devildog

No they don't. Yes they do. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it so. You're correct, it doesn't matter if someone likes the evidence but it does matter whether the evidence is subjective or objective. Do you have any objective evidence? Depends on what you will consider valid in terms of objective evidence. If you're going to want something like, "How tall is God?" then no, I don't. Can't test / measure / observe something out of our own little universe. But if you want to talk about things like properties of the universe, or other measurements, recorded history, etc. that to me point to "A God/gods is more likely than not" then sure. So why don't we start with, "What would be objective evidence for you that God/gods exist?" You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

You must have some epic arguments with other Jesusites who say the exact opposite. I don't seek out Jesuits or anyone else to ensure they know their Greek / Hebrew. But from time to time, when the usage is wrong and I'm in the conversation, I'll pipe up. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Well I would agree with this. But then again, we hold on to all sorts of beliefs with blind faith. For example, and one of the most fun once you really get down to it, why should anything -- and I mean anything at all -- that you see, hear, taste, touch, etc. in your brain (because that's where your experience is, supposedly) have anything to do with what's really going on outside your head? Why should the inner experience match the outside Universe? We all blindly believe that it does, but how can you test such a thing? You can't, and thus everything you "know" about "everything" really is based on a blind belief :) But, back on topic. I do abhor the idea that people believe in a God/gods with no backing whatsoever. That to me, is weak and flimsy. However, those that look around and say, "I see this, this, this and this" and that leads me to believe God/gods are more likely than not, often jump the gun and say for future arguments, "God is a given." I won't speculate on individual usages of it. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

No they don't. Yes they do. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it so. No you can't. Some atheists may be so for reasons other than evidence, but seeing as there is no evidence to support religious claims it's a moot point. Only for you. For others, there is plenty of evidence. But religion (almost always) claims it acts inside the universe. And your point is? I really have no idea where you are going with this. Religion and existence of divine beings while related, do not necessitate each other whatsoever. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Do you understand why this is an invalid argument? This shows that you have faith (or believe) that your doctor is looking out for you best interests but it does nothing to prove it. As before, you should reread what I wrote and what I was responding to. You've missed the point entirely. I'll break it down so you don't have to guess and make assumptions. It was stated that faith is belief without evidence. I was stating that as far as the OT/NT is concerned, that is not nor ever has been the case for the usage and understanding of "faith" in either the Greek or Hebrew texts. I then went to explain that the real usage was more synonymous with what we consider "trust". Big, big difference. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Plenty of people say they do. You should reread what I wrote. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

that statement is completely contrary to the requirement for faith look - you either believe, or you don't believe - no other requirement or evidence is needed any claim to "proof" is just lame rationalization for those of weak faith IMO This is a misunderstanding of faith and is the contemporary, bastardized version that's come about in the last, maybe century or so. Faith (OT/NT at least) is about trust. The original texts never say to believe God did this or that just because God or someone else said so. Proof was required and scrutinized all throughout the text for certain acts. In fact, if someone claimed to be a prophet and did not have the proof to back the claims, they could be stoned. Moreover, if you look at the texts as a whole, they never say, "Believe in God because I said so" because God was already a given. God and the prophets throughout the texts frequently point to and provide proofs that they are who they say they are. Thus, to say faith is the blind belief in God is incorrect as that never would have been a point of contention. An analogy would be to something like saying, "I have faith in my doctor." I'm not saying I blindly believe my doctor exists, or that he is in fact, a doctor (and not a quack). What I'm saying is, based on all I know and have seen about the doctor, I trust that they are looking out for my best interests, that they will take care of me, and that whatever they prescribe is what I need. Big difference. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

to appease the masses and zimmerman IIRC can still have the case tossed under SYG. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Ahh, another inspired video come to bear the light of truth on to the poor masses in the dark. Plenty of people find proof and evidence for some sort of Divine at work (or had been at work). We can easily start turning the tables and ask why do some people always put blinders on no matter what is presented. The hardened atheist may very well be hardened not because he hasn't seen proof, but because he doesn't like the message or implications of what the evidence suggests. Thus, he declares proof and/or arguments invalid to suit his own agenda. There are testimonies of such things happening, and even if certain atheists don't admit to it directly, one can see it in their arguments and writings from time to time. On more than one occasion, personally, I've been involved in discussions with atheists and asked, "What would constitute proof that you would believe?" to which they have replied, "Nothing." If nothing will change your mind, then your position is not based on evidence, but sheer desire for it to be so. Are all atheists like this? No. But my point is, this vid goes a long, long way to assume that there are no valid arguments for any sort of divine, and thus the burden of proof as not nor ever will be met. Secondly, you will never have 100% concrete proof of something that exists outside this universe. In fact, if we really get down to it, you'll never have 100% concrete proof of anything other than your own existence. So, if we want to really take the videos line of insurmountable burden proof needed to truly say this or that exists, this or that has happened, we shouldn't believe anything at all. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Gated communities don't have less crime. It's a myth. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Because you "aren't in the business of supporting other peoples' conclusions." but rather you, "are in the business of supporting [your] own."

Not that this was a bad jump, but for any bad jump, I find this works the best :) You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

wow 31% is all it takes to make "Floridians"? Interesting. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that he's only MOSTLY dead You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

87% of statistics are made up You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

4 out of 5 enjoy gang rape. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Argumentum ad populum, again. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

I don't have the exact numbers off hand, but it's something like police are twice as likely to draw their gun as a private citizen with a CCW, and police are seven times more likely to shoot a person in error than someone with a CCW. I'll see if I can find the link on another board I saw it on. It was quite the interesting read. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Nice vid :) And welcome to the world of legal crack You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Can't have earth day without George Carlin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

The full police call to me sounds just like that. I wish I could find the site again, but someone broke it down well with a timeline and the neighborhood map showing how TM evading GZ and then coming up from behind and to the left of GZ as he walked back from a side entrance lines up exactly with what GZ said happened, and the call as well. Anywho, your first question can be turned around as well. "Had TM not decided to jump GZ, would anything have happened?" You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Toxicology on TM or GZ? You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

If it even gets to a jury. GZ still has the opportunity to get the case tossed. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

http://twitchy.com/2012/04/23/twitter-lynch-mob-now-that-george-zimmerman-is-out-on-bail-lets-kill-him/ Lynch mob is ready to shoot him This quote is priceless, though: "Once u been convicted of a crime & let out on bail u can't be charged 2x for the same thing so that means sum1 gonna have to kill Zimmerman" Just think, she can vote. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

This is more or less what I tell myself anytime I have the urge to cut corners: I'll be jumping (hopefully) for decades and thousands of jumps. No need to rush in the beginning. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.