In reply to this comment by ponceleon:
I'm jewish by birth and embarrassed to be one.

I always think its crazy that Judaism = Race & Religion.
You can quit being a Muslim, a Christian, a Hindu, .etc.
But, you cant quit being a Jew.

Sorry I was trying to post this to your comment on the video and posted to your profile by mistake.

Just a note.

It's not necessarily all that accurate to refer to Shiva as the Hindu god of destruction. Yes, that's one role Shiva plays, but Shaivites also worship Shiva under many aspects. One of the best known ways of depicting Shiva is as Shiva Nataraja, the Lord of the Dance. His dance, his devotees believe, does not only destroy the world, but continually creates it. Some believe, in fact, that his dance is creation--our existence, along with the existence of everything else, is Shiva's dance.

i know this video is two years old,
but for the benefit of those who may stumble upon it now.
kabbalah is not a cult.
it is perhaps the oldest known text known to man concerning the universe,creation and its relation to man.
it has permeated almost every religion of all the 4500 religions on the planet.
while it is considered now-a-days hebrew mysticism,its actual origins are unknown due to the secretive nature in which it was passed down (oral tradition,a hebrew staple).
it is not a religion,nor considered holy canon,it is,however,a systematic representation of creation..the tetragrammaton(sp?).
so there should be no surprise if you find some kabbalistic philosophy in christianity,judaism,islam,buddha,hindu..all have aspects of kabbalah in them.
i,for one..find kabbalah fascinating.

Wow, he really does come across as an idiot (ben stein). He asks him to put the likelyhood of god into a number, Dawkins protests that it is kind of a silly thing to do, and then he CRITICIZES the number Dawkins come up with because it is somehow unscientific! What a fuckhead.

Edit: I just found a very amusing association in my mind... "You don't believe in Hindu gods? You don't believe in muslim gods?"

Yes Lisa, a magical wonderful animal!
http://www.videograter.com/video/Lisa-becomes-a-Vegetarian-yes-Lisa-a-magical-animal

To make sure I was right here I did a quick bit of research. Aron had it right best I can tell.

Hindu. Multiple gods each with different aspects or roles, the role of Brahma (not to be confused with Brahman) was the creator God. lots of variation within the religion though and some Hindus are considered to be atheist. Second link covers that part.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahm%C4%81
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism

Sikhism. Sikhs believe that before creation, all that existed was God and his hukam (will or order).[9] When God willed, the entire cosmos was created. From these beginnings, God nurtured "enticement and attachment" to māyā, or the human perception of reality.[10]

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

There are others as well but rather than write a book I just wanted to point out what he was probably considering when he said that. We're not all that familiar with some of these, but yes, they are there. And others besides.

That being said, he was raised as an anglican Christian, So he tends to stick with that when he challenges specific religious claims. What he mainly does speak against, however, is Gods, any and all gods, the abrahamic, hindu, norse or greek gods, or the more deistic god of the enlightenment, and most certainly the creationist God that people try combating science with.

Speaking of Creationist loonies, Heard the recent exchange between Ray "The banana Man" Comfort and Blogger and Biology Professor PZ Myers? Its hilarious.


Ray Comfort:"I simply expose atheistic evolution for the unscientific fairy tale that it is, and I do it with common logic. I ask questions about where the female came from for each species. Every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. Evolution has no explanation for the female for every species in creation,"

PZ Myers response:"I know Ray is rather stupid, but who knew he could be that stupid. This has been explained to him multiple times: evolution does explain this stuff trivially. Populations evolve, not individuals, and male and female elephants evolved from populations of pre-elephants that contained males and females. Species do not arise from single new mutant males that then have to find a corresponding mutant female – they arise by the diffusion of variation through a whole population, male and female."

Comfort counters...At what point of time in evolutionary history did the female evolve alongside the male? And why did she evolve? Then explain, if you would professor, why horses, giraffes, cattle, zebras, leopards, primates, antelopes, pigs, dogs, sheep, fish, goats, mice, squirrels, whales, chickens, dinosaurs, beavers, cats, human beings and rats also evolved with a female, at some point of time in evolutionary history.

At this appalling ignorance, most of us would just give up, But not PZ, instead he lashes out the most embarrasing (for Comfort) putdowns in the history of ass-whopping:
Elephantine errors from Ray Comfort

I think that morality and religion have little to do with one another.

I really think organized religion is a way of controlling people, especially since a regional, organized "church", in almost every example in the world, is closely intwined with the political powers that happen to rule that very same region.

Protastant, Muslim, Jew, Catholic, Hindu, Sikh....

When you look at the regional politics and the regional religion, the two are rarely far apart.

Atheism, even agnosticism or some third-party sense of spirituality, is often a very real threat to the powers that be.

The sheep that realizes it's a sheep can become a wolf; and maybe rescue the other sheep.

Modern intellectual standards are that claims are followed by evidence for those claims. It doesn't matter if you're a Hindu, Muslim, or whatever religion you are... "read my book" can't serve as evidence.

Not a shred of evidence? Come now, Dr, Martin Luther referenced to religion countless times in his speeches. His very style of public-speaking was reminiscent of any baptist minister's sermon. In fact, King's dedication to non-violent resistance was due to the influence of another extremely religious figure, Mahatma Ghandi.

Like it or not King appealed to several popular teachings and values which can be attributed to religion. Both Hindu and Christian infact. I'm not saying religion was the sole purpose behind the downfall of segregation but it certainly played its part.

As for the former KKK member, to be honest I saw genuine sympathy behind the man's eyes, not fear. If it's not enough for a former white supremacist to publicly apologize on national TV and hug a black man whom he formerly assaulted then I honestly have no idea what is.

What? A bunch of loiterers harbouring a tax dodger?

Since when is that ok?

Maybe major crimes are OK since you voted that hindu muslim into office?

"Listen to Dawkins talking about religious people as if they are all the same - I can't believe they knighted a guy who stereotypes religious people into one group of behaviour."

Harlequinn, it seems fair to group supernaturalists all into the same category in the senses of e.g. (1) they all reject empiricism and rationalism, and (2) their brains look the same in brain scans, whether the content of their mystical experiences is in a Hindu, Muslim, hallucinogenic drug, or whatever context (see neurotheology).

That's of course not the only way to group supernaturalists, but it's a useful way when the topic of discussion is e.g. rationalism and the brain.

Thanks so much for your reply, Doc. I'll just make some small points and leave you to you and yours.

Your scam anecdote is an interesting one, and as a scientist I'm sure you'll understand when I point out that the vast majority of people do not understand or appreciate the value of chance and coincidence in their daily lives. However, the majority of those people don't believe in chance or coincidence either. What happens is a "plan" or simply placed there by something unexplainable.

As fantastic as your prayer and sign may be I'd simply recommend reconsidering that you were going to get that email regardless. A far more obvious sign from god would have been an email whose contents actually contained a message from god, IE: "Doc you asked for for your account to be cancelled if it were wrong and it is, therefore I have had the company in charge of it deactivate it. Signed, The Lord."

I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from here. Another good example is in Bill Maher's movie Religulous when he's talking to "The Ex-Jew for Jesus" and that man said when he held his empty glass outside and prayed for rain for a drink and it rained he considered that a miracle for the existence of Christ. Bill's response was excellent when he pointed out that if he asked for rain and it rained he'd realize that, hey "It sometimes rains!". Now if it rained frogs he and I both would take pause and consider that to be a miracle. (Even though, as a scientist, I'm sure you know of the meterological phenomenom which has caused it to rain small frogs and fish in the just the last century,)

I also do not understand how someone as schooled as yourself can take the Old Testament as "fact". There is still no archeological evidence what-so-ever for Jews being used as slaves in ancient Egypt. And for a civilization that kept such excellent records of everything (I once had a fundie-xtian tell me they wouldn't document a "Jew slave rebellion") they might make a small note that an entire race under their command left them after a series of miracles befell the Kingdom.

And on the idea of Jesus dying for everyone's sins (which I know full well about; I was raised Protestant and, no I don't hate Christians or Christianity, I am concerned for their mental health and well being) I just think that it is a little too presumptuous if you catch my meaning. God creates original sin (which many in the church now say is just symbolism) then sends his only son to die for all of man's sin (including the "symbolical" original sin). No one asked for this, God merely forces it on us. Then attemps to guilt us into being saved by this Christ Figure (who has the exact same story as countless other Christ figures before his time) or else!.

But, hey, as I've pointed out I'm an Agnostic Atheist. The scientist in me sees no evidence for the existence of a god or god, therefore I don't believe. I've read the Bible front to back, as well as the Quran and other "holy" texts. They all read the same (aside from some Hindu scripture). And as an Agnostic I don't know if there is a god or gods because the evidence hasn't presented itself yet. Maybe if a miracle of such unexplainable value descends into my life I'd start believing, but it certainly wouldn't be the Christian god of the Bible. Why you might ask? Because the Bible is rife with contradictions, errors, hypocrisies and historical fallacies. And if "God" wanted that book to be written I'm sorry to say he might be a little bi-polar and attention deficit disorder.

And thanks for the 100 Star congrats!

In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
Hello my furry-hatted friend:
First off, you can read this in brief reply to you comment:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Dawkins-Conversing-Badly-A-Converted-Muslim#comment-625934

I'll now continue in private.

I see that you are (by your profile) rather read in science. Fantastic! Few are these days. I may be a Christian but I'm also a scientist as a profession atm. Many see that as either insane or hypocritical, but I can flatten that argument every time people land it on me in person, mwahaha. As for my life:

I once had a scam going where I could trick multiple "ad-bars" (those advertising bars that would stay on your screen and paid you per active minute) into thinking that I was "active" all freaking day every day even though obviously I was sleeping or in class most of the time. One night I felt convicted and prayed asking "if this is wrong, just cancel my account." I arose that morning and checked my email to find that my account WAS CANCELED DUE TO ABUSE... That very morning. That very day. It could have been that very instant.
I realized my behavior was theft and I stopped it. This has happened once more since! Instantaneous evidence.

In addition, if you look at the evidence for when and who wrote what book in the bible, you'll find that the majority of scholars support the "old testament before new testament" history. That continues to say that the prophecies and foreshadowing of the old testament is a valid justification to say that the new testament is valid as well.

People who hate Christianity are often simply misinformed. Jesus did not die as a sin sacrifice for "good" people or for "christian" people or for "generous" people. He died for ALL people, free of charge, should they only accept it. God is good, but God is just, and for some things death is just, and Jesus spent that punishment for us all. All we need do is believe that the price is paid for us in Jesus. The justice has been dealt to Jesus on our behalf. That is by no means insane. That makes legal sense. It makes human sense. It makes honorable sense. No new dedication is required.

Also, grats on 100 stars.

In reply to this comment by Raigen:
I would be extremely interested to know the evidence you've witnessed that makes you a believer. And why Dawkins is a douchebag. Send me a PM if you like.

>> ^Doc_M:
Well my friend. I've looked at the evidence and I believe. Cook that in your oven. I'm an inch away from Ph.D. and Dawkins is so plainly a D-bag, it almost makes him the definition of such.

I've never known of a Buddhist who tries to get their religion taught in our public schools, nor wants "in Buddha we trust" on our money, nor affect other areas of government policy.

For that matter, I've never known of a Hindu a Muslim or any other religious group other than Jews and Christians (of every variety) who would ever dream of trying to affect US public policy.

Even the Quakers know just to leave shit alone and practice their own way, privately.


That's the problem that most theists just don't understand; You stop trying to shove your religion in our faces, and we'll stop being so outraged by your nonsense.


Shut.The.Fuck.Up.Already

I quote this heavily out of context:


"Everyone knows that Western thought today, even in its most fashionable incarnations, has Christian roots. But somehow, most of us think it's possible to escape the implications of this connection by simply denying the Christian label, and adopting a metaphysical doctrine - atheism - which is repugnant to the unwashed who have not made this great leap. The result is that we land in "No Logo" nirvana. We are the enlightened ones. Hail us!

Imagine if I tried the same with Nazism. I could march around in a brown leather uniform all day, waving a swastika banner and condemning the filthy Zionist-Bolshevik hordes. When questioned by the usual voices of decency, I could respond that:

* I'm not a Nazi. In fact, I oppose Nazism. So I'm not a Nazi.
* I'm half-Jewish. The Nazis would never have me. So I'm not a Nazi.
* Nazis believe in the leadership of Adolf Hitler. I don't. So I'm not a Nazi.
* My inverted swastika is actually a Hindu fertility symbol. So I'm not a Nazi.

Etc, etc, etc. How much ice do you think this would cut with the diversity committee? But somehow, when the creed is Christianity rather than Nazism, it can be ditched as easily as a Muslim's wife. Just say: "I'm an atheist, I'm an atheist, I'm an atheist." And no one will ever be able to accuse you of being a religious fanatic, at least not without substantial preparatory explanation. What more perfect cover story for an actual religious fanatic?"

God doesn't agree. Or at least God decided to take him up to heaven early.

Anyone read this total bullsh-t challenge? What kind of coward makes these bold claims of reward to anyone who can answer the questions and then does this:

This is a rough draft. The Challenge will be formally available to everyone the same day i53 releases the first installment of its new reality series "The Great Commission."

Ok, so your contest will never be "official".. bravo.

1. To receive the $5,300, you must answer the question(s) without contradicting yourself.

define "contradict".

6. All responses cost $1.00. This cost is not to generate revenue but rather to curb excessive and superfluous responses.

Ok, nice challenge. Surely they will receive thousands of entries to their bullsh-t challenge. So they aren't even putting up their own money. BUt I agree it is helpful to limit entries especially if people have to read them.

11. Only one $5,300 prize will be allotted. This prize will go to the first individual who can answer the question(s) below without contradicting him or herself.

Ok, again is it first one submitted? First one submitted after the contest becomes "official". What lying cowards.

8. At the top of your response, please state your ultimate epistemological authority... You must be extremely specific when stating your ultimate epistemological authority. That is, you will need to explicitly tell us the one religious text or the one living person that you consider to be ultimately authoritative.

How is this a challenge to atheists or agnostics??? Also, the rules state:

If in your submission, you give ultimate authority to any other living person other than yourself, your submission will be automatically invalidated, and you will lose your $1.00.

So by definition of the contest you must state the ONE religious text you follow. What kind of morons are these? Note that the "Bible" is not in fact one religious text even.

Now the questions immediately invalidate the contest because you cannot answer them all by definition without contradiction. They only apply to different belief systems.

Question 1 & 2
These two questions are for the atheist, postmodernist, or any individual who thinks that man constructs his truth rather than discovers a transcendent truth outside of himself.

Question 3
This next question is for the agnostic, for anyone who does not hold to a formal system of thought, for anyone who holds himself to be ultimately authoritative, or for any non-Christian who believes that truth is discovered rather than constructed ... Please note that this question pertains to all individuals who believe in a god, but their belief stems from their own mind, rather than from some divinely revealed text.

Question 4
This question is for the Hindu, the Buddhist, or any adherent of an (eastern) religion that denies the existence of propositional truth on an ultimate level.

Question 5
This next question is for any adherent of Islam, Roman Catholicism, Judaism, Mormonism, Jehovah Witness, or any monotheistic religion which possesses an authoritative text (or revelation) that claims its (infinite) God has characteristics of justice and mercy.


This is the biggest joke and exercise in mental masturbation. By the contest's own rules even the Christian author of the challenge has failed and cannot collect the money. I'm glad God decided to smote this charlatan