It almost sounds like he is suggesting to keep an open mind and learn about other cultures, religions & mythology in order to understand those perspectives; and overall to be humble to the mystery: that we do not know.

In my opinion some of his opinions were a little contradictory - he doesn't believe in any sort of god or gods, but it seems that a wiser statement would be that he doesn't know, which would correspond with the "I don't believe in atheists" theme.

Furthermore, I honestly don't think that those who (in Hedges' words), "do not explore the religious impulse" are inhuman. Even if someone never explores it in their lifetime. In my opinion - the late bloomers who have disconnected themselves from all inclination of organized religion or spirituality, to find it on their own later in life might have a few more advantages than those that did not disconnect themselves from it at some point.

My personal preference is that I do believe in god because I want to believe in god. Whether it's a metaphor, completely abstract energy, a point in spacetime, a massive intelligent energy field that existed long before the big-bang, a life-force found only on Earth or the Milky Way or a fucking super mega alien technological consciousness program experiment or even a microscopic white dude flying on a microscopic magic carpet or all of the above and none of the above. I just believe even though my version of whatever creation/god is, is completely unidentifiable, it's everything and it's nothing.

Italy:
Renzi is creating the conditons for a new bubble? Through deficit spending on... what? Unless they start building highways in the middle of nowhere like they did in Spain, I don't see any form of bubble coming out of deficit spending in Italy. The country's been in a major recession for quite some time now, with no light at the end of the tunnel and a massive shortfall in private spending. But meaningful deficit spending requires Renzi to tell Germany and the Eurogroup to pound sand -- not sure his balls have descended far enough for that just yet.

Referendum in Switzerland:
"Vollgeld". That's the German term for what the initiators of this referendum are aiming for: 100% reserve banking. It's monetarism in disguise, and they are adament to not be called monetarists. But that's what it is. Pure old-fashioned monetarism. Even if you don't give a jar of cold piss about all these fancy economic terms and theories, let me ask you this: the currency you use is quite an important part of all your daily life, isn't it? So why would anyone in his or her right mind remove it entirely from democratic control (even constitutionally)?
If you want to get into the economic nightmares of it, here are a few bullet points:
- no Overt Monetary Financing (printing money for deficit spending) means no lender of last resort and complete dependence on the market, S&P can tell you to fuck off and die as they did with PIIGS
- notion that the "right amount of money in circulation" will enable the market to keep itself in balance -- as if that ever worked
- notion that a bunch of technocrats can empirically determine this very amount in regular intervalls
- central bank is supposed to maintain price stability, nothing else -- single mandate, works beautifully for the ECB, at least if you like 25% unemployment
- concept is founded in the notion that the financial economy is the source of (almost) all problems of the "real" economy, thereby completely ignoring the fact that decades of wage suppression have simply killed widescale purchasing power of the masses, aka demand

Visegrad nations:
From a German perspective, they are walking on thin ice as it is. The conflict with Russia never had much support of the public to begin with, but even the establishment is becoming more divided on this issue. Given the authoritarian policies put in place in Poland recently and the utter refusal to take in their share of refugees, support might fade even more. If the Visegrad governments then decide to push for further conflict with Russia, Brussels and Berlin might tell them, very discreetly, to pipe the fuck down.

Turkey:
Wildcard. He mentioned how they will mess with Syria, the Kurds and Russia, but forgot to mention the conflict between Turkey and the EU. As of now, it seems as if Brussels is ready to pay Ankara in hard cash if they keep refugees away from Greece. Very similar to the deal with Morocco vis-a-vis the Spanish enclave. As long as they die out of sight, all is good for Brussels.

I would add France as a point of interest:
They recently announced that the state of emergency will be extended until ISIS is beaten. In other words, it'll be permanent, just like the Patriot Act in the US. A lof of attention has been given to the authoritarian shift of politics in Poland, all the while ignoring the equally disturbing shift in France. Those emergency measures basically suspend the rule of law in favour of a covert police state. Add the economic situation (abysmal), the Socialist President who avoids socialist policies, and the still ongoing rise of Front National... well, you get the picture.

Regarding the EU, I'll say this: between the refugee crisis (border controls, domestic problems, etc) and the economic crisis, they finally managed to convince me that this whole thing might come apart at the seams after all. Not this year, though, even if the Brits decide to distance themselves from this rotten creation.

I agree about the over-reaction to the "white slavers" comment, which I think just got hyper-PC types riled up.

And he does seem pretty humble and wise, although if he was really going to practice what he's preaching he would just butt out and not say anything. To be fair, he probably got invited on the show and is just responding honestly to the questions -- which is a fair bit different than if he sought out a soapbox to complain from.

I think Lucas had a fantastic combination of Tolkien-esque level creativity AND knew how to adapt his specific creations to the broadly appealing "Hero of 1000 faces" fantasy prototype AND got lucky in many ways. He deserves a LOT of praise for all of that. ...BUT, for the original movies he knew how to delegate things that he doesn't do well -- dialog, directing, etc. He was reined in by internal and external constraints. When those largely went away, we got the prequels.

I love Star Wars and am very grateful to George Lucas for creating that universe. And I'm pretty much equally grateful that he isn't at the helm anymore.

Didn't watch the video, but did skim the comments... Christ...

First off, moving to Canada and any other decent first world nation be it New Zealand, Australia, the UK, Iceland, Netherlands, Canada etc... not as easy as just packing up and moving. You need a very narrow set of skills to move to those countries. We looked into all this countries, and all of their entry requirements exceeded what we had to offer them. People always say if you don't like it leave, but that ignores several facts. It isn't we don't like it, we just think it can be improved, change isn't bad. Humanity isn't bad. Caring for those less fortunate isn't bad. Guaranteeing everyone a minimum level of affordable health care isn't bad. Working to insure that all workers get a living wage (the way we used to have before the employers/owners started getting greedy and redistributing more wealth to themselves), isn't a bad goal, in fact it's a very good thing. The famed clip from the Newsroom's first episode when he goes on about how America isn't great anymore but it used to be...

Of course the whole concept of American exceptionalism, or any nation exceptionalism is flawed. We are all humans on this planet. Being American doesn't make you superior to somebody born in China or Mexico, Ethiopia, Syria or anywhere else. Location of birth is an accident of timing... and if it is divine intervention by God that placed you here instead of Ethiopia where you may have starved to death with an inflated malnourished belly despite all your prayers, then God is an ass and not worth serving. So if he's not an ass, then it is pure accident that you are here and not there. To think oneself superior and better than somebody in another nation because of their location of birth, and the religion that comes with that location, is insanity. And I draw that all ways. The Muslims who despise Christianity for not being the true faith, and Christians who despise Islam for not being the true faith. You are your faith by accident of birth, be it location and/or parentage etc... all of which is getting away from the point. Which is simply that to say that Chinese worker doesn't deserve a job manufacturing something that you think you should be building is asinine and not respectful of their humanity and a complete lack of any sort of empathy. Christ, I have Aspergers and I have more empathy in my farts than the entire Tea Party Christian Right.

Yes we need to respect the individual, but "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one"... and that quote is in context and not just a cherry pick sample. If it benefits just one and damages the many, then it is not a good thing. Most every faith in the world has some variation of the Golden Rule, to treat others the way you want others (not that specific person, but people as a general whole) to treat you. Christianity's Christ went further and said the greatest commandment was love, to show love to one another. Greed and selfishness is not love. Collectivism has many faults as well, but it isn't tyranny, and is certainly better for society as a whole in the long run than unrestrained greed motivated individualism. Like Pink Floyd's song, On the Turning Away, says, we are all "just a world we all must share". We can't turn away from the coldness inside towards others. We need to lift all of humanity up. Perhaps showing the Muslims love instead of hate and bigotry would convince them that perhaps Christianity isn't the enemy, that perhaps it is the answer, but showing them hate, and bigotry... and denying refugees trying to flee a horrible civil war is bigotry and hatred, and the fact that a rather disturbingly large percentage of the right can't see that isn't bigotry and hatred is scary beyond measure. I again find it amazing that people could lack that much empathy without a neurological disorder.

To invade others, tell them how to live their lives, to force democracy on them if they aren't ready, to insult them and belittle their faith, and all that isn't world building. It isn't reaching out with empathy. It's hate. It's bigotry and as noted by artician, it's what helps drive people to fly into buildings. They know that they know that their faith is the right one, and the lack of empathy to see that people of the Muslim faith have just as much faith in their religion as Christians have in theirs, that they have the same amount of knowledge and comfort from god that they are the correct faith, is what drives extremism.

And oh my god the guns. Guns would have saved the Jews. American mainland can't be invaded because too many people own guns... ask the Branch Davidians how well having not only military grade weapons but also training on how to use them worked for them against a slightly militarized police force, let alone an actual military. Yes, it would be incredibly hard, and resistance would probably eventually wear any invading force down the way the Taliban wore the Soviets down, or the Viet Cong did against the US Military might. So perhaps that can be counted as a victory, but would be long fought. Look, I support gun ownership. All I really call for is 1) allowing the CDC get back to it's job of collecting the data and finding out what's really going on with gun violence, and 2) closing the gun show loophole unless the CDC's investigation shows that it has zero effect, 3) you have to have a legal ID to own a gun and can't be on the no fly list, 4) the existing background checks kept the same, but also add a drug test, the right wants drug tests for welfare, then we should be testing for gun owenrship too. (I see little reason for "assault weapons" but aside from perhaps having perhaps a slightly better background check, I don't know if a ban yet needs to be called for, but I'm in the middle here.) Once we have have better data points from the CDC then we can really tackle the issue of gun violence. Yes, it will take years to get those answers, but I find it insane that the Republicans refuse to allow the investigation to go on, which says to me that they are afraid of what the data will show.

Unless you are nearly a pure Native American, then you are a refugee to the US.

The primary problem here and around the world is poverty and lack of proper education. This drives people to crime and extremism in religion which makes them susceptible to acting out terrorist acts, be it in the name of Allah (as is the public perceived norm) or Christ (ala the Planed Parenthood terrorist attack, the 2011 Norway attacks, etc). We need to address the growing income and wealth gaps. The way to doing that isn't by giving those at the top even more tax breaks and losing regulations (which is funny thing to complain about, too many regulations here in the US, meanwhile the same people complain about the low quality Chinese goods that aren't safe due to low regulations and poor labor conditions etc). We need to push education, and proper STEM programs, not deflated science trying to force Creationism in via so called "Intelligent Design" or "teaching the controversy" stick to the actual science. Don't object to the "new math" if it's teaching better fundamentals of understanding what the numbers are actually doing even if it doesn't teach the shortcuts we were taught... and lots of the stuff people complain about is just the fact we don't skip right to the shortcut that works. Yes, it works, but it helps if they better understand the underlying fundamentals of the numbers and the actual math. Again, change isn't a bad thing, to object just because you don't understand or don't like it compared to the simplified shortcut we all learned doesn't make it bad. Reading also needs pushed, and understanding of logical fallacies and logical and faulty thinking.

I believe that a post scarcity world is impossible due to the nature of humanity. There are far too many greedy people that will never want the world to get to that point. However, that should be the noble goal. Post scarcity society has many issues, but perhaps by the time we actually got there we'd be able to solve them.

TLDR: Basically it all comes down to empathy. To view everything as the others view it. I get the fear and panic and all that the right has, and not just because I once upon a time was a right wing evangelical Christian who called those who received food stamps lazy bums, who said that Democrats and the liberals just wanted to keep the poor trapped so they would always need help. Yes, I was there and that helps, but I can still empathize with them without that past. I've never been a Muslim raised in a nation dominated by Islam, but I can still empathize with the way they see what the US is doing to them, the way they have to see people like Donald Trump and the scary amount of Americans that support him. It's easy to see why some are driven to extremism. I can empathize with that Mexican who just wants a better life and knows that Mexico can't give it to him so he has to risk it all to try and immigrate to the US. I can empathize with the Chinese worker who has been given an opportunity to build something, to escape the poverty... for while perhaps still poverty, less poverty than before, and I'm thankful that I got that opportunity, and I'm sorry that somebody in the US doesn't get to do it, but I'm a human too. Empathy. Learn it. It can be learned, neurological disorder or not.

I thought your title was fine.
It indicated to me that she was a creationist, and a student, not necessarily a student of creationism....although to be perfectly honest, there's no firm 'proof' of either. It's POSSIBLE she's neither a student (and is just sitting in on the lecture) or a creationist (and is only asking the 'question' to give the professor a reason to discuss and rebuke it), but I think it's fine to make the assumption(s) she is both unless either is shown to be wrong.

And @lv_hunter, she asked a creationist question but is she a student of creationism? I assume there are schools like that, backward places that have no credentials, but it would be nice to know so in order to get her intent. If you are unsure could you change the name of the video to better reflect that she is simply asking a question and not officially a student as stated?

I love Elder Scrolls (back to Morrowind), and thought Fallout 3 was very good but not great, but I just cannot get into Fallout 4 at all.

Some of my reasons coincide with Yahtzee here, but a lot are different. It's clunky, the dog does a great job of heroically jumping in my line of fire to take bullets / melee blows for enemies that I am trying to fight, pathfinding is significantly worse than Skyrim (and it was rather poor there), the crafting seems WAY too obsessed with needing 1 or 2 "rare" bits like the screws mentioned in the video that should be in *everything*, etc. etc.

The city building as an upgrade to Hearthfires in Skyrim is pretty cool, but should be a back-burner *optional* thing that encourages you to check it out because it gives cool rewards rather than because the very first set of hobos that you run into want you to do everything for them.

...Take all of that with a grain or three of salt, because I only played for a few days before I got thoroughly annoyed with it and haven't been back since. Skyrim gets new mods that add fun content or make it look *way* better than Fallout 4 does all the time. And I like the setting and lore better, but that is a personal preference. But basically, even after playing through the main story and all of the factions many multiple times each, I still periodically find myself getting interested in another run through Skyrim with a new set of mods. Fallout 4 might get good once the community gets hold of the creation kit for it, but for now I have zero interest in even giving it a more thorough shot to catch my attention.

Well, to be brutally honest, I knew that before we even set foot in Iraq that this type of stuff was going to happen (if not even worse stuff further down the road) simply because the ONLY two examples in history we really have that allowed for the successful creation of new countries after horrific wars were: Japan and Germany.

But, there were some major things that needed to be noticed, if indeed Iraq ended up being a successful story; though it would have taken a few generations and perhaps 30 years... It would require us to remain in Iraq for a VERY long time.

I called it before the war even started. I literally stated that if we pulled out before we succeed in "our" goal (and BTW, we STILL have not "pulled out" of Japan nor Germany, but we aren't enemies either; but it shows you the level of commitment we had in the 50's versus our, "...we have to see results in one year, otherwise we'll just drop the whole thing like hot bricks...", type of idiocy prevalent in our politicians and populous right now...

I don't think we should have EVER gone into Iraq, simply because we never had the backbone NOR the stomach to actually remain there and to see it ALL the way through. When Bush proposed this war, if he would have been a smart man, he would have told the entire nation that going there would be a new level of commitment we hadn't been used to for quite some time. IT WOULD get Americans killed; possibly even a fairly high amount...

Nobody simply wanted to face the truth and reality of what they wanted to achieve and WHAT it would actually take to get it done. Instead, we went to war, just long enough (and I really hope this wasn't the biggest reason; but, my EXTREMELY cynical and negative side wants to say it's true...) to line the pockets of the politicians that signed on and, of course, the banks, portfolios, and third parties all involved in stealing--literally--billions of taxpayer dollars and making billions more in revenue and other sources...

Truly making Cheney and Bush utterly despicable. By that point, that everything was realized to be an utter falsehood we had two choices: stick to the course created for a false reason (but turn it into on of history's greatest success stories; and WE COULD have done it, it just required...well...something Americans didn't wish to give Iraqis, sadly); and dropping the war as fast as possible with some sort of "transition" to the Iraqi government.

We took option two and we KNEW full well (at least if you were smart enough to know ANYTHING about history, just what was about to come eventually for Iraq) that their "peace" we created for them, to "save" them, was utter horse-shiat. They are now paying for the war crimes our leaders perpetrated against them...

Had we stayed, if we were still there and the media was patiently trying to explain to the American people WHY we had to stay--if we TRULY wish to FREE a country and make it into something great and new--it takes time and a lot of it.

Like I said, if you want to see what you have to do to pull this off, go look at Japan and Germany following WW2. It's not pretty; life WILL be lost. But, it might, just might, be better than this jihad social network that is in its infancy trying to become a true monster...



/political rant--because like the guy that Chomsky refers to, I saw this crap coming a long, long, long time ago
//I really had issues with the whole Iraq thing back in the day; but, I did say that if we went in, we should prepare to commit not for years, but for DECADES... I think THAT is where the American people, in general, didn't realize how truly long this fight would really be as it was indeed a "generational" fight... To me, it makes complete sense why we utterly FAILED, but ALSO why we were beginning to get things to actually work (and then flushed it all down the toilet--because a President sent us over to fight a war that I don't believe we were mentally prepared to REALLY win/fight; and as I said at the end, our soldiers (and their families) simply weren't ready for a war that would span a decade or more...
///Too many people think like the politicians do with war; war should be "nice and clean", "quick and simple", "profits and power"; as Sherman once said which applies to these type of politicians, but sadly many Americans in general who see war like a video game, not recognizing the true horror AND the true lengths men, woman, and children in those areas will need to change to make peace a word that can once again be common place in their society--not just for the hopeful: "I confess, without shame, that I am sick and tired of fighting — its glory is all moonshine; even success the most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies, with the anguish and lamentations of distant families, appealing to me for sons, husbands, and fathers … it is only those who have never heard a shot, never heard the shriek and groans of the wounded and lacerated … that cry aloud for more blood, more vengeance, more desolation."

OK, you're clearly not reading anything I write.

My point is NOT that "they shouldn't be in a church you don't approve of".

My issue is with your assertion that some people NEED the church. It's not cherry picking, it's the central point.

And I never used the word "shouldn't".

Once again, I have no problem calling out someone for belonging to an awful organisation, anymore than I would for a clan member or boko haram.

And clearly, at least 1500 people decided they don't "need" the church any more.

Just because people like a thing, doesn't mean they "need" it and it doesn't mean it isn't bad for them.

As for it being none of my business, well, you posted the video, I'm entitled to comment. And when the religions stop forcing their bullshit on everyone else and actively harming others, then it'll stop being my business.

In the meantime, you're goddamn right I will shake my fist at "millions of people" and tell them they're wrong. So what? Millions of people believe in creationism. Millions of people still think women are second class citizens. Millions of people are dying because some fucking morons told them not to use a condom.

Millions of people are wrong.

...but absolutely none of his creations are perfect? Some kind of super limited 'perfection' that is. My idea of perfection includes all you do and make, not just an unsupported claim from an old political book.

Politicians are so fucking scared of the losing the religiot vote it makes me sick. Look at them, cravenly pandering to turd-for-brain creationists, each candidate terrified that if they don't say they're a Christian 20,000 times between now and election day they haven't got a chance. Such cowardice. Why do such bad ideas as creationism get to figure on the world stage? Why should the leader of one of the most powerful countries in the world even consider the opinions of people who believe in cherubim and seraphim and gods and planets appearing out of the void by magic? Ignorance of the facts is one thing, but anyone who seriously believes that the world is 6000 years old and that every living thing was poofed into existence by a kind of wizard, after being exposed and eductated by the evidence, should be mocked off the podium.

Hypothesis: each and every candidate, educated as they are, fucking knows that evolution is true. So they lie to keep the votes of dumbfuck creationists. The stand at rallies and make speeches about their anti-evolution stance, lying over and over again but they fucking know. And you know what? The people who genuinely believe in creationism should be insulted that their candidates pay mere lip-service to their religious beliefs. The public ends up electing a liar and they either don't know because they're too weak-minded to work out they're being lied to (they are creationists, after all) or they don't care because it's the right lie; it's the lie they want to hear, and yeah, the guy's lying, but there's plenty of cognitive dissonance to go round. It's the lie that you can't get elected without telling.

Congratulations! Your comment on richard dawkins hammers ben carsons belief in creationism has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Clearly it is important in a presidential race to be seen as religious, which is a shame. What I don't really fully understand is why they don't roll with the oft favoured fallacy of argument from middle ground. Religious peeps, you can pretty much have your cake and eat it here... as long as you're willing to drop the whole literal interpretation of Genesis you can just use Evolution as more "evidence" to the glory of God's creation! Surely only a divine being would be able create a universe in which life is its own watchmaker! etc etc. Hey presto, you've just positioned yourself between those two extremes as a voice of moderation and at least America would get a Rep Pres that doesn't seem to be waging a war on rational...well, just on being rational.

Wait. Unless the point is they all want to appear to be more extreme than the other guy in order to pander to the smallest minds in the room.

Congratulations! Your video, richard dawkins hammers ben carsons belief in creationism, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 15 Badge!

Your video, richard dawkins hammers ben carsons belief in creationism, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.