I went to dealerships instead of doing this...I should've done this it would've saved me a lot of time. I went back and forth pitting the dealers against eachother, until I got a price less than I was expecting and more for my trade in. It wasn't perfect and I maybe could've gotta a bit better by using this guys system, maybe next time I'll try it.

Everyone is a remix of a remix of a remix of a remix.

none of us are original

all we do is sample eachother all the time.

and it is a beautiful thing.

in the sequel, michael bay pits the two islands against eachother. explosions ensue.

Did you even read what I said? I said people should use their wealth to do the Lords work and help the poor. God gives people material blessings to do those things, but many are enslaved to their love of money and don't do them. I know exactly what the word says about money, and my statement matches it precisely. I am not a republican nor am I a gung-ho capitalist. The early church was very socialist, in that the members all sold what they had and shared the proceeds with eachother as they needed. I support that, but I also recognize that in a fallen world, without the hand of God directly involved, socialism can very easily become totalitarian.

>> ^Asmo:
>> ^shinyblurry:
That isn't an indictment against money, it is an indictment against greed. God doesn't care if you have money, but He does care what you use it for. He made Solomon the richest person on the planet. I think those who are rich should be using their money for the Lords work and giving heartily to the poor, so I do not support the aquisition of wealth for wealths sake. I think that is sinful. However, that is their choice, and it is not up to me, but it is between them and God.

Typical christian, thinks he knows what his god wants but ignores what he says... Just think about how much good works those stashed millions could be doing for the poor. Dare I say it, the 'God' conservatives put so much stock in is a gasp socialist...
"If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered."
-Proverbs 21:13
"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy."
-Proverbs 31:8-9
"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."
-Matthew 6:24
"Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'"
-Matthew 19:23-24
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'"
-Matthew 25:41-45
"He who mocks the poor shows contempt for their Maker; whoever gloats over disaster will not go unpunished."
-Proverbs 17:5
"He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and he who gives gifts to the rich--both come to poverty."
-Proverbs 22:16
"Jesus answered, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'"
-Matthew 19:21
"He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses."
-Proverbs 28:27
"People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs."
-1 Timothy 6:9-10
"Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life."
-1 Timothy 6:17-19
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."
-Ezekiel 16:49
"Rich and poor have this in common: The LORD is the Maker of them all."
-Proverbs 22:2
"He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God."
-Proverbs 14:31
"A generous man will himself be blessed, for he shares his food with the poor."
-Proverbs 22:9
"Better a poor man whose walk is blameless than a rich man whose ways are perverse."
-Proverbs 28:6
"A faithful man will be richly blessed, but one eager to get rich will not go unpunished."
-Proverbs 28:20
"The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern."
-Proverbs 29:7
"Wealth is worthless in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death."
-Proverbs 11:4
"Do not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not crush the needy in court, for the LORD will take up their case and will plunder those who plunder them."
-Proverbs 22:22-23
"Do not wear yourself out to get rich; have the wisdom to show restraint. Cast but a glance at riches, and they are gone, for they will surely sprout wings and fly off to the sky like an eagle."
-Proverbs 23:4-5
"Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income. This too is meaningless."
-Ecclesiastes 5:10
"A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold."
-Proverbs 22:1
"There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land."
-Deuteronomy 15:11
"Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have."
-Hebrews 13:5
"You evildoers frustrate the plans of the poor, but the Lord is their refuge."
-Psalm 14:6
"He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and He will reward him for what he has done."
-Proverbs 19:17
"A rich man may be wise in his own eyes, but a poor man who has discernment sees through him."
-Proverbs 28:11
"A fortune made by a lying tongue is a fleeting vapor and a deadly snare."
-Proverbs 21:6
"The wealth of the rich is their fortified city; they imagine it an unscalable wall."
-Proverbs 18:11

>> ^juliovega914:

>> ^curiousity:
It's easy to see these two like each other and it is a pleasure to watch them interact.

I dunno I got the exact opposite impression from the interview, it looked really tense, and that last handshake seemed like they were squeezing eachother's hands like the father of a teenage daughter would squeeze the hand of her prom date.


I guess I'm bringing in the other times that I've seen them interact. They like to give each other a hard time, but it is obvious that they like each other (over the entire course of interactions I've seen between them.)

>> ^curiousity:

It's easy to see these two like each other and it is a pleasure to watch them interact.


I dunno I got the exact opposite impression from the interview, it looked really tense, and that last handshake seemed like they were squeezing eachother's hands like the father of a teenage daughter would squeeze the hand of her prom date.

the world is changing fast.
the older generation is glued to the boob tube.

and we're talking to eachother

This is ridiculous? Why were they getting along beforehand? In my experience people are 2 seconds from stabbing eachother regardless of religion.

I accidentally responded to GF on his profile so if anyone is interested in that, thats where that is.

But I just also wanted to say is that no - what you are describing is not faith. Scientific theories are constantly and rigorously tested; if they fail tests, they are discarded or altered accordingly.

Faith doesn't allow the possibility of being wrong; that's why it's faith.

>> ^dirkdeagler7:

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
Tyson is just plain wrong here, he says:
"40% of scientists are religious, so this notion that if you are a scientist, your'e an atheist, and if you are religious, you're not a scientist, is just empirically wrong"
Well, those of us who do say there is a conflict between science and religion have never framed the problem that way, the mere fact that there are religious scientists out there isnt evidence of a non-conflict anymore than the fact that a nazi could marry a jew. People can hold 2 or more conflicting views at the same time, we all do it all the time.
First of all, lets look at that "40%" number, it really depends on which poll or survey you look at. Those surveys who asks questions like "Do you believe in a personal god" usually end up in the sub-20% area of "religious" scientists, but if you include people who answer yes to questions like "are you a spiritual person" then maybe the number is closer to 40%.
So I really think 40% is really stretching it in favour of Tysons view here, but I'll let it go, lets say its 40% then, fine. Whats the same number in the general public? 41% 43?. No. its like 90%, right? So what happened to the 50% difference here? Did "No conflict" just happen to them? They just so happened to learn about science and nature, and via a sheer bloody coincidence, the number of religious people dropped by over one HALF???!!
No conflict my ass.
Of course there is a conflict. Tysons own inflated number even shows it directly.
But even if his inflated number was 100%, that ALL scientists were religious, there would still be a conflict, because faith and science are fundamentally different ways of approaching information and knowledge. In fact, they are, by definition, the opposite of eachother. Science can almost fully be described as "A complete absense of faith" and vice versa. If you've got even a hint of faith in your science, you've contaminated the results. Period. Similarly, if you take a hint of science, even at the level of a curious 5-year old, and apply it to the claims of faith, they immediatly start to look preposterous.
No conflict my ass.

To say there is no form of "faith" in science is misleading as well. If you're an avid follower of the science world, how could you be blind to the number of areas where we hold things to be accepted/true that are impossible to prove (outside of complicated math or computer models)? The most obvious example would be a many worlds/dimensions view, so any string theory borders on requiring "faith" to accept. Anything beyond the atomic level is a combination of interpreted observation and applied mathematics that we'll never be able to observe/prove first hand, in a sense we have "faith" that we're correct and have yet to find a reason to break that "faith" but if it happens we accept our "truth" to be not true. People had faith in newtonian physics being a true predictor/theory and we found it to not be the case after all.
I'm not attempting to compare the validity or justifiability of the 2 different flavors of faith. But a rose by any other name is still a rose, and there are things we believe and treat as true in science that we only know to be true in the ways we can measure them, and those ways sometimes contradict themselves still! Imagine the wave-particle duality and the contradictions in quantum theorys and Einsteins relativity...both of which we still use today (hell we still use newtonian physics in schools).

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

Tyson is just plain wrong here, he says:
"40% of scientists are religious, so this notion that if you are a scientist, your'e an atheist, and if you are religious, you're not a scientist, is just empirically wrong"
Well, those of us who do say there is a conflict between science and religion have never framed the problem that way, the mere fact that there are religious scientists out there isnt evidence of a non-conflict anymore than the fact that a nazi could marry a jew. People can hold 2 or more conflicting views at the same time, we all do it all the time.
First of all, lets look at that "40%" number, it really depends on which poll or survey you look at. Those surveys who asks questions like "Do you believe in a personal god" usually end up in the sub-20% area of "religious" scientists, but if you include people who answer yes to questions like "are you a spiritual person" then maybe the number is closer to 40%.
So I really think 40% is really stretching it in favour of Tysons view here, but I'll let it go, lets say its 40% then, fine. Whats the same number in the general public? 41% 43?. No. its like 90%, right? So what happened to the 50% difference here? Did "No conflict" just happen to them? They just so happened to learn about science and nature, and via a sheer bloody coincidence, the number of religious people dropped by over one HALF???!!
No conflict my ass.
Of course there is a conflict. Tysons own inflated number even shows it directly.
But even if his inflated number was 100%, that ALL scientists were religious, there would still be a conflict, because faith and science are fundamentally different ways of approaching information and knowledge. In fact, they are, by definition, the opposite of eachother. Science can almost fully be described as "A complete absense of faith" and vice versa. If you've got even a hint of faith in your science, you've contaminated the results. Period. Similarly, if you take a hint of science, even at the level of a curious 5-year old, and apply it to the claims of faith, they immediatly start to look preposterous.
No conflict my ass.


To say there is no form of "faith" in science is misleading as well. If you're an avid follower of the science world, how could you be blind to the number of areas where we hold things to be accepted/true that are impossible to prove (outside of complicated math or computer models)? The most obvious example would be a many worlds/dimensions view, so any string theory borders on requiring "faith" to accept. Anything beyond the atomic level is a combination of interpreted observation and applied mathematics that we'll never be able to observe/prove first hand, in a sense we have "faith" that we're correct and have yet to find a reason to break that "faith" but if it happens we accept our "truth" to be not true. People had faith in newtonian physics being a true predictor/theory and we found it to not be the case after all.

I'm not attempting to compare the validity or justifiability of the 2 different flavors of faith. But a rose by any other name is still a rose, and there are things we believe and treat as true in science that we only know to be true in the ways we can measure them, and those ways sometimes contradict themselves still! Imagine the wave-particle duality and the contradictions in quantum theorys and Einsteins relativity...both of which we still use today (hell we still use newtonian physics in schools).

Tyson is just plain wrong here, he says:

"40%* of scientists are religious, so this notion that if you are a scientist, your'e an atheist, and if you are religious, you're not a scientist, is just empirically wrong"

Well, those of us who do say there is a conflict between science and religion have never framed the problem that way, the mere fact that there are religious scientists out there isnt evidence of a non-conflict anymore than the fact that a nazi could marry a jew. People can hold 2 or more conflicting views at the same time, we all do it all the time.

First of all, lets look at that "40%" number, it really depends on which poll or survey you look at. Those surveys who asks questions like "Do you believe in a personal god" usually end up in the sub-20% area of "religious" scientists, but if you include people who answer yes to questions like "are you a spiritual person" then maybe the number is closer to 40%.

So I really think 40% is really stretching it in favour of Tysons view here, but I'll let it go, lets say its 40% then, fine. Whats the same number in the general public? 41% 43?. No. its like 90%, right? So what happened to the 50% difference here? Did "No conflict" just happen to them? They just so happened to learn about science and nature, and via a sheer bloody coincidence, the number of religious people dropped by over one HALF???!!

No conflict my ass.

Of course there is a conflict. Tysons own inflated number even shows it directly.

But even if his inflated number was 100%, that ALL scientists were religious, there would still be a conflict, because faith and science are fundamentally different ways of approaching information and knowledge. In fact, they are, by definition, the opposite of eachother. Science can almost fully be described as "A complete absense of faith" and vice versa. If you've got even a hint of faith in your science, you've contaminated the results. Period. Similarly, if you take a hint of science, even at the level of a curious 5-year old, and apply it to the claims of faith, they immediatly start to look preposterous.

No conflict my ass.

Thanks Enoch..I enjoy your company as well, and I appreciate you saying that..because I am still often accused of being a troll. And yes, I admit have been an asshat at times and said stupid things. It's hard not to want to respond to insults, but, when you don't I think it is something that builds character. Videosift has made me a more patient person.

I think there is just a strain of intolerance in the atheist community, that has become this militant antitheism, where you can't have decent conversation because everything being said is laced with insults and condescension. Videosift isn't really that bad in comparison to some atheist forums I frequent..and it isn't just me, because as soon as you open your mouth you have about 100 people all simultaneously ganging up on you and saying some really vicious things.

I know this isn't the way it should be, as we have seen on some of the more thoughtful debates on God. Where people actually treat eachother civilally and have thoughtful questions and answers. I think a lot of atheists want to act like it isn't even a valid question, or it has been sufficiently disproved, or it is something only stupid people believe, but that is flatly untrue. Even Hitchens said it was the greatest conversation you could have because the question of God leads to all the other important questions. So I think if people took that chip off their shoulder and gave the topic the consideration it deserves, all of this enmity could be avoided.

>> ^enoch:
when i first engaged shiny i mistook him for a troll.
i have since changed my position.
shiny is a believer.
and this belief is derived with the certainty that the bible is the un-erring word of god and ALL his philosophy flows from that point.
this is not something he keeps obscure or hidden but is quite upfront about it,so it should come as no surprise when he responds in the way he does.
give the man some credit for taking the time to respond to the massive amounts of flack he gets.
feel free to disagree with him (hell,i do...and often)but remember he is taking the time to respond and engage with you.
i also feel he deserves a bit of leeway when he gets a bit testy.very often comments are directed towards him as if he IS religion,or that he somehow represents fred phelps "god hates fags" and therefore should be treated with disdain.
cant blame a man for getting a tad defensive.
he is just a man who has a belief based on the bible and to attack him based just on that belief wastes a fantastic opportunity to understand WHY a person may hold that belief.
it is only through respectful interaction that a more complete and full understanding can be achieved.
i may disagree with shiny but i find him a pleasant individual.

It's not just about dullness and being boring. Religious zealots confirmed in their beliefs and unswerving in their faith make the hairs stand up on the back of my neck. It's kind of like the creepiness of the uncanny valley with robots. "Letting go and letting God" is an abdication of your humanity - and it shows on the outside.

Gay people, in my subjective experience, are often the opposite. Full of quirky, imperfect, damaged humanity - or maybe you could even call it the holy spirit. I think I will.

Allow me to quote GK Chesterton:

Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.

To live like Jesus is a taller order than you seem to realize, and of course as I am sure you realize, most of us have failed to do so. You seem to have this idea that Christians believe that they are perfect, but that is a joke. We are actually far more candid with eachother about our faults than would even be socially acceptable in secular culture. We don't think we are perfect, and even the most devout of the brethern runs into doubts. Letting go and letting God isn't in the bible. What we do is trust God with our lives, it isn't sitting back and doing nothing. To do what Jesus gave us to do is a lot of hard work.

This is what you don't understand: We love God. The tragic thing about you atheists is that you do too, in your own ways. You all love the Creation. You are fascinated and mystified by the Universe, in awe of its manifold complexity and endless wonders. That is, if there is nothing attached to the experience. You value and treasure your freedom from authority, and guard it jealously; after all you think you only have one life to live. I can understand that. You want to be in control.

Yet, you're not in control. Look at Steve Jobs, he had about everything you could ever hope to have, and none of it did him the least bit of good. In the end, he illustrated the truth of this verse:

Matthew 16:26

For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?


There is no control to be had, because no one is in control on this planet except for God. What you consider happenstance and coincidence doesn't really exist. So, we give God back what He already has. We decide to stop fooling ourselves and believe that we can beat the system, because the issue has already been decided. What you do in this life matters, because at the end you will give account for every idle word.

Someone has to be God, this what you don't understand. I doubt many of you have thought this through very deeply. Let's play your game for a moment. Let's say the Universe really is 20 billion years old, and life is able to evolve spontaneously from nothing. This means that some lifeforms have had a lot more time to develop than others, and the ones who were successful early and have mastered physical reality are going to be more powerful than anyone else. If any of this is true you most certainly already have a self-proclaimed divinity, one that may look upon a lifeform like us like cockroaches. The position of absolute ruler of existence is a power vacuum that will be filled by someone, and it is almost certainly filled already.

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

>> ^dag:
It's not just about dullness and being boring. Religious zealots confirmed in their beliefs and unswerving in their faith make the hairs stand up on the back of my neck. It's kind of like the creepiness of the uncanny valley with robots. "Letting go and letting God" is an abdication of your humanity - and it shows on the outside.
Gay people, in my subjective experience, are often the opposite. Full of quirky, imperfect, damaged humanity - or maybe you could even call it the holy spirit. I think I will.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, firstly, the Kingdom of Heaven is on Earth, so Jesus will be here. When He returns He will judge the world, the living and the dead, and establish His kingdom. Secondly, righteousness is credited to you because of faith in God, not as in something that you earned, or because you're so great. It's all to Gods glory..I'm no better than anyone else.
Romans 3:22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,
Three, people have this impression of sin as being fun and cool, and living a sanctified life as being dull and boring. Where ever God is will be the creative center of existence..there isn't going to be a lack of interesting things to do. Everyone seems to like the Creation, and this is just s ahadow of what is to come. It isn't going to be boring. Sin is temporary pleasure, flash in the pan, and it all leads to death, and it is the source of corruption in this world. There is nothing good about it at all.
>> ^dag:
I think I'd prefer to stay down here with the unrighteous. If you're only letting in the self-righteous and pious moralists - it's going to be pretty dull.
I think Jesus would rather stay down here with us too - to be honest. But you go on up with the righteous SB, save us a spot. We'll muddle on without you post-rapture.
>> ^shinyblurry:
So it's my fault you don't have any self-control? It doesn't matter what you think about me personally. The word of God is what is important:
1 Corinthians 6
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
>> ^Payback:
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's never going to cease being a sin no matter how you dress it up. It is immoral and against the natural order of the Universe, as ordained by our Creator.

Oh fucking shut up already. No one here cares about your opinion on anything. Seriously.
I really wish the sift would completely remove you from my view when you're set to "ignore". Then I wouldn't be so fucking tempted to pop open your comments like the puss-filled, diseased boils they are.
Fucking troll.

This is the second time you have voiced death threats against me, which is nothing other than proof that you have a heart filled with poison. Whatever you wish to say about this issue, it is all empty rhetoric in light of your obvious moral bankruptcy. You need to repent and get right with God.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
My question is, if gays are born that way, what about pedophiles? Aren't they just victims of their genetics and the behavior is irreversable? If a man can marry another man, why not his horse? Why not his car? Once you open these doors, you can never close them.

Ok I'll answer your completely offensive questions. If Pedophiles are born that way does it make it ok? No it doesn't because when you're fucking children you're hurting them, some would argue destroying them. Two consenting gay adults is not the same as that, logically not just morally.
Second, the proposal is two individuals can marry eachother and share custody of children or have an economic relationship. So what is wrong with saying two consenting adults? A horse is not a person a car is not a person.
There I have been respectful and logical...Now let me pass on some advice from someone who fights for this country and your freedom.
"If I find you I will kill you and take much pleasure in it you sick mother fucker."
Just passing that along.

>> ^shinyblurry:

My question is, if gays are born that way, what about pedophiles? Aren't they just victims of their genetics and the behavior is irreversable? If a man can marry another man, why not his horse? Why not his car? Once you open these doors, you can never close them.


Ok I'll answer your completely offensive questions. If Pedophiles are born that way does it make it ok? No it doesn't because when you're fucking children you're hurting them, some would argue destroying them. Two consenting gay adults is not the same as that, logically not just morally.

Second, the proposal is two individuals can marry eachother and share custody of children or have an economic relationship. So what is wrong with saying two consenting adults? A horse is not a person a car is not a person.

There I have been respectful and logical...Now let me pass on some advice from someone who fights for this country and your freedom.

"If I find you I will kill you and take much pleasure in it you sick mother fucker."

Just passing that along.