Feminism is oppressive to rational people in the same way that any stupid and pervasive idea that influences the explicit and implicit rules of society is oppressive.

Again, feminism is not the doctrine that women should be treated fairly; that's what everyone who's actually awake already believes. What feminism is, is a gloopy mess of paranoia, arbitrary rules, rape fantasies, political correctness, still-born philosophies, pointless taboos, obstructionism and pure seething insanity.

It causes real harm, including yes it could be argued, killing people. Look at all the resources, private and public, time and material, that are squandered on it instead of being spent on, say, science.

Well, the scripture predicts an apostate and fractured church in these times, so what you are seeing is consistent with the bible. The divisions that you see though are steeped in minor doctrines; what is considered orthodox to the faith (the life death and resurrection, the trinity etc) has nearly universal agreement going back to the early church.

God is clearly not a static foundation on which humanity bases their morals. Any cursory examination of Christian history shows that interpretations of what a Godly foundation for a life advicates have varied wildly at least from era to era, if not person to person.

There has not only overriding agreement of right and wrong between Christians throughout the ages, but also between cultures regardless of religion. Every culture has basically the same laws; don't lie, don't cheat, don't kill, don't steal etc. This is pointing to the fact that God didn't just tell us what is moral and immoral in the bible, He wrote it on our hearts. However, you are right in that actions speak louder than words. If you want to look at Christian history, it's very plain that calling yourself a Christian doesn't make you a moral person. Jesus said you will know a tree by its fruits, and a lot of Christian fruit in history has been rotten. There has also been quite a bit of good fruit as well. However, you can't pin down whether God gave a moral law to the actions of sinful human beings when the bible actually predicts the massive apostasy and moral inconsistency that you are describing. Take a look at Matthew 24, for instance.

Is there a foundation for static morality without a God to give it to you? Of course there isn't. And again I'll ask where or when we were guaranteed any such thing.

Well, it seems you agree with Ravi after all. This is exactly his point, and mine. There is no foundation for morality (or meaning, etc) without God and therefore atheism is incoherent. Atheism leads to nihilism which is inconsistent with your own experience.

But lets say that we do deserve such certainty, it still begs the question of why this foundation for morality of yours seems to have a curiously diverse array of outcomes in terms of moral norms over the millennia.

It has a diverse array of outcomes because human nature is corrupt and we can only imperfectly follow Gods laws. It also has nothing to do with what we deserve, but what is true.

Oh wait, I forgot. Your take on this whole thing is actually the only correct one, because of a personal relevation from God - of course. I guess we can now ignore all those other people who felt they had the same thing, because they just weren't lucky enough to benefit from the secure foundation of morality you have found.

It's not my take, it's what Jesus taught us:

John 14:6

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

So your argument is with Jesus and not with me. You ask Him whether this is true or not.

And yes, spending 20 minutes detailing how Hitler and Stalin may have used certain limited aspects of atheistic thought processes to reach conclusions that are clearly not necessary outcomes of such premises, not by a long shot, and then using that to discredit an entire world view - is indeed Reducto ad Hitlerum in every possible sense of the term.

As TheGenk said, that's weak man.

Hitler is debatable but Stalins regime was atheistic at its core and that isn't debatable. Atheism wasn't peripheral to it, it was the foundation. Stalin brutally imposed atheism on the populace, and killed millions of Christians who refused to deny Christ. Don't take my word for it:

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

The history of Christianity in the Soviet Union was not limited to repression and secularization. Soviet policy toward religion was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, which made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and the elimination of religion.[1]

The state was committed to the destruction of religion,[2][3] and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic propaganda, and generally promoted 'scientific atheism' as the truth that society should accept.[4][5]

Religious beliefs and practices persisted among the majority of the population,[4] in the domestic and private spheres but also in the scattered public spaces allowed by a state that recognised its failure to eradicate religion and the political dangers of an unrelenting culture war.[2][6]

Funny at times, but I dislike the Wiki-bashing. Wikipedia is WAY more reliable than religious texts/doctrines.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I don't know - it wasn't as sad as I thought it would be. The reactions were generally pretty good from people. Sucks that he feels he has to live a celibate life just because of some 200 year-old church doctrine. I don't mind spirituality - shame organised religion has to screw it all up.

I think that Sam understands this doctrine perfectly well. What he's saying is that it's an abomination. No reasonable person, who is not indoctrinated with such poisonous Biblical nonsense, would agree that killing your wife is the same, morally, as cheating on your wife.

Get out of the bubble, and think for yourself! Living to die is a horrible way to waste a life.

His theory, or argument, was based on gross misinterpretations of Christian doctrine. It would be like if I said that videosift is a morally bankrupt website because the majority of its videos are child pornography. Of course this is patently untrue so all I have there is a strawman argument. I have painted videosift as something it isn't so I can trash and attack its character. This is the same thing Sam Harris is doing. He has painted Christianity as something that it isn't and trashed and attacked its character based on distortions and untruths. It sounds very persuasive if you are not actually familiar with the subject material. Sam is presenting himself as an authority on the subject but as I showed in my reply he lacks even a grasp of the very basics. If you feel my refutation is inadequate in any way, please specifically show me where.

The convincing evidence I have received is personal revelation. To know God He must reveal Himself to you, otherwise you won't know anything about God. Why do you think its impossible that there is a God? Do you have any church background?

I'm willing to bet that the environmental impacts take a backseat when you're in the middle of a firefight.

Heck, just playing paintball, I use the same doctrine...

Two points come to mind, strictly from the perspective of an armchair general.

First, you need first class logistics as well as industrial capacity to run a doctrine of fire superiority continously over lengthy periods of time. If you can't supply your troops adequatly, suppressive fire becomes a luxury. Basically, industrial prowess allows you to sacrifice resources instead of soldiers. The Sowjets, on the other hand, had ample manpower reserves, yet limited logistical capacities, leaving human waves as a doctrine.

Second, I suppose it's much easier on your nerves to be "pro-active" about incoming fire than to just wait for an opportune moment. The vast majority of soldiers in major wars were civilians with comparatively little training. During the later years of World War 2, for instance, the difference between seasoned Wehrmacht divisions and reserve/Volkssturm units was enormous, despite acute ammunition shortage in the entire European theatre. Interestingly enough, even the replacement of bolt action rifles with semi-auto rifles such as the G43 didn't increase ammo consumption as much as one might expect.

Some of you probably know I'm a few shades pinker than Castro. Yet I'm disappointed by the left on this matter. I first got nervous when the gun control debate began following the Javon Belcher (KC chief player) incident. It seemed ridiculous to me because obviously no form of reasonable gun control could have stopped an incident like that. It was a linebacker murdering his slight girlfriend and then committing suicide. He didn't need a gun. Still the media began the debate as though they were clearly itching too. That was quickly overshadowed by the Sandy Hook tragedy which was a much more effective rallying cause. Obviously it's natural for the debate to be rekindled after that sort of an incident, but I was disappointed by how disingenuous and emotionally driven it seemed. I couldn't help but think about the availability heuristic ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic ) and how obviously it was coming into play. I thought the left would be better than this. We're supposed to be known for our rejection of knee-jerk responses preferring instead data driven policy. I was reminded of the Republican line-toeing following 9/11. It honestly sickened me.

The fact is every stat I've seen supports this guy's claim (and I spent many hours doing my own research, not just quoting links I found on huffpo or whatever). There is effectively no data that supports the sort of legislation being put forth and virtually no reason to fear that your children are at risk. Basically every case made against assault rifles can be made with much more conviction about alcohol. They are things that a subset of people enjoy, yet occasionally cause harm to people that don't. Alcohol much more so (by a huge factor, something like hundreds depending on how you measure it) than assault rifles. This incident is being used in keeping with Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine. Don't get duped just because they are playing to your fears instead of redneck fears.

Also, it isn't racist to suggest that a large portion of the US murder rate is urban gang and drug related. That's a fact. That someone would even suggest that it is racist further sickens me. You all seem more interested in political correctness than data. Put on your skeptics hat folks. Question what you believe for once.

Claiming that revelation is the only way to know anything is an absolute knowledge claim.

Claiming that God revealed to you that revelation is the only way to know anything is a justification by circular argument.

The claim is that without God you can't know anything. The proof that God exists in this argument, because we do know things, is the impossibility of the contrary.

God himself has not been established and so cannot be reliably used as the fulcrum of an argument. Even among those who believe in God, there is little consensus as to his nature and attributes. I realize that you think you have it right while others have been wrong, but billions of other Christians have no doubt thought exactly the same. Until someone has something demonstrable, I do not care. "God" is just a word that people ascribe whatever definition justifies their beliefs to. Trying to build upon "God" is like trying to build a house upon a foundation of Jello.

The argument is intended to establish the existence of God as a necessity for rational discourse. As far as what Christians believe about God, our beliefs about Jesus Christ, who He is, what He came here to do, His attributes and nature, etc, are universally agreed upon by almost everyone. The idea that there is all this infighting amongst Christians about who or what God is is false. The division has to do with various minor doctrines, most of which are not consequential to the core doctrines.

You are correct that the laws of nature could change in 5 seconds, but we have testable, reproducible results by basing our work upon those laws (or our best approximation of them) and that is more useful to me than the formless, shifting apparition which you implore me to love and fear in their place.

It's interesting that you formulate the dichotomy as either God or science, implicating that science is functioning for you as a sort of stand-in for God. After all, isn't it where you find your explanation for reality? Don't you place your faith in its omnipotence to find every answer and solve every problem? So yes, to know God you will have to displace the idol, but not science itself. Sir Issac Newton certainly didn't see it that way. He saw science as something which demonstrated Gods glory and did not conflict with his research. Obviously his view benefited all of mankind many times over.

Good points. Not that I agree wholeheartedly or at all, necessarily, but you seem congruent in quoting a text. Bibliography isn't stout enough for MLA standards, but I'll let it pass.



Here's what I don't get the most; out of all things you are not supposed to do according to the bible, it seems like homosexuality gets an "unfair" mention. Being that it's only condemned a few times. Now, I know if it's condemned once it might as well be condemned a thousand times, but I just feel that it's slightly coincidental that homosexuality—an act that can actually be repulsive to a non-homosexual or to a homosexual that's ashamed of his/her own feelings—that it is the one touted as the downfall of humanity. I mean there are plenty of ways to sin, why is so much emphasis placed on homosexuality. It just doesn't seem to be congruent with the amount of mentions it has.



Also, as a straight male, I've never had to make a decision in my sexuality. In fact, if anything I'd say it seems out of my control (not my actions but my tastes). So really, anecdotally, I'd say that sexuality is far from being within our conscious control. The problem, it seem, the religious have with that, is it seems to undermine parts of the bible. This, to me, is why it has become such a lynch-pin issue. To admit homosexuality is naturally occurring and against our control, would prove a part, even a small part, of the bible fallacious.

Instead of attacking homosexuality, however, I'd think that Christians would be better off focusing as much on homosexuality as is in the bible—which is very little.>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^VoodooV:
I do have to give the WBC credit for just showing up and credit to Brand for controlling his audience enough to give them a chance to speak.
Anytime you have that chance to at least have a dialog is a win and how one learns.
This just reinforces the absurdity of believing in a god or at the very least having any immutable doctrine of god.
Even if you're at the very least a deist, this idea that you can know precisely what god wants (on BOTH sides of the issue). You don't know that god wants you to hate fags, for that matter you don't know that god wants you to love either.
Even amongst people of the same faith, you can't get anyone to agree on exactly what god is/wants. There is no authoritative source, and that includes the bible and it's multiple versions. There is no empirical evidence either way.
even if you do believe in a god, saying "I don't know" sets you free from any religion or cult like this.
Even if a god does exist and does in fact hate homosexuality and does not want you to be/practice it. He's got an undeniably shitty way of communicating this guideline and why it should be adhered to.
God may be all powerful, but he's shite at communication and education.

That may be true of the various religions, but in Christianity you have near universal agreement on the foundational tenants of the faith, both today and going back to the early church. How you get saved and what God expects you is very well understood and agreed upon by nearly all Christians. Yes, there are differences..some people think baptism is really important, some not so much. Some people think speaking in tongues is important, others not so much. These are all peripheral issues to the heart of the fatih, which is the suffering death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is no confusion in the church as a whole as to how you get saved.
It's also not that God is a bad communicator, it is people are hard of hearing because they suppress the truth:
Romans 1:18-21
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
He gives everyone more than a clue that He is there and what He expects of them, but they harden their hearts to God because of sin.
And far be it from me to defend the WBC, but they have a point about sin. This nation (world) glorifies sin, but sin is what leads people to destruction. If you glorify sin to someone, it is like hating them. Where the WBC goes wrong, and that's to put it mildly, is the negative and judgmental way they present the gospel. This is what scripture says about sharing the faith:
2 Timothy 2:24-26 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.
I think they skipped over these verses when they put together their ministry. They've probably done more in recent times to turn people away from Christ than all the televangelists put together.

>> ^VoodooV:

I do have to give the WBC credit for just showing up and credit to Brand for controlling his audience enough to give them a chance to speak.
Anytime you have that chance to at least have a dialog is a win and how one learns.
This just reinforces the absurdity of believing in a god or at the very least having any immutable doctrine of god.
Even if you're at the very least a deist, this idea that you can know precisely what god wants (on BOTH sides of the issue). You don't know that god wants you to hate fags, for that matter you don't know that god wants you to love either.
Even amongst people of the same faith, you can't get anyone to agree on exactly what god is/wants. There is no authoritative source, and that includes the bible and it's multiple versions. There is no empirical evidence either way.
even if you do believe in a god, saying "I don't know" sets you free from any religion or cult like this.
Even if a god does exist and does in fact hate homosexuality and does not want you to be/practice it. He's got an undeniably shitty way of communicating this guideline and why it should be adhered to.
God may be all powerful, but he's shite at communication and education.


That may be true of the various religions, but in Christianity you have near universal agreement on the foundational tenants of the faith, both today and going back to the early church. How you get saved and what God expects you is very well understood and agreed upon by nearly all Christians. Yes, there are differences..some people think baptism is really important, some not so much. Some people think speaking in tongues is important, others not so much. These are all peripheral issues to the heart of the fatih, which is the suffering death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is no confusion in the church as a whole as to how you get saved.

It's also not that God is a bad communicator, it is people are hard of hearing because they suppress the truth:

Romans 1:18-21

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

He gives everyone more than a clue that He is there and what He expects of them, but they harden their hearts to God because of sin.

And far be it from me to defend the WBC, but they have a point about sin. This nation (world) glorifies sin, but sin is what leads people to destruction. If you glorify sin to someone, it is like hating them. Where the WBC goes wrong, and that's to put it mildly, is the negative and judgmental way they present the gospel. This is what scripture says about sharing the faith:

2 Timothy 2:24-26 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

I think they skipped over these verses when they put together their ministry. They've probably done more in recent times to turn people away from Christ than all the televangelists put together.

I do have to give the WBC credit for just showing up and credit to Brand for controlling his audience enough to give them a chance to speak.

Anytime you have that chance to at least have a dialog is a win and how one learns.

This just reinforces the absurdity of believing in a god or at the very least having any immutable doctrine of god.

Even if you're at the very least a deist, this idea that you can know precisely what god wants (on BOTH sides of the issue). You don't know that god wants you to hate fags, for that matter you don't know that god wants you to love either.

Even amongst people of the same faith, you can't get anyone to agree on exactly what god is/wants. There is no authoritative source, and that includes the bible and it's multiple versions. There is no empirical evidence either way.

even if you do believe in a god, saying "I don't know" sets you free from any religion or cult like this.

Even if a god does exist and does in fact hate homosexuality and does not want you to be/practice it. He's got an undeniably shitty way of communicating this guideline and why it should be adhered to.

God may be all powerful, but he's shite at communication and education.

In 325, the Council of Nicea set out to officially define the relationship of the Son to the Father, in response to the controversial teachings of Arius. Led by bishop Athanasius, the council established the doctrine of the Trinity as orthodoxy and condemned Arius' teaching that Christ was the first creation of God. The creed adopted by the council described Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father."

Mormons reject the Nicene Creed, believing that Jesus Christ was the first born of the Father in spirit and the only begotten in the flesh. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teaches that God the Father, His son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are one Godhead while remaining 3 distinct beings. The Father and the Son have glorified physical bodies, while the Holy Ghost has only a body of spirit.

The word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible
The word "Trinity" was first used by Tertullian (c.155-230)
The doctrine of the Trinity is commonly expressed as: "One God, three Persons"
The doctrine is formally defined in the Nicene Creed, which declares Jesus to be: "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father."

Facts about the doctrine of the Trinity:
It is not mentioned in the Bible
It does not make philosophical sense
It is not compatible with monotheism
It is not necessary in order to explain the "specialness" of Jesus

In Matthew 3:16-17 of the KJV of the New Testament we read an account that includes all 3 members of the Godhead:

16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Mormons assert that Jesus was not speaking to himself about being pleased with himself, but rather that God the Father was pleased in His son Jesus for being baptized while the Spirit of God descended upon Him (Jesus). This statement also implies that it (The Holy Spirit) was not there beforehand.

John 17:20-21 “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us”

Mormons believe that it is that perfect unity between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost that binds these three into the oneness of the divine Godhead.


See also:

John 17:3 “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Matt 17:1-5 “...after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,

“And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

“And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.

“Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

“While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.”

John 1:1-2, 14 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

Matt. 12:31-32 “And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man (another name for Jesus Christ), it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."