Militant Atheists? The priest makes them sound like a terrorist group. And no, Atheists don't "love" publicity, they would prefer to keep quiet. But, when "believers" are constantly trying to influence policy and teach their bronze age dogma to our kids, atheists, like all freedom seekers, have a duty to speak out. he actually summed up the atheist view very succinctly; "If you want to be religious, do it in your home."

I do literally believe the bible is true and the word of God..I think there may be a couple of things in the modern bibles that weren't there originally, but in general that it is literally true

1. I derive my faith formost from personal and special revelation, and generally from the word of God

2. I believe in the creation week of genesis

3. Yes; seeking the truth honestly is how I ended up being a Christian

4. Yes, I think science is of value..but I don't consider evolutionary theory science

5. I understand the scientific method. I consider that I am a layman however I know more than your average bear, enough to be dangerous to complacent atheists

>> ^messenger:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry
A few sincere questions so I can understand you better:

I don't think you're a bible literalist. If so, that answers all these questions.


1. Where do you derive your faith if not the literal words?
   
   
2. Assuming you believe in Intelligent Design,
   
   
   
   
   • do you believe it because it seems the most reasonable explanation to you, or because the Holy Bible says it's the truth?
     
     
   • if there were another theory that better explained creation, would you accept it?
   
   
   
3. Do you consider yourself a seeker of the truth, whatever that truth may be?
   
   
4. Do you consider that science has any value at all?
   
   
5. Do you consider that you understand the scientific process to such a degree that if you explained it to a scientist, the scientist would agree with you?

@shinyblurry
A few sincere questions so I can understand you better:

I don't think you're a bible literalist. If so, that answers all these questions.


1. Where do you derive your faith if not the literal words?
   
   
2. Assuming you believe in Intelligent Design,
   
   • do you believe it because it seems the most reasonable explanation to you, or because the Holy Bible says it's the truth?
     
   • if there were another theory that better explained creation, would you accept it?
   
   
3. Do you consider yourself a seeker of the truth, whatever that truth may be?
   
   
4. Do you consider that science has any value at all?
   
   
5. Do you consider that you understand the scientific process to such a degree that if you explained it to a scientist, the scientist would agree with you?

Ahhh thanks my fellow person of truth! I have embraced my ignorance, as the word seems to full of people with all the answers.


In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
Currently, I am very fascinated the metaphysical explanation of immaterialism of George Berkeley. There is a certain simplicity that makes it appealing. It is also unverifiable, thus making any means of discovering the truth of the mater impossible. Recently, I have started to become more of a strong agnostic rather than a weak one. It really does seem like we are ill-equipped to deal with the question of real, certain truth as it pertains to our complete condition. Our current tools are a priory reasoning, science, and intuition; one only goes so far, one can't make truth claims, and the other can't show that it is right. There has to be some other form, that is what faith is supposed to be, divine revelation: that only an outsider could inject insight into your situation. Kind of like Newton's third law, you have to be acted on by an outside source to cause change in a given system. That is an actual scientific argument for faith being a method to discovering truth. It can't, however, tell us how, which one, when we are wrong...and so many other problems it is why I have abandoned it as my method.

that was really well said my man.
i use the term "seekers" often.
never heard of that book.it looks interesting.

It's a miracle! And I do know what you're saying..there are a few reasons why people seek out Jesus. One is that they are at a place in their life where they know they need God. It takes some people a long time to get to that point. A whole lot of self-destruction before healing can begin. Another is that they are honest seekers wanting to know the truth. In my case, my reason was direct revelation.

Now we can go over a lot of aspects but here is where I think the rubber meets the road. Anyone can make the claims Jesus did..anyone can say they're God..but if Christ came back from the dead that's an entirely different animal If the resurrection is factually accurate, historical event, it proves everything Jesus said about Himself was true.

I just submitted a video that talks about this

http://videosift.com/video/Ex-Atheist-presents-evidence-for-the-Resurrection-of-Christ

So why should you love God? Because of what He did for you, for all of us. First though, you have to know God at least *could* be real..and you can do that by investigating all of the evidence and being impartial..i think a lot of people just go to websites and books that already support their views and use that as confirmation..you have to know what the other side thinks about it too..i think you really do want to know..so Ill tell you what Jesus said..seek and ye shall find. Knock and the door will be opened.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
Hey, you're back up to ten votes again!

Couple of brain trusts over here..

Here's a better website for you seekers of truth, and whoever critisized me for not using apologetics, are you satisfied now?:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
Currently, I am very fascinated the metaphysical explanation of immaterialism of George Berkeley. There is a certain simplicity that makes it appealing. It is also unverifiable, thus making any means of discovering the truth of the mater impossible. Recently, I have started to become more of a strong agnostic rather than a weak one. It really does seem like we are ill-equipped to deal with the question of real, certain truth as it pertains to our complete condition. Our current tools are a priory reasoning, science, and intuition; one only goes so far, one can't make truth claims, and the other can't show that it is right. There has to be some other form, that is what faith is supposed to be, divine revelation: that only an outsider could inject insight into your situation. Kind of like Newton's third law, you have to be acted on by an outside source to cause change in a given system. That is an actual scientific argument for faith being a method to discovering truth. It can't, however, tell us how, which one, when we are wrong...and so many other problems it is why I have abandoned it as my method.

that was really well said my man.
i use the term "seekers" often.
never heard of that book.it looks interesting.

first let me thank both BRM and ryjkyj for reading my novella.very cool of both of you.i kinda put myself out there and you both didnt just outright laugh..i thank you both.
@BRM
i understand.
the reason why i wrote that short novella was to put forth an alternative idea of god,not to push any form of ideology upon you.while it may be an ancient concept,it is not exactly a popular one.the people who attempted to make a community based on that ideology were wiped out.
hopefully it accomplished two things:
1.not every idea of god is based on theology.
2.that i do not pretend to hold secret knowledge,nor am i somehow more special than you due to my faith.
my faith is not based on a book nor a old white dude with a beard who watches from afar judging us all.
my ultimate goal was to paint a picture where those i converse with on the sift could know that i have no religion to offend.i wont take some slight against my ideas as some attack on my god based solely on dogma.
because i adhere to no dogma.

consciousness is one of my favorite discussions and something i have spent a great deal of time thinking about since i was a teen.
what is consciousness?
this is an ongoing question and one i feel is vitally important.we are still learning and the subject fascinates me.
i find this discussion more engrossing and challenging with atheists and other seekers.fundamentalists tend to be quite boring with this subject for obvious reasons.

@Ryjkyj
i was just pointing out the literal translation but i understand why you would reject agnostic in a literal sense.as i stated.it does not really matter,i understand your point and desire for your position to not be confused in any way.
i am totally ok with that.

as for my thesis on god and the edict to "create".
you mention nuclear weapons.
good example.
let me add:murder,torture,domination,genocide.we could go all day.
conversely we could talk about:love,compassion,understanding,forgiveness.
my point was that the creator regards all these as the same,it is WE who deem them "good" or "evil".
that god experiences its own creation subjectively through us..all of us..while we experience gods creation every minute of everyday.
you being aware of this is not necessary because you do it naturally and is one of the main reasons why i would have been burned at the stake (and those that DID postulate this idea centuries ago were executed).religion becomes irrelevant with my scenario.
you are god..god is you and we are all connected.

we understand and relate to the universe through only FIVE sense...thats it..five.
our consciousness interacts with this universe using those senses.with the advent of more and more complicated tools which allow us to perceive the universe in a much more grand scale we have found that the universe keeps getting bigger,richer and far more poetic than any theology could EVER put forth.
evolution has more poetry and beauty then the book of genesis could ever think to muster.
(genesis is actually a metaphorical representation of kabballah)

i love science.
i am not particularly good at say bio-chem or the math of quantum physics (that math is beyond me)but i find each discovery a revelation concerning my faith.
to me science is the slow pulling back of the veil by way of exploration,curiosity and eventual understanding by way of testing physical evidence and/or repeatable,testable results.
these results tend to conflict with religious doctrine but totally coincide with my understanding of a creator.

consciousness is not a closed chapter but something we are still discussing,probing and attempting to understand.so when i use the term to describe god i do so in that light,not with any secret understanding.
so..according to my way of looking at things.if god created the universe from itself it would reside both outside time/space and also WITHIN time/space.
proveable? not a chance...hence=faith
we are talking about a consciousness that is literally the entire universe.a concept that would be hard for anybody to wrap their head around.
i do not pretend to understand this consciousness.how could i?
but i do know i see this consciousness manifesting all around me and it is constant.

i understand that both of you reject this ideology and i am totally ok with that.
in my eyes conversations such as these are more about sharing ideas than being right..or righteous.
my conclusions are my own and they are always changing as more information becomes available.
but i have to say that since i was a teen nothing i have read or learned has changed my position,in fact,it has strengthened it.

thank you both for being so kind and respectful towards my ideas.
i tend to avoid putting things like this out there because i get whacked by both sides..atheists AND religious.
you both have been very kind.
and i thank you.

@SDGundamX

I'm still curious if you would have been offended if the video called believers in Zeus and Poseidon idiots. Is it belief in itself (any belief lacking empirical evidence against it) that you think should be shielded from intolerance or is it beliefs shared by many people? If I called someone who believed in Zeus a complete nutter, would that offend you? If it made them happy and comfortable with their lives.

I'm slightly confused by the multiverse angle, I'm not sure how the Flying Spaghetti Monster would have a bigger likelihood of existing in another universe (as a magical being always existing without evolving into place), I guess it's possible to speculate in a universe that functions in a way that gives rise to Him, but how does that contradict the observations made on how this universe functions?

About the atrocities, I think that we still have atrocities going on today. Just take the deaths of millions of Africans from AIDS because they were taught not to use condoms. You probably think this is an atrocity, but it's bought with money pumped into the catholic church from millions of believers, most of them I would assume moderates, that lend their indirect support to the continuation of these teachings (although lately Ive heard the Pope has changed his mind, a bit too late for all those who are dead). And yes, the Church might be separate from the belief, but its built up on a base of belief and given power and cover by believers. And in 20 years we will hear the same story again "that was then, this is now, I agree that was an atrocity but now we're rid of all that, I don't believe in that, nobody I knows believes in that anymore". And then on to the next decision that affects other people negatively. And as such religion is always safe, the atrocities are always in the past and criticism can be deflected or ignored.

Look, I feel as I'm rambling but my basic point is this: Either you have good reasons for believing in something, or you don't. What makes someone happy might _seem_ right for him or her, but as a species we owe our continued survival and common well-being to realize our limits and overcome them. One such limit is that as pattern-seekers we encounter false positives all the time (this surely benefited us very early in our development). In ancient times a flood must mean the God's are angry. A bad harvest must mean the field is cursed. A modern version would be feeling religion gives our life meaning and happiness and must therefor contain some deeper truth. I simply cannot see how this follows.

Realizing someone is making claims based on flawed arguments we owe it to voice our opinions and concerns, even if harshly as in calling someone an idiot.

>> ^SDGundamX:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/chtierna" title="member since September 25th, 2008" class="profilelink">chtierna
With regards to Elvis (or 9/11 conspiracy, "birthers," the Apollo mission conspiracy theories, and so one) I think there actually is more than enough evidence--empirical evidence--to disprove the claims.
With regards to any deity, I've already said I'm an atheist (i.e. I don't believe in them). But that does not mean they do not exist (actually, if you subscribe to the multiverse model of the universe then you could even go so far as to say it is likely the Flying Spaghetti Monster does exist somewhere, though not necessarily in our universe. ). It simply means that they don't meet my own personal burden of proof to warrant belief.
In regards to your next point, I think we need to separate religious belief from actions taken in the name of religion. Many faithful and non-faithful alike would label those acts you listed above as atrocities. Just because someone happens to be religious in no way means they are going to start condoning those acts you listed. And the reasons those things happen extends far beyond religion--we can't examine those acts without also examining the historical and socio-cultural contexts in which they occur. To merely look at, for instance, suicide bombers from a religious perspective seems rather simplistic to me given the historical, cultural, and political events that have led up to the idea terrorist acts are a valid tool for applying political pressure.
I've said this before (in other threads) but to me religion is a tool. Any tool can be turned into an improvised weapon. And that is what I believe has happened in those cases you described. It's clear religion can be used for great good or great evil. I think it is also clear the major monotheistic religions are going to have to change going into the future. They are going to have to be re-conceptualized to maximize the potential good and minimize or (if possible) downright eliminate the potential bad effects. Here is one book that has already called for such a re-conceptualization for Christianity (haven't read the book, by the way though the premise sounds interesting... check out the reviews).

Obama might not have been the greatest president (I didn't vote for him) but it's simply hilarious, depressing, and downright disturbing the lengths our politicians (and other would be truth seekers) will go to spread LIES to get someone they dislike out of office. The ends DO NOT, absolutely DO NOT justify the means. I don't give a shit if Obama was a member of Ku Klux Klan, the Black Panthers, the Neo Nazis, the Nation of Islam, or, god forbid, an actual socialist -- scare tactics, lies, half-truths, and rumors are a slap in the face of the people you're attempting to convince. It only hurts your cause and furthers the causes you oppose.

>> ^UsesProzac:

Poor fucker was in shock and scared for his life. I wouldn't be very eloquent, either!


He was loving it - he is a thrill seeker. He was fucking annoying.

>> ^quantumushroom:

There is no sophistry here. None.
Whittle laid out the argument perfectly, starting with historical precedents and touching on the long list of conflicts caused by muslims right up till today. Add to the timeline the noncoincident fading of Europe.
No honest seeker looking to replace Western Civilization with something better would choose defective and brutal islam, with its backa$$wards sharia law and failure to produce anything of material or intellectual value.
If there's anything Whittle said that's patently false, do tell.


then you have no idea the meaning of sophistry:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sophistry
the argument does not have to be based in lies..in fact..an argument based in sophism tends be true but it is a cleverly disguised manipulation.many times avoiding certain pertinent facts or cherry picking others to promote a particular ideology.

mr whittles argument would make sense to someone not armed with historical knowledge or someone bursting with nationalistic pride and therefore easily manipulated to adopt mr whittles argument believing it a sound argument.

until they meet me that is.

dont be so quick to swallow the words of others QM.
while mr whittle does make some salient points his argument is pure sophism.
because he totally IGNORES massive amounts of historical data and instead speaks to the most fearful and easily swayed and i find that deplorable.

There is no sophistry here. None.

Whittle laid out the argument perfectly, starting with historical precedents and touching on the long list of conflicts caused by muslims right up till today. Add to the timeline the noncoincident fading of Europe.

No honest seeker looking to replace Western Civilization with something better would choose defective and brutal islam, with its backa$$wards sharia law and failure to produce anything of material or intellectual value.

If there's anything Whittle said that's patently false, do tell.

I share your rage about Apple deciding that only CoCo developed apps will be allowed through the app store.

But I don't sympathize with the autograph seeker in the video. You're not entitled to labour or use of time from one the busiest and most public CEOs on the planet. I look askance at all autograph seekers, but these ones who act like massively rich and industrious people are obligated to give you their signature with every random encounter are just fucking assclowns.

Although I still disagree with you I appreciate your view and taking the time to post it.

It's really hard for me to understand how we're allowed to let fear-mongering and propaganda continue to run the American people. You and I both know that any claim that gay marriage will destroy family values, etc. is bullshit. But I also am aware that it's a slippery slope when a judge overturns the popular vote. It is a scary government action and to say that it's ok in certain instances means "it's ok when I'm ok with it". I do understand that. But civil liberties is one of those instances where, at the end of the decade, maybe two, we'll look back and say "damn I can't believe how barbaric we were".

In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
I have written additional words at this sift, if you are interested.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
HAHAHA! Yea being gay is the new "hip" thing that all the young kids are doing these days. Grandpa, is that you?

Society is stupid. A large community of people in Germany decided killing Jews was ok (Godwin seekers you can now leave). It's a big reason we don't have a pure democracy: because people are STUPID. They're ignorant, they're fickle, they're quick to react to things they're afraid of and it is just plain stupid put somebody's rights to a vote, if that right isn't violating another person's rights.
>> ^quantumushroom:

Same-sex "marriage" remains part and parcel of the "making shit up" argument. It's something that did not exist until very recently, and has never existed in any religion or society except in extremely limited instances with zero far-reaching consequences.
Society has a right to define what is best. That doesn't mean polygamists, cohabitators, gay couples, etc. are left out in the cold with no rights, it means since society has deemed a marriage of one man/one woman the way that works best, then that is the relationship held in highest esteem.
Olson can obfuscate however he wants, the fact is this GAY judge was acting as an activist, and had NO precedent for his decision to overturn the will of the people. Comparing gay equality to the Civil Rights movement is bogus...Civil Rights was about achieving the SAME rights, not special rights.
Why should the rest of us be forced at gunpoint to accept gay "marriage" as equal to traditional marriage? Tyranny of the minority is just as bad as the other way.