Wow, this stuff is really disgusting. How is this on CBS news? How is this not a fringe bloody Christian production? Disgusting.

I had a friend in High School that got more and more Christian, and as their Communication Project chose to show us Christian propaganda videos... including ones which decried Yoda as being dangerous and horrible because he espouses a Buddhist like belief, and meditation as a dangerous practice as it opens your mind to Satan.

This sort of shit is just so worrying. It's presented in the style of 'fact' and yet is ENTIRELY sourced from Christian sources.

HOW does this get onto a normal broadcast tv news?

@enoch while I agree with you on some of the differences between Harris and Hitchens, Harris has some excellent thoughts to share on non-religious topics, meditation comes to mind, check out his blogs on that field, they are quite 'enlightening'. There is a lot more to him than simple religious bashing, although I'm not 100% sure of his motivations.

One part of your dialogue I think glosses over a rather important point - those that call into question the intelligence of religious people do so rightly, there is no evidence for god, it is up to you (and you alone, because nobody else has been able to do it) to prove the existence of god, and to back up your beliefs. So any time your intelligence is called into question I think should be looked at as an opportunity to enlighten those that do so with your own wisdom. I'm sure you have some interesting reasons for your beliefs, so use the opportunity to open a discussion with your atheist militant acquaintance, don't assume he/she is closed minded to your perspective on life just because they don't believe in a god like you do. So the point is that you don't need to be militant anything to make a rational observation, and voicing that opinion certainly shouldn't be viewed as militant either, so I think classifying anyone that does, as you have, is sweeping with a rather broad brush.

One way you could look at it is that those that question your beliefs are not doing so out of any atheist fundamentalist principles, but they simply believe in truth, just as you believe in some sort of deity - they have just as much right to defend truth as you do your religion.

Sigh.. fatuous rhetorical questions... do you REALLY need me to confirm that this type of thing is an exception and not morally wrong? Technically/semantically, there's no conscious decision there. Killing someone who's an immediate threat to your children is an instinctive reaction, not a deliberate moral choice.

If it helps you to wrap your head around the concept, I'll re-phrase: the conscious and deliberate PLANNING to take someone else's life is always wrong. This would include any kind of pre-meditated killing like the death penalty, or abortion*, but not euthanasia. Please don't hit me with another obvious exception like if a serial killer mails you a gun and his address and says you have to kill him within an hour or your family dies. Yes, you would be morally right to kill him.

I find your notion that government should be empowered to take people's lives as a form of "justice" to be utterly disgusting. I can really understand now why it's considered rude to bring up politics at the dinner table. (EDIT: I sound like a real ass here, reading this back. You're entitled to your opinon... )

* while abortion is morally wrong, people ought to have the right to do it. You can't legislate morality.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Always wrong though? Like if someone is trying to kill my daughter and I kill him in the struggle?

@shinyblurry

I will not get engaged into a scientific debate about what is or isn't correct via Creationism or other ad hoc sciences, all based on religion FIRST and foremost. I will listen to actual science. Everything I have ever seen from your side (as I do see you in other comment threads, though I may not post) is against what the standard is in science. I put NO CREDIT behind anything that has absolutely no discussion from the scientific field. The argument is happening merely at the point that religion hits a functioning system in education or experiment.

My arguments come directly from college texts, teachers, and other approved scientific texts. If you want to understand my side, read them. I surely will not repeat what I learned by reading, studying, and experimenting. There are those out there that are willing to have long conversations on the topic, but that is not me.

May I also add whether you meant it to be a slight towards me (as I see it) or a general stance; if you believe that you truly are "higher" and see farther than Einstein, "The Shoulders of Giants", I would rethink that stance. That is what I meant if you took it any other way...

Quick edit- I will reply to the Robert Jastrow quote though. I would put ALL wagers off the table until science is fully done investigating this Universe, you may become very surprised at what you find. @shinyblurry , if you wish to know more about this phenomena look back in my blog entries at "From Nothing Comes Something (recent experiment)", I have a few added links dealing with this Quantum Mechanics subject and of course an article about a very intriguing experiment done. Watch this and this physicist may surprise you with something:

Secondary edit- I wanted to answer your question above about my feeling that I had a spiritual connection with God. I have to say that you have a great hatred towards Mormons. I've known them my whole life and I can reassuringly tell you that many of them are the nicest people that you would possibly meet. When there are disasters in areas around the country there is always a sense of community that is restored and people come together and help. When this happens in Salt Lake or the surrounding metropolitan area the community support is ridiculous. I had a tree get blown down in the little windstorm last week (Utah and California got hit, it was sustained 40-75 mph winds with gusts anywhere from 60-100 mph; I think we got maybe an 80 mph gust that took it out). The windstorm didn't end till about noonish, but I was just getting my chainsaw ready when I had about 14 people show up to help with my one tree. They brought their chainsaws and even had an industrial wood-chipper with them. We took down a 40 ft. tree in one hour. But, this sort of thing is the NORM. So just remember this, while I know Mormonism is very wrong in many ways, including the book of Mormon being incredibly wrong in so many ways (where are these HUGE bronze-age and some STEEL!-age remnants for archaeologists to look at and discover--I read the book of Mormon atleast twice and I can tell you that these civilizations were huge; HUGE compared to small archaeological finds. These were also big enough that someone somewhere should have found anything by now.

But, how you remarked about the Mormon religion to me seems to be very condescending. I find it funny that you're very overtly rude over something I no longer believe in and I have yet to say anything about your religion, as I have only spoke about what you have mentioned. I have in fact no notion of what you believe.

As to what I felt. While i may have had a bit of the "burning of the bosom" the key thing I felt was a presence upon my mind. I could feel it when I was scared, I could feel it when I was exhilarated. It felt like light, a light so bright that it pierced everything I did. I could almost feel it, a slight and wonderful warmth affecting my other senses as much as it would my sense of touch. I could almost perceive it via meditation and it seemed to be a line of light passing along and through me, it seemed to be one-dimensional if it could be felt. Later on it felt as though if I truly needed it, it would be there for me--it gave the connotation of a sword of light. So the question is: how much of this is in the mind...

To tell the truth I still can feel the same thing, but I'm warded against any action (like regaining a religion). I'm too fearful that it is in fact easier to be a tool for pain and hurt rather than one for truth. So if you ask me how religious I am even though I'm atheist, I will merely remark that I follow truth, where I can find it.

I hope you can understand that; maybe we share an equal ground here--if not elsewhere.

I WAS MEDITATING!!!!!

Playing Glass on the piano is the closest I get to meditation. I haven't mastered this piece yet - I suspect my touch just isn't light enough for the rapid arpeggios of the second second - but playing the first section is beautifully zen.

@SDGundamX

I don't know where you get your info from, but Dawkins, as well as most atheists (myself included) are absolutely FOR teaching children about religion. The operative word, as you yourself seem to understand (as you use it in your argument) is "about". Compare:

"Son, there is an all-powerful man in space that will torture you forever if you don't do what his book says, and reward you if you do."

"Son, some people believe that there is... . Other people believe... None of their supernatural claims are supported by evidence, btw."

See the difference?

As for studies, I don't know if there are any (I would personally love to see the correlation of strong religious beliefs and the propensity to adhere to conspiracy theories for example), but one need no studies to understand that believing in the supernatural truth claims of religion demands a divorce from rational and evidence-based knowledge.

What does religious belief bring to the table then? Don't say morals/ethics: half of what they teach is horrible, and the other half have no basis in the religious beliefs, but can be explained scientifically. You may say religion is a vehicule for moral teachings, but it's an outdated and superfluous one at best, a counterproductive one at worst. Most of the times it boils down to waiving a supernatural stick and carrot (as all good tyrants do) instead of having people learn to think for themselves.

The only "original" thing religious belief brings is supernatural truth claims, which are at best meaningless speculation ("God gives life meaning", whatever that means), at worst irrational and dangerous ("the AntiChrist will rise when the temple in Jerusalem is rebuilt, bringing the end of the world").

No one is arguing against meditation or introspection btw. If you feel like talking to imaginary friends in order to do so, fine. Just don't force vulnerable kids to believe your imaginary friends actually exist.

As for Bahai being an example of a harmless religion, pick again. Sure, their doctrine is a little more "peace and love" than most of its monotheistic brothers, but homosexuality/"adultery" are still forbidden, and you're still taught to believe in and pray to an invisible sky-daddy, with all the irrational logical fallacies that go with it, and their inevitable clash with science and critical thinking.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I have a feeling that by the very act of asking these questions and giving these kids the opportunity to think critically makes them less likely to bully others in the future. Very inspiring.


Ya, I think most kids would have the same basic ideas about bulling as these kids, but when you start to talk about it, your internalize it more than just thinking of it causally. Kind of the same reason non-theists still value meditation, focusing on what you want in life instead of responding to life leaves you in a better spot.

There's actually a fairly extensive literature now on the benefits of meditation (sans the woowoo). Lots of health benefits, including long term effects like staving off cognitive decline (e.g., dementia). Expert meditators can show all kinds of interesting cognitive benefits. I keep meaning to take up the practice myself.

>> ^Jinx:

I wish meditation didn't have all this newage connotations. I've been meditating on and off in a similar manner as he describes (ie, focusing on breath, on the bodies sensations in the present etc) as a way to fight stress/anxiety/depression. It works well, although I've no idea how well grounded in science it is.
I definitely think its something worth looking into even if your not having trouble with anxiety etc. It honestly allows me to have healthier thoughts and just generally a clearer rational, and that in turn keeps the anxiety, depression and all the rest of that bad shit away. But yah, when I first started I was supes skeptical cos I envisioned holding crystals and burning incense while chanting a strange language.
Anyway, I'm glad Sam Harris is talking about it.

I wish meditation didn't have all this newage connotations. I've been meditating on and off in a similar manner as he describes (ie, focusing on breath, on the bodies sensations in the present etc) as a way to fight stress/anxiety/depression. It works well, although I've no idea how well grounded in science it is.

I definitely think its something worth looking into even if your not having trouble with anxiety etc. It honestly allows me to have healthier thoughts and just generally a clearer rational, and that in turn keeps the anxiety, depression and all the rest of that bad shit away. But yah, when I first started I was supes skeptical cos I envisioned holding crystals and burning incense while chanting a strange language.

Anyway, I'm glad Sam Harris is talking about it.

RP = Close minded. Definitely But that is American. Rare is he who lives in the States and is open-minded (See Tea Party, and intellectuals...)

As far as positive liberty, it seems just a state of mind more so than the actual concept of liberty. I find it odd that added words (For lack of better words) have to be used to augment the entire definition.

Ex, "stolen" property versus "gifted" property. Those first words change everything, right? Except property is still property. It still has a definition without relying on adjectives.

Negative liberty is the vastly closer-to-freedom expression. That's not to say positive "liberty" is a bad thing--but like I said, it is more state-of-mind than actual freedom (I guess you could argue that freedom of thought is the only freedom that matters. Or that freedom to agree as a society is still freedom...)

Of course, I could be reading the whole thing wrong...in which case, ah, it happens--we are human after all.

@dystopianfuturetoday

The tree you speak of wouldn't be available for you to read by in a positive liberty manner nor would it be available in a negative liberty manner. One would be me, a member of society owning the tree, telling you to go away and enforcing my property claim. The other would be the law, created and enforced by society, telling you to get away from my tree. Either way--get the fuck away from my tree!

Also, when you add economic liberty, and social liberty, and blah blah blah, you change the entire symbols of how we process the words. I was speaking directly on liberty. When you say economic liberty, then we get into slavery territory here in the states because I cannot just succeed with hard work and intellect. Money makes money and keeps others from making money.

I hope that makes sense. Sure does to me

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
I am not the definitive judicator of words and their meaning---but I am a damn good judge. You can be one too. Just take a word and, without the rhetoric or emotions added, think on it.
I agree. We're telling you we have meditated on the meaning of freedom, and have come to conclusions that differ from yours.
Winding back to the original comment here, this doesn't mean we "don't understand" freedom, it's that we have a different understanding of it.
Ron Paul is not making some argument against the concept of positive liberty, or responding to the observation that property rights place external constraints on people and therefore their liberty. He's just calling people who raise those questions ignorant.
Which is why we think he's a close minded jerk.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

I am not the definitive judicator of words and their meaning---but I am a damn good judge. You can be one too. Just take a word and, without the rhetoric or emotions added, think on it.

I agree. We're telling you we have meditated on the meaning of freedom, and have come to conclusions that differ from yours.

Winding back to the original comment here, this doesn't mean we "don't understand" freedom, it's that we have a different understanding of it.

Ron Paul is not making some argument against the concept of positive liberty, or responding to the observation that property rights place external constraints on people and therefore their liberty. He's just calling people who raise those questions ignorant.

Which is why we think he's a close minded jerk.

@LittleRed *nods* I have Tony Soprano levels of anxiety attacks. Yoga and meditation has helped a lot.

reminds me of this:http://www.pantheism.net/paul/union.htm
You lose your self and enter a trance where the self doesn't exist.
it's a powerful experience. but I wouldn't recommend it.
There are plenty of meditations on self that ARE true meditations, and have real value. Just not this one.

Well, I'm honored to be in the running.

And it's not for nothing that a long and versatile tongue is not simply a function of wit and sarcasm, but its very shape and form has, indeed, been associated with enlightenment, with Buddhahood, as is cultivated through yoga, tantra, and other forms of kundalini meditation.. and evidenced by glossalalia, "speaking in tongues," quali, "Song of Solomon kisses like wine," etc. etc...

Even the fetal development of the oral cavity is due, in part, to the secretion of sweet-tasting muco-polysaccharides from the “heavenly” cranial vault in the newly forming roof of the fetal mouth.. known for millenia within Hindu traditions, and only recently suggested by scientific research.

A colleague of mine states that the physiological basis of spiritual experience -- the body's "natural LSD-Ecstasy" with no side effects, only natural maturities -- constitutes a long tongue and versatile tongue.