Naw, A large percentage of users interact and comment before they get the feel of the site and understand the process. Since we already eliminate new users from seeing most of the interface when viewing videos this would just go one step further towards alienating new users.

I know when I started here, I commented for quite a while before I started my first post.

I think commenting and interacting is the real life experience that brings us all here, to eliminate that would be detrimental to the site.

Spammers suck, but they are a reality on the internet today. we already have a few user based tools to eliminate spammers as soon as they show up and that seems to be working.

Seeing if a new poster has been commenting is also a way for us to examine and weed out spam users. If a new user posts a video that may be spam, checking their comments is one of the best way to see if they are an active member or a spammer just passing through.

If we don't allow them to comment first, they they will all look like spammers...

I'm sure you have your own point of view that sees things a bit differently. From my personal experience as an immigrant minority, I feel that cops treat everyone fairly and only use force when they are called upon to stop people from violating the law.

I also do not live my life assuming that cops attack a group of 'peaceful' protesters for no apparent reason. You may have personally experienced or second-handedly heard of cops mistreating civilians for no apparent reason. I have never been unfairly treated by the police during my lifetime and I believe that the second-hand reports of mistreatment often depend on the context of the situation. Sometimes we are right to claim injustice, sometimes we are not. We are right to punish those who practice injustice, but those rare cases of injustice should not overshadow all of the police force that consists of good officers who have done their job well.

Personally I do not worry about police officers cracking my head open when I go outside to watch the Olympic torch runners pass by, because I feel safe to be with a crowd of people who are cheery and supportive. But I will definitely be afraid of being near a group of rioters engaging a riot squad.

I believe that everything has a reason and just cause. You may hold a different belief about our society and authority figures, and that's your way of seeing the world. I would not argue that your way of living is the wrong way to live just because it is different from mine. We each have different life experiences to example our view about the police and authority figures, and it is unfortunate that we do not see every matter the same way.

>> ^deathcow:

I hate her eyebrows.


...at least they were real~Can't stand that plucked 'n painted look ~ Can't stand PSA's! Oh, and you people learn to use yer fuckin' cell phones while yer driving and get the FUCK OUTTA MY WAY!! <(rather see make-up application en-route than the mindless texter!) I keep a bag of old cell phones in the car to throw at people's cars who text and drive and hold up traffic~If everyone did this, we'd need no more intelligence-insulting PSA's, just better insurance

>> ^Crosswords:

>> ^kceaton1:
It goes beyond evolution though, if I'm getting this right. FOR HELL'S SAKE we can use the speed of light to see things FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR^100 older than 10,000 years!!! It's a fucking joke. If you believe this you are an idiot. Period! = .
It's not just light and carbon dating, we have LOTS of ways to show this place is WAY older...

You're forgetting the Law of God Physics which clearly states God can do anything including making the universe appear much older than it actually is for the purposes of fooling his human creations so he has a way of testing their loyalty when he's not asking them to kill their first born son and saying, JUST KIDDING, at the last minute.


The funny part about this stuff is that they typically say that God "moved the photons" (atleast the semi smarter ones will) and the STILL dumb ones will say that, well light was, you see going a different speed back then so it still all adds up...YOU SEE!!!

BUT THEN!...If you understand relativity correctly like me you understand that you can change the speed of light all the time you want. In fact make it go 1 ft/second! It doesn't MAKE A DAMNED difference in how we will STILL measure the time gone/go/will go by! People never get this at all and it really is the sort of thing were someone mumbles under their breath when they finally understand what I'm saying/going to say: "Is that not amazing!!!". You see mass and energy are the same thing and light is special, it goes the same speed EVERYWHERE, EVERY-TIME, ALL THE TIME--and this thing called "light" are these little tiny particles/waves called photons that as I said before, but not quite as directly, they literally ARE mass and energy, so the relationship between us and light is so fundamental it SHOULD blow your mind. But, so many people went through school and listen to their preachers and have no idea how vitally important that "little" discovery that Einstein made was!!! So, even we at 1 ft/s light speed STILL notice everything moving and everyone we know moving at that same "time" measurement of one second (funny isn't it; but, light is traveling at one second as well, how can this make any sense..!?!?! Well here it comes, it is called relativity and the fact that light is a constant and the other very important fact that our measurement of one second really measures...what?) as we are literally stuck in a cage (this "cage" is called The Universe) that cannot be tampered with. This is all due to that little fact that our perception of time IS relative and our view of one second can be EXTREMELY messed with, but to us it will always seem to be one second--even if 1 Billion years went by. The age of the Universe comes from the SHIFT of energy in the photons present that we can see coming from other places in any direction around us; so God would need to put THAT hologram there nothing else, BUT there is a giant problem in doing this (because due to our friends that want God to actively fuck us over for some reason--the hologram only extends technically 10,000 years out and "hides" the rest--if God put everything the way we see it and it isn't even an illusion--what can I say at that point if God was real I would join the Devil in less than a heart beat to overthrow his LYING, SADIST, and moreover EVIL ass!) If the hologram WAS there then: the hologram, it would need to be different in EVERY single direction you look; every time you move one Planck length (I might be wrong, maybe just the length of a photon) further out into space God would need to fix the energy distribution to make his illusion look correct... YOU HAVE no idea how absurd to the absurd degree this sounds, even GOD would spend his entire existence doing this because the job would require this long to do it: forever (until the UNIVERSE STOPS!). I'm not kidding it would be utterly ridiculous (from Earth his "image" would look right, on Mt. Everest, it would look wrong,; in space it would look wrong--in fact if you have sensitive enough equipment every square foot you took would somehow end up looking incorrect--we're talking about the cosmic background radiation, the little thing that lets us know how old our Universe is and that everything around us is moving away from us...

So that comes to the "putting the photons into place syndrome". For the most part I'm starting to think that these people like to abuse their brain in secret rooms with paint, huffing it until they collapse in a heap. in the morning they slowly scrub the white vinyl paint off their nose and mouth and go start with the blue. The problem with this is God had to of atleast put photons 13.5 Billion years out for this to even work--so in the end it falls so flat on it's face it makes no sense. If he was using a hologram, where is the border? Why do we detect gravitational anomalies when those have been proven to be real locally? It just goes on, and on, and on, and on.

I'd love to hear them explain why space may be full of Dark Matter or better yet why is "nothing" full of something called "The Quantum Foam"--you may have heard of "Vacuum Energy", same thing more or less--look it up it's fascinating and may even be the source OF "The Big Bang". Why can we pull photons (from "nothing") out of the Quantum Foam? According to lots of religious folks you can't create something from nothing, but WHAM, there it is! Sometimes, it just might be a bad idea to hold onto your old per-conceived precepts if they do not allow for change. BTW, the photon coming out of thin air was in a very well-known (now) experiment and is HIGHLY worth looking up; you can find details about it in my Videosift Blog (which is entirely about it).

You could disprove their crap all day. The truth is is that they did bad in their science classes, they just didn't get it and for some archaic left over juvenile resentment, they must have their righteous rite of "The Comeback Minister (or Preacher/Prophet/Father/etc...). So in revenge they are taking the easy way out and saying, "Hah, see I didn't need to learn that stuff from Mr. Scrampton in 12th grade! I'm a Minister now and I can just TELL you what is right, because I know it's right in my gut; especially after five cases of Budweiser!". Now they never tell you the truth. They lie, they tell you it "came" to them, like their a prophet now or something. ...Well if they can be prophets, why can't we? Oh wait, scientists do in fact fill this role and they do a good job at it. they constantly warn us of dangers and things the government should do. But, there are far too many damage control freaks with their own agenda running around and they seem to cling to religion as it satisfies very easily their questions, making it so they don't have to work to find the actual hard ones that exist and that we DO need.

It's not in the Bible that any of these idiots would tell us anything meaningful, nor the Koran, or any other holy book. So I find it strange that so many line up and then sit down and listen to these idiots blather on about the world and how to cure it and what it's ills are. They also as I said do a great deal of "re-education" in THEIR vision satisfying that old juvenile, washed up nothing who couldn't get over the fact that he wasn't good at science off the bat or maybe even when he tried too. This is the bane on America (and I would assume many other places, but America has a lot of this). They are teaching and re-teaching our people ridiculous notions and since they require very little work to understand, just community, people believe it--especially because it's being believed in numbers and that is the important part.

Now this was a longer post than what I wanted it to be and it also went past the scope of my original intentions. BUT, the reason why those statistics exist is due to the nature, the epidemic of how people are being re-taught forcibly (you think like us or you are no longer with us--it can have shocking community affects, especially when it becomes a inter-family problem...I know this EXTREMELY well due to my Mormon upbringing; when I became an atheist I was shunned and cut-off from the community, at first. they slowly let me back in when they realized I was an extremely good person, usually a better person than many of the people in the Church and so my neighbors finally no longer cared--cared what the churches stance was either--who or what I was, they took me for what I was--IT TOOK 20 years to happen!). So many people are started and taught young this is a HUGE problem, I know it's a major one with the Mormon church. You are baptized into the church at eight. You should hear the things they ask you to accept and agree to--they are things that only and adult with experience could properly answer (more like someone that is 25) yet an eight year old surrounded by their family and peers of course can give only ONE answer.

After that, you being to be taught all the incorrect things you could possibly think of. If you are even semi-devout like me (and this goes for many other religions as well) going to public school in Utah, the church has LITERALLY built seminary schools next to every High School and Junior High (and this is true outside of Utah too, as I'm SURE Idaho, Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, and Nevada--maybe more too, I'm sure they have them locally to attend--I'm sure many of these states have these institutions built right next door or somewhere for kids to attend) you will attend seminary due to the wishes of your parents (my parental situation was beginning to change--and for the better).

Still I attended seminary through grades 7-12 and could have continued in College, but I was agnostic by then...if not basically atheist, just not strong enough to say it. Seminary had it's wonderful parts, but the mis-information was a joke. luckily I was smart, very smart. So I was able to separate the information apart from each other and it allowed me to ask STRONG questions about my one time faith. These questions and their mis-information EASILY killed that religion for eternity, for me--for A LOT of reasons. Many of which, many of you know...easily. It came to ME slow. SO when i talk about helping other people you need to realize what we are up against. facts that do come to us easily usually don't to them and it typically has to do with their past. but, it is HARD to get them to talk about their past openly. For one thing there is no possibility of them being wrong or in danger of it. Somehow we MUST change this.

/Like I said longer, but I hope it was worth it.
/edited for more clarity and a few additions

>> ^cracanata:

It's OK I can take some criticism, but still the problem is right there. What would it be the solution? How should the military respond to this, female only army? Or just recruit only feminists and hipsters, that will defeat the purpose of having a strong army. In my opinion a strong army is made of strong individuals that most of the times are just the sort of individuals that have low respect for life otherwise will be a weak army. War isn't about feelings and fairness in my opinion.
If that makes me a lunatic that has no morals so be it. Still you'll have to remember that war is shit. And I'm not even defending war or advocating for rapists, only trying to make some sense with what the subject offers.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^cracanata:
War zone isn't a place for manners and PC, war is war on any front bringing stress and frustration and in this case the sexual frustration is showing it's teeth. Females should acknowledge the facts in respect of what the war is doing to the males before jumping into this "serving the country" boat, hell even most of men have no clue beforehand. The way I see it - war brings you closer to your natural roots in terms of instincts and needs especially for sexually troubled soon to be adults males.
To me this looks more like a calculated damage form the radical feminists, to further push the anti male agenda, the "Man are Pigs and something has to be done about it"
Also would be very interesting to know what exactly constitutes as "rape" in today's america. For my knowledge there is a very wide range of actions or situations that constitutes as rape or sexual assault in this day and age and has nothing to do with the sexual intercourse.
I might be wrong, I'm no expert, but honestly the PC is sickens me.

No what this does is acknowledge that male soldiers rape female soldiers and something must be done about it, because what's being done is trying to actively exonerate rapists. You're like a racist saying, "well black people should understand that they're property and trying to change that is wrong."
You're a lunatic that has no morals.


hmm, i think a good start would be to acknowledge the victims of rape and prosecute the perps? As previously mentioned, the fact that rape exists in the military isn't especially shocking. What is shocking and surprising is this "boys will be boys" military attitude regarding the rapes. Lets be clear here. A strong military needs proficient female soldiers. If you want the best then you better not limit yourself to 50% of the population. Women shouldn't expect to be raped for serving their country anymore than they should expect to be raped when they wear something that doesn't reach their knees...The stress of war dies not excuse rape. Rapists have demonstrated that they are capable of committing this heinous crime against their comrades - the frontline of war is the last place such a person should be unless you like inviting warcrime tribunals upon yourself.


I think that maybe you advocating for the Devil...but I do wonder why.

It's OK I can take some criticism, but still the problem is right there. What would it be the solution? How should the military respond to this, female only army? Or just recruit only feminists and hipsters, that will defeat the purpose of having a strong army. In my opinion a strong army is made of strong individuals that most of the times are just the sort of individuals that have low respect for life otherwise will be a weak army. War isn't about feelings and fairness in my opinion.
If that makes me a lunatic that has no morals so be it. Still you'll have to remember that war is shit. And I'm not even defending war or advocating for rapists, only trying to make some sense with what the subject offers.
>> ^Yogi:

>> ^cracanata:
War zone isn't a place for manners and PC, war is war on any front bringing stress and frustration and in this case the sexual frustration is showing it's teeth. Females should acknowledge the facts in respect of what the war is doing to the males before jumping into this "serving the country" boat, hell even most of men have no clue beforehand. The way I see it - war brings you closer to your natural roots in terms of instincts and needs especially for sexually troubled soon to be adults males.
To me this looks more like a calculated damage form the radical feminists, to further push the anti male agenda, the "Man are Pigs and something has to be done about it"
Also would be very interesting to know what exactly constitutes as "rape" in today's america. For my knowledge there is a very wide range of actions or situations that constitutes as rape or sexual assault in this day and age and has nothing to do with the sexual intercourse.
I might be wrong, I'm no expert, but honestly the PC is sickens me.

No what this does is acknowledge that male soldiers rape female soldiers and something must be done about it, because what's being done is trying to actively exonerate rapists. You're like a racist saying, "well black people should understand that they're property and trying to change that is wrong."
You're a lunatic that has no morals.

>> ^cracanata:

War zone isn't a place for manners and PC, war is war on any front bringing stress and frustration and in this case the sexual frustration is showing it's teeth. Females should acknowledge the facts in respect of what the war is doing to the males before jumping into this "serving the country" boat, hell even most of men have no clue beforehand. The way I see it - war brings you closer to your natural roots in terms of instincts and needs especially for sexually troubled soon to be adults males.
To me this looks more like a calculated damage form the radical feminists, to further push the anti male agenda, the "Man are Pigs and something has to be done about it"
Also would be very interesting to know what exactly constitutes as "rape" in today's america. For my knowledge there is a very wide range of actions or situations that constitutes as rape or sexual assault in this day and age and has nothing to do with the sexual intercourse.
I might be wrong, I'm no expert, but honestly the PC is sickens me.


No what this does is acknowledge that male soldiers rape female soldiers and something must be done about it, because what's being done is trying to actively exonerate rapists. You're like a racist saying, "well black people should understand that they're property and trying to change that is wrong."

You're a lunatic that has no morals.

You, sir, are absolutely despicable. >> ^cracanata:

War zone isn't a place for manners and PC, war is war on any front bringing stress and frustration and in this case the sexual frustration is showing it's teeth. Females should acknowledge the facts in respect of what the war is doing to the males before jumping into this "serving the country" boat, hell even most of men have no clue beforehand. The way I see it - war brings you closer to your natural roots in terms of instincts and needs especially for sexually troubled soon to be adults males.
To me this looks more like a calculated damage form the radical feminists, to further push the anti male agenda, the "Man are Pigs and something has to be done about it"
Also would be very interesting to know what exactly constitutes as "rape" in today's america. For my knowledge there is a very wide range of actions or situations that constitutes as rape or sexual assault in this day and age and has nothing to do with the sexual intercourse.
I might be wrong, I'm no expert, but honestly the PC is sickens me.

War zone isn't a place for manners and PC, war is war on any front bringing stress and frustration and in this case the sexual frustration is showing it's teeth. Females should acknowledge the facts in respect of what the war is doing to the males before jumping into this "serving the country" boat, hell even most of men have no clue beforehand. The way I see it - war brings you closer to your natural roots in terms of instincts and needs especially for sexually troubled soon to be adults males.
To me this looks more like a calculated damage form the radical feminists, to further push the anti male agenda, the "Man are Pigs and something has to be done about it"
Also would be very interesting to know what exactly constitutes as "rape" in today's america. For my knowledge there is a very wide range of actions or situations that constitutes as rape or sexual assault in this day and age and has nothing to do with the sexual intercourse.
I might be wrong, I'm no expert, but honestly the PC is sickens me.

Call me cynical but, the way i see it, it's one group of muslims wanting to take over from another group of muslims, and has little to do with democracy. They simply want help in imposing their own religious dictats. Helping, in the past, has not led to better relations with the west. In fact, it could be argued, it has increased tensions.

>> ^Trancecoach:

It's a nice use of rhetoric, @NetRunner, but my use of the word if in this case was not to postulate that the stem of the sentence (A) is or could be untrue. I'm using a more syllogistic style suggesting that given that the stem (A) is true, then why not B?

Logic, not rhetoric. There's a difference.

The way I see that argument is as an attempt to prove A is false by contradiction. The way that works is you start with the assumption that your conclusion is false (what if A were true...), and then based on that assumption try to reach a conclusion that's impossible (why would anyone hire men if women are willing to do the same job for less?).

>> ^Trancecoach:
And my response to that, again, (and let me make this clear, because you seem to think that we're in disagreement on this point) is to accept that there is, in fact, a wage disparity on the basis of gender. What I am suggesting, which I believe Rachel doesn't appreciate in this clip, is that there are other, deeper, societal reasons underlying this wage disparity and, thus, there are other, deeper, societal ways to address these reasons which do not include legislation in the manner in which it's being proposed.

Actually I think we're talking about separate propositions. When I say "Women get paid less for equal work", I'm talking about the intersection of these two sets of women:

PL = Women who get paid less than men
EW = Women who provide equal work (i.e. is as productive as a man who works in the same industry, with the same job title, education, experience, hours, etc.)

So what I'm talking about in proposition A is the intersection of PL and EW. In other words women who are being paid less than men for doing the same job. As far as I can tell, you seem to accept the existence of PL, but deny that both PL and EW are happening simultaneously to any significant degree.

In other words, you don't dispute that women are being paid less as a group, you just believe that this is because women as a group aren't doing equal work. They stay at home to raise children, don't pursue advanced degrees, or maybe they just weren't raised to be as outspoken/competitive/aggressive as men. Whatever the cause, you posit that it is this deficit in quality or quantity of work from women which is the primary reason women get paid less than men on average.

That's not a basic agreement with A, that's a wholly different assertion.
>> ^Trancecoach:

While I do not side with conservatives or corporatists on this issue (because I do not deny that the wage disparity exists nor do believe that it's the way it should or ought to be), I do believe there are other underlying factors which include both misogyny and misandry that have fostered the problem to its current state.


That's good, but as I said above, the "other factors" you've presented so far are to suggest that the members of PL are not members of EW. You're suggesting women aren't providing equal work, and this at least partly explains pay disparity.

And yes, I get that you're saying it in a soft, non-accusatory tone -- it's not that women are intrinsically inferior, it's that our society as a whole is shaping them into less valuable workers, whether they want that or not.

Still, I think anytime you go around saying pay discrimination is in any sense justified, you're wading into some dangerously misogynistic waters. Worse, I think if you use the word "myth" to describe the idea that women face unjust pay discrimination, you've pretty much jumped in with both feet.

The textbook stuff is important, but without some cool stuff like this it's hard to absorb the important stuff. The way I see it, these kids will have learnt today what they could have learnt in a fraction of the time by reading a textbook - but these kids will remember this stuff long after the textbook stuff has faded from their minds.

@dystopianfuturetoday

I think you go about prostylization the wrong way. I see you as kind of a digitized version of the guy who stands outside of bars with a megaphone and a sandwich board, passing judgement off on revelers that just don't care at best, and want to pick a fight with you at worst. Well intended, but not persuasive or well received.

I went about things the wrong way when I first arrived here, being somewhat of a neophyte to evangelism, which set the tone for the rest of my time here. Along the way, I've made some mistakes and said some things which further served to marginalize me, which the antitheists here have throughly capitalized on.

I was more hot blooded when I arrived, and cocky, being throughly schooled in all manner of philosophical argumentation, and having been *experienced* in the transcendent, I was more interested in dismantling arguments than showing the love of Christ. I regret that, but what's done is done. What's true is that God makes everything new.

My main failure was to take the bait of the innumerable insults that have been thrown my way. This was simply an immaturity in my faith, not really understanding what Jesus said about how I should react to them. He said to love that person, no matter how much they hate you. Pray for those who persecute you and despitefully use you. The insults are not as bothersome anymore. I'm more interested now in love than argument.

You write these large blocks of text filled with Bible verses, judgement and a good deal of fire and brimstone. FYI: Bible verses, judgement, fire and brimstone only work on people who already believe in and fear God, just as you probably have no fear of Xenu, Allah or Mitt "White Horse" Romney (google it - funny story)

I have a wide variety of conversations on the sift, many of them on historical, philosophical, and scientific topics. People ask me questions about nearly everything, and so I think it would be difficult to pigeonhole my comments this way. Certainly, I have witnessed the truth about Gods judgment, but this isn't my main focus. As far as fearing God goes, you're right, many do not, but their conscience is still witnessing against them.

I'll look up Mitt "white horse" Romney.

The Christians in my life that make me most sympathetic to Christianity are the ones who express their faith through actions, not words. I've only met a handful of these people in my life, but they've all made a positive impact on my life. These are the people who exude love, empathy, understanding and compassion. These are the people that say 'I love you' when you really need to hear 'I love you.' You feel it almost like an aura around them. And, in every case, I had to inquire about them to discover their faith - with none of that uncomfortable evangelizing that comes off more like used car sales pitch than deep expression of faith. And, unlike the used car sales pitch, when I did learn of their faith, I felt a genuine respect for it.

Certainly, Christians should be doing good works at every opportunity. Faith without works is dead. Scripture advises two approaches to reach people. It says some save with mercy, and others with fear. Some people are so hardhearted that the only way to pierce their armor is to make them realize that they will have to answer for their secret sins, the ones that people hide behind their masks of public purity. To let them know that they didn't actually get away with it, whatever it may be. That's kind of why it kind of amuses me when I hear someone say something like "If I saw God I would tell Him off", as if God doesn't have them dead to rights on a list of sins 5 miles long.

Others are like a fragile flower, which must be handled very carefully and gently. Ones who have been abused by the church, for instance. It is truly sad how common this actually is. Of course there are many situations inbetween these two approaches, but in general, it is some combination of the two, leaning towards one of them.

I appreciate what you're saying about your friends. Perhaps this is the way the Holy Spirit has called them to deal with you. They are most certainly praying for your salvation. Again, it depends on the situation. It depends on the kind of relationship, and how much time you have to invest in someone. It is usually expedient to share the gospel in most cases.

Ultimately, it is out of our hands. I can't save anyone; only the power of God can change someones heart. When someone is saved, it is a true miracle.

Of course you can't choose what you believe; what you believe chooses you, so none of these people have brought me any closer to God. But that's OK, because they've done something much more important, they've brought me closer to my fellow humans. They've shown me the power of empathy (not that I'm always the most empathetic person - I've a ways to go in that category) and how contagious just being a good person can really be.

You believe according to your experience, and how interested you are in what is actually true, versus what you appear to see. If you believe that you are generally right about everything, then you will never look beyond your preconceived notions. I only changed my mind about God because He showed me the spiritual reality. I could not logically believe in naturalistic materialism as being a legitimate description of reality after that.

It's wonderful that your friends have taught you something about life, especially concerning the love of God. What Jesus teaches is that every human being has intrinsic value and is worthy of respect and love. He teaches us to love unconditionally and sacrificially, disregarding our own preferences for the good of others. If you can move past all of the contentious issues that surround these topics, and look to the words of Jesus Christ, you will find a transcendent love superior to the wisdom of this world. He gives us a standard of behavior that is impossible for any human being to live up to (without His help). Jesus asks more of you than any other person, in this time or any other, ever will.

I'm not sure if this helps you, especially considering it's pretty hard to refute aggressive atheists if you don't talk a great deal about your faith. Maybe a better path would be to understand where these atheists are coming from and what you have in common. Mutual respect. I don't know.

It does help me, and I appreciate your advice. There is always a better path when there is an argument, although, there is simply no avoiding having to debate certain things, when certain misconceptions are presented as the truth about what Christianity is. Even though you may be predisposed to agree with religious criticism, you must notice the distortions that are bandied about in the atheist community about Christianity and religion in general. I hear the same ones, over and over and over again.

I mean you no offense by this comment, my religious spite phase has mostly passed. I'd like to see you have a little better time on the site and not be the subject of scorn. Many of the discussion you have with atheists seem like a waste of time for all parties, because it's just a clash of worldviews rather than an attempt to find common ground and make progress. Some of the atheists on this site can be very cruel. I don't really follow these long back and forth theological battles anymore, but if someone crosses that line and is cruel to you, I'd be happy to join in on your side. If that appeals to you, drop me a PM.

I'm glad to hear that you are no longer in the business of giving theists a hard time. There are certainly enough people working doubleshift on this that you can walk away with your head held high. Yes, I agree, common ground should be sought out as a matter of course, although it is not an exaggeration to say that convinced atheists and theists typically disagree on almost everything. It's also hard to approach this on a human level, being that this is the internet, and the medium is far inferior for interpersonal communication. It is good for certain kinds of communication, but when it comes to empathy for instance, much is lost.

In any case, I genuinely appreciate your offer. Thank you for your magnanimousness. I may take you up on it sometime. I might also ask you how you see humanity avoiding a dystopianfuturetomorrow.

@shinyblurry Some constructive criticism:

I think you go about prostylization the wrong way. I see you as kind of a digitized version of the guy who stands outside of bars with a megaphone and a sandwich board, passing judgement off on revelers that just don't care at best, and want to pick a fight with you at worst. Well intended, but not persuasive or well received.

You write these large blocks of text filled with Bible verses, judgement and a good deal of fire and brimstone. FYI: Bible verses, judgement, fire and brimstone only work on people who already believe in and fear God, just as you probably have no fear of Xenu, Allah or Mitt "White Horse" Romney (google it - funny story)

The Christians in my life that make me most sympathetic to Christianity are the ones who express their faith through actions, not words. I've only met a handful of these people in my life, but they've all made a positive impact on my life. These are the people who exude love, empathy, understanding and compassion. These are the people that say 'I love you' when you really need to hear 'I love you.' You feel it almost like an aura around them. And, in every case, I had to inquire about them to discover their faith - with none of that uncomfortable evangelizing that comes off more like used car sales pitch than deep expression of faith. And, unlike the used car sales pitch, when I did learn of their faith, I felt a genuine respect for it.

Of course you can't choose what you believe; what you believe chooses you, so none of these people have brought me any closer to God. But that's OK, because they've done something much more important, they've brought me closer to my fellow humans. They've shown me the power of empathy (not that I'm always the most empathetic person - I've a ways to go in that category) and how contagious just being a good person can really be.

I'm not sure if this helps you, especially considering it's pretty hard to refute aggressive atheists if you don't talk a great deal about your faith. Maybe a better path would be to understand where these atheists are coming from and what you have in common. Mutual respect. I don't know.

I mean you no offense by this comment, my religious spite phase has mostly passed. I'd like to see you have a little better time on the site and not be the subject of scorn. Many of the discussion you have with atheists seem like a waste of time for all parties, because it's just a clash of worldviews rather than an attempt to find common ground and make progress. Some of the atheists on this site can be very cruel. I don't really follow these long back and forth theological battles anymore, but if someone crosses that line and is cruel to you, I'd be happy to join in on your side. If that appeals to you, drop me a PM.

Since you wasted your time downvoting my comment Mr Fisk, I'll tell you something else. Anyone who says "video submissions, which is the most essential aspect of videosift" doesn't even remotely understand this site. Videos are the mayo on the BLT that is the sift. They're the cheese on the burger. The salt on the fries. The ice in my ... The point is, I'm fucking hungry and this is pissing me off now.

The way I see it, you can watch videos anywhere. ALL of the videos on the sift were already somewhere else before they got here. That's sift law tough guy! So, it's not about videos. It's about people. Get it?