On social policies, left and right couldn't be more different. Sure, there are plenty of sane conservatives that have come around towards not treating minorities, women, and LGBT like shit. A lot of times it's that same meme we've seen over and over. Conservatives don't give a fuck until they're personally affected by it. They only stop being pro-war if one of their loved ones dies. They only stop being anti-lgbt if they discover that one of their loved ones are lgbt. Just recently, Kasich got a bit of the spotlight because of his 2nd place in the NH primaries and he gets hailed as the more moderate conservative, but he's still pretty anti-choice, so I'm told.

Now yeah, you're exactly right when it comes to other aspects of the parties. the entire primary process is complete bull. The RNC and DNC are both private organizations. There is no rule whatsoever that they are beholden to votes There is nothing in the constitution about parties. They literally can nominate whoever the fuck they want. Sanders and Trump could win every single primary race and they could still pick anyone they want and ignore the votes. What's worse is that taxpayers fund the primary elections so we're wasting taxpayer dollars on a primary race that literally DOES NOT MATTER. I am an election worker and I recently got contacted that ill be working our state's primary election in May. sure the extra cash is nice (it's only about 100 bucks) but that's 100 bucks we could spend on more useful things and I'd gladly give it up to create a better selection process and eliminate primaries completely. Elections in America are so fucking messed up and resemble a reality show way too much, which definitely explains why Trump is doing as well as he is. If we had actual debates and took shit seriously? He'd never have a snowballs chance in hell. But hey, this is America and we care more about spectacle than substance.

Now yeah, if our only two choices were Cruz or Trump, I'd vote for Trump in a heartbeat. He's the lesser of two evils. (And I also love feeding the RWNJ paranoia that he's a democrat plant). That is the reality of our elections. I knew damned well that Obama was never going to be able to do most of the things he said he would do, even if he did have a friendly Congress. But again, he's the lesser of two evils.

America puts way too much stock in the Office of the President. Congress is where the real power is at, but America's culture mistakenly hinges EVERYTHING on the Presidency, and it's just not true, it's a distraction from the real wheels of power. It's the same in Britain. The monarchy has no real power, they're figureheads. The real power is in Parliament. The monarchy is a distraction.

You're exactly right about lobbyists and money in politics. I've been on board with that on day one. I'm definitely pro Bernie. But even if Bernie wins the general, he's going to have a hostile congress and that's going to limit much of what he can do unless we can take back congress. Again, that's where the real power is. The most he will probably be able to do is appoint more SCOTUS judges.

So democrats, if you want shit to change? stop staying home during the midterm elections. Unless something crazy happens, Republicans aren't going to be retaking the white house any time soon, but you need to start voting in the midterms so that Congress changes. It's this sad little cycle. During general elections, dems come out to vote in droves, but then they stay home for the midterms and Republicans trounce them and they wonder why Congress is right-wing.

So yeah, if for social policies alone, I'll definitely vote for Hillary if Bernie doesn't get the nod. Do I think she'll accomplish much? No, but few presidents do. CONGRESS IS WHAT MATTERS!

That's exactly it.. it is a social experiment. Paper money to me only has enough value of what another thinks its worth, the same way with bitcoins. I personally believe that money is completely evil and only gives power to the ones who have it. Money is not needed for our society anymore. The reason the job growth rate sucks and everyone is unemployed is because we don't need any more jobs. The only reason people gets jobs now is to have money, so they can buy things they want.

But that doesn't have to be that way. Currency can go kaput for all I care. Shelter, food/water, joy/love are the only things that are needed. Everything else is a want. There is enough food and shelter for everyone on the planet, yet we as a species can't seem to figure out why people starve. The reason is money. If everything was free people would go around the world many times over with food to feed those who are hungry and love doing it.

I'm not saying people shouldn't work, but there's enough people who love work to do all the jobs necessary for us to survive, the rest can work on what they love or die happy in a place they love. Money stops this.


sorry I had to rant for some stupid reason.

You tell me that you understand science, and were once very scientific, then you drop --excuse me-- a giant turd like this. I could as easily say, "If the Theory of Evolution is correct, then all living creatures are evidence of Theory of Evolution's correctness," and it would still be a meaningless statement because if we already know something is true (as in the premise), then evidence is redundant. It's precisely when we don't know something that evidence becomes useful. This is probably the hardest part about talking to you -- your weak grasp on how science and logic work. And don't take this as an internet ad hom. I'm being straight with you, really. It's not your strong suit. Own it.

Actually, I think that it is you who is demonstrating a weak grasp of logic here. It seems that what I was getting at went right over your head. What you've done here is rip my statement out of its context, and then claimed I was using it in a meaningless way that I never intended. It is a straw man argument, really, and yes you did use ad homs. A giant turd? Saying that its really hard to talk to me because of my weak grasp of science and logic? Come on. I had thought that our dialogue had transcended these kind of petty caricatures.

In context, the statement is designed to get you think outside the box you're in and weigh both sides of the issue equally. It's not an argument in itself. The statement that if God exists, everything that exists is empirical evidence for God is a logically valid statement. If God exists, everything you're looking at right now if proof that He exists. Obviously, this statement by itself doesn't help you determine whether God actually exists or not. You could just as easily say that if God doesn't exist, everything that does exist is proof that He doesn't exist. Therefore, the question is, how would you tell if you're in a Universe that God designed?

The real question is, why is either possibility more or less likely than the other? You haven't addressed this, but simply have taken a leap of faith in favor of your atheistic naturalism. You say, I don't see the Planner, and I didn't see the Planner make this Universe, therefore it is not designed until proven otherwise. The problem with this is that you can't even begin to justify this assumption until you can explain why either possibility is any more likely than the other. You can't say you don't see any empirical evidence because it might be staring you in the face everywhere you look. To analyze how either possibility is more likely than the other you have to discard your assumptions about what you have seen or haven't seen and think about this on a deeper level.

Taking it a step deeper, the fact is, you would only expect to see exactly what you do see, because you are in fact a created being. A created being should expect to find himself existing in an environment capable of creating him. The crux is though that this environment is also finely tuned. You should expect to see what you do, but you should also be surprised to find that it is finely tuned. It a bit like being taken out for execution in front of a firing squad of 100 expert marksmen 3 feet away, and finding yourself alive after all of them opened fire. You should not be surprised to find yourself alive, because obviously you would have to be alive to find yourself alive, but you should be surprised to find that 100 expert marksmen missed you from 3 feet away. In the same way, you should be surprised to find yourself to be a created being in a finely tuned Universe.

What you have on your hands is a Universe full of empirical evidence that it was or wasn't designed. There are only two possibilities; the Universe was either planned or unplanned. Again, how would you tell the difference? What would you expect to see which is different from what you do see? What would make either possibility more likely? That is the point. A finely tuned Universe should tip the scales of that evidence, if you are being honest about what you can really prove.

Supernatural creation is easier to understand, but just about any other explanation is as or more plausible. When you consider some of the extreme coincidences that are required for us to exist, it stretches the mind. But we've had billions of years to evolve, and if we're talking about the whole universe, it could be that 10^one trillion universes with different physical properties have formed and collapsed, and when a balanced one finally came out of the mix, it stuck around, and here we are.

It could be, except there is no evidence there is. Why is it you that can imagine an infinite number of hypothetical Universes with no evidence, but you object to supernatural creation as somehow being less plausible than that? There is no evidence that it is less plausible, you simply assume it is. Sure, if you use your magic genie of time and chance you could imagine just about anything could happen. Scientists agree:

Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.

George Wald, Nobel Laureate, Harvard
Physics and Chemistry of Life p.12

The odds of any of this happening by itself far exceeds the number of atoms in the Universe, and there is no actual proof that it actually could happen by itself, but you still believe it to be more plausible. Why is that? In the end, why is it plausible that anything would exist at all? Why isn't everything equally unlikely in the end? Notice what George Wald said? He said time itself performs the *miracles*. He said that because the existence of life is nothing short of a miracle, but even knowing that, you would still say God is implausible. I think these arguments are what is implausible.

Look at how these scientists come to the same conclusions as you have:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/

They acknowledge there are only two possibilities, one being God, but since they hate that possibility more than they hate embracing the anthropic principle, they go with that instead, having absolutely no evidence to base that conclusion on. They simply don't want to acknowledge the obvious, which is that a finely tuned Universe is *much* stronger evidence for an omnipotent God than it is for multiple Universes.

I would take a declarative statement about him, and see what implications it had, what predictions it made, then see if they were testable, either theoretically or practically. Like theoretically if God is omniscient, it means he knows everything, and if I can find an example of something he absolutely cannot know, then I've proven he's not omniscient.

What God says is that as the Heavens are higher than the Earth, so are His ways above our ways, and His thoughts above our thoughts. He also calls the wisdom of this world, foolishness. So God has directly said that it is only by His revelation and not our understanding that we can come to know Him. A limited temporal creature, trying to disprove Gods existence with his own corrupt reasoning is kind of laughable, isn't it?

In any case, it's easy to think of things God doesn't know or can't do. God doesn't know what it feels like to not exist. God can't remember a time that He didn't exist. God can't make a square circle, or an acceptable sin. This doesn't prove anything. A better definition would be, omniscience is knowing everything that can be known, and omnipotence is being able to do everything that can be done.

Or practically, if God answers prayers, then I can test that statistically. Now, you say that God refuses to be tested, but that also means that if people are sincerely praying, but someone else is measuring the effects of those prayers, that God will choose not to answer those prayers, "Sorry! I'm being tested for, so I can't help you out today." This puts the power of denying God's prayers in the hands of scientists -- ridiculous. So there's two tests for God.

Or perhaps He had sovereignly arranged for only insincere prayers or prayers outside of His will to be prayed for at that time which would give the results of the test the appearance of randomness.

This is self-fulfilling prophecy. The only reason the Jewish people came back to form a country again is because their holy book said they were entitled to do so, divine providence. Like Macbeth likely never would have become king of Scotland if he hadn't been told so by the Weird Sisters.

The Jews are historically from Israel, and there is archaeological evidence to prove this. The reason they came back to Israel is because it is historically their homeland. Given the opportunity, they would have come back to Israel with or without the bible saying they were entitled to. The point is that they were predicted to come back, not only around the date that they did, but their migration pattern was in the exact order, their currency was predicted, their economic and agricultural condition was predicted, and many other things.

I'm no biblical scholar, but I found three places where the destruction of Jerusalem is predicted. The first is in Micah 3:11-12, where it simply states that it will happen at some point. It doesn't say when, nor describe any of the circumstances. The second one I found is Daniel 9:24-26, where there's some detail that sounds kinda like Jesus, except that it was supposed to happen within 70 weeks (16 months) of when God spoke to Daniel, roughly 530 years BC. Or if you understand that the signal to begin the 70 weeks hadn't been issued yet, then Jerusalem was to have been build a mere 16 months before it was destroyed by Titus, which clearly isn't the case either. It also predicts the end will be by flood, but it was by fire, and then manual labour of soldiers, if Josephus' account is to be believed (he wasn't impartial).

The 70 weeks are not concurrent, first of all. Second, Jesus is the one who predicted the fall of Jerusalem:

Luk 19:41 And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it,
Luk 19:42 saying, "Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes.
Luk 19:43 For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side
Luk 19:44 and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation."

I would have to accept Jesus as messiah before I could accept this argument. And if I had already accepted him as messiah, then the argument would be meaningless, just like the one about the universe as evidence for God's existence.

I'll rephrase this by saying, that Jesus fulfilled dozens of prophecies about the coming of the Messiah. Clearly, the impact of that Jesus has had on the world matches His claims about who He is. Consider this quotation by Napoleon:

"What a conqueror!--a conqueror who controls humanity at will, and wins to himself not only one nation, but the whole human race. What a marvel! He attaches to himself the human soul with all its energies. And how? By a miracle which surpasses all others. He claims the love of men--that is to say, the most difficult thing in the world to obtain; that which the wisest of men cannot force from his truest friend, that which no father can compel from his children, no wife from her husband, no brother from his brother--the heart. He claims it ; he requires it absolutely and undividedly, and he obtains it instantly.

Alexander, Caesar, Hannibal, Louis XIV strove in vain to secure this. They conquered the world, yet they had not a single friend, or at all events, they have none any more. Christ speaks, however, and from that moment all generations belong to him; and they are joined to him much more closely than by any ties of blood and by a much more intimate, sacred and powerful communion. He kindles the flame of love which causes one's self-love to die, and triumphs over every other love. Why should we not recognize in this miracle of love the eternal Word which created the world? The other founders of religions had not the least conception of this mystic love which forms the essence of Christianity.

I have filled multitudes with such passionate devotion that they went to death for me. But God forbid that I should compare the enthusiasm of my soldiers with Christian love. They are as unlike as their causes. In my case, my presence was always necessary, the electric effect of my glance, my voice, my words, to kindle fire in their hearts. And I certainly posses personally the secret of that magic power of taking by storm the sentiments of men; but I was not able to communicate that power to anyone. None of my generals ever learned it from me or found it out. Moreover, I myself do not possess the secret of perpetuating my name and a love for me in their hearts for ever, and to work miracles in them without material means.

Now that I languish here at St Helena, chained upon this rock, who fights, who conquers empires for me? Who still even thinks of me? Who interests himself for me in Europe? Who has remained true to me? That is the fate of all great men. It was the fate of Alexander and Caesar, as it is my own. We are forgotten, and the names of the mightiest conquerors and most illustrious emperors are soon only the subject of a schoolboy's taks. Our exploits come under the rod of a pedantic schoolmaster, who praises or condemns us as he likes.

What an abyss exists between my profound misery and the eternal reign of Christ, who is preached, loved, and worshipped, and live on throughout the entire world. Is this to die? Is it not rather to live eternally? The death of Christ! It is the death of a God."

Nope. Eternal means within all time. It implies that such an entity wouldn't necessarily exist outside of time. Maybe you meant a different word, but "eternal" doesn't describe whoever created time, if words have meaning.

Words do have meaning. Check any dictionary; the definition I used is there:

e·ter·nal/i't?rnl/
Adjective:

Lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning.
(of truths, values, or questions) Valid for all time; essentially unchanging.

What is this (especially the bits in bold) based on? It this biblical? Your intuition?

Isaiah 29:13

The Lord says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men

1 Samuel 16:7

But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart

You can give God all of the lip service you want, but He is only interested in what is in your heart.

Yes, the Lord will test your sincerity:

1 Peter 1:6-7

In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials.

These have come so that your faith--of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire--may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.

Also, if God knows everything, then what could he possibly be "testing" for? You only need to test things if you don't already know. And if he does know, the he's just messing with my head, in which case, it's not a test.

The metaphor that is used for testing is that of impurities being refined out of gold or silver. Tests are to prove your sincerity, not necessarily what God knows.

>> ^messenger

>> ^Shepppard:
Drinking and driving IS bad, I highly doubt you know anybody who has a family member that's been the victim of a drunk driver, but try making your argument with them.

Are you suggesting laws should be written from emotion not reason? Bringing in someone who experienced hardship to argue a similar law is not how laws should be written.

And as a matter of fact, I do know someone who had a loved one die from a drunk driver accident. I don't change my opinion about DUI laws around her, because law isn't meant to be personal. If it is, then it's a bad law.

>> ^alizarin:
Graffiti is awesome, you all are a bunch of old men shaking your fists at teenagers and complaining about your taxes.


Society's resources aren't free. The next time one of your loved ones dies of a curable disease, like cancer, remember that you advocate draining society's resources from science and funneling it into these attempts at illusory social prestige.

after a loved one dies im always mildly convinced theyre watching me for a few months afterwards

I have to say that up until seasons 9-10, I was a huge fan of the Simpsons. It was my favorite show (along with Mystery Science Theater 3000). Sadly, the quality of writing and animation greatly declined in what has become arguably the greatest disappointment of my life. I was not looking forward to watching the movie but went anyway. The first 15 minutes were quite funny, and I thought that maybe this would usher in a new era of greatness for the series, but my hopes were dashed shortly thereafter. The rest of the movie was like the last 9 seasons, unfunny and trite writing with a chuckle here or there. Although I am not a fan of Fox or Rupert Murdoch, I don't believe they have anything to do with the quality of the show (in fact, they are responsible for producing some of the greatest shows ever) so they are off the hook on this. I just want to validate some of the opinions expressed by GuyIncognito (although I disagree with others of his). We don't dislike the Simpsons because doing so is hip or non-conformist, we dislike that a hilarious and touching program of great nostalgic value has been reduced to a sham of its former self. It's like watching a good friend or loved one die of a slow and debilitating disease, and it's hurtful.

i am only sixteen. i dont really get my take on politics. someone says to me "are you republican or democrat?" i say, "im not sure, i'll vote for who i like better." i dont know if im a liberal or a conservative. those words mean nothing to me. i support the troops, not the war.

This man...George Bush and his cabinet...have for this generation and the next, ruined the presidential office. do you think that the next president will not be looked on through an ice cold eye? we have lost all confidence in those of the highest power. this video is the embodiment of what the american people think of their president. our president has the power to say whatever he wants and whos going to stop him? i had not known the full extent of the lies until now. this is terrible. how can they not know what they've been saying? do they know? has someone pointed out all the lies upon lies?

i am currently in a production of the play 1776. i am the courier, the boy who comes in with the messages. he is my favorite character, because he signifies, while congress sits and talks about freeing or not freeing slaves, or the question of our independence in bored voices, complaining about the heat and the flies, and fighting amongst themselves, the courier is the constant reminder that there is STILL A WAR GOING ON. after the south decides that they simply dont want to be part of the congress, the courier sticks around to talk, and sings a song about how his two best friends died on the battle field on the same day. no matter where the question of independence goes, people are still fighting and dying. its no different today. it doesnt matter whose lying or telling the truth or attacking america or holding WMDs. people are still out fighting and dying for america. they lie to restore confidence, and not to appear ignorant, but the people will always know. they try to cover their tracks and make the war seem feasible and welcome and necessary. meanwhile, friends and loved ones die on the battlefield. have they forgotten?

Is Anybody There? Does Anybody Care?