@ shinyblurry

This had already turned into an essay and I didn't want to take up even more room by quoting you verbatim so I've tried to break it down to save space.



1. "Except that?"

There are no absolute logical principles <---- including that one.
This is simply another way of describing the problem of induction and under determination. Like so many philosophical arguments you have attacked my position based upon the language it was described in and not due to its underlying thought process. This has resulted in a fallacy. Language merely conveys knowledge, it does not in an of itself contain it (and excellent example incidentally of what I was talking about).

2. "Is that absolutely true?"

All principles (save the observation "thinking exists") can only ever derived by induction. This is the case because one can never know for certain if any or all of ones experiences are fabrications, and furthermore that they never encompass all possible variables/possibilities. To put it another way, you can't ever be certain about any judgement one makes about the universe or anything in it because one cannot observe an exhaustive perspective (i.e. all of time and space for the thing in question). Thus there may always exist an example that could falsify your assumption. e.g. if I inducted that all swans are white because I had only ever seen white swans I would ultimately be incorrect as black swans can be observed to exist. Unless you can verify the entirety of existence across time there might always exist and experience/example to falsify any objective assertion. (you could be a brain in a jar, you can't prove 100% that your not)


3. "Including not permitting..which means you have no further argument against Christianity."

^ Pardon me? Did you even read what I wrote by way of explanation for that? What part of "everything is permitted" even remotely precludes me (or anyone) from anything, let alone arguing against Christianity?!?!?

What I felt I'd explained fairly clearly was the idea that the only demonstrable moral authority was yourself, or to put it another way that there are no moral authorities to be found anywhere else but within peoples minds.
Even if God himself speaks to you directly, that is an experience reducible only to the mind because ALL EXPERIENCES WITHIN HUMAN CONCEPTION OCCUR IN or at best VIA THE MIND!

Nothing has ever happened to any human being anywhere that was not experienced entirely in the mind (notice I didn't say "brain" ). When you see a chair you don't see the photons of light hitting your retina, you see something your mind made up to be representative (at best) of whatever phenomenon your eyes detected.

With that in mind (<- mind lol), "everything is permitted". The universe will continue on, unmoved by our moralities (or lack of). Only other humans will cry or rejoice at your actions and only within the sovereignty of your own mind will you find an irrefutable and absolute moral judge...

As for the other bits

A. "The earliest records of Mithraism bear no similarity to Christianity at all....."

Apart from all the same major dates for festivals and holy days (25th dec etc.), the entire symbology of dieing on a cross for three days then being resurrected, the "last supper" with 12 disciples, 3 wise men from the east bearing gifts. etc. etc.

I'd have more time for the Christian counter argument that the Mithraists stole this stuff from them if the same themes, dates and symoblogy didn't pop up in ancient cultures going back a few 1000 years over and over and over. The list of Messianic figures with the above characteristics in western folklore & myth is so long its almost a joke! & naturally is no co-incidence as they are describing the movement of the heavens (specifically the sun) by way of allegory. Speaking of which............

Pagan & Gnostic traditions are deeply intertwined to the point where one could consider many examples to be one and the same. Mithraism would be one such example. Pagan just means many Gods/worship of nature & archetypes in the human psyche. Mithraism fulfils this definition but it also fulfils the Gnostic one i.e. it teaches that one finds god of and within oneself, not as an external force, or indeed a force which is separate from oneself.

But then the Catholic Church did it level best to suppress and destroy any trace of Gnosticism through the ages so its no surprise to me that you're not entirely familiar with it. (most people haven't even heard of it and those that do tend to be under the misapprehension that its a Christian thing (again understandable under the circumstances))


B. "Actually, they came from a progressive revelation of Judiasm which preceeded all of that."

I'll come with you a little on that one. Before Rex Mundi (Jehova) showed up to fk everything up for them the Kabbalistic (and essentially Pagan) Jews possessed great wisdom and insight. Naturally not all of this was lost! (though after Solomon passed it would appear a regrettably large amount was)


C. "What Jesus did not teach that came from Judiasm was wholly His and entirely unique, and they came from the mouth of God Himself."


I'm not sure I even want to grace that with a response. How could you possibly know what came from the mouth of God to a man 2000 years ago? If you say "because it says in the bible" please don't expect a sensible reply (I'm happy to fight non-sense with none-sense)


D. "The difference is Jesus Himself. You could take buddha out of buddhism, or zoroaster out of zoroastrianism and you would still have something. Without Jesus there is no Christianity."

^This one amused be greatly. I would say Buddhism & Zoroastranism were clearly superior for exactly that reason but that's not what I think you were alluding to? I assume you were suggesting that certain parts of the whole Jesus shebang could only have come from Jesus/God/Holy spirit because he made himself the centre of attention?
This is why I make a very distinct separation between the "Jesus" and the "Christ". Christ (or anointed one) goes back at least to Egypt. Horus is clearly "Christ" by basically any sensible measure I can think of, and by "Christ" I mean the "Sun of God" i.e. the freaking Sun.
This also forms the basis for an "as above so below" parable/allegory for the spiritual journey to enlightenment. You can find your way to heaven and God via the "Sun of God's" wisdom. No Miracle performing hippie Jew's were required before and I fail to see how sprouting the same fundamental idea just with a figurehead for a disenfranchised Jewish noble family anchored to everything helps?

Are there some pearl's of Jesus's wisdom I missed? Thus far I have yet to come across anything that didn't strike me as either a rewording of things wise men had preached for 1000's of years previously, or a power play by an unscrupulous or deluded individual.


E. "The Jesus myth theory isn't taken seriously by even skeptical bible scholars. There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than for Alexander the Great."

I happen to know its hotly contested even to this day but lets for the sake of this just take it as a given. When I said "at best a fabrication" it was because I consider the historical figure to be an impostor and a fraud. If anyone was a "true" messiah then John the Baptist and moreover Simon Magus are far better contenders but then that's a colossal can of worms I'm not sure I can be bothered to open at the moment. I'll just say in summary that I am of the opinion that Mr. Ben Yosef and his crew were plotting to return the house of David to power but largely failed in the end as the Roman establishment usurped most of the legacy they tried to create (though not entirely).
Either way they worshiped and championed a being (Psychological archetype) which I feel I have little choice but to call Satan i.e. the God of Abraham. This alone is a pretty major indictment for me and any historic figure that puts said "being" at the center of their belief system will garner my suspicion.

How can the God that appeared to Abraham be anything but malevolent if the accounts in the Torah and Quran are accurate?

(I hope that made sense towards the end, getting very late & tired here...)

Nothing is true

Except that?

All concepts of truth are relative

Is that absolutely true?

Everything is permitted

Including not permitting..which means you have no further argument against Christianity.

Do some homework ;-).

I have. According to what you've written, you haven't.

Your religion (Christianity) is a bastardization of "Messianic Judaism" (the crazy old testament stuff) and Mithraism (a "Gnostic" religion which was highly (& most) prevalent among the roman legions around the time of the reformation).

The earliest records of Mithraism bear no similarity to Christianity at all. It is a pagan religion in every respect. The only records you find that bear similarity to Christianity are after the 2nd century, after Christian texts had been circulating for at least a hundred years. It's Mithraism which integrated Christianity not the other way around.

Virtually everything positive you allude to in the Christian teachings originally come from Hermeticism and other such ancient "Gnostic" traditions.

Actually, they came from a progressive revelation of Judiasm which preceeded all of that. What Jesus did not teach that came from Judiasm was wholly His and entirely unique, and they came from the mouth of God Himself. The difference is Jesus Himself. You could take buddha out of buddhism, or zoroaster out of zoroastrianism and you would still have something. Without Jesus there is no Christianity.

Jesus (that is to say "Yeshua ben Yosef") as portrayed as a mortal man is a fabrication at best (and outright fraud at worst).

The Jesus myth theory isn't taken seriously by even skeptical bible scholars. There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than for Alexander the Great.

etc

The hope for the Messiah is universal in human beings; that is revelation that God gives to every man, which is what it says in Romans 1:18-21. Whether there are messianic expectations in other religions is irrelevent. Buddha, Zoroaster, Lao Tzu are dead. Jesus is alive.

Do some homework ;-).

Your religion (Christianity) is a bastardization of "Messianic Judaism" (the crazy old testament stuff) and Mithraism (a "Gnostic" religion which was highly (& most) prevalent among the roman legions around the time of the reformation).

Virtually everything positive you allude to in the Christian teachings originally come from Hermeticism and other such ancient "Gnostic" traditions.

Jesus (that is to say "Yeshua ben Yosef") as portrayed as a mortal man is a fabrication at best (and outright fraud at worst).

The "Christ" however has been around for a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooongass time before the name "Jesus" ever hit the scene . This stuff goes back to the Greeks, Egyptians, Babylonians, Cannanites etc.

And that not even mentioning The Buddha, Zoroaster, Lao Tzu etc. etc. all of whom predate your Jesus by quite some centuries and preach many of the same fundamentals.

Ditch the Dogma and try out the approach of some other religions, you'll quickly find that underneath all the silly myths there's certain things they all have in common (to a greater and lesser extent). You'll also I hope quickly start to realise that the three major "Exoteric religions" (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) are by this stage corrupted to the point of being barely serviceable and a mere shadow of their "Esoteric" counterparts.

Then again you could always just pull the faith card on me

Love is the law...

..and they are still telling stories about how the Buddha stopped a bull elephant in his tracks. Funny, this is not how they depict it in paintings.

When I hear the argument about hammers, I laugh, because who ever believes that is a dumbass. And then I realize, people actually believe it, and then I'm sad.

Yes, assault rifles are outnumbered by hammers . . . maybe. Actually, BLUNT OBJECTS outnumbers rifles, but that includes bats, bricks, printers, pianos, pipes, candle holders and the whole ensemble of clue.

Now, in reality most murder is between people who know each other. That's why serial killers are more terrifying. They're killing people they don't know, seemingly at random. Which puts the paranoia in the population and people start freaking. Random killings just seem more terrifying. For some reason people just don't expect their mom to kill them. Who knows why, must be some weird fluke or Buddha or something.

The idea that I can go watch a movie with my daughter and some guy with an overloaded assault rifle, body armour etc can come in and just shoot everyone is way more terrifying a prospect than my mother-in-law finally snapping and picking up a knife and stabbing me. First off, I could totally kick her ass. Second, the former I can't do anything about. Despite the "it takes a good man with a gun" bullshit, reality shows otherwise. 9mm versus bulletproof vest, smoke grenade, IED's and assault rifles just doesn't cut it. But I don't play CoD . . .

In regards to the constitution, yeah, when it was written the military and the people had the same access to weaponry. Matter of fact, we didn't even have a standing army. It really was up to the states to get a regulated militia to keep the country safe from invaders. So comparing that to printed newspapers and tv and internet is, well, simple. It's a similar argument most paranoid gun owners use for everything. Let's just take a superficial look and ignore reality. Kind of like real dictators and tyrants taking away 22mm hand guns while pointing their tanks at your house.

I think that's the greatest irony . . . those who wish to own guns to protect themselves from tyrants are blindly following their leaders and scream for murder and revolt, or 1766 will rise again! yadda yadda, are becoming the same puppets they claim they are protecting themselves from. No one saw Hitler coming? Well, he sounded a lot like Beck honestly. So did Stalin, etc. The people who followed them thought they made absolute sense, and then this and that happened and now we all know them as mass murdering fiends.

So again, are we really talking gun control so we have the right to become the fourth reich, or are we really wanting a worthwhile discussion on saving lives?

I remember hearing this in a Tijuana nightclub in 2000 and then on the buddha bar 3 disc in early 2002. Freaking awesome.

Man, as soon as the rage wears off and Psy stops dancing nightly to packed houses the dumplings and BBQ pork are going to seriously catch up to him,.....Oppa is Buddha-Style!!

Heeeeeeeeeyyyy, sexy bell-yy!!

I know my momma loves me
I know my poppa loves me
I know the camera loves me
I can tell my brother loves me
I know that Boston loves
And San Francisco loves me
I love the city back,
I just can't help it, it's so lovely

I'm in my lucky underwear, i'm feeling debonair
If it's a lonely trip to heaven, I'm already there
I'm in the bedroom i'm like stepping like I'm Fred Astaire
I make it happen, battlerapping at my Teddy Bear
When I was twelve I'd leave my door open a crack
afraid if getting busted sneaking porno on my mac
I guess I was a freak
Until I got caught last week
(who's been loving you?)
I was reading Booker T, I threw the book at me
I go for the lookers but they never look at me
I would get a hooker if I could unhook her bra
I'd be looking soft as soon as she took her top. off
let's go rolling in a broken winnebago
stop and smoke a bowl out of a hollowed out potato
It's hash now, but it's hash browns soon
(who's been loving you?)

I know that Jesus loves me
I know that buddha loves
The fucking easter Bunny
and the ghost of gandhi love me
I know that santa loves me
I think my Aunties love me
I know my Grandma loved me
she thought I was handsome trust me

this insanity, that's heredity
it's my family, we can let it be
wish I pretended that mom and dad are dead to me
But i love my dad, that motherfucker read to me
my first words were "where's the love?"
mad smug, assed up on a bearskin rug
fashodo, mom'll show you the photo
(who's been loving you?)
I do embarassing better
I could wear a pink sweater
with a pair of slick pleather pants
derelicte e-va-ry day and it's well known
that I hop off stage with my cell phone
fake a dropped call when everybody's near me
and shout "I love you mom!" so everybody hears me
I need to and true nothing new but
(who's been loving you?)

Even though I owe them money
I think it's pretty likely
that my whole family loves me
My lovers tend to like me
I know my homies love me
My teachers loved to hate me
The haters love to fuck with me
the fickle love me lately

I'm a percussionist. I never knew guitar
it's cheesy, but I'm stunting like a superstar
it's easy man I'm hopping out a moving car
call me weezy cause I'm coughing at the hookah bar
I don't do cigars, but I got hella game
I can make a lady out of styling gel and cellophane
so you can yell my name, I make the bed frame move
(who's been loving you?)
me and my better friends are heading to the town strip
if they don't let us in we'll never take roundtrip
because I took an hour picking out my outfit
and then I took another slicking down a cowlick
and I like house sitting, but fuck it now's different
I'm going out and there ain't a bouncer for cowtipping
So I'ma tear this joint up
And i'ma party till the hoofs point up
(who's been loving you?)

this is for Charles Barkley
This is for Poison Ivy
This it's for Draco Malfoy
And it's for Bill O'Reilly
This is for Ned Mencia
It's for the corporate lawyers
it's for the backseat drivers
And for my friend Ann Coulter

>> ^Asmo:
How wonderfully arrogant. You refuse to accept something ergo it doesn't exist...

I've yet to see one..that's why I invited you to come up with one. You say you don't have to, and I say, you don't have one. If you did you would have used it already.

>> ^Asmo:
No, there aren't, and no, there isn't.

"How wonderfully arrogant. You refuse to accept something ergo it doesn't exist..."

>> ^Asmo:
There is conjecture and hypothesis predicated on belief. In the absence of belief, the "evidence" ceases to function.

The Universe from nothing - logical absurdity

abiogenesis and macro evolution - conjecture and hypothesis predicated on belief

The atheist answer "we don't know, and we're working on it, but you're still wrong"

The theory of God has explanatory power, and is a better explanation for the evidence, such as fine tuning in the Universe, and information in DNA. Scientists cannot explain why the Universe appears fine-tuned for life, so they postulate that we there are multiple universes, and we just happen to be in the one that looks designed. The problem with that theory, besides the complete lack of evidence, is that it violates occams razor by multiplying entities unnecessarily. "I don't know" is not an answer, or a reason to reject a better theory.

>> ^Asmo:
He might have been a real person (much like Hercules/Herakles might have been a real person), but the miracles attributed to him remain unproved.

There is powerful evidence for the resurrection, even that skeptical bible scholars accept. The empty tomb is not as easily written off as many atheists who have never studied the matter imagine. My entire contention is that you can test the claim by asking Jesus to come into your life. It is not a matter of me proving it to you, it is a matter of God revealing Himself to you. He will give you the undeniable evidence that you're looking for. This isn't a game..God loves you and wants you to know Him. All you need to do is ask Him to come into your life and He will do it.

>> ^Asmo:
Yes. I particularly enjoyed the part where god commanded the israelites to commit genocide or where Lot fucked his daughters (you'd think god would have seen that coming and made him leave behind his daughters in S&G cos they were nasty..) It has been venerated for so long that few actually think to question it, and then of course everyone interprets it according to their own beliefs anyway, and ignores the bits they don't want to take notice of (the point of the video above).

You say you've read the bible and this is what you got out of it? Or is it that you've read infidels.org? Are you honestly telling me this is what you've gotten out of your reading of the bible? Even Richard Dawkins respects the bible as a work of literature and historical resource.

>> ^Asmo:
I've also read texts from many other religions. I think the buddhists come closest to the mark.

"The Buddha said that no one should simply believe what he said, but we should all think for ourselves and discover the truth through analytical meditation."

I don't subscribe to their religious views but I like how they think.

Scripture tells us to discern all things. It's not a matter of blindly believing something, as you seem to be implying. If that was all it was, I wouldn't believe it either. It is because of the correspondence to reality, and the undeniable evidence I have received, that I believe it.

>> ^shinyblurry:


It's not that you don't need one, it's that there aren't any.

How wonderfully arrogant. You refuse to accept something ergo it doesn't exist...

>> ^shinyblurry:

There are plenty of logical arguments for the existence of God, and evidence that He created the Universe.

No, there aren't, and no, there isn't.

There is conjecture and hypothesis predicated on belief. In the absence of belief, the "evidence" ceases to function.

>> ^shinyblurry:
I would certainly claim that pulling a deity out of your hat is nonsense. I didn't pull Jesus Christ out of a hat; He is a real person, who claimed He is Gods only Son, which God proved by raising Him from the dead.

He might have been a real person (much like Hercules/Herakles might have been a real person), but the miracles attributed to him remain unproved.

>> ^shinyblurry:


Have you ever read the bible?


Yes. I particularly enjoyed the part where god commanded the israelites to commit genocide or where Lot fucked his daughters (you'd think god would have seen that coming and made him leave behind his daughters in S&G cos they were nasty..) It has been venerated for so long that few actually think to question it, and then of course everyone interprets it according to their own beliefs anyway, and ignores the bits they don't want to take notice of (the point of the video above).

I've also read texts from many other religions. I think the buddhists come closest to the mark.

"The Buddha said that no one should simply believe what he said, but we should all think for ourselves and discover the truth through analytical meditation."

I don't subscribe to their religious views but I like how they think.

I read that in the title, as well.

Also kinda disappointed this wasn't a Pink Floyd cover.>> ^Shepppard:

It's late. I'm tired. And I'm not gonna lie, I read the title wrong.

And now I'm semi-disappointed that this video did not contain a Buddha fart.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Strangely enough, I was in a situation yesterday where I was holding travel bags, and due to the distribution of open space in the elevator, standing face away from the door was the most pragmatic option. I did feel weird for a moment, but then I felt like it was an opportunity to detach myself from my ego, like the Buddha (note: I know very little about Buddhism, so this may or may not be accurate). I embraced my break with culture norms, stood calmly and confidently, and it gave my a mild feeling of satisfaction.
I may try it again next time I'm in an elevator. Elevator Zen.


You know whats fun, go stand in the corner of the elevator with your face to the corner, like your in time out or something. People don't know how to react. Or, my dad would try to hold a very awkward conversation with his briefcase. Elevators, the greatest place for forced awkwardness!

Strangely enough, I was in a situation yesterday where I was holding travel bags, and due to the distribution of open space in the elevator, standing face away from the door was the most pragmatic option. I did feel weird for a moment, but then I felt like it was an opportunity to detach myself from my ego, like the Buddha (note: I know very little about Buddhism, so this may or may not be accurate). I embraced my break with culture norms, stood calmly and confidently, and it gave my a mild feeling of satisfaction.

I may try it again next time I'm in an elevator. Elevator Zen.

thank you @ghark.
i always appreciate your insightful comments but i have to disagree with your main premise and here is why:
i have made no bold statements concerning my faith,just that i am a man of faith.
so i have not put myself in a position where i have to defend a non-existent dogma or doctrine.
because i have none.

which leads me to my next point.
to argue faith JUST on the faith itself is a wasteful argument.by its very nature faith is based on the intangible and therefore cannot be argued in any concrete or conclusive manner.this is why you will not find me knocking on your door asking if you have found jesus,or allah or buddha for that matter and to imply that the onus is on me to prove the validity of my faith further implies that i have the desire to do so.
which i do not.
because faith is personal.

the meat of what you are talking about is the prove/disprove god.
this is a futile argument,for neither side can conclusively prove either position.so just as an intelligent person has to leave the option that god MAY exist (though unlikely in their view),the person of faith has to come to the exact same conclusion but in reverse.
my view is that this argument is a waste of time and produces nothing of value.
now the discussion on WHY somehow has faith,or a lack of it is a much more interesting conversation and THAT conversation can open so many avenues of dialogue which can benefit all parties involved.

i think the best approach to have a decent discussion about faith vs atheism is to define the terms before the discussion even begins.
and this has to be the main definition to discuss:
define GOD.
because if you begin a discussion without making that vital distinction the discussion has a tendency to devolve into presumption based on ones own subjective knowledge.

i have had many discussions with atheists (quite a few here on the sift) and usually this is due to their curiosity about me being a man of faith.they were respectful.they allowed me to express where my faith resides and they didnt judge,many times they even understood (though still disagreed).
those discussions with "militant" atheists went in a totally different direction which almost mirrored my discussion with fundamentalist christians and muslims and what i found most abhorrent about those discussions was the PRESUMPTION that not only were they absolutely correct but also where my faith originated.
this is the epitome of fundamentalism and i find it not only lazy but distasteful.

concerning harris, you may be correct.my opinion of him is anecdotal and based on his lectures i have watched and being a neuroscientist i am sure he has much to say about things concerning the mind.my point was that hitchens went after what needed to be addressed.which is dogma and doctrine.harris shows a palpable disdain for anybody who deems themselves a person of faith.which is just arrogant and weak.

my whole point was to express the difference between a regular atheist (is that even a term?) and a militant atheist.just like their is a huge difference between a religious person and a fundamentalist religious person.
in my experience i have found the militant will react viscerally just by the mere mention of "faith" and will presume a whole litany of non-presented facts based on nothing more than their own prejudice.the fundamentalist will do basically the same thing when the validity of their holy writ is brought under scrutiny as not being the un-erring word of god.both of these factions make the mistake that their position is inviolate based on their own limited understandings.

at least i KNOW i do not know everything and wisdom needs to be tempered with reason and conclusions drawn from experience otherwise it is not wisdom but rather misused data.
i am a man of faith.
you are not.
and i am totally ok with that.
namaste.

@TheSluiceGate
hey thanks for the response my friend.(though in bullet form..blech)
i now have a clearer picture in what you were trying to convey,and if i have your stance correct:

1.you found this video to be a glorification of drug addiction and not the religious aspects.

i disagree and your previous comments do also.i disagree that this was a glorification of any kind but rather ones mans courage to put himself out there and explain where he was and what helped him walk away still breathing.nobody goes around and broadcasts how they are an addict and have lost control of their lives.i feel this video is more of public service for those who may suffer and silence and feel they are alone,which is quite common among addicts.we can disagree on this...our perceptions just differ.as for the religious aspects may i just point to your last paragraph.notice anything?

you are free to chastise this man for his conversion to christianity and putting his recovery on giving himself over to jesus.that is not only your choice but your right but please dont say your premise was not influenced by the religious aspects when it obviously was.you said so in your own words.

2.you are an atheist and disagree with my use of "redemption" because of its religious connotations and would prefer "recovery".

i can agree that "recovery" is also an apt term to use but it does not convey in a complete sense what "redemption" conveys.
you dont "recover" from guilt and shame.
you are "redeemed" and this does not have to have anything to do with religion but it does has EVERYTHING to do with brutal honesty.to have the courage to face oneself with eyes wide open and accept the choices...AND consequences.this is a process that needs to happen to start the healing process which can only begin with forgiveness.
to forgive oneself.
this does not,by implication,necessarily mean that jesus has to come in to your life.
or buddha.
or allah.
or the great spirit.
but usually for addicts it is something outside themselves.this could be a person you greatly admire and respect which could help fascillitate a similar outcome.
hence my captain crunch reference.

i would also like to address that your disagreement with me is actually an agreement.
while i agree with your assesment on my over-simplification let me just point out:
emptiness=psychological
pain=physical
my over-simplification was to shave off all the myriad redundancies to reveal the nugget/core.

3.you are not some big meanie.

my apologies if i implied that you were in any capacity.i chose my words carefully in order to provoke you into revealing your TRUE motivation and in that context i succeeded but allow me to apologize for the manipulation.
i didnt want to respond in a presumptuous manner,even though i had suspicions to your true dislike of this video.

and here was my general thinking.
why would somebody find a video where a man admits,on VIDEO,how he almost killed himself due to his addictions and lost that which was most dear,and his consequent "recovery",be perceived as a bad thing?
and the only conclusion i could come up with was the "jesus" factor as being the bitter pill.
just look at the views to votes ratio.you are not exactly alone my friend.

would you feel the same way if this man had started recovery from meeting a distinguished scientist? or philosopher?
who helped him see the world differently and hence gave him the courage to face what he needed to face?
i presume (falsely maybe) that you and many on this site would have cheered this man for his courage but since this man gave his life to jesus and credits jesus for his recovery he is relegated to the silly bin.
my response is:whatever works for ya.do it and do it NOW.if that means jesus or the FSM then by all means...have at it.

i AM an ex-junkie.
and i dont mean i had a small "problem" but i was the rip-snorting we-are-going-for-a-fucking-ride kinda junkie.
the wake up across state lines on the beach-how the fuck did i get here kinda junkie.
i assist those who wish to be clean.
i let them stay in my spare room so they can go through detox (worst experience a person can endure imo).
i do not judge.
i do not preach.
i make it ok.
because i am fluent in the language of the broken and forsaken because i was once just like them.
this is mainly where my "nobody can do it alone" comment was inspired.because a junkie cannot get clean by him/herself.their self loathing is too dominant and the desire to numb themselves from their own past too strong an impulse to ignore.

so when you see a junkie you may (rightly so) see a person who has made some bad choices.maybe you hope they will seek treatment and get better but they need to accept responsibility.
i agree with that, but you judge them while not understanding THEY have already judged themselves and their judgment is so much harsher than you could ever imagine.they believe themselves to be less than nothing and execute that verdict with a raging self-hatred everytime they use.which then becomes a never-ending cycle of guilt and shame.

i attempt to break that cycle for those who seek to become healthy and whole again.sometimes i succeed but more often i fail.
so if jesus is a part of somebody finding the strength and courage to face their demons then who are we to judge?

i do hope you take this comment in the spirit it was written.
with honesty and respect.i truly appreciate your contributions to this subject (which is obviously close to home for me) and indulging my curiosity with how an atheist views subjects such as these.
it would be interesting to see how many votes a video similar to this would get if there was no reference to jesus or god.

thank you TSG.