Obviously, the brain is being tricked into something. What that is, is yes an astounding mystery. See, as I said before there is only one way to test your theory is to invest ten minutes and find out. But, I am sure you would want to pussy foot around with 10mg for a long while until you got to the 40mg, "breakthrough" dose. Which, no one is ever prepared for.

It is not like any other drug. Two seconds in and the person is in a trance. The first time I did it, I really was not expecting what it felt like to go into trance as your mind slips through some sort of portal into the unknown. Seeing pure energy, geometry, with eyes closed. I remember before I did it, I was interested in many aspects of it, seven foot tall black entities were never something I thought about or fantasized about. It is not some fear of mine. I was interested in seeing the afterlife.... and on the way maybe I would see that all the geometric mayan/eastern mandala stuff was bullshit. I wanted to discount the experience as well. But, I could not. And in fact I can see where the influence comes from even if the patterns one sees on this are far more intricate beyond the human imagination. Surely, this is a state the yogi, the buddhist, hindu monks spend their lives trying to get to.

I have given this to close friends. Afterwards, I give it some time and eventually I ask do you think that came from your imagination? And no one believes it does. A lot of what they saw came from absolutely no pop culture references. It came from nothing except knowing very little about it and trusting that I was not going to pop them to the other side of the universe. I still do not know where you are getting your assumptions from? No one knows of anything for sure. We hardly know anything about anything. Repeat that in your head.

I believe in Science first and foremost. But, whatever this is challenges just about all preconceived notions we have of what we actually are to the core. And even if it all proves to be just a trip. It would still challenge the preconceived notions we have of what we actually are.

and to extend that argument. Even if you could prove a creator exists, it still does nothing to convince anyone they should be a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, or a Mormon, or whatever. The question of does a creator exist is one thing. What this creator wants from us, if anything, is another thing ENTIRELY.

Religion is morally obsolete and demonstrably harmful. You want to believe it? You have that freedom, just keep it out of government.

Jesus loves you and I love you. This is an extremely long post and I apologize. I am writing for anyone who is interested in critically examining the arguments Sam Harris makes and contrasting it to the actual truth as presented by the scripture. Sam has distorted this truth and the entire video is basically one long strawman argument.. I think that is you are going to utterly condemn something you should at least make a cursory effort to understand it. That's just me. I invite you guys to learn more about the scripture so that you can know the truth for yourself:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Bible-All-Worth/dp/0310246040/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1360718403&sr=1-2&keywords=how+to+understand+the+bible

I'll answer some points..

Sam: The point of Christianity is to safeguard the eternal well being of eternal souls

You could perhaps categorize this as the main point, but there are many points to Christianity. I don't want to split hairs here; I am agreeing with Sam essentially but I just want to expand on it a bit. The main point of Christianity is to declare the gospel of Jesus Christ. That's what Jesus said when He began His ministry: "repent and believe the gospel". The gospel is that Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, came to Earth to live as one of us. Though He did not sin, He took all of our sins upon Himself on the cross so that we could be forgiven and have eternal life. The point of Christianity is Jesus, and having a personal relationship with Him. Everyone who comes to know Jesus will be born again and become a new person. There are many other points to this but I will stop here.

Sam: 9 million children die every year

Yes, this is true but most of these children, if not all of them, will be going to Heaven. Not one of them have been forgotten by God or will suffer an unjust fate. There is an age of accountability for every person, and it is different for every person. It all depends on the revelation God has given each particular person and their response to it. It is fairly certain though that most if not all children under the age of 12 will make it to Heaven automatically.

Sam in discussing the dying children brings up the problem of evil..which has been sufficiently answered by Plantigas free will defense:

http://videosift.com/video/Since-Evil-Suffering-Exist-A-Loving-God-Cannot

Sam mentions the grief of the parents and that their unanswered prayers are part of Gods plan..

First of all, God answers every prayer, He just doesn't always answer yes. An example of a prayer God answered no to was when Jesus was in the garden of gethsemane and was asking the Father to let Him bypass the cross. Though it surely grieved His heart, He answered no to that prayer. He answered no because He was esteeming us more than Himself, which is what sacrificial love looks like. A key part of the prayer of Jesus was "never the less, not my will, but your will".

Christians do not pray to the exclusion of Gods will. we don't necessarily know what is best for us, but we trust God that He knows, and so we always pray that His will be done, even above what may seem needful for me at that time.

--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------

I will also address the grief. The fact of the matter is, the scripture makes it very clear that Christians will suffer grief and loss on a constant basis:

Matthew 24:9

Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.

1 Peter 4:12 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened to you:

1 Peter 4:16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------

Look at Pauls testimony:

1 Corinthians 11:24-28

Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again.

Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one.

Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea,

I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers.

I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked.

Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches.

If you read Foxes Book of the Martyrs (http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/home.html) you will see that Christians are no strangers to suffering and grief. It is clearly taught in His word it will happen, which makes this argument have no weight at all and is simply a strawman.

Sam said that any God who would allow pain either can do nothing or doesnt care to so He is either impotent or evil

This is simply a false dichotomy. God may allow pain for a good reason, which is for the greater good. I'll give you an example:

This is Nick Vujicic, a man with no arms and no legs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXlCeKBWfaA

He is a motivational speaker and he has traveled around the world and inspired millions. Pretty much anyone who has a problem can relate to this man because Nick has overcome his extreme adversity with grace and he finds joy in his daily life. If God had answered Nicks prayer to be healed, then millions of people would have been robbed of the fruit that overcoming his adversity bore in his life. This is an example of how God can use pain for a greater good.

Sam asks what about all those who are praying to the wrong God, through no fault of their own..that they missed the revelation

This is just simply false..Sam seems to think that there are no reasonable answer to these questions when the real problem is his ignorance of Christian theology.

Romans 1:18-21

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

The word of God states that every man coming into the world is given light, and that God makes it clear to them one way or the other that He exists. Every man, woman and child dying after the age of accountability and heading towards hell had received a personal revelation from God as to His existence. How they responded to that light determined what Gods next move was. If they had responded in the affirmitive, He could have then opened the door for them to know Jesus and be saved. Since they responded in the negative, they did not receive any further revelation and died in their sins.

So again Sam creates a strawman argument when he says that they missed the revelation through no fault of their own. The truth is that they received the revelation and rejected it. He also made it sound like people are just randomly born into the world when what the scripture says is that God appoints the times and places for every human being. There are no accidents about where you are born; it is simply that God is not limited by time and space. He is omnipresent and not limited to any particular locality.

Sam accused God creating the cultural isolation of the hindus - of orchaestrating their ignorance

The truth is that in the beginning all men knew God and that over time as men formed nations they moved farther and farther away from the truth about God and invented their own gods to worship. The hindus isolated themselves, though again this is not a limitation on God. He has reached out to every hindu who has ever lived and the ones who ended up in hell are the ones who rejected Him. You have to push past the love, grace and mercy of God to get to hell.

Sam mentions how a serial killer could get saved while an innocent perishes elsewhere:

What the bible says is this:

Romans 3:23

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

There aren't any innocents over the age of accountability. The man who has cheated on his wife is equally guilty in Gods eyes as the man who murdered his wife. What God calls good is not a relative standard like human beings use, as we compare ourselves to eachother and think we are good people because we haven't done the big two (rape, murder). What God calls good is moral perfection and what He calls evil is everything that falls short of that, even one sin. He also says that if you hate someone you have murdered them in your heart and you are a murderer at heart. Sam does not appear to understand what the bible says Gods standards actually are.

Sam said that there is absolutely nothing in Christianity to do with moral accountability

Again, this is false. What the bible says is that we're morally accountable to God for every sin we've ever committed, and your conscience will tell you that. It is not other people we have offended, it is God Almighty. What Sam seems to have a problem with is Gods absolute standard for moral accountability versus his relative standard (which conveniently excuses his sins against God)

Sam said there is a conflict between God being intrinsically good and what he describes as the "visitation of cruel unjust suffering on innocent people"

I've already answered this by point out there are no innocent people over the age of accountability. I would also like to add that God created a perfect world, and the reason there is sin in this world is because of mankind. The reason the world is the way it is today is exclusively because of the daily crimes of humanity (can you even begin to imagine the amount of evil that transpires on planet earth in one day?) and not because God wanted it that way.

Sam says it is a cop out to say God is mysterious and then use merely human understanding to establish goodness

Actually, what Sam has done here is create a distorted image of God by twisting or ignoring what the scripture says about Him, and the fate of human beings. Then he points to this grotesque image to condemn the true and living God who is in fact perfectly good. The truth is that His goodness is upheld entirely when you are looking at the true God through a sound understanding of scripture and not the distorted image Sam has created of Him.

Sam says its a cop out to be told God is mysterious to justify untold suffering

He is right here, it is a cop-out..and anyone making such an argument has a weak understanding of the bible. Gods will for us is actually no mystery; God makes it crystal clear what He expects from His creation, and kinds of things we will face. He is even gracious enough to tell us what will happen in the future, thousands of years in advance:

http://www.christadelphianals.org/bible_prophecy.htm

Sam says it is utter hubris and even reprehensible to think you're special because "God loves me don't you know"

Yet even little children understand that no one is worthy to be pardoned for their sins and no one can make it into Heaven on their own. There is absolutely no difference between me and anyone else except for one thing; I said yes to God, and some others say no. I am not worthy, in fact I am decidedly unworthy and I deserve the exact same punishment as everyone else does; the difference is that I accept the free gift of grace that Jesus offers upon the cross. God proved His love for all people on the cross, and He died for every single person, not just me. Jesus loves you more than you can understand.

Sam says it is morally reprehensible for Christians to drudge up some trivial circumstance God took care of while completely ignoring the suffering of other human beings

Sam is right about this and it is a complete shame to Christians everywhere that the western church is so materialistic and base in their feelings. Jesus called us to live a life of total sacrifice and to give up everything we have. I can tell you that God is even more appalled than Sam is about this issue.

Sam asserted that the bible supports slavery

This is false; the bible does not support slavery. Slavery as we understand it today is not the same as it was in the time this was written. In those times it was more of a profession and people would sell themselves into slavery so they could have food and shelter. The bible regulated these activities, but it also said that there was no difference between master and slave and that we are all equal in Christ Jesus. I will also point out that modern slavery was ended by Christians.

Sam says that the bible admonishes us to kill people for witchcraft

No, it does not admonish Christians to kill witches, or anyone else. There is no commandment for any Christians to murder anyone. It is true, however, that in the time of the Old Covenant, God set up laws for Israel which were very strictly enforced with the punishment of death. This was not anything that He ever imposed on the world, or any other people except the Jews. He also did not impose it on them: the Jews made a covenant with God to obey all of His laws, so that He would be their God, and they would be His people.

Sam says that there is absolutely nothing anyone can say against Muslims if they prayed to the right God

The God of the bible is not morally inconsistant, whereas the god of the muslims is.

Sam said Christianity is what only lunatics could believe on their own

The bible says this:

1 Corinthians 1:18

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

The scripture itself says that unsaved people will find the message of the cross foolish. This is the evidence that you are perishing. The things of the Spirit of God are foolish to the natural man, neither can he understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Sam made a little quip about catholicism

While I am sure there are saved catholics, the church itself departed from the true teachings of Jesus a long time ago.. There is also no teaching in the scripture regarding the Eucharist.

Sam said its very strange salvation depends bad evidence

God gives everyone good evidence that He exists but they suppress the truth. God reveals Himself through personal revelation. You cannot know God otherwise.

Sam says Christianity is a cult of human sacrifice

Jesus wasn't sacrificed against His will:

John 10:18

No one can take my life from me. I sacrifice it voluntarily. For I have the authority to lay it down when I want to and also to take it up again. For this is what my Father has commanded."

He gave His life just as firemen have given their lives trying to save people from a burning building. Jesus didn't have to go to the cross but He did it out of love for us:

John 15:13

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Sam says the bible doesnt repudiate human sacrifice, that it celebrates it

Actually, it does repudiate it in many locations. The practice of sacrificing humans was utterly condemned in scripture. Jesus voluntarily giving Himself for the sins of the world does not resemble what Sam is implying even superficially.

Sam states that people used to bury children under the foundation of buildings and then says "these are the sorts of people who wrote the bible"

The kind of people who wrote the bible were eye witnesses to the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They did not bury children under foundations; they followed the true and living God.

Sam said that if there is a less moral moral framework he hadn't heard of it

As he has presented it, most certainly, but the problem is that he largely invented it from his misunderstanding of Christian theology and personal prejudices.

The true question is this: are you an honest or dishonest skeptic? If you're an honest skeptic you will investigate, but a dishonest skeptic doesn't want to know. You will have to admit that you do not know whether God answers prayer or not, so here is a possible clue to knowledge:

Pray this: God, I don't know if you're there or not, and I don't know if the bible is your word or not. I am asking you to reveal the truth to me, and if you do, I promise to follow it where ever it leads. If it leads to Jesus, I will give my life to Him and follow Him.

After praying this, read the gospel of John. Read it slowly, a little at a time, each time beforehand praying that God will give you revelation concerning what you're reading. If you do this, by the time you reach the end of the gospel your skepticism will have grown wings and flown away.

God bless.

Looks like the Hindu cosmology of the universe and yugas could be somewhere in the neighborhood of spot-on....Some religions are better than others

I, chingalera, being of sound mind and tighter than a Mennonite contemplating Hindu dowry, have decided to use my old dilapidated moniker as a blog. I can ramble here just as well as showcasing a slot in exchange for beer money and a gem harder to find is that much more brilliant in proper light, yadda, yadda.

I suppose when I make an entry here there will be some new-and-improved way for me to get the word out about everything fit to scan and wonder why you wasted valuable time otherwise-

OS, this is my first New Year's Blog Entry, through a back door and sure to wax creaking like my joints 'n knuckles.

>> ^chingalera:

You'd think that since these drones can pinpoint a target and place ordinance onnit to within inches that the "innocents" that get caught in the cross-hairs might be associated with the wrong compound, structure, or lean-to. If you hang with Al. you must be a pal, eh?
That Muslim-to-be in the form of a child, destined for a similar penchant for developmental disability in such close proximity to, and under the care of, some twisted Muslim douchebag well, chances are reasonably predictable that the fruit wouldn't fall far from the tree anyhow.
Tough decisions in a fucked-up world full of delusional Koran and Bible bangers....Whattteryagonnado?
You don't see Sikhs er Zoroastrians making any bombs or popping-off rhetoric?! Any Hindu homicide bombers?
Hell, even Jesus told folks to keep their fucking religion to themselves!!
"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."
"But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."


Just keep defending a failed state, that crushes people under it's boot at will.

You'd think that since these drones can pinpoint a target and place ordinance onnit to within inches that the "innocents" that get caught in the cross-hairs might be associated with the wrong compound, structure, or lean-to. If you hang with Al. you must be a pal, eh?
That Muslim-to-be in the form of a child, destined for a similar penchant for developmental disability in such close proximity to, and under the care of, some twisted Muslim douchebag well, chances are reasonably predictable that the fruit wouldn't fall far from the tree anyhow.

Tough decisions in a fucked-up world full of delusional Koran and Bible bangers....Whattteryagonnado?

You don't see Sikhs er Zoroastrians making any bombs or popping-off rhetoric?! Any Hindu homicide bombers?
Hell, even Jesus told folks to keep their fucking religion to themselves!!

"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

"But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."

Amniotic fluid does not cause septicaemia.

An alive foetus does not cause septicaemia.

A dead foetus does not cause Escherichia coli - but it can eventually cause septicaemia if it were not delivered - usually this happens by spontaneous delivery from the mothers body aborting the pregnancy. As it was they immediately delivered the baby upon cessation of its heart beat.

The septicaemia was caused by Escherichia coli - specifically a new Extended-Spectrum Beta Lactamase strain that is highly resistant to antibiotics. This bacteria is contracted in the hospital environment. This bacteria did not originate from the foetus.

So to roughly answer your question, to remove the source of the septicaemia would be to remove the source of the Escherichia coli, which is the hospital. I can't say if she would have survived outside of the hospital or not, but she probably would not have contracted the Escherichia coli and she probably would have safely delivered through spontaneous abortion.

It's sad she died, but the medical reason for her death was not a lack of abortion. It was from contracting a new deadly bacteria strain that is found in hospitals and is very hard to treat. It was probably contracted directly from either a doctor, another patient, a medical instrument, or a surface she touched within the hospital. These new antibiotic resistant bateria are a major problem worldwide killing many otherwise healthy people every year.

>> ^TheSluiceGate:

Here's a quote for you. The husband of the deceased:
“The doctor told us the cervix was fully dilated, amniotic fluid was leaking and unfortunately the baby wouldn’t survive.” The doctor, he says, said it should be over in a few hours. There followed three days, he says, of the foetal heartbeat being checked several times a day.
“Savita was really in agony. She was very upset, but she accepted she was losing the baby. When the consultant came on the ward rounds on Monday morning Savita asked if they could not save the baby could they induce to end the pregnancy. The consultant said, ‘As long as there is a foetal heartbeat we can’t do anything’.
“Again on Tuesday morning, the ward rounds and the same discussion. The consultant said it was the law, that this is a Catholic country. Savita [a Hindu] said: ‘I am neither Irish nor Catholic’ but they said there was nothing they could do.
“That evening she developed shakes and shivering and she was vomiting. She went to use the toilet and she collapsed. There were big alarms and a doctor took bloods and started her on antibiotics.
“The next morning I said she was so sick and asked again that they just end it, but they said they couldn’t.”
At lunchtime the foetal heart had stopped and Ms Halappanavar was brought to theatre to have the womb contents removed. “When she came out she was talking okay but she was very sick. That’s the last time I spoke to her.”
source - http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1114/122432657520
3.html
The Irish Times
Now, do you think they should have removed the source of that septicaemia sooner?
(Bias declaration: I was within feet of the people pictured on the front of this video above)

Here's a quote for you. The husband of the deceased:

“The doctor told us the cervix was fully dilated, amniotic fluid was leaking and unfortunately the baby wouldn’t survive.” The doctor, he says, said it should be over in a few hours. There followed three days, he says, of the foetal heartbeat being checked several times a day.

“Savita was really in agony. She was very upset, but she accepted she was losing the baby. When the consultant came on the ward rounds on Monday morning Savita asked if they could not save the baby could they induce to end the pregnancy. The consultant said, ‘As long as there is a foetal heartbeat we can’t do anything’.

“Again on Tuesday morning, the ward rounds and the same discussion. The consultant said it was the law, that this is a Catholic country. Savita [a Hindu] said: ‘I am neither Irish nor Catholic’ but they said there was nothing they could do.

“That evening she developed shakes and shivering and she was vomiting. She went to use the toilet and she collapsed. There were big alarms and a doctor took bloods and started her on antibiotics.

“The next morning I said she was so sick and asked again that they just end it, but they said they couldn’t.”

At lunchtime the foetal heart had stopped and Ms Halappanavar was brought to theatre to have the womb contents removed. “When she came out she was talking okay but she was very sick. That’s the last time I spoke to her.”

source - http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1114/1224326575203.html
The Irish Times

Now, do you think they should have removed the source of that septicaemia sooner?

(Bias declaration: I was within feet of the people pictured on the front of this video above)

>> ^harlequinn:

From the linked article "An autopsy carried out by Dr Grace Callagy two days later found she died of septicaemia “documented ante-mortem” and E.coli ESBL."
The risk of septicaemia is the same whether the baby dies by itself or whether the baby is killed by Drs (i.e. an abortion) - in both cases the baby is born dead and it is the medical intervention itself that presents the risk for complications. This is well documented in medical literature.


She was screaming and vomiting in her hospital bed for three days>> ^harlequinn:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^harlequinn:
From the linked article "An autopsy carried out by Dr Grace Callagy two days later found she died of septicaemia “documented ante-mortem” and E.coli ESBL."
The risk of septicaemia is the same whether the baby dies by itself or whether the baby is killed by Drs (i.e. an abortion) - in both cases the baby is born dead and it is the medical intervention itself that presents the risk for complications. This is well documented in medical literature.

You want to maybe post some of that literature? Because if not, you're just a fucking liar.

Not posting any literature doesn't make me a liar - it just makes you uninformed - sorry, "fucking uninformed".

>> ^raverman:

Humans are evolved to be social animals. I think they are also evolved to be religious animals. It doesn't make any of it true, and it doesn't matter what religion it is. It makes sense: hundreds of thousands of years of evolution and belief in magic, witch doctors, animal spirits, priests, gods and angels, - all of which binding the rules of the social group, rejecting or killing those who don't believe... is bound to reinforce some biological traits. It's even proven that these traits can be artificially triggered through strong magnetic fields or even drugs.
So... a diet of religion is good for you... has a biochemical effect creating a sense of well-being and belonging.
@shinyblurry 's personal relationship God is no different than that of a Hindu, Buddist, Tao or Mormon... i'm sure it feels good.
I think people get too obsessed with being intolerant of religion just to hurt others and feel superior. But it's like telling a child there's no santa or magic... why ruin something nice just because facts get in the way?
Reality is all subjective. If you like your's please enjoy but keep it to yourself.


It makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, but another standpoint is that we were all created to worship. Even people who do not subscribe to any particular belief have something in their lives that they pay homage to, be it money, power, celebrity, their hobbies, or even themselves.

I also appreciate your sentiment about trying to be superior but I think your point is somewhat undermined when you contrast disputing with people who are religious to taking candy away from children who don't understand what facts are.

Humans are evolved to be social animals. I think they are also evolved to be religious animals. It doesn't make any of it true, and it doesn't matter what religion it is. It makes sense: hundreds of thousands of years of evolution and belief in magic, witch doctors, animal spirits, priests, gods and angels, - all of which binding the rules of the social group, rejecting or killing those who don't believe... is bound to reinforce some biological traits. It's even proven that these traits can be artificially triggered through strong magnetic fields or even drugs.

So... a diet of religion is good for you... has a biochemical effect creating a sense of well-being and belonging.

@shinyblurry 's personal relationship God is no different than that of a Hindu, Buddist, Tao or Mormon... i'm sure it feels good.

I think people get too obsessed with being intolerant of religion just to hurt others and feel superior. But it's like telling a child there's no santa or magic... why ruin something nice just because facts get in the way?

Reality is all subjective. If you like your's please enjoy but keep it to yourself.

Well, those might seem to be good reasons, but in the end, atheists are supposed to be against religion. If it was really about religion, you would the criticism spread around a lot more than it is. I haven't seen many atheists taking vocal stands against Allah or Krishna, even though between the two they represent a 1/3 of the worlds population. This is especially true of the "new atheists", even though many of the things they rant about are epitomized in islamic and hindu countries. It just seems that todays atheism isn't so much anti-God(s) as it is anti-Christ. It's not focused on all gods, it's focused on the true God: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

>> ^wraith:

@shiny:
Regarding your question:
1. People who had a dramatic change in their life tend to be very vocal an opinionated about that. Why should that not also true of people who loose or gain religious beliefs?
2. For me, who has never believed in a god or gods, I tend to react to pressure that religious people exert on me and my life. I would not classify that as god "dealing with my heart".
3. Most people who are even able to frequent these fora are from western wealthy nations which, through god's almighty plan or certain socio-economic factors turned out to be predominantly christian.
Regarding your statement: I, from the safety of a country where supposed blasphemy is not met with harsh punishment by learned elders of a forgiving religion, do criticize all religions almost equally. Even I, given the christian background of my home country reserve most of my criticism for christianity because I encounter it most in my daily life.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Yeah, but we're talking about atheists, and you don't really see many atheists out there arguing against Allah or Krishna.

She didn't draft the bill. Period. She cannot speak for everyone who drafted it. And guess what? You didn't prove the law doesn't pass the balancing test anyway. Show me how it doesn't pass that test. I don't care what she said.

HOLY CRAP! You admitted you were wrong! MIRACLE!!!

Now, free exercise clause. Show me how the law stops religious people from exercising their religion. Can orthodox Catholics continue to not use birth control? Yes. Are YOU familiar with the free exercise clause?

If you go down the road that money from the church can't go to things that violate their religious beliefs, then it's unconstitutional to federally subsidize farms. Since farms slaughter cows, this would violate the religious rights of a Hindu. Slaughtering pigs for consumption would violate the rights of orthodox Jews and Muslims. Defense spending would be unconstitutional because of pacifist religions like Jehovah's Witnesses. Affirmative action programs would be unconstitutional because of racist religious groups. Federal aid to any religious organizations, including tax favored statuses to churches, would be unconstitutional because of atheists' beliefs. I could go on and on and on. That kind of insane rule would basically halt government from doing what it must do.

We all pay for things we disagree with. To quote Jon Stewart on this, "Welcome to the fu***** club!"

I don't care what someone said. The US Supreme Court isn't going to look at what she said in that one clip and decide the case. YOU prove it doesn't pass the balancing test. You're not even attempting to prove it doesn't.

The article about Obama supporting "a repeal of DOMA" by favoring the Respect for Marriage Act. Do you even know what that act does? Let me help you:

"For the purposes of any Federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State."

BTW, notice I actually quoted the law. I didn't link you to an article from a left wing or right wing organization. THAT is the law, word for word.

Is that not EXACTLY what I just said Obama favored in respect to DOMA? He believes states should decide if gay marriage is legal. If it's considered legal by the state, then it's considered legal by the federal gov't. Respect for Marriage Act does NOT legalize gay marriage nationwide in any stretch of the imagination. All it does is change that if a gay couple are married legally in New York, then they're legally married according to federal law as well. That doesn't mean a gay couple in the state of Mississippi can get married. Do you not even read the articles you're posting? You just proved EXACTLY what I just said. This is a moderate/left position.

As for the your link for FOCA, you linked to a webpage that is an organization created to fight abortion rights. I pasted a direct quote from the law. They took small quotes and then completely injected their own BS into it.

The bill has language that is clearly put into the bill to NOT legalize partial birth abortions unless there's a threat to the health of the mother. Show me where it says, "A woman can get a partial birth abortion." Doesn't say it. Don't quote me some right wing nut job site. Find the passage that says partial birth abortions are completely legal in all cases. It's not there, is it?

Show me where any of the things you said against FOCA are in the bill's language. It's not there.

>> ^shinyblurry:


The video is her testimony about how the bill was drafted. It's also her department, and her baby, as she gave the final approval. It's a concept completely foreign to this administration "the buck stops here".
What I meant to say is the free exercise clause. Are you familiar with that? Forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs violates that clause.
If you had watched the video, you would have seen that she admitted that no balancing test was done for the mandate.
By forcing religious institutions to violate their religious principles, they are violating the free exercise clause.
Here's another poll, not that the other one wasn't valid:
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/22/poll-american
s-oppose-obama-birth-control-coverage-mandate/

You're misinformed:
"The Obama administration announced Tuesday that it will support a congressional effort to repeal a federal law that defines marriage as a legal union between a man and woman.
White House spokesman Jay Carney denounced the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), saying the administration will back a bill introduced this year by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to remove the law from the books."
http://www.washingto
npost.com/politics/obama-backs-bill-to-repeal-defense-of-marriage-act/2011/07/19/gIQA03eQOI_story.html
He was for it in 1996, undecided in 1998, in 2004 he said:
"I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about..."
In 2008 he said
"“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”
Then he was "evolving". Then he came out in support of it. Actually he changed his position more than 3 times.
http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/LawmakersProposeFOCA.html
>> ^heropsycho:

I was wondering why all the kids look so, let's say "un-hindu," in this video--thanks Pennypacker.

I was myself in Kathmandu last month during this festival, called Holi, which occurred during the day before full moon in March (linked also to the solstice). Kids (young and old) were everywhere in the streets throwing colors and shouting "Happy Holi!" Sometimes they throw water instead. Either way, not a day for going out in your finest outfit. This year there was big news about a problem with some of the colored powder sold in New Delhi and many people (around 100 I think) were brought to hospital there with an allergic reaction.
For more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holi
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Guess what?
This is a Hindu festival, but the site for this particular event is in that little place called Spanish Fork, Utah. Over 10,000 people attend this Hindu festival every year, and probably 95% of them are Mormons.

Guess what?

This is a Hindu festival, but the site for this particular event is in that little place called Spanish Fork, Utah. Over 10,000 people attend this Hindu festival every year, and probably 95% of them are Mormons.