> Disney wasn't saying "I forbid you to speak your mind!" They were saying "I'm not going to take your opinions and put my company name on them, then spend money distributing them with my infrastructure."
This is a point so many people miss. It's similar to CBS refusing to show that child labor commercial (actually about tax cuts) during the Superbowl. The organization (can't remember who, at the moment) screamed that they were being subjected to unfair censorship, which was a crock of shit then, and it is now.
> Technology has been hindered because of Microsoft.
Microsoft made technology as ubiquitous as it is now. It's not to say they are right in their actions, but it's part of the "I brought you into this world..." mentality.
> Consequently, God trying to explain creation to a man who lived thousands of years ago - well, God would have to communicate in a language that the man might understand.
Okay, sorry for responding twice, but this is slightly different and less serious (not to mention totally implausible).
Consider this: Someone goes back in time and acts like God (or maybe he doesn't, but is perceived as one). Or maybe someone from another planet. People ask how things happened, but the visitor knows they would never understand the "big bang" (or whichever theory is popular at the time on his home planet), so he tries to describes it very vaguely, or he just bullshits it. Same result is possible. Like I said, not probable, but more probable than the invisible childbeating father that is called "God." (okay, that last line was in poor taste -- sue me)
> These "things that do not exist at all" are usually things that scientists have not found yet.
Okay, this just screams "I'm a troll."
Usually? USUALLY? "Usually" means there is a precedent. THERE IS NO PRECEDENT, so using the word "usually" is just a way to make yourself look like you have more credence than you do.
But besides that, it's EXACTLY like saying Elves & Orcs do not exist only because scientists have not yet found them. They are from a book. The only reason YOU think there is any difference is because you think your book was written by a mystical beast, whereas mine was written by J.R.R. Tolkien, someone who can actually be proven to exist, unlike your "ghost author."
> If you saw a T. Rex today, how would you describe it? How would you name it? > First words that come to my mind are big-toothy monster! YMMV
And if you were making up a monster off the top of your head for a scary story, what would it be? Probably a... um... BIG TOOTHY MONSTER. We all know what teeth are used for, especially big pointy ones, so what is more scary in nature than big teeth? Of course that would be the description of a monster. How scary would it be if he was a 10 foot, green beast... with daisies for eyes, a rose nose, and pillow teeth. YAY, let's play with our monster! Not too scary, eh?
> Sorry, since when is proof by assertion supposed to be even meaningful, let alone rigorous?
> > > Behemoth and Leviathan, and the context describes features which are only attributable to dinosaurs.
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?? You are using proof by assertion yourself, then say I did something wrong when I call bullshit? Get your head out of your ass, man!
I never claimed it was rigorous, but it was certainly more thought out than your ludicrous claim that there are dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible. I replied in exactly the same way you posted. You asserted that dinosaurs are in the Bible because a large beast was vaguely described. Certainly not proof.
A very interesting post, but in the interests of brevity, I'll only respond to a few points.
> I've found plenty of people who claim to have seen or talked to God
And it's always some enigmatic vision that could be explained by food poisoning. You won't find two people who claim to have seen the face of God, draw it, and they look the same. Alien abductees, OTOH, can give descriptions of what the aliens looked like and the appearances generally match one of a few categories (not always the big-eyed, grey skinned ones that everyone "recognizes.")
> But there's other limitations as well.
If there are any limitations at all, he is not a perfect being. period. You cannot claim to be infinite and then say "but I can't do this."
> Is it better to wipe them all out, or to allow both to continue?
Like a "worldwide flood" that covered only Mesopotamia? Okay, I admit, that's just a cheap shot.
> But if that were the best course, you never would have created them to begin with.
Hey, wait... maybe there WAS a point to that... If he's so damn perfect he could have seen that he would destroy the world with a flood, so he might as well of started with Noah's family at the beginning. But that's all nonsense.
> The sum total of good done is greater than the evil
I disagree. There is no way to quantify good & evil, and I don't even believe that they exist. They are simply words attached to actions that some people either like or dislike to oppress (not like a gavernment) the others. Many animals, including humans, are naturally hunters. But some people scream that hunting is inherently evil because they want to force their agenda on those who disagree. Hunting is not evil, killing for sport is not evil, killing for spite is not evil. They are choices, and we must live with the consequences, but there is nothing evil about an action. Now intention may be something else entirely... I don't believe in evil intention either, but I can't really prove that, since any case study on intention is limited to one participant (self).
> He's incapable of understanding the order that does exist in the watch
And therefore the problem of God lies with you. You're incapable of understanding infinite complexity & order in the universe, so you say some magical being created it. Sounds like exactly the point to me.
> But the existence of order itself is evidence of intelligence, regardless of the level at which we understand it.
This is so frustrating because I can't argue this with someone who believes all order is because of God. I can't compare it to anything at all because you will then claim the order I am comparing was created by God too. That's why I generally hate trying to reason with Christians. There is no reasoning. There is only "it's God's will."
You claim that to a dog, the existence of a watch inherently means that there is a higher intelligence. I could then say, "well a bee's hive has order, but that doesn't mean bees are intelligent." Then you just point to God & laugh. Basically, I can't argue against a ghost.
> because you'll always have an endless "cause and effect" chain hanging in mid air
which is... infiniteness. Just because that chain exists, it does not necessarily mean something created it.
> Ultimately, something causeless needs to exist
No, it does not. Why does something causless need to exist? ONLY BECAUSE YOU SAY IT DOES. There is no reason to believe it must, or has existed. It's only because of your limited scope of view that you cannot conceive of an infinite chain of causes and the infinite chain of results. If the world just "is," has always been, and the "beginning of time" is just a fantasy of incomprehension, it looks exactly the same.
> I would agree that "thinking too much" is possible.
Aha, now that you've agreed, I take it back, Muwahahaha! **Evil Laugh (or is it?)**
The definition of atheist: one who DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. It doesn't get too much more straightforward than that, regardless of what logical axioms you lay out.
Sorry to reply twice to the same post, but I read this part later and it is a different subject anyway.
> The point here is that God wants you to first seek Him. If you seek Him, you will find Him. He'll see to that.
That is some self-fulfilling prophecy crap. I sought God's help & wisdom for years, while my life was getting steadily worse. I kept asking, and never once did I receive any answers, suggestions, or even momentary peace. I became more & more depressed because God seemed to always do the exact opposite of what I really needed. Then I stopped trying to believe. Guess what: NOTHING CHANGED. My life is still worse, although growing worse at a slower pace, so I guess that's technically an improvement.
God gave no indication of wanting me to do anything but suffer, so now instead of praising him I tell him to go fuck himself, as that's what he's trying to do to me.
> Once you choose to believe, you will find all the proof you need.
That is 100% bullshit. Blind belief does not equal proof, as there is no proof to be had. NO MATTER WHAT you call proof, there are other explanations, and therefore your explanation is not definitive by a LOOOONG shot, ergo, not proof at all, but blindly following. Give me one bit of "proof" for the existence of God that I cannot explain by another, usually more realistic, method.
> But I think that a default position of believing in God generically is very reasonable. If, for no other reason, than the presence of order.
That is so wrong I don't know where to begin.
I think that a default position of believing in Aliens who created us is very reasonable. There is MUCH MUCH MUCH more evidence for the existence of aliens, such as a single eyewitness account (actually, more than one, but one for aliens is more than the zero for God).
The only reason you think it is reasonable is because you already believe, so it's not a stretch for you. You probably deny the existence of aliens, although I consider it a foregone conclusion. My beliefs have infinitely more evidence, but you'd call me a crackpot, and yourself a good person because you believe in faeries, while I believe in green/grey monsters. If anything, both of us are nuts.
Also, complexity does not mean anything. Humans may really be extremely simple creatures. You think we're complex ONLY because you cannot conceive of anything more complex, nor anything less complex with intelligence. Therefore, you anthropomorphize (in a sense) the "extremely complex" chaos into a God-type character. You can't wrap your mind around infinite complexity or infinite anything for that matter, so you call the infiniteness "God." You may be right, you may be crazy. I don't know.
If God is infallible, how could he create humans that are imperfect? You don't have to answer, but humans are not as perfect as many believe themselves to be. We have TONS of flaws, moreso than most other species, IMO. Simple answer: war. Humans alone can come up with the horrific and pointless slaughter of millions, just for the sake of being "right." That's a pretty fucking huge flaw right there. (is war really in God's image of us?)
> Look at how all the gears naturally evolved to keep time.
Time is a completely human creation. If a dog saw a watch, he would not care how it moved or how it worked. He would not even care THAT it worked, let alone even notice that the hands are moving in a "perfectly" synchronized fashion. You see a device created by man because you know what it is. If anything, a dog sees a shiny rock that has little insects or something in it.
How do you know that the Earth is not just an organic, atomic clock made by the Frizzians of Glebulon 8 (of the 24th & 1/2 dimension, of course)?
> The definition of God isn't fuzzy at all. God is:
ONLY if you are a Christian. If you do not already subscribe to your strict beliefs, God can be a friggin can of soup. There have been ancient books written about gods that lack one or more of the qualities you list, yet they are still considered Gods. In fact, even the Christian God does not necessarily have to be all of those things. Omnibenevolent? READ THE OLD TESTAMENT. That insinuates that it cannot be any other way, yet somehow God changed moods between the original book & the sequel? Doesn't sound omni-anything to me.
I don't know of anywhere in the Bible where it says God is necessary for existence to... um.. exist.
Please don't take this as an insult, but you seem to have thought too much about a topic that is unthinkable and taken your FAITH and passed it on as fact. Keep in mind that much of the world disagrees with your assertions of fact.
> But I AM an atheist (and an agnostic - the terms are not mutually exclusive as so many seem to think)
They may not be mutually exclusive, but as soon as you are atheist, the agnostic part becomes irrelevant. This sums up your stated stance: "God does not exist. If he did we wouldn't be able to know it anyway." If you deny the existence of God, what is the point in questioning if we would be able to know it?
> Behemoth and Leviathan, and the context describes features which are only attributable to dinosaurs.
Whereas other parts of the bible describe things that do not exist at all. So just because it describes something that you consider to represent a dinosaur, it does not mean it does. There are still no statements in the Bible that clearly suggest dinosaurs existing at all.
> Most of the people I know who "home school" their children have no idea how to teach anything and are uneducated themselves
Or usually "educated" by a church, and that's the only thing they are interested in teaching. Everything else is heresy. Every single person I know that was homeschooled has serious problems. The least messed-up one ended up taking his last three years in an actual school, and miraculously, he wasn't so screwed up any more!
Sometimes it's not even bad teaching that causes the problems -- one of the guys I knew had a mother that was previously a teacher (and not a bad one either). The problem was that when your entire day is spent inside your house with your mother, your social skills start to lack, which can cause psychological "issues."
Also, it can hurt your views of authority. If your only exposure to authority until you're 18 is your parents, you might develop an attitude problem (granted, I only know af one person like that).
> Probably better off not even advertising it until it can support it's claims
So how do you reliably stress-test omething like this without telling thousands of people to connect? That's what the Beta stage is. They are proceeding exactly as they should, IMO.
> > MS pioneered it long ago. > Don't you mean innovated it long ago?
No, there's a difference. When MS "pioneers," it means they stumbled across something cool on their own & actually kept it. "Innovated" means blatantly stolen. That's why you hear "innovate" much more often than "pioneer" at MS.
> They offer absolutely no explanation why dead people are coming back to life, other than "When there's no room left in Hell, the dead will walk the Earth."
So, if the dead really WERE to come back & walk the Earth, do you think humans would come up with an explanation in the amount of time covered by the movie (which I haven't seen)? If the movie takes place over a three-day period, no one probably knows why they came back, and won't for a good while.
Basically, by inserting mysteries and unaswerable questions, it can ADD reality to a movie (not necessarily that one, though), because in reality, there are unanswered questions. Although those questions in reality are usually not on the scale of "living dead."
"Try informing yourself rather than spewing obvious lies. It might manage to elevate you to being a decent human being." Just because you put a rosy color on a statement, it does not take away from the feeling.
> If you are not stresed out by the situation Bush and Co have put this country in, then you have not been paying attention.
Oh, I have been paying attention, believe me. What has Bush done to stress me out, personally? I had more interaction with "the man" before Bush was president, none since. I've even become more extreme/crazy and vocal in my views. Sure, the Bush administration sucks ass, but I don't think there would be much difference in the result if a Democrat had been in office. Except instead of invading Iraq with lies of a terrorist link, there probably would have been a "peacekeeping force" somewhere else. Yes, the two-party system is a crock of shit, both sides suck. That is why, when you promote a Liberal viewpoint, you are pushing an agenda -- showing political bias. I would like to point out at this time that bias does not mean any side is wrong, it just means you prefer one side. Considering the.sig in question, it is very obvious that you ARE taking sides.
> I am a patriot, therefore I hate GW, and I want him impeached, and his entire administration.
Right after you claim to be unbiased? Wow. I am not a patriot, I am a human.
> it's one of the most hate mongering aspects of the right wing nutters that they have managed to make disagreeing with your governments actions with "partizanship" and "treason".
I have never heard anyone in the administration claim that being against the war is treason, can you give me an example/quote? If the right hatemongers, the left fearmongers. It's all political bullshit where both teams are on the same side (against the populace), which is why I no longer care. The people do NOT have the opportunity to change the system besides a really long wait, or revolution. The side you are advocating at the moment is anti-gun, so that would not be a possibility (sorry, a bit unrelated).
> Al Franken and Randy Rhodes have both taken things he have said and taken them apart point by point with evidence
And Rush could do the same with many of their points. Another poster has pointed out some things Al & Chuck have said that were wrong, so I won't repeat them.
> You will not find that on Rush, or any of those other extremists.
I don't know if you didn't listen to Rush, but I did for a while, and while he's a pompous jerk, most of the things he says are factually accurate. I have never heard anyone "take apart" an argument he made, so I can't really comment on that, but I have heard very few things from him (other than drugs, usually/ironically) that I would flatly say are wrong.
> if Rush had a scrap of integrity, he would refuse a lawyer and demand the maximum penalty for his drug crimes
So, anyone who is guilty should refuse a lawyer and condemn themselves to the worst possible punishment immediately, or they have no integrity. Or is that just when you don't like them?
> they generally provide solid evidence and proof of what they say... Because most of the "facts" that their statements are based on are actually opinions. You don't see it because you already agree with the basic opinions. If you take it for a fact that the war in Iraq is "evil," to convince anyone of anything, they have to already believe that.
> Name me on thing more important (to any decent American) than the destruction of democracy in America.
Ah, you're very good at conveying emotion. This is a classic left-wing kind of statement. Making an opinion, stating it as fact, then saying anyone who doesn't agree is unamerican. That's exactly what you accused Bush Inc. of doing when you talked about treason & partisanship. Again, you don't see it because you automatical
Wow, the arrogance is stunning. Not to mention you replied with hate to a JOKE. Isn't that what hatemongering is? Spreading hate where it is not deserved? Isn't that hypocracy? Fuck, man, go smoke a joint or something. Drink a beer. You have way too much stress.
> you are incapable of providing an example of either ignorance or hatemongering by said station. This would be because such an example does not exist.
No, not because it does not exist: you haven't listened to every minute of their broadcasting. Stating this as a fact, when you don't have proof either, is rather ignorant. I am of the opinion that REAL reason you said this (beyond your political bias) is because the broadcast is only available in 11 areas + satellite, you know few people listen to it, and fewer still take notes on it to find inaccuracies that are made. Also, I would venture to guess that 98% of their listeners are already Liberals, and therefore much of what is stated as opinion is taken as unalterable fact.
Shit, just listen to Rush Limbaugh with people of different political swayings -- the conservatives will listen and nod, because Rush is telling them what they already know and take as fact, just in a more intelligent & fluent way than they would have themselves. The Liberals will listen to him and think "this guy's an idiot, how would anyone make a connection like THAT?" Now, change that to a Liberal speaker and the roles reverse almost exactly.
In addition, many of the personalities listed on that site work there because of their name. Al Franken is a bright person and extremely funny. He is a comedian. Chuck D, also a very bright individual. He is a rapper. The only reason they are given any credence (aside from the fact that the audience already agrees with anything they will say) is because they are well-known... for something completely different. Their opinion carries weight because their name carries weight, not because they have well-reasoned and insightful views. They are hollywood types, most of whom are rich fucks who never had to worry about a lot of the problems to which they advocate their supposed solutions (Chuck D excluded).
> It makes me wonder what kind of sick agenda you are pushing that you are taking childish potshots at the one media outlet that actually reports on some of the most important issues facing us today.
It makes me wonder what sick agenda YOU are pushing by stating it as a fact that some site is truth, truth, nothing but truth, even though it's political? It also assumes that what you consider "the most important issues facing us today" are the same issues important to the rest of us. If I think all the issues covered on that site are stupid, it doesn't make anyone "sick," it means they don't care. Not caring about something is not the same as hating, and there is nothing inherently wrong with not caring. If we didn't have instant international communications, I would not care what's going on in Lybia. Now that we do, I still don't care. At what point did I become a bad person? I know you didn't bring this up at all, but I'm sick of hearing that people who don't care about something are somehow bad. For instance, homelessness. I don't care about it. Not my fault, not my responsibility. That doesn't make me a bad person. If I went around kicking the homeless out of their boxes, then I would be a bad person.
> Try informing yourself rather than spewing obvious lies.
Your signature implies that certain people are hatemongers simply due to their political affiliation. That, in itself, is "spewing obvious lies," since it is simply untrue.
I wonder what sick agenda you are pushing by telling us that your Liberal values are absolute truth and anyone who doesn't hold your opinion as fact is, in fact, a hatemonger.
> It might manage to elevate you to being a decent human being
Conclusion: It was a joke, it was mildly humorous, get over it. Try lightening up a bit, it might manage to make you tolerable enough to listen to.
Conclusion 2: I insulted you for making a long response to a oneliner, then I proceed to write an even longer response. I have too much time and am pissed off too easily. I guess we are similar in that way.
Slashdot Mirror
> Disney wasn't saying "I forbid you to speak your mind!" They were saying "I'm not going to take your opinions and put my company name on them, then spend money distributing them with my infrastructure."
This is a point so many people miss. It's similar to CBS refusing to show that child labor commercial (actually about tax cuts) during the Superbowl. The organization (can't remember who, at the moment) screamed that they were being subjected to unfair censorship, which was a crock of shit then, and it is now.
> Technology has been hindered because of Microsoft.
Microsoft made technology as ubiquitous as it is now. It's not to say they are right in their actions, but it's part of the "I brought you into this world..." mentality.
> Consequently, God trying to explain creation to a man who lived thousands of years ago - well, God would have to communicate in a language that the man might understand.
Okay, sorry for responding twice, but this is slightly different and less serious (not to mention totally implausible).
Consider this: Someone goes back in time and acts like God (or maybe he doesn't, but is perceived as one). Or maybe someone from another planet. People ask how things happened, but the visitor knows they would never understand the "big bang" (or whichever theory is popular at the time on his home planet), so he tries to describes it very vaguely, or he just bullshits it. Same result is possible. Like I said, not probable, but more probable than the invisible childbeating father that is called "God." (okay, that last line was in poor taste -- sue me)
> These "things that do not exist at all" are usually things that scientists have not found yet.
Okay, this just screams "I'm a troll."
Usually? USUALLY? "Usually" means there is a precedent. THERE IS NO PRECEDENT, so using the word "usually" is just a way to make yourself look like you have more credence than you do.
But besides that, it's EXACTLY like saying Elves & Orcs do not exist only because scientists have not yet found them. They are from a book. The only reason YOU think there is any difference is because you think your book was written by a mystical beast, whereas mine was written by J.R.R. Tolkien, someone who can actually be proven to exist, unlike your "ghost author."
> If you saw a T. Rex today, how would you describe it? How would you name it?
> First words that come to my mind are big-toothy monster! YMMV
And if you were making up a monster off the top of your head for a scary story, what would it be? Probably a... um... BIG TOOTHY MONSTER. We all know what teeth are used for, especially big pointy ones, so what is more scary in nature than big teeth? Of course that would be the description of a monster. How scary would it be if he was a 10 foot, green beast... with daisies for eyes, a rose nose, and pillow teeth. YAY, let's play with our monster! Not too scary, eh?
> Sorry, since when is proof by assertion supposed to be even meaningful, let alone rigorous?
> > > Behemoth and Leviathan, and the context describes features which are only attributable to dinosaurs.
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?? You are using proof by assertion yourself, then say I did something wrong when I call bullshit? Get your head out of your ass, man!
I never claimed it was rigorous, but it was certainly more thought out than your ludicrous claim that there are dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible. I replied in exactly the same way you posted. You asserted that dinosaurs are in the Bible because a large beast was vaguely described. Certainly not proof.
Friggin God-Trolls.
A very interesting post, but in the interests of brevity, I'll only respond to a few points.
> I've found plenty of people who claim to have seen or talked to God
And it's always some enigmatic vision that could be explained by food poisoning. You won't find two people who claim to have seen the face of God, draw it, and they look the same. Alien abductees, OTOH, can give descriptions of what the aliens looked like and the appearances generally match one of a few categories (not always the big-eyed, grey skinned ones that everyone "recognizes.")
> But there's other limitations as well.
If there are any limitations at all, he is not a perfect being. period. You cannot claim to be infinite and then say "but I can't do this."
> Is it better to wipe them all out, or to allow both to continue?
Like a "worldwide flood" that covered only Mesopotamia? Okay, I admit, that's just a cheap shot.
> But if that were the best course, you never would have created them to begin with.
Hey, wait... maybe there WAS a point to that... If he's so damn perfect he could have seen that he would destroy the world with a flood, so he might as well of started with Noah's family at the beginning. But that's all nonsense.
> The sum total of good done is greater than the evil
I disagree. There is no way to quantify good & evil, and I don't even believe that they exist. They are simply words attached to actions that some people either like or dislike to oppress (not like a gavernment) the others. Many animals, including humans, are naturally hunters. But some people scream that hunting is inherently evil because they want to force their agenda on those who disagree. Hunting is not evil, killing for sport is not evil, killing for spite is not evil. They are choices, and we must live with the consequences, but there is nothing evil about an action. Now intention may be something else entirely... I don't believe in evil intention either, but I can't really prove that, since any case study on intention is limited to one participant (self).
> He's incapable of understanding the order that does exist in the watch
And therefore the problem of God lies with you. You're incapable of understanding infinite complexity & order in the universe, so you say some magical being created it. Sounds like exactly the point to me.
> But the existence of order itself is evidence of intelligence, regardless of the level at which we understand it.
This is so frustrating because I can't argue this with someone who believes all order is because of God. I can't compare it to anything at all because you will then claim the order I am comparing was created by God too. That's why I generally hate trying to reason with Christians. There is no reasoning. There is only "it's God's will."
You claim that to a dog, the existence of a watch inherently means that there is a higher intelligence. I could then say, "well a bee's hive has order, but that doesn't mean bees are intelligent." Then you just point to God & laugh. Basically, I can't argue against a ghost.
> because you'll always have an endless "cause and effect" chain hanging in mid air
which is... infiniteness. Just because that chain exists, it does not necessarily mean something created it.
> Ultimately, something causeless needs to exist
No, it does not. Why does something causless need to exist? ONLY BECAUSE YOU SAY IT DOES. There is no reason to believe it must, or has existed. It's only because of your limited scope of view that you cannot conceive of an infinite chain of causes and the infinite chain of results. If the world just "is," has always been, and the "beginning of time" is just a fantasy of incomprehension, it looks exactly the same.
> I would agree that "thinking too much" is possible.
Aha, now that you've agreed, I take it back, Muwahahaha! **Evil Laugh (or is it?)**
The definition of atheist: one who DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. It doesn't get too much more straightforward than that, regardless of what logical axioms you lay out.
Sorry to reply twice to the same post, but I read this part later and it is a different subject anyway.
> The point here is that God wants you to first seek Him. If you seek Him, you will find Him. He'll see to that.
That is some self-fulfilling prophecy crap. I sought God's help & wisdom for years, while my life was getting steadily worse. I kept asking, and never once did I receive any answers, suggestions, or even momentary peace. I became more & more depressed because God seemed to always do the exact opposite of what I really needed. Then I stopped trying to believe. Guess what: NOTHING CHANGED. My life is still worse, although growing worse at a slower pace, so I guess that's technically an improvement.
God gave no indication of wanting me to do anything but suffer, so now instead of praising him I tell him to go fuck himself, as that's what he's trying to do to me.
> Once you choose to believe, you will find all the proof you need.
That is 100% bullshit. Blind belief does not equal proof, as there is no proof to be had. NO MATTER WHAT you call proof, there are other explanations, and therefore your explanation is not definitive by a LOOOONG shot, ergo, not proof at all, but blindly following. Give me one bit of "proof" for the existence of God that I cannot explain by another, usually more realistic, method.
> But I think that a default position of believing in God generically is very reasonable. If, for no other reason, than the presence of order.
That is so wrong I don't know where to begin.
I think that a default position of believing in Aliens who created us is very reasonable. There is MUCH MUCH MUCH more evidence for the existence of aliens, such as a single eyewitness account (actually, more than one, but one for aliens is more than the zero for God).
The only reason you think it is reasonable is because you already believe, so it's not a stretch for you. You probably deny the existence of aliens, although I consider it a foregone conclusion. My beliefs have infinitely more evidence, but you'd call me a crackpot, and yourself a good person because you believe in faeries, while I believe in green/grey monsters. If anything, both of us are nuts.
Also, complexity does not mean anything. Humans may really be extremely simple creatures. You think we're complex ONLY because you cannot conceive of anything more complex, nor anything less complex with intelligence. Therefore, you anthropomorphize (in a sense) the "extremely complex" chaos into a God-type character. You can't wrap your mind around infinite complexity or infinite anything for that matter, so you call the infiniteness "God." You may be right, you may be crazy. I don't know.
If God is infallible, how could he create humans that are imperfect? You don't have to answer, but humans are not as perfect as many believe themselves to be. We have TONS of flaws, moreso than most other species, IMO. Simple answer: war. Humans alone can come up with the horrific and pointless slaughter of millions, just for the sake of being "right." That's a pretty fucking huge flaw right there. (is war really in God's image of us?)
> Look at how all the gears naturally evolved to keep time.
Time is a completely human creation. If a dog saw a watch, he would not care how it moved or how it worked. He would not even care THAT it worked, let alone even notice that the hands are moving in a "perfectly" synchronized fashion. You see a device created by man because you know what it is. If anything, a dog sees a shiny rock that has little insects or something in it.
How do you know that the Earth is not just an organic, atomic clock made by the Frizzians of Glebulon 8 (of the 24th & 1/2 dimension, of course)?
> The definition of God isn't fuzzy at all. God is:
ONLY if you are a Christian. If you do not already subscribe to your strict beliefs, God can be a friggin can of soup. There have been ancient books written about gods that lack one or more of the qualities you list, yet they are still considered Gods. In fact, even the Christian God does not necessarily have to be all of those things. Omnibenevolent? READ THE OLD TESTAMENT. That insinuates that it cannot be any other way, yet somehow God changed moods between the original book & the sequel? Doesn't sound omni-anything to me.
I don't know of anywhere in the Bible where it says God is necessary for existence to... um.. exist.
Please don't take this as an insult, but you seem to have thought too much about a topic that is unthinkable and taken your FAITH and passed it on as fact. Keep in mind that much of the world disagrees with your assertions of fact.
> But I AM an atheist (and an agnostic - the terms are not mutually exclusive as so many seem to think)
They may not be mutually exclusive, but as soon as you are atheist, the agnostic part becomes irrelevant. This sums up your stated stance: "God does not exist. If he did we wouldn't be able to know it anyway." If you deny the existence of God, what is the point in questioning if we would be able to know it?
> but with my lucky crystal I can feel a karma vortex heading my way.
Sounds like someone's been watching Penn & Teller's Bullshit!
> Behemoth and Leviathan, and the context describes features which are only attributable to dinosaurs.
Whereas other parts of the bible describe things that do not exist at all. So just because it describes something that you consider to represent a dinosaur, it does not mean it does. There are still no statements in the Bible that clearly suggest dinosaurs existing at all.
> What's the difference between a duck?
The difference is that the duck exists.
> This was a person who based a choice on whether or not to run an app based on how the ICON looked
That seems to be the status quo for a Mac user... If it looks cool, it must be really good!
If that's the funniest thing you've read in years, you really need to reevaluate your sense of humor.
> Most of the people I know who "home school" their children have no idea how to teach anything and are uneducated themselves
Or usually "educated" by a church, and that's the only thing they are interested in teaching. Everything else is heresy. Every single person I know that was homeschooled has serious problems. The least messed-up one ended up taking his last three years in an actual school, and miraculously, he wasn't so screwed up any more!
Sometimes it's not even bad teaching that causes the problems -- one of the guys I knew had a mother that was previously a teacher (and not a bad one either). The problem was that when your entire day is spent inside your house with your mother, your social skills start to lack, which can cause psychological "issues."
Also, it can hurt your views of authority. If your only exposure to authority until you're 18 is your parents, you might develop an attitude problem (granted, I only know af one person like that).
> Probably better off not even advertising it until it can support it's claims
So how do you reliably stress-test omething like this without telling thousands of people to connect? That's what the Beta stage is. They are proceeding exactly as they should, IMO.
> > MS pioneered it long ago.
> Don't you mean innovated it long ago?
No, there's a difference. When MS "pioneers," it means they stumbled across something cool on their own & actually kept it. "Innovated" means blatantly stolen. That's why you hear "innovate" much more often than "pioneer" at MS.
> They offer absolutely no explanation why dead people are coming back to life, other than "When there's no room left in Hell, the dead will walk the Earth."
So, if the dead really WERE to come back & walk the Earth, do you think humans would come up with an explanation in the amount of time covered by the movie (which I haven't seen)? If the movie takes place over a three-day period, no one probably knows why they came back, and won't for a good while.
Basically, by inserting mysteries and unaswerable questions, it can ADD reality to a movie (not necessarily that one, though), because in reality, there are unanswered questions. Although those questions in reality are usually not on the scale of "living dead."
> Where was the hate?
.sig in question, it is very obvious that you ARE taking sides.
... Because most of the "facts" that their statements are based on are actually opinions. You don't see it because you already agree with the basic opinions. If you take it for a fact that the war in Iraq is "evil," to convince anyone of anything, they have to already believe that.
"Try informing yourself rather than spewing obvious lies. It might manage to elevate you to being a decent human being." Just because you put a rosy color on a statement, it does not take away from the feeling.
> If you are not stresed out by the situation Bush and Co have put this country in, then you have not been paying attention.
Oh, I have been paying attention, believe me. What has Bush done to stress me out, personally? I had more interaction with "the man" before Bush was president, none since. I've even become more extreme/crazy and vocal in my views. Sure, the Bush administration sucks ass, but I don't think there would be much difference in the result if a Democrat had been in office. Except instead of invading Iraq with lies of a terrorist link, there probably would have been a "peacekeeping force" somewhere else. Yes, the two-party system is a crock of shit, both sides suck. That is why, when you promote a Liberal viewpoint, you are pushing an agenda -- showing political bias. I would like to point out at this time that bias does not mean any side is wrong, it just means you prefer one side. Considering the
> I am a patriot, therefore I hate GW, and I want him impeached, and his entire administration.
Right after you claim to be unbiased? Wow. I am not a patriot, I am a human.
> it's one of the most hate mongering aspects of the right wing nutters that they have managed to make disagreeing with your governments actions with "partizanship" and "treason".
I have never heard anyone in the administration claim that being against the war is treason, can you give me an example/quote? If the right hatemongers, the left fearmongers. It's all political bullshit where both teams are on the same side (against the populace), which is why I no longer care. The people do NOT have the opportunity to change the system besides a really long wait, or revolution. The side you are advocating at the moment is anti-gun, so that would not be a possibility (sorry, a bit unrelated).
> Al Franken and Randy Rhodes have both taken things he have said and taken them apart point by point with evidence
And Rush could do the same with many of their points. Another poster has pointed out some things Al & Chuck have said that were wrong, so I won't repeat them.
> You will not find that on Rush, or any of those other extremists.
I don't know if you didn't listen to Rush, but I did for a while, and while he's a pompous jerk, most of the things he says are factually accurate. I have never heard anyone "take apart" an argument he made, so I can't really comment on that, but I have heard very few things from him (other than drugs, usually/ironically) that I would flatly say are wrong.
> if Rush had a scrap of integrity, he would refuse a lawyer and demand the maximum penalty for his drug crimes
So, anyone who is guilty should refuse a lawyer and condemn themselves to the worst possible punishment immediately, or they have no integrity. Or is that just when you don't like them?
> they generally provide solid evidence and proof of what they say
> Name me on thing more important (to any decent American) than the destruction of democracy in America.
Ah, you're very good at conveying emotion. This is a classic left-wing kind of statement. Making an opinion, stating it as fact, then saying anyone who doesn't agree is unamerican. That's exactly what you accused Bush Inc. of doing when you talked about treason & partisanship. Again, you don't see it because you automatical
> If you become like that which you despise, do you then turn on yourself?....
One word answer: Revolution. Okay that was four, now ten.
Wow, the arrogance is stunning. Not to mention you replied with hate to a JOKE. Isn't that what hatemongering is? Spreading hate where it is not deserved? Isn't that hypocracy? Fuck, man, go smoke a joint or something. Drink a beer. You have way too much stress.
> you are incapable of providing an example of either ignorance or hatemongering by said station. This would be because such an example does not exist.
No, not because it does not exist: you haven't listened to every minute of their broadcasting. Stating this as a fact, when you don't have proof either, is rather ignorant. I am of the opinion that REAL reason you said this (beyond your political bias) is because the broadcast is only available in 11 areas + satellite, you know few people listen to it, and fewer still take notes on it to find inaccuracies that are made. Also, I would venture to guess that 98% of their listeners are already Liberals, and therefore much of what is stated as opinion is taken as unalterable fact.
Shit, just listen to Rush Limbaugh with people of different political swayings -- the conservatives will listen and nod, because Rush is telling them what they already know and take as fact, just in a more intelligent & fluent way than they would have themselves. The Liberals will listen to him and think "this guy's an idiot, how would anyone make a connection like THAT?" Now, change that to a Liberal speaker and the roles reverse almost exactly.
In addition, many of the personalities listed on that site work there because of their name. Al Franken is a bright person and extremely funny. He is a comedian. Chuck D, also a very bright individual. He is a rapper. The only reason they are given any credence (aside from the fact that the audience already agrees with anything they will say) is because they are well-known... for something completely different. Their opinion carries weight because their name carries weight, not because they have well-reasoned and insightful views. They are hollywood types, most of whom are rich fucks who never had to worry about a lot of the problems to which they advocate their supposed solutions (Chuck D excluded).
> It makes me wonder what kind of sick agenda you are pushing that you are taking childish potshots at the one media outlet that actually reports on some of the most important issues facing us today.
It makes me wonder what sick agenda YOU are pushing by stating it as a fact that some site is truth, truth, nothing but truth, even though it's political? It also assumes that what you consider "the most important issues facing us today" are the same issues important to the rest of us. If I think all the issues covered on that site are stupid, it doesn't make anyone "sick," it means they don't care. Not caring about something is not the same as hating, and there is nothing inherently wrong with not caring. If we didn't have instant international communications, I would not care what's going on in Lybia. Now that we do, I still don't care. At what point did I become a bad person? I know you didn't bring this up at all, but I'm sick of hearing that people who don't care about something are somehow bad. For instance, homelessness. I don't care about it. Not my fault, not my responsibility. That doesn't make me a bad person. If I went around kicking the homeless out of their boxes, then I would be a bad person.
> Try informing yourself rather than spewing obvious lies.
Your signature implies that certain people are hatemongers simply due to their political affiliation. That, in itself, is "spewing obvious lies," since it is simply untrue.
I wonder what sick agenda you are pushing by telling us that your Liberal values are absolute truth and anyone who doesn't hold your opinion as fact is, in fact, a hatemonger.
> It might manage to elevate you to being a decent human being
Conclusion: It was a joke, it was mildly humorous, get over it. Try lightening up a bit, it might manage to make you tolerable enough to listen to.
Conclusion 2: I insulted you for making a long response to a oneliner, then I proceed to write an even longer response. I have too much time and am pissed off too easily. I guess we are similar in that way.
> Are pings bothering you? Why?
Only evil hackers use ping.
> Don't you mean weapons of *ass* destruction?
No way, man. That ass was destroyed WAY before anyone thought of hiding weapons there.