thepinky
Member Profile
Bio:
I'm a 21-year-old student. I like to read and talk about literature, swim, laugh, and criticize bad movies. I play piano and direct a small choir. I am not extraordinary.
-Pinky
Member Since: 2007-12-12
Last Power Points used: 2008-09-23 • Available: now
Max Power Points: 1 • Get More Power Points Now
Last Power Points used: 2008-09-23 • Available: now
Max Power Points: 1 • Get More Power Points Now
Comments
Subscribe
Future Videos Submitted by thepinkyNavigation
- profile
- unsifted videos (0)
- personal queue videos (1)
- sifted videos (25)
- promoted published vids
- promoted queued vids
- promoted Sift Talk posts
- promoted blog posts
- blog entries (0)
- Sift Talk posts
- discarded posts
- killed videos
- dead/deadpool videos (0)
- my playlist bookmarks
- my post bookmarks
- playlists bookmarked by others
- posts bookmarked by others
- voted up
- voted down
- playlists
- group playlists
Member Stats
Rank: 306
Rating:
28 star points
Top 15 Videos: 1
Votes Received: 598
Votes Cast: 595
Comments Posted: 375 • browse
Comments Applauded: 2
Sifted Videos: 25
Sift Talk Posts: 2
Quality Sift Talk Posts: 2
Profile Views: 9877
Rating:
28 star pointsTop 15 Videos: 1
Votes Received: 598
Votes Cast: 595
Comments Posted: 375 • browse
Comments Applauded: 2
Sifted Videos: 25
Sift Talk Posts: 2
Quality Sift Talk Posts: 2
Profile Views: 9877
Highest Ranked Comments
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Stephen-Colbert-Objectivist-Children-s-Sleepover#comment-597743
In reply to this comment by thepinky:
1. That is some good marketing right there. (This is NOT just a home video.)
2. She is HARDCORE.
3. I'm sure she had a choice.
4. There should be a femme tag because that woman is ridiculous cool.
take the statement: "Aliens are controlling your thoughts and are reading your mind from space." As phrases go, you were probably unaffected by this sentence because, well, you dont believe it. Now if you DID believe it you would probably be doing all sorts of crazy things (wearing an aluminum foil hat comes to mind)
Now what does George Bush believe? He DID say (if you really want proof I will take the time to dig up a video of it) that God told him to go to war. What else god is telling him to do I'm not quite sure but whatever it is I feel like at this point, George W. is a president that has forgotten his people. He is being lead around by dogmatic ideas (something i posted about in a different thread), ruining this country, and he's doing it because of the beliefs that have ruined his better judgment.
In reply to this comment by thepinky:
Okay, you're right. Absolutely right. And I agree with you that religion and politics should not mix. But I still think that it was silly for Maher to mention that we could not "afford another faith-based administration," as if religion itself is what ruins administrations. Bush's mistakes should not be blamed on his faith, but on Bush himself. Don't let him hide behind his religion. And saying that we can't afford it is silly, as if we haven't been "affording" religious Presidents who bring their own values into the White House for the last 220 years.
I honestly didn't care about the video (which is why I haven't voted on it), but the comments are fun.
In reply to this comment by thepinky:
>> ^gwiz665:
She totally does and they are very sweet... in this picture I drew.
You're misrepresenting my cause, too. I just said that this video is NOT objectification of women. But you're right. This video is mildly amusing and not very offensive at all. I just have a personal problem with boobies tags and videos that make #3 because of cleavage.
Aaargh! I'm sorry. Why do I even try? It's not even a big deal. Carry on.
2. You need to chill out and relax
1. I like boobs
In reply to this comment by thepinky:
1. I said nothing about objectification or about the suffering of those particular women. I just said that boobies are not a good reason for an upvote.
2. This isn't a battle, this is a defense of a harmless comment.
3. My original comment was meant to be taken lightly, not to be downvoted by everyone and their dog. I would argue that it is all of those people who need to grow a sense of humor.
In reply to this comment by thepinky:
Please, please, please stop voting for this video! Please?
We may have some common ground, but it is smaller than you've indicated. I said I was inclined to think that the universe always existed somehow, but this does not spread to other ideas - I don't think that we existed always or that something other than the universe existed always. My assumption here is actually not reasonable, but I make it because it has no descernable effect on my daily life.
Re: Believers are just as logical as non-believers
For purely principle reasons it is obvious that the scientific method cannot directly prove nor disprove God, but there is a difference in the two. We can gather evidence that indicate, if not directly proves/disproves something. Take the Loch Ness Monster. While we cannot directly disprove it unless we do an exhaustive search of the lake, we can take the many observations and searches as "evidence" or at least conjecture that the monster probably does not exist. If someone thinks that the monster does exist for whatever reason, it is their responsibility to prove that it does, not everyone else's to prove that it does not. So, while there may not be directly contradicting evidence to God's existence there is plenty of evidence that makes more sense if he does not, in addition the religion around this God has plenty of "plot holes" about God, which also leads us to think that it does not make sense. For instance, if God is the God of Young Earth Creationists, then there absolutely IS evidence that he does not exists. You'll agree to this, right? Whenever Science gets closer, it seems that God conveniently retreats into the unknown areas, which again is the God in the Gaps. I think that people who believe in God ARE less logical or reasonable than those who do not.
Which is the reasonable assumption to make, when there is absolutely no evidence for or against something?
I have not seen any evidence that contradicts the existence of fairies, but I have neither seen evidence that support it; which should I assume? There are three possible assumptions:
1) I'm fairy-agnostic - they may or may not exist, but I make no assumptions one way or the other.
2) Fairies probably do not exist, because if they did, evidence that supported their existence would have come about, and as such I can assume that they do not exist.
3) Fairies probably exist, because there has been found no evidence against them.
I would in general choose the second option, because if things exist they tend to show themselves - somehow. I think that people who take the third option of believing that fairies exists are making an unreasonable assumption, because there is neither evidence that supports it, nor traces of evidence such as fairy-droppings, fairy houses or something similar. Do you follow my logic that people who believe in this way are less reasonable/logical?
Your definition of your God and my arguments against him
* God is perfect (a perfect being).
* God is not bound by time and space in the same way we are.
* God does not break "natural laws".
* God has always existed, in one form or another.
* God created all created things, but not all things.
This is the definition you provided, and I will base my arguments on that.
There are some words that need further specification.
"Perfect" is a very big, vague and subjective word. Do you mean that God is infallible or all knowing? It must include that he cannot be perfected in any way: become any better.
"Natural laws" is also a bit vague. Your example, the principle that nothing comes from nothing, is a logical argument, but natural laws are something else. Newtons law, Einsteins theory of relativety, how temperature spreads, gravity: those are natural laws, but if God is not bound by time/space then he obviously is not bound by gravity. I think the point here is that you mean God does not engage in logical paradoxes: "Can God make a toast so hot that he himself couldn't eat it?" But if he is perfect, then he must and by being perfect he proves that he cannot exist.
God created all created things? Well, that can be true, but if nothing is created that is explained away. I doubt you'll be satisfied by that answer though, so I'll argue that this again breaks your definitions. What did he create all created things from? Nothing? Was God created? You'll obviously argue no, because then he needs a creator of his own and we'll have en infinite regress. But if God was not created, did he come from nothing?
"God has always existed in one form or another, as have we. We were "something" before we were "created.""
The first part can only be answered, perhaps, if he exists. Concerning humans, you are of course technically correct, but not in the way that you think. "We" are who we are, I am me and you are you. "We" have never existed in any other form in any reality. Our bodies, however, is merely a collection of atoms, which of course always were something before they were coagulated and rearranged into the meta-structure that is our bodies. it is this way with all things, the atoms and molecules have always existed somehow, but have been shaped into the arrangments they have now by our environement.
I was obviously not created by God, I naturally grew in my mother womb as a direct result of massive cell-generation which started with the combination of sperm and egg. This was a rearrangement of atoms from food and energy into matter, namely my body ("me"). Nothing created me, I naturally grew.
Curveballs and God-theory
By curveballs I just meant that it was tough questions.
The two first explanations are exactly more logical than the God-theory because the God-theory falls back on either 1 or 2 at some point. The God-theory is a non-explanation for the existance of the universe, because it just moves the question one step - instead of asking "how did the universe come into existence", it is "how did God come into existence, so he could created the universe". And if we use the same explanation for god, that he was created by a super-god, then it becomes "How did super-god come into existence, so that he could create God who could create the universe" this is an infinite regress and is a non-explanation for anything. It must be grounded somehow, which both the other explanations do.
I submit again that the three explanations may not be exhaustive, because the Universe is far more mysterious than we can scientifically explain at this point, so there may be some fourth explanation that covers it. In any case, the God-theory does not explain it.
Faith and logic
There are parts of the bible which are directly opposed to one another? How do you interpret your way out of those? Genesis directly contradicts reality, how do you interpret your way out of that?
In my mind interpreting an answer from the Bible is just picking and choosing which parts fit your point of view and ignoring the parts that don't fit. This is a Bad Thing.
"You said that the fact that we have never had empirical evidence to disprove the existence of God "does seem to show a tendency.""
That's not true. I said that the distinct lack of evidence for the existence of God show a tendency. As I explained above, if the evidence for and against something both is zero, then the reasonable assumption is that it does not exist.
In reply to this comment by thepinky:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by thepinky:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by thepinky:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
[snip]