@NetRunner, you just pulled apart my sentences into pieces that make no sense. That's not how productive conversation works. Go back and (re)read my comment; I think you'll find that it's internally consistent.


Edit:

The part that you pulled out of context, namely this:

"I noticed a number of glaring inaccuracies and biases after the first few sentences, which I made aware to you in my next post. I suggested that the post was amateurish and, at a minimum, certainly not fact-checked. I've been waiting to find more reputable news sources reporting on this issue and as yet have found none."

... was referring to the article you linked to. I'm calling the article inaccurate and biased, not you. Please don't remove my comments from their contexts and misinterpret them—and invite others to do the same.


Second edit:

And, of course, you've removed my original claim of bias in the article from its original context, in which I make clear precisely which points I think are biased and not fact-checked:>> ^aurens:

From your equally informative link: "Ron Paul’s racist politics and affiliations are already well known, being viciously anti-immigrant, anti-abortion and against gay marriage — not to mention having authored the racist 'Ron Paul Papers.'"
Anti-immigrant? Against gay marriage? The author of the "Ron Paul Papers"? I'll leave you to fact-check that stuff. In the meantime, though, you might want to consider reading some more rigorously vetted news sites.
Oh, and those photos appearing as "evidence" of their claims? That's just priceless! Even you must admit it's amateurish.

From your equally informative link: "Ron Paul’s racist politics and affiliations are already well known, being viciously anti-immigrant, anti-abortion and against gay marriage — not to mention having authored the racist 'Ron Paul Papers.'"

Anti-immigrant? Against gay marriage? The author of the "Ron Paul Papers"? I'll leave you to fact-check that stuff. In the meantime, though, you might want to consider reading some more rigorously vetted news sites.

Oh, and those photos appearing as "evidence" of their claims? That's just priceless! Even you must admit it's amateurish.>> ^NetRunner:

@aurens got that out of your system? Good. Now click the link.
Enjoy!

It's priceless the way she acknowledges how whacko her reactions are.. She invites us to laugh at her, but admire her candidness as well

The security guard's facepalm at 0:28 is priceless.

Martin Freeman's expression at 0:54 is priceless.

The incredulity at 0:40 is priceless.

1) You have decided that there must be a god, that it is inconceivable that there is not one. That there is no other possibility but there is some omnipotent being that runs everything. You give no logical reasoning for this, you have just decided, for yourself, that it MUST be and so there is no arguing the point. Well, on that point you are wrong. Not that there isn't, necessarily a god, but just that there must be one. There is nothing at all that says there must be a god. Go nuts believing that there is one, but don't think that you have come up with some endgame argument that there must be a god, because you haven't.

What I said is that if God isn't in charge it is someone else. Earth answers to a higher authority, one way or another. Stephan Hawking recently said that this power is almost certainly hostile to our interests.

I will say though that it is obvious there is a God. Anyone who believes that something like the Universe comes about by happenstance is in massive denial.

2) You then go on to this weird reasoning that because there must be a god, that it's better if said god is the one in your bible, because, well, he's tip top and damn super, and that he has a personal interest in every one of the 7 billion lives on this planet. Even, apparently, the billions that are condemned to poverty, starvation, murder and death. (And the far worse alternative is that there's some super being somewhere that doesn't give two rat's arses about us... I'm not sure how that's worse at all. What would I care if there's some overlord who is quite happy for this planet to just 'be' and do whatever we want, sounds great to me)

If you want to pin suffering and death anywhere, it rests squarely on mans shoulders. We could feed, clothe and vaccinate the entire world for what Europe spends on ice cream every year.

The worse alternative is being ruled over by something that doesn't care about us, which means that, at any moment we are completely expendible, or a resource to be used and abused as it sees fit. Look at what we do to the animals and then imagine what a higher being might do with us. Could be that we're being fattened for the slaughter.

&

3) You again make the assumption (with nothing to back it up) that this reality is created by your god, and so we must play by his rules... when

a) You've convinced no one that it is his reality, and
b) even if it were his reality, I don't think that ridiculous book written by a swathe of people across a vast amount of time, and rewritten by whoever happened to be in power at the time says anything like what he actually believes or wants.

Your conscience tells you that you've offended a holy God. And I will go out on a limb here and say I doubt you have ever read the bible, let alone understand what is in it.


>> ^spoco2:
@shinyblurry:

"Someone has to be God, this what you don't understand."
and
"If God isnt in charge, you should be scared of who is. It is a far better thing to have someone who loves us personally and cares about our lives. The alternative is far worse, and something that should worry any thoughtful person. Because if God isn't in charge, and it isn't you and it isn't me; it is going to be someone else. You might not think God is perfect, but again, you love His reality, you just don't want to play by His rules. What you're unwilling to do is take a long hard look at yourself and see that if you are going to be honest about it, the problem is with you and not with Him. You most certainly have some terrific sounding excuses for how you justify rebellion against God, but none of them will match up to your conscience."

There are a couple of GLARING, STUPEFYINGLY OBVIOUS problems with your 'arguments'.
1) You have decided that there must be a god, that it is inconceivable that there is not one. That there is no other possibility but there is some omnipotent being that runs everything. You give no logical reasoning for this, you have just decided, for yourself, that it MUST be and so there is no arguing the point. Well, on that point you are wrong. Not that there isn't, necessarily a god, but just that there must be one. There is nothing at all that says there must be a god. Go nuts believing that there is one, but don't think that you have come up with some endgame argument that there must be a god, because you haven't.
&
2) You then go on to this weird reasoning that because there must be a god, that it's better if said god is the one in your bible, because, well, he's tip top and damn super, and that he has a personal interest in every one of the 7 billion lives on this planet. Even, apparently, the billions that are condemned to poverty, starvation, murder and death. (And the far worse alternative is that there's some super being somewhere that doesn't give two rat's arses about us... I'm not sure how that's worse at all. What would I care if there's some overlord who is quite happy for this planet to just 'be' and do whatever we want, sounds great to me)
&
3) You again make the assumption (with nothing to back it up) that this reality is created by your god, and so we must play by his rules... when
a) You've convinced no one that it is his reality, and
b) even if it were his reality, I don't think that ridiculous book written by a swathe of people across a vast amount of time, and rewritten by whoever happened to be in power at the time says anything like what he actually believes or wants.
So... sorry, you haven't thrown down any arguments at all... you've spouted your beliefs, from your book that you think is the word of god, no matter how much it can be shown not to be... and somehow you think that's going to win over atheists.
To wit I say... BWAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HE HE HE HE He he he he ha ha ho ho he he
he he
he
aaaahhhh, that's priceless, you're adorable.

@shinyblurry:

"Someone has to be God, this what you don't understand."
and
"If God isnt in charge, you should be scared of who is. It is a far better thing to have someone who loves us personally and cares about our lives. The alternative is far worse, and something that should worry any thoughtful person. Because if God isn't in charge, and it isn't you and it isn't me; it is going to be someone else. You might not think God is perfect, but again, you love His reality, you just don't want to play by His rules. What you're unwilling to do is take a long hard look at yourself and see that if you are going to be honest about it, the problem is with you and not with Him. You most certainly have some terrific sounding excuses for how you justify rebellion against God, but none of them will match up to your conscience."

There are a couple of GLARING, STUPEFYINGLY OBVIOUS problems with your 'arguments'.

1) You have decided that there must be a god, that it is inconceivable that there is not one. That there is no other possibility but there is some omnipotent being that runs everything. You give no logical reasoning for this, you have just decided, for yourself, that it MUST be and so there is no arguing the point. Well, on that point you are wrong. Not that there isn't, necessarily a god, but just that there must be one. There is nothing at all that says there must be a god. Go nuts believing that there is one, but don't think that you have come up with some endgame argument that there must be a god, because you haven't.

&

2) You then go on to this weird reasoning that because there must be a god, that it's better if said god is the one in your bible, because, well, he's tip top and damn super, and that he has a personal interest in every one of the 7 billion lives on this planet. Even, apparently, the billions that are condemned to poverty, starvation, murder and death. (And the far worse alternative is that there's some super being somewhere that doesn't give two rat's arses about us... I'm not sure how that's worse at all. What would I care if there's some overlord who is quite happy for this planet to just 'be' and do whatever we want, sounds great to me)

&

3) You again make the assumption (with nothing to back it up) that this reality is created by your god, and so we must play by his rules... when

a) You've convinced no one that it is his reality, and
b) even if it were his reality, I don't think that ridiculous book written by a swathe of people across a vast amount of time, and rewritten by whoever happened to be in power at the time says anything like what he actually believes or wants.

So... sorry, you haven't thrown down any arguments at all... you've spouted your beliefs, from your book that you think is the word of god, no matter how much it can be shown not to be... and somehow you think that's going to win over atheists.

To wit I say... BWAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HE HE HE HE He he he he ha ha ho ho he he

he he

he


aaaahhhh, that's priceless, you're adorable.

Just to get you prepd for the real ID. Buying bread in 2 secs, check! Loosing all your accounts and money in 2 secs, priceless!

..besides, the freeze frame (not really a thumbnail) is priceless. Looks like someone sent her 2girs1cup.

The look on that dudes face was priceless!

The exchange at the beginning of the video is priceless, by the way:

Young woman: "This is Occupy Wall Street."
Elderly woman: "Occupy Wall Street? This isn't Wall Street! This is Greenwich Village!"

>> ^shinyblurry:

@petpeeved I noticed you are evading the central issue, in that I don't expect necessarily expect you to believe my claims. Before I came to know God exists, if you had told me such a thing I wouldn't have believed you either. The point is though that I did tell you exactly how you could find out for yourself. Getting to your example, I was not raised with religion nor did I have any predisposition towards it. In fact, I was a strict materialist, who saw no evidence for such claims. You can't so easily write off the claims of billions of people. There are going to be innumerable cases which fall outside your narrow definition.
>> ^petpeeved:
"Do you honestly think people are just picking up the bible and saying to themselves "oh, that sounds lovely" and then just start blindly believing it?"
No, actually. Glad you asked. Most believers I have known, heard interviewed or simply researched are brainwashed when they are at a very impressionable age with whatever religion is the dominant one in the household and/or culture. A belief system acquired this early in life becomes invested with an enormous amount of emotional power and it's not at all surprising that this should later manifest in a psychosomatic incident later defined by the believer as 'personal revelation'.



"Before I came to know God exists..." Priceless!

0:10-0:12 had my in stitches. That face is priceless.

A man can dream. But you know what? Maybe it is better than he sue (and win)... A financial slap in the face of the bullshit creator's of that show is priceless...there are some things money can't buy...for everything else there are lawsuits.