It's a farce to think contemplating how large the universe has nothing to do with the grand design.
The Universe itself is only the tip of the iceberg - it's not nihilism, the truth is we do not know anything at all ; but the journey to continue on the path of real Truth by piecing it together is one of the more beautiful and meaningful aspects of life in a world so closed-minded, fearful & narcissistic. It is all in the eye-of-the beholder but know that no religion knows what the powers that be are... we will probably never even develop the senses to get anywhere close to understanding.

I understand atheism, I used to consider myself one. But, I think atheism gives itself too much credit in face of the vastness amount of possibilities / possible impossibilities we will never understand but could maybe to a finite degree, comprehend (edit: through imagination).

This guy says it best "It's humongous big." True that, brother. Keep on spacin' out, it's the closest we will get to any sort of truth.


>> ^shinyblurry:

Good advice for matters of petty materialism, bad advice for everything else. The significance of Earth isn't measured by the vastness of the Cosmos, nor is the significance of our lives, and the impact of our choices. Personal responibility is intimately connected to matters of justice, of love and mercy, and ultimately life and death. I hope he keeps investigating and sees through the stumbling block of nihilism inherent in atheistic naturalism and opens his eyes to the bigger picture and the grander design.

>> ^wormwood:

I have started to wonder a lot more about where all that money is going TO. People have started counting these dollars as though they are equal to votes, with the actual votes seeming to matter less and less. When do we just dispense with this troublesome voting and just weight candidates money piles in November? But seriously, where does all the money go? TV commercials, lavish banquets and ?????. Can you really spend a billion dollars on that? What happened to one man one vote? It's like we don't even get one anymore--the slot in the box doesn't accept ballots, just $1000 bills.
>> ^ghark:
Dammnit, Marbles fooled me, I upvoted his comment then I realised he was blaming most of that stuff on the Government. The root of the problem is lobbyists influencing the Government. I hear Obama wants to raise one billion dollars for the next election cycle, I wonder where that money is going to come from, and what it will mean for the decisions he makes after he is likely re-elected?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/04/barack-obama-re-election-r
un



In terms of what the money gets used for, it's a very good question and something that certainly needs more attention. As far as who's getting it, I was kind of surprised to recently see that the money is allowed to go to some very unexpected places - the so called super congress had raised over $300,000 in donations by the end of September alone, with most of that going to 2 Republicans and 3 Democrats on the committee.

http://www.iwatchnews.org/2011/10/18/7138/super-congress-hauls-super-donations-special-interests-try-influence-budget-cuts

I don't know if that's just the tip of the iceberg though, with the Citizen's United ruling, there may be other PAC's donating far more.

Also, after watching all this video, my one gripe is that he seems to put too much focus on political ideology, he talks a lot about how Communism, Socialism etc can work, and is working in some parts of the world, but I would say that of greater importance is how accountable those in charge of the system are. I mean, Democracy is turning out to be worse than any other system in the history of the world but it's not because the principle of letting people have a vote is bad, it's because those in charge are abusing the system.

The environment is getting destroyed on unprecedented scales that were impossible previously
Millions have been, and are being, slaughtered because of kleptocratic regimes installed by the US
In the EU, bankers are being installed to lead countries, while political parties get merged - in so called 'democratic' countries
Austerity measures are being imposed on the middle class in many countries, while the rich are doing as well, or better than ever

I think it's human nature to want to vote for a person that you think will stand up for the principles you believe in, but in reality I think you are right wormwood - one man one vote is quite a meaningless term these days, especially so because we are in the age of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and Speechnow v. FEC decisions.

I'm glad he bothered to keep the radar on the HUD; I wonder if that thing picks up icebergs?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ghark:
Enjoyed the vid, but I have to say I really stopped watching most of Maddow's stuff lately, she seems to try to perpetuate the myth that there is actually a divide between Republicans and Democrats.
I think there's a myth that it's a myth there's a divide between Democrats and Republicans.
Like, where's all the Democratic legislation that's trying to disenfranchise Republican voter demographics?
Are Democrats going out and saying that taxing the rich is "class warfare" and therefore a taboo topic for discussion?
Are Democrats trying to destroy Social Security and Medicare?
Are the Democrats saying national healthcare is a secret plot to commit genocide?
I'm all for trying to rearrange American politics so it doesn't have this huge right-wing corporatist tilt, but spreading this myth that there's no difference between the parties doesn't help.
Part of convincing more politicians to move to the left and stand up to corporations would be to reward the ones who take a stand with your support. Withdrawing it (and encouraging others to do the same) because you're disappointed with their ability to deliver doesn't help tilt things back to the left. On the contrary, it helps ensure that the tilt to the right continues.
As an aside, I haven't seen Cenk promote that bogus myth. He's a lot harder on Democrats than Maddow (or Olbermann), but I've never seen him promote the "voting is meaningless" lie. I hope what he's been saying is some form of "voting against Republicans isn't enough -- we need to pressure the Democrats to move left too!"


In terms of Democratic legislation that disenfranchises Republican voter demographics, I think that's really the point, it isn't there.

In terms of public remonstration that taxation is 'class warfare' I think they've made their public opinion clear, they think taxes on the rich should be raised (so they appear to be on the other side of the fence to the GOP), however what they say and what they do are two different things, I think this is a good example of them playing a pretty standard political game. There is plenty of public voice (even here! See QM) saying the 'taxocrats' are all about raising taxes - but in reality the complete opposite is true, the wealthy are enjoying some of the lowest tax rates in US history. So I would say no, they are not trying to stifle discussion on raising taxes, rather that their words become rather meaningless when looking at their results. Did the Dems not enjoy a filibuster-proof 60 seat senate majority after the elections, I would love to know if they achieved anything meaningful during that period, I really honestly would.

In terms of social security, I give you this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html
In terms of Medicare, the debt ceiling negotiations results in the reduction of physicians medicare reimbursements, and further reductions may happen down the road once the super committee has finished their work. But in those 'negotiations' they ended the tax break on the wealthy right? Unfortunately not.

In terms of genocide plots etc, their role is to keep a voter base so that wouldn't be smart, however once again, what matters are results.

As far as convincing politicians to move left, I really wish that were possible, but in 2010 three and a half billion dollars was spent by lobbyists alone, there's just no way you can get your voice to make a difference when you're up against that - and lobbyist money is just the tip of the iceberg, many politicians receive far more money in contributions from other sources, take a look at Harry Reid for example:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00009922
There's a video that's just been posted on the sift of Dick Durbin decrying BoA's new credit/debit card fee's, however this 'voice of reason' has taken over 9 million in contributions in the past 4 years from all manner of sources (including pro-israel). What does this mean? It means he votes yes for bills like H.R. 3080 and H.R. 3079 that will ship US jobs overseas and reduce working conditions in those countries affected (Korea, Panama and Columbia), in addition to supporting a government that is involved in the active killing of journalists that try to expose the brutality of the regime in place (in Columbia).

You just.... can't compete with the influence that that amount of money brings, I'm sorry.

Cenk changed on MSNBC, that was quite clear, and he even explained why that was in his interview after he left - he was being pressured to fall in line and not go too heavy on the Democrats. in fact I think the video you posted 7 months ago is the best demonstration of that, and ironically I commented on it back then too:
http://videosift.com/video/Cenk-to-Wisconsin-Progressives-No-Compromise

Some of his quotes from the clip:
"the war that the Republicans want to start"
"they are coming after you" (referring to the GOP)
"I have a bold proposal tonight, that we fight back" (the 'we' meaning we Democrats)
"Thank god so far the Democrats aren't going to give in to his threats"
"They always reject the word compromise" (GOP again)

and the Pièce de résistance comes at 4:10,
"I have this crazy new idea, how about two can play at that game, how about WE don't compromise either" (this is clearly setup to mean the Dem's)

Did he not just try to get people to buy into the idea that it's us (the Dem's!) vs the GOP (them!).

He had the balls to reject a nice offer from MSNBC and go back to his show where he can speak his mind rather than try to persuade people it's us vs them on the mainstream media.

If you listen to him since he's left, he's gone back to his old, relatively unbiased nature, for example in his recent interview with Al Gore, when Al says that he still has hope in Obama to make 'change' Cenk goes out of his way to say that he is quite clearly 'less hopeful' than Al that Obama will bring about change, i.e. he's pretty much back to his old pre-MSNBC self.

So I think it's safe to draw the conclusion that the mainstream media (MSNBC) used Cenk to try to perpetuate the myth that it's 'us vs. them', because since leaving he has been far more candid. This is the exact same type of thing I see In Rachel unfortunately, and that's why I wish I could see her with her own independent show, she would be awesome on the RNN for example.

Anyway, you already know all this, you're the one posting some of the video's that bought me to the conclusion I did, so I would be interested to hear why you disagree with my position.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I heretofore pronounce that no right-wing person knows anything about freedom or liberty. Only the left understands these concepts.
Lol...
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/29/2430644/nc-gov-perdues-r
emark-strikes.html
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/94940/peter-orszag-democ
racy
Now - this is just the tip of the iceberg of course. Leftists and neolibs everywhere are very comfortable with the idea of limiting freedoms, reducing choice, and otherwise stomping on personal liberty in the name of thier so-called 'progressive' beliefs. Netrunner - imma callin' you out on this one. You've got it 100% backwards. The people who don't know jack-squat about freedom or liberty are LEFTISTS. They hate freedom. They hate liberty. They want everyone to live under their benevolent heel with freedoms appropriately doled out by themselves. I'm saying it loud and I'm saying it proud. No true neolib understands a thing about freedom. They only want freedom as THEY define it - which means people are free to obey leftist dogma but arrested, insulted, or killed if they dare to believe anything else. Hyperbole? Nope. The worst massacres and genocides in all history were by leftist regimes. Deal with it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy


I expect you to write a 500 word - abstract on each of these concepts. There need to be at least 2 academic sources used per paper. Hmm.

Come to think of it, you should first write an abstract on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Scholarly_peer_review just to make sure you understand what is expected of you.

I heretofore pronounce that no right-wing person knows anything about freedom or liberty. Only the left understands these concepts.

Lol...

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/29/2430644/nc-gov-perdues-remark-strikes.html

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/94940/peter-orszag-democracy

Now - this is just the tip of the iceberg of course. Leftists and neolibs everywhere are very comfortable with the idea of limiting freedoms, reducing choice, and otherwise stomping on personal liberty in the name of thier so-called 'progressive' beliefs. Netrunner - imma callin' you out on this one. You've got it 100% backwards. The people who don't know jack-squat about freedom or liberty are LEFTISTS. They hate freedom. They hate liberty. They want everyone to live under their benevolent heel with freedoms appropriately doled out by themselves. I'm saying it loud and I'm saying it proud. No true neolib understands a thing about freedom. They only want freedom as THEY define it - which means people are free to obey leftist dogma but arrested, insulted, or killed if they dare to believe anything else. Hyperbole? Nope. The worst massacres and genocides in all history were by leftist regimes. Deal with it.

Well, I have to give it to Ron Paul. He could well be the most sane of the Republican nominees this year (with the exception of Huntsman). Although, saying 'the most sane Republican nominee' is like saying 'the warmest iceberg'. He's still batshit insane, he just has occasional bouts of lucidity.

It is really easy to fall into the trap of believe the philosophy of trickle down economics, but as Warren says the facts have never born this out.

Every time taxes are cut, it results in an increase in tax revenues because it increases personal wealth, which creates more tax payers, and establishes an environment that gives the private sector confidence. Carter’s 70% top marginal tax rates and leftist liberal policies brought the nation to fiscal collapse. Buffett has it 100% backwards. Taxes cut. Tax revenues up. It works every time. That’s why even OBAMA didn’t want to end the Bush tax cuts – because he himself admitted it would hurt the economy in December 2010. Neolibs like to ignore that particular bit of Obama rhetoric - but I do not forget such things...

Buffet believes that there should be two or three more levels to the tax code and that capital gains taxes should be graduated to appropriately tax the super rich who make money with money.

The problem is not that there isn’t a bigger tax category at the top. We’ve had a rate as high as 94% back in 1944. It was 70% under Carter. The problem is a labyrinthine tax code that people can game by moving money & assets around. We just need to simplify the code to eliminate the exemptions for businesses and the ‘money’ rich. There’s no need for a new, higher top marginal tax rate. The ‘rich’ already pay the bulk of our taxes.

Like him or not, Clinton's economic policies navigated our country to tremendous economic prosperity.

No. Clinton was nothing a serviceable – but barnacle-covered – rudder. He didn’t screw up what was already going well. That isn’t great praise, but it still makes him a better CiC than Bush2 or Obama. Bush1 was the guy that raised the taxes. Clinton merely coasted along on the dot-com bubble. Oh, and also the Republican “Contact with America” was forced down Clinton’s throat. And he had a few impeachable offenses that prevented him from pushing more spending. The GOP cut spending, which created an environment friendly for the business community to create prosperity. You can thank fiscal conservatives for the 90s and early 00s – not Clinton.

Sometimes doing the right thing means doing something unpleasant.

Yes – cutting big-government social spending in favor of small-government freedom-oriented systems is seen as unpleasant, but it is the right thing to do.

Dude, nobody in this thread is advocating a tax rate of 80% … Why is a moderate increase on tax rates paramount to pure socialism and gov't control on the economy?

I wryly notice that the actual QUESTION I posed remains stubbornly ignored. What would happen IF (!IF!) the tax rate at the top went to 70% ala Carter? Or 94% ala Roosevelt? Would the problems be solved? I think even the most dyed-in-the-wool neolib knows deep down in their reluctant-to-admit souls that high top marginal tax rates do not solve anything. Even a 100% tax rate does not come within 16.9 trillion (heh) miles of the real problem. Every thin dime of the new taxes would just vanish into a black hole, and the debt/deficit would not be touched except in name. We have precedence for this conclusion.

Tax hikes take place immediately, but the spending cuts are always pushed 10 years into the future where they disappear. Our tax rates are already high enough. Our corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world. The issue is the huge amount of SPENDING taking place.

I hope this simple explanation helps all the neolibs out… Our current debt is 16.9 trillion dollars.

1. A simple federal budget freeze on spending to current 2011 levels would cut our debt by 10 trillion in 10 years.
2. Increasing the top marginal tax rate to 100% would cut the debt by 2 trillion in 10 years

Simple freeze? 10 trillion. A ridiculous 100% tax rate? Only 2 trillion. Where does that tell you the real problem lies? Fussing with tax rates at the top is nothing but rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The iceberg is spending.

there are two different tickets issued.
one for illegally parking in a blue zone - this is quite wrong, but can be seen as a spontaneous act of a*holeness.

the 2nd is for actively falsifying a document to make it legal for yourself to take parking spaces from disabled people - this is truly the act of a sociopath, most likely just the tip of the iceberg for these people.

I'm sorry you lost your papa so early. That is fucked up, too.

I think it is great that it never occurred to you that someone would set out to make their child cry. That speaks well of your parents and your happy childhood.

My feelings weren't hurt by this video -- sorry if I gave that impression. My father was ignorant and unthinking. He would never consciously hurt me -- nor is the guy with stretched lobes consciously hurting his child.

All I am trying to do is make conscious to unreflecting minds that you don't do this to a baby or a small child. It needs to be said. Not everyone needs to be told this. My dad needed to hear it. This guy needs to be told. Neither of them thought/think they are doing anything untoward -- this guy posted the vid on Youtube! Someone up above makes a comment about what a great face the baby makes. It needs to be said, clearly. So I am saying it.

My delivery may be overwrought. The message is simple.

I'm staring at a half empty bottle of wine left over from last night's weekly So You Think You Can Dance tv party. It is looking more tempting all the time...

There's a great vid of women failing rather spectacularly at motocross that is pretty amusing. Have you seen it yet? http://videosift.com/video/X-Games-17-Women-can-t-dunk-but-have-good-fundamentals

>> ^mintbbb:

Is OK.. Like I said, I didn't mean to post this to hurt anybodys feelings. Maybe I am naive to think that nobody would make a baby cry on purpose. One thing that ticks me off here is people saying that the dad must be a mean because he has stretched earlobes. I do not like extreme body modifications like that myself, but having them doesn't make you a bad or mean person.
I know my parents didn't scare me as a kid, and my dad was the most wonderful person ever, and he died when I was 18. I had a happy childhood, my parents were great, and still I ended up being pretty much totally fucked up: I am insecure, I keep my distance, I am grumpy, scared of way too many things, and I get easily obsessed with things like VS, or WOW. And that's just the top of the iceberg! I am lucky to have found my DH NetRunner who puts up with my weirdness and loves me no matter what.
I do not know why I ended up this way. Maybe if I had been scared with a 'muhahaha' as a baby I would have grown up to be less afraid of silly things. Who knows. I think I was being kept too safe as a kid and the real life scared the crap out of me.
Every kid grows up different. I still think this dad didn't mean to make his kid cry. Unfortunaterly he did, but I am sure the kid will be OK. This dad is not going to torture his kid even if he has stretched lobes!
OK, probably time for another drink now.. I was not going to comment on this.. I just want to sift silly, mindless videos that make people happy. Most of the time.

1259068'>^bareboards2:

Is OK.. Like I said, I didn't mean to post this to hurt anybodys feelings. Maybe I am naive to think that nobody would make a baby cry on purpose. One thing that ticks me off here is people saying that the dad must be a mean because he has stretched earlobes. I do not like extreme body modifications like that myself, but having them doesn't make you a bad or mean person.

I know my parents didn't scare me as a kid, and my dad was the most wonderful person ever, and he died when I was 18. I had a happy childhood, my parents were great, and still I ended up being pretty much totally fucked up: I am insecure, I keep my distance, I am grumpy, scared of way too many things, and I get easily obsessed with things like VS, or WOW. And that's just the top of the iceberg! I am lucky to have found my DH NetRunner who puts up with my weirdness and loves me no matter what.

I do not know why I ended up this way. Maybe if I had been scared with a 'muhahaha' as a baby I would have grown up to be less afraid of silly things. Who knows. I think I was being kept too safe as a kid and the real life scared the crap out of me.

Every kid grows up different. I still think this dad didn't mean to make his kid cry. Unfortunaterly he did, but I am sure the kid will be OK. This dad is not going to torture his kid even if he has stretched lobes!

OK, probably time for another drink now.. I was not going to comment on this.. I just want to sift silly, mindless videos that make people happy. Most of the time.



1259068'>^bareboards2:

Look guys, my father did this to me.
And yeah, now years later I have emotional outbursts.
But go ahead and jump on me, downvote my comments, upvote the comments that take me to task. Just like I said you would. That doesn't make me a victim. It shows how smart I am. I'm predictable? So are you, my friends, so are you.
Just... when you get to be fathers and mothers, please remember this unpleasant comment stream and how annoying I am. And then -- Please. Do. Not. Tease. Your. Babies. For. Your. Own. Amusement.
Or they might grow up just like me. You don't want that now, do you? That is devotedly to be wished, right?
Show kindness. Understand that babies and small children are not complicated thinkers. Their worlds are different and more simple.
Show kindness, that is all I am saying.
Sorry, again, mint. I know this isn't much fun. I'm not enjoying it either. I did have two glasses of wine, like you suggested. They clearly didn't help.

sexy , I dont know about that... but in the event of a ferry accident, water landing, iceberg, etc. I am running like hell for this girl

I realize I'm feeding a troll here but...

@shinyblurry You need to do some research that isn't listening to a preacher who's sole purpose is indoctrination.

1) Provide an example of one human fossil found in strata determined to be millions of years before humans. There is no documentation of this that hasn't been debunked. The fact you bring this up proves that you don't even know your own side, as this argument has been terribly embarrassing for creationists.

2) The polystrate fossil claim is a straw man. Yes, there are fossils that cross multiple strata, but these examples always show evidence of rapid sedimentation/deposition. Not every layer takes thousands/millions of years

3) What does the speed of stalactite production have to do with the age of the earth? Another straw man.

There is no controversy. Really. Do some real research, stop repeating already debunked garbage that came from your preacher.
>> ^shinyblurry:

You can stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes all you want..there is a controversy and the only ones who dispute that are the ones who just buy into it without doing any real investigation. Also you've missed the entire point..this isnt an anti-science video. Science supports a young earth creation and I am all for it. This video debunks evolution, which is a hoax perpetrated on the public, taught in schools as if it were fact, and we believe it. I believed it. Every geologist knows there are problems with these dating methods.
If you watch some of the other videos you'll find out things the scientific community doesn't tell you like:
They find human remains in all levels of the strata..layaers that are supposed to be hundreds of millions of years before human beings.
They find polystrate fossils all the time, which are trees that poke through hundreds of millions of years worth of layers.
Fossils and stalactites don't take millions of years to form..just decades.
That's just the tip of the iceberg. So if you want to pretend there is no controversy, feel free. I know your entire world view hinges on it. The evidence however speaks for itself, and its out there for anyone with an actual curiosity to find.

>> ^Stormsinger:
You can scrape the bottom of the intellectual barrel to come up with these moronic videos for as long as you like. But until you can design, build and power a computer with prayer, I'll continue to put -my- trust (not faith) in the scientific method. And this ain't it.
THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY over whether or not evolution takes place. The only controversy comes from religious fanatics trying to teach their superstitions in our science classes.

You can stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes all you want..there is a controversy and the only ones who dispute that are the ones who just buy into it without doing any real investigation. Also you've missed the entire point..this isnt an anti-science video. Science supports a young earth creation and I am all for it. This video debunks evolution, which is a hoax perpetrated on the public, taught in schools as if it were fact, and we believe it. I believed it. Every geologist knows there are problems with these dating methods.

If you watch some of the other videos you'll find out things the scientific community doesn't tell you like:

They find human remains in all levels of the strata..layaers that are supposed to be hundreds of millions of years before human beings.

They find polystrate fossils all the time, which are trees that poke through hundreds of millions of years worth of layers.

Fossils and stalactites don't take millions of years to form..just decades.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. So if you want to pretend there is no controversy, feel free. I know your entire world view hinges on it. The evidence however speaks for itself, and its out there for anyone with an actual curiosity to find.



>> ^Stormsinger:
You can scrape the bottom of the intellectual barrel to come up with these moronic videos for as long as you like. But until you can design, build and power a computer with prayer, I'll continue to put -my- trust (not faith) in the scientific method. And this ain't it.
THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY over whether or not evolution takes place. The only controversy comes from religious fanatics trying to teach their superstitions in our science classes.

@braindonut

"I get the argument of "people don't want to come to god, because their sins will be revealed." But this is a fallacious argument - an ad hominem attack. Just saying that I don't believe in something because I clearly have a bunch of faults that I'm trying to hide does not make it so."

Well, I am not going to press you here since I don't know what you've done in your life, but in my experience this is true. Most of the people I find running away from God are prideful and sinful, and they don't want to stop. They don't want their "freedom" to sin restricted in any way because they are only living for that gratification and they don't think there is anything else.

Remember, I believe in the literal truth of these statements..it only seems like an attack to you because you see all things are being equal here, and don't think God is real. I see it as a completely accurate description of the state of things, then and now.

"And by what do I measure my morality? I measure it through the impact on others, how much it affects the general well being of humanity. Obviously, it's my own morality which is constantly improving and questioning itself. However, saying that it's filthy rags in comparison to god does not make it so."

If God exists, and is Holy, then our righteousness would be a broken thing compared to His..since we're all sinners. In any case, I would ask..how would you measure the general well being of humanity? How do you know what is best for one human, let alone all of them?

"And yes, everyone has done "evil," if you want to call it that. Including god, if we accept that premise. I've read the bible, and I underlined every situation that was immorality due to god with a red pencil. There were too many underlines to count. But how does one consider something immoral? That's a big and excellent question. The wholesale slaughter of humanity, aka genocide - that qualifies as evil for me. And that's just the tip of the iceberg in regards to the evil that is attributed to the Christian god."

How do you judge an omnipotent being? What is your basis of comparison? How do you judge a holy God who has never done evil? Lets take the flood for example. You say wiping out humanity was evil. Yet this is what the bible says:

Genesis 6:5-8

The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

It says that man was entirely corrupted except for Noah. That he was the only man left capable of doing Gods will. Now, would it be more merciful to have let Noah perish in this environment and let man become wholly degenerate, living completely futile lives until they utterly destroyed themselves anyway? Or was it better for God to wipe the slate clean and give humanity another chance?

"And simply saying that gods thoughts are higher than my thoughts does not make it so, nor does it convince me even remotely. What I am looking for is for YOUR thoughts to be higher than mine, since you are currently the person I am engaging with. If gods thoughts are higher than mine, he certainly hasn't demonstrated it. And that saying "You can't talk your way out of something you behaved yourself into" applies here. (of course, I'm just talking stories...)

And I didn't say I would go to hell to make a point. I said that if the premise I laid out is accurate (which I assume it is since you didn't challenge it), it seems obvious to me that an ethical person who truly cares about their integrity wouldn't be able to side with god. At the very least, it would be an extreme conflict that would take enormous rationalization to sweep aside. But what I described doesn't seem like madness, to me. I think it seems like the only honorable and honest position."

I just made the point to illustrate that God is Holy, and it is impossible for someone who isn't holy to judge someone who is. The ultimate point I was making really was that its impossible for any human being to judge God.

I am an ethical person, and God is the reason for that. Someone who doesn't know God is only going to see God from the angle of His punishment, because it is hanging over their heads. God is love, and He doesn't want to punish anyone. But if He didn't punish sin, He wouldn't be just.

I think people have a lot of hypocripsy on this viewpoint here..for instance..atheists will support the death penalty and life in prison for serious crimes. To an atheist, this punishment is permanent because they believe death is the end of life..but they have no problem supporting a human doing that to another human. Yet God, who created us and has the power of life and death..they can't support His punishment. Would it be just for humans to let murders run free? If we did this place would quickly devolve into anarchy. So if that is just punishment why isn't Gods punishment just?

No one here would advocate we shouldn't lock up rapists murderers and pedophiles..so why you are outraged when God punishes our crimes? He is the only one who could actually be completely fair about it, knowing as He does every last detail.

"And the idea that god would setup a world where he knows people aren't going to do what he wants, so he has to punish them, but then he gets tired of that so he eventually creates a manifestation of himself that he then gets killed/sacrificed... and all of this is so that he can create a loophole for all of humanity to make it into heaven... I'm sorry, this doesn't seem like godly, virtuous behavior, it seems like bronze age mythology and reasoning."

I think it's clear that God has foreknowledge. Yet, I don't think it's all predestined. God gives us choices and we couldn't make a choice if we didn't have free will to make one. When we receive Christ it literally says that God doesn't remember our sins anymore. So, to me this suggests He can arrange things around His omnipresent knowledge. He could easily set things up to give us real freedom. I think I could even figure out a way to do that.

"In conclusion, I truthfully used to be a very devout Christian. I did believe, strongly. However, I never experienced anything that would indicate that god exists. I did ask for him to reveal himself and I still have a standing invitation which he is more than welcome to fulfill at any moment. However, I find nothing interesting or compelling about the concept that I have to truly believe in order for him to show himself to me. One, that clearly wasn't the case (and don't tell me that I clearly didn't believe enough...). Two, deeply held beliefs are shown to cause people to look for validation of their world view, no matter how small or insignificant, because it's those rationalizations and experiences that fuels their continued dependency on belief

I make no claims to knowing that a god doesn't exist, but I definitely have more than enough reasons not to believe in the god of the Bible. Such a leap is not something I can honestly do - and yes, that's a moral stance. It's the same reason I don't lie to people - I also can't lie to myself. I really appreciate how much time and effort you put into your response. Thank you very much."

Well, lets take the example of Mother Teresa. She didn't hear from God for a period of over 40 years. Yet, she kept the faith and did what God commanded her to do the entire time. Personally, I have special revelation that God is real. It's not an issue for me at all..to me God is as real as my reflection in a mirror.

Now lets take your case as an example. Perhaps God has tested your love. You know first of all that we know God through faith, a faith which you abandoned after not getting the evidence you desired, which is entirely contrary to what God told you to do. Now if you were God and you knew that someone would love you only for a time and then leave you, unless you provided something extra above and beyond the perfect love you were already giving them, along with the fact that they wouldn't honor any of the promises they made to you ultimately, maybe you wouldn't give them any signs either. Maybe you would let them go and hope they would be able to see the difference and come back to you. Just a thought.

I also appreciate this discussion and I think you for your civility and magnanomousness. God bless.