I love two things about this trailer:

1) They use the Peanuts theme song which is timeless and wonderful
2) The way it looks. Love the art direction and it looks so much like the old stuff but with newer technology.

Hope it's good.

"American sports have loads of delays and gaps":

The Durban Test match (cricket) between South Africa and England was to be played as a timeless Test match and some eleven days later it was still left drawn since England had to begin their two-day rail journey back to their ship at Cape Town.
It still remains the longest ever first-class match of ten days of actual play. The match was abondoned (sic) as a draw after 43 hours 16 minutes of actual play.
*(from here)*

...Somehow, I think that a kiss cam or some other entertainment (sure, why not a juggler too?) would be a very welcome addition in a match like that. Eleven days, so 264 hours, with 43+ hours of active game play. Better make it a long list of entertainment!

@alien_concept

Thanks! I was struggling to come up with a username, and then I just decided to accept my true nature.

And this is a timeless issue that I think we've all run into at times. A woman comes to a man to talk about her emotions. The man sees that she has a problem, and tries to help her solve it. This frustrates the woman - she only wanted to share her troubles with him, and she feels insulted that he would assume she is incapable of solving her own problems. This, in turn, frustrates the man; after all, why would she come to him if she won't accept his help? He's sincerely doing his best, and he feels that she is being unfair and overly emotional.

A fight ensues, and neither party understands how it even happened, or how to find a way out of it.

And as I have a VERY emotional mother and VERY rational father, I've been on both sides, as well as in the middle, of this conflict many times.

As for Assange, he once said that Sweden is the "Saudi Arabia of feminism," and having grown up here, I can vouch for the veracity of that statement.

It has gotten to the point here that most guys are just too afraid to stand up to even the most obvious acts of bigotry because the one-way sexism has become so widely accepted. We're only left with three choices; we either accept the abuse and join in it ourselves, or we simply give up and take it with a sort of hopeless resignation.

Since I can't stand to be victimized, I favour the third option; pointing out the bullshit and then riposting with facts, logic and righteous anger.

But I've had some utterly INSANE examples of sexism happen in the classroom, including a teacher derailing a lecture right at the beginning of it and instead spending her entire hour to essentially claim that all men are either rapists or potential rapists, and as a guy, it's just difficult to know what to do in that situation.

It's also very hurtful, as I find rape to be one of the most despicable acts imaginable.

And... that's why my reaction to this guy's poem was so strong. It's like he's been abused for so long that he's begun to think that it's actually true.

You gave your son a very good answer! Men and women are different from one another (though this isn't entirely set in stone), and I think that anybody who claims otherwise simply prefers ideology or fantasy (same thing, really) over reality.

And for what it's worth, I think those differences are pretty freaking valuable. I love women, and part of the reason for that is the fact that they aren't men.

I think it has to be a combination of the same person in multiple roles, across multiple films, that all happen to share extremely similar vocabulary. I'm sure you could make one for every actor if you narrowed it down to, say, "Will Smith says 'And'".
Samuel L Jackson probably has a near-monopoly on a montage of multi-film "mother fucker" lines.

My favorite is still the Shia Labeouf "no no no no" montage. That ones timeless.

Exactly - political correctness has little, if anything to do with it (and I don't think @radx actually meant otherwise in his/her title). It's a joke, it's funny because it's well scripted and well acted and that's timeless.

It seems there are many people saying political correctness has gone too far (and IMHO sometimes it does) while others say modern society is too liberal and decency has gone out the window (and IMHO sometimes it has). On the whole, we are now allowed, to a point, to express ourselves but are no longer allowed to call people of a different race insulting names, for example.

It's not perfect, but I think we're in a much better place now than, say, 60 years ago when women weren't allowed to wear short skirts but you could bar black people from entering your business.

When I hear the phrase "it's political correctness gone mad", I hear "now when I'm a bigoted asshole, someone will call me out on it".

Stewart Lee sums my feelings up pretty well (edit: damn, the video's dead).

Timeless indeed!
*hits replay for the third time*

Man - bet my face looks constipated when listening to this.

Thanks @Hybrid for promoting the timeless classic, coming soon to your town!

It is a bit surreal for me to hear the Huapango de Moncayo which is almost like our national anthem here in Mexico, while viewing Obama´s Legacy. Am used to seeing very Mexican patriotic images with that music.

... but hey, its an awesome timeless piece.

@shinyblurry

If God exists, the entire Universe is empirical evidence of His existence. Is this not the case?

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.

You happen to think its plausible that this is all happenstance, which I think requires quite a bit more faith than belief in a supernatural creation.

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.

The main point is, trying to test for God is a fairly absurd idea. How would you do that?

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. 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.

The nation of israel, for example, being reformed after 2000 years was predicted by prophecy.

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 destruction of Jerusalem was also predicted in advance.

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).

As was the coming of the Messiah.

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.

Eternal is timelessness

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.

I think He will probably test the genuineness of your prayer. To God, talk is cheap. Anyone can say those words, but only those who mean them will find Him. He may offer you a choice that requires you to soften your heart and do something you wouldn't normally do. So be aware of that in the days to come.

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

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.

this is pretty *terrible music, the likes of which died in the 80s -- after which, simply became embarrassing.

Tits, however, always timeless.

Timeless.

The thing was an hour long, and believe it or not, I've seen lots of TV shows of people giving their stories of wacky supernatural/mystical things that happened to them, and I was pretty sure seeing one more wouldn't tip the balance, just like watching another Donald Trump stump speech would lead me to think Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. My first comment was about what you had said about God having patience. My second comment was about my own theory of the link between mental trauma and mystical experience. Neither required me to spend an hour watching it. I'm sure you're probably sick of people lumping you in with all the crazy religious people we see in the world, so why do it to me? I mentioned that I hadn't watched it just in case my prediction was wrong (seems it might have been -- still haven't watched it), in which case you could ignore it or politely tell me so.

The reason young people and atheists (I'm not young, BTW) might not be interested in seeing a show like this is that it's utterly unreliable. Young people in the West are more skilled in critical thinking today than ever before, and atheists are a self-selecting group of people who require reliable evidence for things. To both groups, an anecdotal testimony recreation on TV is one of the least reliable sources of evidence. Your story, SB, as you've presented it here, is more credible than this one, and I've spent many, many hours reading, thinking and commenting about it, so cut me a little slack, will ya? No promises, but I do now intend to watch it all and comment at some time. Relatively busy the next several weeks

Sorry to lump you in, and yes I do understand that time is fleeting. I am not exactly jazzed to watch many of the videos I see here on the sift, but I will if there is potential for a good conversation. It's just a frustration that I encounter that many people are unwilling to consider what you're saying, or indeed even read it. It's probably just a cultural thing. I think more and more people have ADD and we are programmed in the culture to need instant gratification. In any case, I do not say you are like that. You have engaged me and considered what I have said, if not only to falsify it, but that's okay. I have enjoyed our conversations.

I'm not operating in any way towards any god. I don't believe in them, remember? Your specific God cannot exist as described, and I am so sceptical of any other gods that I live as if they don't exist either. You are operating under the faulty premise that I will accept something other than empirical evidence as the foundation of anything I believe. What makes you think I (or any other sceptic) would suddenly change my approach now, when it comes to arguably the single most important fact of my existence? Why would I lower the bar of acceptable evidence when the stakes are the highest? Even if I took a "just-in-case" approach, and did all the things the Bible said, I wouldn't believe in any of the things I was doing. In fact, as I consider that Christianity would make me a worse person, it would be selfish of me to choose to definitely hurt people on the off chance it might save my hide.

I agree that my God, as you currently understand Him, could not exist. Neither am I expecting you to lower your standards; I am only asking you to consider the issue rationally. If God exists, the entire Universe is empirical evidence of His existence. Is this not the case? So logically, trying to find empirical evidence of God is as easy as looking outside, or in a mirror. You happen to think its plausible that this is all happenstance, which I think requires quite a bit more faith than belief in a supernatural creation. I am sure you will disagree because you're a materialist, but your material had to come from somewhere. The main point is, trying to test for God is a fairly absurd idea. How would you do that?

I don't think you should take a "just in case" approach either. Becoming a Christian for fire insurance and nothing else is almost never a genuine conversion. You need to be born again, which is a supernatural transformation of your entire being. Anything short of that and you have no salvation.

When I was a young teen, and I was losing my faith (which had been absolute as a child). It was a bit distressing, and I used to pray that fairly often. I got no answer, and eventually forgot about God. I've always been interested in the concept of faith, but I've never again believed.

This happens to quite a number of catholics. The reason being, catholicism is very nearly a pagan religion, and it's an actual miracle if any Catholics do find God. There are more than a few that are saved, but I wouldn't hazard a guess as to percentages. Only God knows their hearts.

I am. And for me, truth is borne out by empirical evidence and personal experience, not preachers, or ancient fantasy books of dubious origin. I see exactly zero evidence for God. It's not even an interesting theory for me because it only explains, and doesn't predict.

God predicts the future. That's part of what makes the bible credible, is the literal fulfillment of prophecy. The nation of israel, for example, being reformed after 2000 years was predicted by prophecy. Such a thing has never happened before, that a people retained their racial purity and cultural heritage after being scattered all over the world, and then brought back to the same spot to form their own country again. The destruction of Jerusalem was also predicted in advance. As was the coming of the Messiah. There are many of these.

If God makes a box, he doesn't have to live inside the box. He can be eternal, but the word "eternal" itself is bound in time. Maybe you meant "omnipresent?" I'm particular about definitions.

He is omnipresent, yes. Eternal is timelessness..what it means to have no beginning and no ending.

OK. I've done it. I've put my money where my mouth is, and I actually got on my knees next to the computer, put my hands together, and prayed for God to reveal himself. I also told him that I was more interested in truth than in comfort, and if he revealed himself to be true, that I would use his guidance to find and follow the best path I could take in life. I used no biblical terms like "saviour" or "lord" because this is about me and God. If he wants to lead me to the Bible, he can do that. I asked him to be clear -- a double rainbow won't cut it. I was sincere. Any predictions?

My prediction is that God will honor your prayer if you are sincere in your desire to know Him, and the truth about Him. I think He will probably test the genuineness of your prayer. To God, talk is cheap. Anyone can say those words, but only those who mean them will find Him. He may offer you a choice that requires you to soften your heart and do something you wouldn't normally do. So be aware of that in the days to come. If you want my ultimate prediction, I believe that He will save you. God bless.

>> ^spoco2:
I'm amazed that @shinyblurry can, with a straight face, (well, I assume he's not sniggering) suggest that it's inconceivable that while we've seen that when matter and anti-matter come together they cancel each other out and form 'nothing' the reverse cannot possibly happen.


Directing you to a general reply, here:

http://videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-and-Lawrence-Krauss-Something-from-Nothing?loadcomm=1#comment-1443305

>> ^spoco2:
And yet God 'just is'. You cannot fathom that something that we HAVE OBSERVED would seem to logically go the other way also, and yet are happy to accept a notion of an omnipotent bearded man existing for all eternity.... so just giving up on the concept of time and saying 'he just was, and is'.


No one has given up on the concept of time. The evidence indicates that time had an absolute beginning:

http://www.ctc.cam.ac.uk/stephen70/talks/swh70_vilenkin.pdf

If time had an absolute beginning, that means that whatever created the Universe is timeless (as well as spaceless, powerful, immaterial and transcendent). Meaning, the evidence points to an eternal first cause of the Universe. That is already matching up to a description of God and His attributes. Also, God is not a bearded man; you came to that conclusion because of religous imagery, not what scripture says. What scripture says is that God is a spirit.

>> ^spoco2:
I don't get how you think you have any point of argument. Sure, I can completely get that people can conceive that there is some higher power, that's fine. But to think there's any infinitesimally small shred of logic or reason contained in that belief that is any more reasoned than what science is coming up with is baffling.


I'm glad to hear that you can allow for belief in a higher power. Though, it doesn't sound like you are very familiar with the logical arguments for the existence of God. The kalam cosmological argument, for example, establishes an eternal, personal, transcendent first cause of the Universe.

>> ^spoco2:
You believe that, you also think it's your mission to convert others, but you know what? Trying to argue it out, thinking that you have some logical gotcha is just futile. You know the best way to bring people to your way of thinking? Be compassionate, lead by example, do good works, help others. DO NOT PREACH. Seriously, some of the nicest people I know actually have their own church, they run it, they created it. But they DO NOT preach AT ALL to us, they don't try to convert us at all. But they are helpful, kind, caring people who are wonderful to be around, and when they bow their heads and pray and make speeches thanking their lord during their birthday parties and other celebrations it doesn't grate, because it's not done in any way that's trying to rope in us unbelievers.


I agree with you, that a Christian should do good works. That is the fruit of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. However, Christians are also commanded by Jesus to preach the gospel. We are supposed to do both, not one or the other. There are specific, spiritual reasons for why this is so. Your friends sounds like excellent Christians, however, if you were to die tomorrow, and they had never told you the gospel, they will answer for that at the judgment seat of Jesus Christ. Christianity does not come by osmosis; faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

>> ^spoco2:
Please take that as a way to spread your word, Do Good Deeds. We like to watch videos like this because it's two people discussing some really deep questions and we like to know what scientists think about these things that are in their field of expertise. I would just as much like to watch a discussion between theologians about morality and differing religions and how they think their teachings fit in there. As long as it wasn't a case of 'if you don't believe in me you are doomed to hell', just 'I believe that following these commandments will lead to a better life', or 'I don't take the story of Noah to be a factual account, but more a parable with a lesson'.


There is a difference between having a debate, and telling someone the gospel. However, why would you expect someone to compromise, or water down what they believe? You've felt very comfortable in telling me exactly what you believe, and what I should be doing, and how I should be doing it, yet I must censor myself for the sake of your sensitive ears? Do you think I am going to obey God, or man?

>> ^xxovercastxx:
The question is answered, it's just not what you want to hear. You are insisting that he explain how the universe sprang forth from a state that he never asserts as having existed.

It would be like me saying I originated from a fertilized egg and summarizing the human gestation process and then you saying, "Eggs have shells and yolks and come out of chickens! Where did the chicken come from and why don't we ever see eggshells during birth?

Also, a creator is not compatible with your definition of nothing, either. If absolute, immaterial, spaceless, timeless nothingness was the precursor, then there would be no God to create a universe.


Directing you to a general reply to this, here:

http://videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-and-Lawrence-Krauss-Something-from-Nothing?loadcomm=1#comment-1443305

I agree that if absolute nothingness was the precursor, there would be no God to create the Universe. That is why I am saying that God is eternal, and has always been around to create the Universe.

>> ^shinyblurry:

So, again, the question is not answered. In his book, some chapters of his book are: "Nothing is something" and "Nothing is unstable". He has redefined nothing as empty space or a quantum vaccum, and when pressed, he offers up a multiverse, but fails to explain where to multiverse came from. Nothing is not something, it is not unstable, it is not empty space, it is not a quantum vacuum, and it is not a multiverse. Nothing is nothing. From nothing, nothing comes. It has no states, no properties, no existence.

The question is answered, it's just not what you want to hear. You are insisting that he explain how the universe sprang forth from a state that he never asserts as having existed.

It would be like me saying I originated from a fertilized egg and summarizing the human gestation process and then you saying, "Eggs have shells and yolks and come out of chickens! Where did the chicken come from and why don't we ever see eggshells during birth?"

Also, a creator is not compatible with your definition of nothing, either. If absolute, immaterial, spaceless, timeless nothingness was the precursor, then there would be no God to create a universe.