for all by employing professional constructor workers following the same logic that healthcare is done by professionals for free. Not all things are comparable, you can spend your night on a floor and be safe from the enviroment but you can't patch a guy up with staples and tape when he had a nasty fall and broke his leg.. Shelter can be variable as long as it fills the purpose but denying healthcare will kill humanbeings, you're fellow men and women.



We can take care of healthcare for all in every G20 country. And since we can do it, it's then mandatory. Like if we would get free unlimited energy logic will dictate that it will be ditributed to all, it never ends, it's free and there is no real reason to not give it out. Unless one man denys the service because of his own petty jealousy, anger, racism, or religious reasons. Those four things is what stops the regular US citizen from accepting a true humanitray cause, YOU DON*T WANT YOUR FELLOW HUMANBEING GETTING THE SAME RIGHTS AND PRVILEGES THAN YOU!!! It doesn't matter what your reasonings are, the trhuth is that you are an evil humanbeing that deliberately hurts all less fortunate than you. You get kick out of it, you enjoy looking at homeless, you spit on them and would no doubt just kill them in a whim, they are not humanbeings to you. Only your family and you are considered the right to get everything you want. No one else can, it's deminish your own ego.

This is my take on healthcare, anyone denying it is a monster. if you really want, we will leave you opt-out plan too, take care of your self if you like, hell we can even give you the money back you would normally spend for others (those cockraoches you know, people who don't deserve to live..)

How do you figure Healthcare is affordable to the average citizen?

Helthcare ranges from $13,375 to $20,000 for the average family
http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/29/pf/healthcare-costs/index.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-09-15-insurance-costs_N.htm

Even at $50,000 income per year,(which is peanuts these days by the way,) the average family cannot afford this.
And then, if they did sacrifice all other basic amenities to pay the health care costs, The insurance companies do whatever they can to deny claims and the basic care they deserve. The first thing that's asked is, "Does your policy cover this?" and if not, guess what, you still don't get treatment and someone can and has died.

That's Fact!
Health Care on any level is a human right not a present to be given to the select few who hold all the cash.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Irish O'bama is ignorant of Tea Party ideals. One cannot expect a Eurosocialist to understand a healthy fear of government power, the sole reason our American government is divided in TREES.

"It is said by the proponents of government-run health care that 47 million people go without health care in the United States. For example, during the so-called Cover the Uninsured Week event in 2008, Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi issued a statement declaring that this is the “time to reaffirm our commitment to access to quality, affordable health care for every American, including the 47 million who live in fear of even a minor illness because they lack health insurance…In the wealthiest nation on earth, it is scandalous that a single working American or a young child must face life without the economic security of health coverage.” This is more deceit.
"In 2006, the Census Bureau reported that there were 46.6 million people without health insurance.
About 9.5 million were not United States citizens.
Another 17 million lived in households with incomes exceeding $50,000 a year and could, presumably, purchase their own health care coverage.
Eighteen million of the 46.6 million uninsured were between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four, most of whom were in good health and not necessarily in need of health-care coverage or chose not to purchase it.
Moreover, only 30 percent of the nonelderly population who became uninsured in a given year remained uninsured for more than twelve months. Almost 50 percent regained their health coverage within four months.
The 47 million “uninsured” figure used by Pelosi and others is widely inaccurate."
--Mark Levin, Liberty and Tyranny

>> ^Fade:

There is very good reason to be patronizing to people who are pretending that they are knowledgable of a subject they clearly haven't the first clue about. It's a public service.
Liars and charlatans need to be mocked and derided.


Then it is just preaching to the choir, as you won't win them over with such a tone. If your efforts aren't to win them over, but rather call them out on lies and deceit then all you need are facts. I just don't think this is going to win anyone over, and if it isn't, then what is it's purpose exactly? I mean, we don't need to ridicule Aristotle for his theory of movement to know that Newtonian or Einsteinian models are superior. Perhaps not everyone can be as soft touch as Neil Degrasse Tyson, but I can't really support other modes of public criticism with conscience.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^VoodooV:
Yeah I got no problem with the idea of a creator. There are plenty of science fiction stories that assert the premise that humanity is a created species. But you do have to prove that it exists if you want public policy to be based on a creator, and not only that, you have to prove that this creator agrees with your viewpoint/religion. None of which has been done. God is not an American, nor is he a Republican.
Till then, I'll throw my lot in with things that actually can be demonstrated and repeated.
It's fun to theorize and speculate on what a creator wants, but it really needs to be left out of civilized, adult matters of importance where lives and liberty depend on the outcome.

I wouldn't expect you to believe we should follow biblical morality unless you already believed in the God of the bible. This is what is written:
1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned
I understand that this country is going in a secular direction, but I think any student of history would have to acknowledge that it has a Christian background, and was founded on those principles. If you want to disagree with that, that's fine, and I am not going to argue the point. It's not really about what our public policy should be, to me. Humanity has been in constant rebellion since the Creation began, and this isn't going to change while we are still allowed to govern ourselves. The nation of Israel, after seeing Moses part the red sea, and countless other miracles, fell into apostasy and worshipped idols during the short time it was waiting for Moses to return from Mt Sinai. It's not about evidence, because He has given it to us. It is that there is no limitation to the wickedness of the human heart. I'll direct you to my previous post for further illumination of this point.


And what you need to acknowledge, sir, as a self-proclaimed student of History is that is that Christianity meant something profoundly different to the Founders than what Christianity is associated with today. So claiming that the founders were Christian and thus America is founded on Christianity is pretty disingenuous. There might be a slight grain of truth to it, but you're willfully disregarding the larger evidence that they knew the dangers of Religion. It's obvious that a human being is going to attempt to govern according to their morals and back then, most people's morals did come from religion and the founders had a wide variety of different religions, so to claim that the nation was founded on Christianity willfully ignores everything else the founders drew upon and is deceitful at best, a sad attempt at a coup at it's worst.

There is a reason why only two commandments are actually laws.

The Constitution is a secular document. The establishment clause is pretty clear on how religion should be treated in regards to our gov't. There's a reason we don't tax church. Gov't doesn't involve itself in Church, therefore the opposite must be true, Church doesn't involve itself in gov't. No taxation...no representation. You can vote your beliefs at the ballot box all you want. More power to you, but you have to do it as an individual. And the Constitution is also pretty clear on what it thinks about the majority taking away minority rights.

With that separation in mind, and getting back to the original topic since you like to tangent. I have zero problem with marriage being a religious institution. You want to be recognized by gov't? Get a civil union. Want to be recognized by god? Get the head of your church to marry you. Since church is a private organization, that's up to them. But there are plenty of churches that do marry gays, so it really is a matter of time before the acceptance of gays becomes universal (we're already at 50 percent and those numbers aren't going to go back down) and there will be enough pressure for even the Vatican to change their stance. They've changed stances before. If not, they'll be left by the wayside like we leave other old and outdated things.

Just because you claim that there is evidence, doesn't make it so. I don't recall ever hearing about any published papers about evidence of a creator in any scientific journals. I would think it would be big news.

Therefore, we're back to square one sir, the burden of proof is on your God. If it wants a Christian gov't, it's going to have to do a lot better than an ancient book that's been translated countless times and has had its meaning changed countless times and portions of it's "morality" are flat out wrong. Not to mention the phenomenon by which people reject the faith when they actually read the bible. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that even you don't agree with stoning and slavery. If you do, then I don't think you and I can continue having a civilized discussion.

You are welcome to your faith, sir, but when you govern a nation of many people of many different faiths and non-faith, you have to have a better standard by which to govern by. The burden is on you to prove that homosexuality infringes on your freedoms and you simply haven't made your case...and you probably never will.

Investigate, bring charges, prosecute, seize their wealth, use it to imprison them and use the rest to go right down the line in these companies eliminating anyone who prevented regulations with their power.....including the politicians "in" on it.

Just keep on seizing, should have all of the countries budget shortfalls taken care of what they snatch up all those stupidly wealthy and deceitful individuals and their earnings. Not sure why it isn't a crime to flat out lie when handling and borrowing money. I know I can't go into a bank and tell them anything I want so I get maximum loan amounts and then wash my hands of it all when it's gone and tell them to S a D.

Good response and cheers for the 'Free exercise clause' description, i was aware of most of the general concepts but it's been a while since I've seen any text outlined.

Re my "all citizens" comment, 2 points:
1. You're right, i don't mean "all citizens", i phrased my sentence carelessly. This would be impossible given subjective experience alone, as two humans can't agree on every single point imaginable and when discussing the more extreme subjects and positions in terms of difference with a population of 400+ million, it can at times get to a legal level and someone is not going to get their way.
2. You took a piece of what i said and ignored the rest (no intention of disrespect, just prerequisite), there was a very specific definer to my point.. "When it comes to physical well-being/suffering or reasonable safety/accountability". This is what my 'all citizens' comment was relating too, albeit in another sentence (the following sentence).

imo: So long as a practice (religious or otherwise) doesn't unreasonably or unnecessarily increase the suffering of another (not limited to humans), or by same definitions doesn't decrease the well-being of another, then go nuts, do what you want and enjoy life.

imo: teaching children or the ill-informed that contraception's are bad, evil, a sin, something to avoid, dangerous, spreads diseases (specific to condoms), is something to be ashamed/disgusted of/by, that users should be viewed negatively in relation to, or access to should be denied/resisted.. is horrible, deceitful and/or spreading of ignorance.

Also I agree that the Supreme Court will support religion on this matter.

1. An "eternal first cause" and/or "creator" does not in any way by default = a degree of intelligence and/or act of deliberate purpose and/or 'living' entity/mechanism.

2. Every-time an argument asserts the idea of an "eternal first cause" and/or "creator", said assertion holds no relativity to the likelihood/plausibility of a God.

KCA.. really?

"The kalam cosmological argument, for example, establishes an eternal, personal, transcendent first cause of the Universe".
No it doesn't. It's wordplay, deception and confusion/delusion, the only tools in which theological arguments have EVER been viewed as to hold a degree of legitimacy until met by intelligent humans who can see the patterns of speech. The use of formulated distractions in an attempt to validate an invalid proposition is deceit.
~Even if disputed, refer to 1st point. There is no argument for God's existence here.

Kalam Cosmological Argument:
- whatever begins to exist has a cause (premise 1)
- the universe began to exist (premise 2)
- the universe has a cause

The argument follows the following structure:

- if X, then Y
- X
- therefore Y

But alas, if we take a closer look, we can clearly see a MASSIVE sleight of hand in KCA.

Consider the arguments below and it will start to become clear what it is:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- If someone is lying, they are not telling the truth
- My son is lying on his bed
- Therefore, my son is not telling the truth

OR

- whatever is not right is wrong
- my left leg is not right
- therefore my left leg is wrong

OR

- If it is bright, it gives off/reflects light
- My son is bright
- Therefore, my son gives off/reflects light
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You see what just happened?

Even though, the 3 arguments above follow the logical structure of "If x, then Y, X, therefore Y", they are complete nonsense....

... because the words 'lying', 'right' and 'bright' change meaning in premise 1 and 2, rendering the arguments completely useless.

And this is exactly what is happening in KCA with the terms 'begins' and 'began'. The difference between 'i'+'S' and 'a' has a value that those who make this argument either try to pretend isn't there, or have simply been fooled by it themselves due to their lack of interest/attention of the subject or their desperation to justify their preference for psychological comfort in the face of human minds not having had the pressures to evolve to properly comprehend self-termination, due to their being no continuation of processing once the engine stops and the lights go out.


To explain the deception within KCA further and more specifically..

The phrase "begins to exist" changes meaning in premise 1 vs premise 2.

In premise 1, "begins to exist" is being used in the context of things coming into existence as a result of "REARRANGEMENT OF EXISTING MATTER/ENERGY".
E.g. things like cars, people, trees etc etc

Whereas.....

in premise 2, "began to exist" completely changes meaning to "THE ACTUAL CREATION OF MATTER AND ENERGY"

just like our examples above.......
'lying' as in deceiving somebody VS 'lying' as in lying down on a bed.
'right' as in what is correct VS 'right' as in which side of the road you drive on in the USA.
'bright' as in giving off light VS 'bright' as in being smart.

and..

'Begins' to exist as in rearrangement of matter energy VS 'began' to exist as in the actual creation of matter and energy.

The shift in meaning renders KCA completely useless.
Independent of the science, there is a logical flaw in the argument.

Even if premise 1 and premise 2 are 100% true, you cannot draw the logical conclusion because of the shift in meaning.

i.e.
- The sky is blue
- I drive a car
- Therefore I like to eat apples.

Premise 1 and 2 are true in the argument above but the conclusion is nonsensical, just like in KCA



For those who prefer visual explanations: 3:56 Mins/Secs (+ some decent music imo)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkYkFw2X4mY

Note: The 6th description that gets dropped into the William Lane Craig description is meaningless in this video. Likely thrown in as a 'let's just give it to the believers-without-testable-evidence for the analysis' as often there's an attempt to claim 'morals' as God-dependent.. despite that small/large societies would have struggled to properly form in hunter+gather days AND hold long term stability without such a balancing mechanism being evolved along with them, to which is still evolving today in the political form of 'human rights' and 'humanitarianism'.

Credit for most of this breakdown of KCA to Mutantbass, used because it was articulated well with simplicity.
Modified for personal tastes and elaborations:
http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=13352.0

Since they wont allow a turnip in, Ron Paul is #2 choice
>> ^EvilDeathBee:

>> ^bobknight33:
Vote Ron Paul
At least he has honesty in spades.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:
Well said Rachel. I'm struggling to find the lesser of all these republican evils (candidates). Everyone of them seems to be a deceitful arsehole.


First of all i'm not American. Second of all, if I were I'd sooner vote in a turnip

>> ^bobknight33:

Vote Ron Paul
At least he has honesty in spades.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:
Well said Rachel. I'm struggling to find the lesser of all these republican evils (candidates). Everyone of them seems to be a deceitful arsehole.



First of all i'm not American. Second of all, if I were I'd sooner vote in a turnip

Vote Ron Paul
At least he has honesty in spades.


>> ^EvilDeathBee:

Well said Rachel. I'm struggling to find the lesser of all these republican evils (candidates). Everyone of them seems to be a deceitful arsehole.

Well said Rachel. I'm struggling to find the lesser of all these republican evils (candidates). Everyone of them seems to be a deceitful arsehole.

Irish O'bama is ignorant of Tea Party ideals. One cannot expect a Eurosocialist to understand a healthy fear of government power, the sole reason our American government is divided in TREES.


"It is said by the proponents of government-run health care that 47 million people go without health care in the United States. For example, during the so-called Cover the Uninsured Week event in 2008, Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi issued a statement declaring that this is the “time to reaffirm our commitment to access to quality, affordable health care for every American, including the 47 million who live in fear of even a minor illness because they lack health insurance…In the wealthiest nation on earth, it is scandalous that a single working American or a young child must face life without the economic security of health coverage.” This is more deceit.

"In 2006, the Census Bureau reported that there were 46.6 million people without health insurance.

About 9.5 million were not United States citizens.

Another 17 million lived in households with incomes exceeding $50,000 a year and could, presumably, purchase their own health care coverage.

Eighteen million of the 46.6 million uninsured were between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four, most of whom were in good health and not necessarily in need of health-care coverage or chose not to purchase it.

Moreover, only 30 percent of the nonelderly population who became uninsured in a given year remained uninsured for more than twelve months. Almost 50 percent regained their health coverage within four months.

The 47 million “uninsured” figure used by Pelosi and others is widely inaccurate."

--Mark Levin, Liberty and Tyranny

No. I didn't miss anything. You didn't hear what Cenk said. He said that some Republicans were trying to convince voters that a) Obama has been ignoring domestic energy, and b) that's the reason gas prices are high. Cenk put paid to both of these ideas because neither is true. It's the Republicans that Cenk quotes who are saying that oil drilling in the US counts as Domestic Energy, and that it would affect gas prices.

I don't watch any American TV news except what pops up on the Sift, which is almost all Fox News, so I can't compare. I can tell you that Fox is the worst journalism that I have ever seen, so much so that it's not really journalism to me, but shoving opinions down people's throats and still calling it news. If CNN and the rest are the same way, then that's a shame.

FWIW, Fox News viewers consistently poll as among the most misinformed of news consumers, often coming in lower than people who don't watch the news at all.

Also, I've never understood when the word "liberal" became a swear word. It just means "open-mminded." I think being able to receive and process new information and change long-held ideas in the face of such information is a strength rather than a weakness. But if you enjoy believing whatever you believe just because you believe it and like having others tell you that you're right even if it's incorrect, then have at it.>> ^ptrcklgrs:

Ok, you clearly didn't understand what i said because you responded exactly how I warned.
"Oil Production" does not equal "Domestic Energy"
"Oil Production" does not equal "Domestic Energy"
Solar power doesn't fuel my car. We could triple our "domestic energy" production with nuclear power plants, but that wouldn't do shit for my car and gas prices. Do you not understand that? He is responding intentionally with misleading points.
I'm sorry you are such a hater of Fox News and that you don't understand that all Fox News did was match CNN, MSNBC, NY Times and every other liberal media with conservative media. You ever heard the phrase "liberal media" its been around for almost 100 years. But the first Conservative media pops up and you all start crying.
Hell there have been so many cover up of democratic representive.
Example: Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA] was on a council that was awarding all military contracts to a company her husband was the primary share holder in. (Illegal) Once someone found this out, she resigned and the media refused to write on it.

>> ^messenger:
You've got to be kidding me. In his opening statement, Cenk says (1)Republicans are accusing Obama of ignoring domestic energy production, and (2)they are publicly linking this failure with increased gas prices. Cenk then responds that not only is Obama doing more domestic energy production than Bush (point 1), but there isn't even a causal relationship between the two stats (point 2). That's good journalism, as long as his opening statement is true about what Republicans are saying. If he had only said, "We're not drilling enough!! (without mentioning domestic energy) and then gone on with the domestic energy fact as a counterpoint, that would be misleading.
Even if he had fudged it like that --which he does on rare occasion, but not here-- comparing him with FOX is the news integrity equivalent of Godwin's Law. Fox are so bad, so reprehensible, so intentionally misleading, so ideologically driven that Cenk on his worst day couldn't even approach their level of deceit. [Edit: to your second point, without doing the background research, I'll just accept that you're right, and say this IS one of the times that Cenk fudges things a wee bit. But seriously, if the worst you can say about him is that he tars all Republicans with the same brush, that's not that serious.]
But if you still think you're right, if you can remember any time TYT did anything as corrupt as some of Fox's worst moments --and remember that they've been caught intentionally manipulating stories-- tell us about it here, even if you can't find the link. I bet you've got nothing. Check your hyperbole.>> ^ptrcklgrs:
TYT is a manipulative as Fox News. On 2 Counts
1: He says "Fact we are at a 8 year high for domestic energy production in this country". Ok, I believe that fact but its a stat based on domestic energy production. Not domestic oil drilling. Oil is one piece of energy. We've gone nuts in the last few years with solar, wind, fracking energy as going green. So that stat looks quite misleading.
2: When he says "Republicans" yes there is a hand full of republicans pushing this point. But by the vast majority it is held as not true. Why doesn't he name names. He is just finding any issue he can to dig deeper trenches between lines and make his money.
TYT = Fox News Opionists