God provides the evidence; that's what I mean about being able to empirically verify my claim.
No, that's not empirical evidence in anyone's definition of it... not one bit. You 'invited him in', you 'get some feeling'... that's not proof, that's you feeling stuff. Not empirical evidence.

It is exactly the definition. If it is untrue, nothing will happen. If it is true, God will come into your life and change you. That is empirical verification. It isn't "some feeling". It is a supernatural encounter with God which will utterly transform your life. You're simply arguing from ignorance, here.

So no comment on what Penn said?
Yeah, he has a view that if you really believe in the bible and you really believe that people will spend eternity in damnation if they don't repent. If you really believe that. Then it is upon you to actually try to save people from that fate. He felt that this man did that for him out of kindness and did it with a kind heart.

Now I bet (in fact I'm sure he's talked about such things) his views on people telling others that they're horrible people for being gay, that they are an abomination, that they should never be able to be married (which is a man made construct, nothing to do with a 'god')... and for people who do that in a way which makes others uncomfortable. I bet he has a problem with that.

I think his point was that this man believed what he does, this man felt that Teller deserved to 'be saved' and tried to help him be saved in a really NICE way. He didn't badger him, he didn't verbally attack him as being godless... he just gave him a gift that he hoped would help him find 'his truth'.

Now it won't at all, Teller will never become religious, but he saw the man came from a good place.

What you do here is entirely different. Any video on evolution or science or anything that goes against your world view is shat on by you. That's abusive, that's combative, that's not trying to save people.

And you didn't mention why you posted a version of the video with him reiterating that he's an atheist rather than the full one.
His point was, if you believe that Jesus is God, and His words are true, you are going to tell people the gospel. He may agree or disagree with how a particular person may do that; that isn't the point. Jesus told people flat out what was right and wrong, He talked about hell, and He told people the truth. There are many biblical examples of sharing the gospel, and I am in line with them.

It's amazing though, as you get through insulting me throughout the thread, that you are going to say I am abusive and combative because I post my opinions on science videos. That's kind of a joke, I think. I can't post anywhere or say anything without getting flak from the usual suspects. It doesn't matter what it is. Perhaps you prefer an echo-chamber where everyone agrees with you all the time, but suprise, it's a diverse world out there and a diversity of viewpoints.

I didn't mention why I posted the shorter video because there was no conspiracy. That's the video I initially found, I figured shorter was better than longer, and I posted it. It turns out that the longer one was posted on here already, so even if I had wanted to, I couldn't have posted it. Also, don't say Penn will never give his life to Jesus Christ. I believe that he will. If he is thoughtful enough to understand evangelism from the chistian viewpoint, somewhere in his heart he is open to knowing God. God can change a heart in the blink of an eye.

>> ^spoco2:

Speaking for myself, Paul could change my mind if he a) admitted fault, and b) gave some sort of speech about why racism is morally wrong.

>>> For the long speech you'll have to wait. As for the apology,

"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

--Ron Paul, Business Wire

A poster on the site "The Daily Paul" summed it up nicely:

What if you rent your home out, and the people use the house. to molest children. Should you be required to accept responsibility? Your name is still on the mortgage, so are you accountable for every action of the renters?

All you could tell people is that you had no knowledge, but admit you should have kept a better watch on your property, and accept 'moral responsibility' (versus actual responsibility, since you did not molest anyone and don't advocate that action).

Instead he's denying any fault, and castigating people for asking him to say anything at all about it, as if he thinks that kind of racist rhetoric isn't something people should be upset about.

>>> Due to the above statement I disagree that Dr. Paul is denying any fault. Based on what I've read, he has taken receipt of this newsletter flap. That he hasn't worded an apology precisely that is satisfactory to you is out of his (or my) control. I could be 100% wrong, but I do not believe you harbor a change of heart that will be triggered by a Paul apology. You are no under no obligation to support or believe him. Can we agree you're not a libertarian frustrated only by the doubt created by the Ron Paul newsletters?

Ultimately that's what you yourself said with your response -- that all charges of racism are bogus. Why you think that, I can't fathom.

>>> Please allow me to clarify my original statement: the problem with LIBERALS labeling anyone a racist is that in 2012 it's crying wolf. It's so overused as to be meaningless.

Ad hominem tu quoque -- which I like to think of as the "I know you are but what am I?" fallacy.

My point about "all of us" being racist is, if we're all covered in poop, no one can accuse anyone else of stinking.

Easy, (Paul) says people have an inalienable right to refuse to serve or hire minorities if they like, but that minorities have no inalienable right to be treated as free and equal citizens when they participate in our society and economy.

>>> I have no easy answer for you, not because Dr. Paul is wrong but because the details of how a libertarian society deals with racism are complex (yet probably less complex than the maze of government coercion now).

A private citizen has a right to refuse to associate with others s/he dislikes, but does the government have the power to create an underclass of citizens? The answer is NO.

Some good comments here on this topic. Not gospel, just snacks for thought.

As someone commented on the blog where I found this:

"If he devoted the continuing royalties from his prior use [of the words] to a women's group, then I think he's made some progress."

@ChaosEngine, someone agrees with you.

What I keep thinking is -- he had a wife before he had a daughter. That didn't bring about this change of heart. When his daughter grows up and starts being a person and stops being an adorable innocent lump, will he stop feeling so protective?

It's all good. It has a conversation going. I'm glad he had a change of heart. I hope it lasts. I hope it reaches others who still don't get it.

I'm not at all a scholar of the bible. I've read parts, I've been to
Sunday school before i was confirmed (age 14) and I have at times had
fun reading it.

Well, I would encourage you to try to understand it. Every conversation I've ever had with an atheist about the bible either brings up the same five things from the old testament or their doubts about who wrote the bible..and that's it. I've never actually spoken to an atheist, and I've spoken to many atheists, who even understood the basics. I think that if you're going to criticize something, you should at least try to understand it at a basic level..maybe that's just me. Although, the lack of understanding matches what the bible says, that the truth is spiritually discerned. Without the Holy Spirit, the atheist is going to find it fairly impossible to comprehend.

Arguing from authority is not a strong argument. Just because "the
intellectual scholarship" is much greater than I understand, doesn't
change what the book says. And since new evidence is not uncovered, it
is what it is, you are forced to "interpret new evidence" and that's
not the way the world works.

What you, and many others try to imply, is that what is the bible is simplistic, and for people without any intellectual standards. The truth is that what is in the bible is complex, and it takes a real intellect (supplanted with godly wisdom) to be able to understand it. The intellectual scholarship is vast because the bible is inexaustible. It functions as a cogent whole, and address all the deep questions that human beings have. It is not simple by any stretch of the imagination.

1) Personal evidence cannot be verified. What things were revealed to
you before you ever read or understood them? How were they revealed,
what was revealed, how did you later understand them / where did you
read them?

I would like to understand your thought process, which is why I ask.

Is it possible that you already had a forgone conclusion when you read
X, and therefore you interpreted X the way you wanted?

God had revealed to me through signs that He is a triune God, and that He has a Messiah, someone whose job it is to save the world. So when I finally read the bible, those signs are what initially confirmed it to be true. I didn't have any foregone conclusions about the bible before I read it. I had no actual idea what Christianity was all about.

What happened? How has your life improved, what did you do before,
what do you do now? How can you tell that it happened supernaturally?
Is there any difference from that to just having a profound change of
heart. If you are talking about addiction, it is possible to fill the
void of that addiction with other things - some people exchange
cigarettes with food, why not religion/faith? Does your faith take up
as much of your time as "the unhealthy things" you did before?

Before I became a Christian I was a theist, and before I was a theist I was an agnostic. When I became a theist my bad behavior didn't change. I was like Enoch, in that I believed that none of the religions were true, or that all of them just had pieces of who God is. I believed in a God that loved you the way you are and didn't particularly enforce any kind of behavior upon you, as long as your heart was in the right place. I would think that God, knowing me intimately, and knowing my good intentions, was very understanding if I did something which was out of line. Of course God is very patient with all of us, but the point is that I had plenty of faith in God at the time, and spent my time thinking about Him and pursuing the truth. The difference is that once I accepted Jesus into my heart as my Lord and Savior, everything changed.

It was only when I became a Christian that my behavior changed, and much of that practically overnight. When you're born again, you are spiritually cleansed and start out with a blank slate. You become like new. I had addictions, depression, anger, pain, sadness, and other issues that left me in short order. Some of those things I never thought I would give up, some of them I never wanted to give up, but I immediately lost the desire for them. It was a change of heart; God gave me a new one. It was supernatural because as I said, I didn't do any work. People spend their entire lives in therapy or counseling and spend tens of thousands of dollars or more to get rid of just some of these problems, and often don't see any results. I lost almost all of my baggage in just a few short months.

3) Not really. It only accounts for a visual interpretation of how men act. The writers of it has observed how people act and guessed at reasons why that is. Some are close to reality, some are way off. Which human behaviors does it predict? How and where does it describe in finite detail how those behaviors are created? I'm looking for actual citations here, because this is complete news to me.

It predicts all kinds of human behaviors by describing the mechanisms which motivate them to act. It shows the fundemental dichotomy of the heart of man. As an example:

James 3:3-10

When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.

and

Matthew 12:34

O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

and

Matthew 15:19-20

But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

4) I disagree. It describes a point of view. The morality of the God of the bible is hardly any good morality. We have an ingrown moral compass, I can agree on that, it's been naturally selected against because it helped our ancestors to survive and procreate. "His moral law" is atrocious, if the bible is any indicator.

If everyone followed the morality that Jesus taught us, this planet would be as close to a utopia it could possibly get. He taught us to love one another, to forgive as a rule, to do good to even those who hate you, to help everyone in need, and to follow the moral law. Your idea of Gods morality being atrocious is plainly false. The passages that you feel are atrocious have an explanation, its just whether you want to hear them or not. As far as natural selection goes, all it cares about is passing on its genes. That is the only criteria for success. This doesn't explain noble behavior in the least, such as sacrificing your life for someone else. That's a bad way to pass on your genes.

5) Which prophecies have been fulfilled? You don't think Israel chose their currency based on the bible instead? Which captivities have been prophecied down to the year and where in the bible?

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2004/552/


6) This is hardly uncontested. There are parts of the bible that seem to be true, but because some of it is true, does not mean that all of it is. http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history#Historical_accuracy_of_biblical_stories

It's positive evidence in the bibles favor when it is verified by archaelogical evidence. There are many things in the bible that historians denied were true in the bible, like the hittite civilization, until archaelogy proved the bible correct.

7) Citation needed. Saying that the universe has a beginning is hardly proof of anything. That's the easy way to say it, anyone apart from earlier theories said that, so of course they did it in there too. In actuality the bible claims that God is eternal, which there is no basis for.

These claims are just claims, there is no basis for saying them in the bible. Blood clotting could be found by trial and error back then, ocean currents can to a great extent be measured by fishermen even back then. Scientists who believed in an eternal universe have since changed their mind, when evidence discredited the theory. It's all about being able to back up your claims. the bible just claims.

This guy discovered and mapped the ocean currents, and he did so being inspired by psalm 8, which is the one that mentions the "paths of the seas"

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

Abraham didn't learn from trial and error. They were doing circumcisions on the 8th day from the beginning.

You must think something is eternal, unless you believe something came from nothing. So your problem isn't really with eternal things, just an eternal person.

Here is a list of them

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scientific_facts_in_the_bible.html

8 ) How did you experience the holy spirit?

It's really impossible quite impossible to describe since it effects every level of your being at the same time, but experientially you could say it's like going from 110 to 220v. It's like you lived all your life being covered in filth and suddenly you're washed off and sparkling clean. It's like being remade into something brand new.

>> ^gwiz665

@shinyblurry Thank you for posting your reasons for believing the Bible to be credible. It is refreshing to have someone properly lay out their case instead of the normal circular reasoning I normally hear (God is real because the bible says it, the bible is true because God wrote it).

I'm not at all a scholar of the bible. I've read parts, I've been to Sunday school before i was confirmed (age 14) and I have at times had fun reading it.

Arguing from authority is not a strong argument. Just because "the intellectual scholarship" is much greater than I understand, doesn't change what the book says. And since new evidence is not uncovered, it is what it is, you are forced to "interpret new evidence" and that's not the way the world works.

1) Personal evidence cannot be verified. What things were revealed to you before you ever read or understood them? How were they revealed, what was revealed, how did you later understand them / where did you read them?

I would like to understand your thought process, which is why I ask.

Is it possible that you already had a forgone conclusion when you read X, and therefore you interpreted X the way you wanted?

2) What happened? How has your life improved, what did you do before, what do you do now? How can you tell that it happened supernaturally? Is there any difference from that to just having a profound change of heart. If you are talking about addiction, it is possible to fill the void of that addiction with other things - some people exchange cigarettes with food, why not religion/faith? Does your faith take up as much of your time as "the unhealthy things" you did before?

3) Not really. It only accounts for a visual interpretation of how men act. The writers of it has observed how people act and guessed at reasons why that is. Some are close to reality, some are way off. Which human behaviors does it predict? How and where does it describe in finite detail how those behaviors are created? I'm looking for actual citations here, because this is complete news to me.

4) I disagree. It describes a point of view. The morality of the God of the bible is hardly any good morality. We have an ingrown moral compass, I can agree on that, it's been naturally selected against because it helped our ancestors to survive and procreate. "His moral law" is atrocious, if the bible is any indicator.

5) Which prophecies have been fulfilled? You don't think Israel chose their currency based on the bible instead? Which captivities have been prophecied down to the year and where in the bible?

6) This is hardly uncontested. There are parts of the bible that seem to be true, but because some of it is true, does not mean that all of it is. http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history#Historical_accuracy_of_biblical_stories

7) Citation needed. Saying that the universe has a beginning is hardly proof of anything. That's the easy way to say it, anyone apart from earlier theories said that, so of course they did it in there too. In actuality the bible claims that God is eternal, which there is no basis for.
These claims are just claims, there is no basis for saying them in the bible. Blood clotting could be found by trial and error back then, ocean currents can to a great extent be measured by fishermen even back then. Scientists who believed in an eternal universe have since changed their mind, when evidence discredited the theory. It's all about being able to back up your claims. the bible just claims.

8 ) How did you experience the holy spirit?

I think your have veiled your eyes more than I do.


Yea, I tell you, if you do not have an orange aura, you will never understand the complexities of the universe.

So the description made me think twice about what I would find in this video. After all, I recently had a change of heart about Burning Man and dispelled some of my preconceptions of what actually went on there because I had met so many douches that were obsessed with it.

At reading that the jugalo "subculture" is "misunderstood" I thought I might be educated in a similar way.

Woman showing her tits for a buck.
Idiot who felt the world was without anything nice until he came to this idiocy and found "titties and weed."
Six-months-pregnant woman smoking and probably drunk/high/everything else...

I disagree with calling jugalos "misunderstood." I think this video pretty much confirmed what most people think when they think jugalo.

I think you failed to understand the comment. In any case, God isn't hiding Himself from you. The only thing that separates us from God is sin. If you're the type of person who prefers autonomy to sin over the truth, God may never bring you to repentance. That's your fault and no one elses. Also, you can't pick who you want God to be. God is who He is, perfect and Holy. Your dispute is that He doesn't tolerate sin. Though there are many false teachers and prophets who will tell you exactly what you want to hear. So if you want a God of your personal preference, you'll find one. And they all lead to the same place.

>> ^LiquidDrift:
Religious texts clearly state all kinds of crazy stuff. Fortunately for civilization, most of the really crazy ideas have faded or been re-interpreted so we (in the Western world anyway) no longer burn witches, beat women for menstruating in public, etc.
What kind of douche hides himself from all but a few people and then tortures anyone who doesn't believe he exists? Oh yeah, the christian god. If I'm going to follow a god, I'll pick one that isn't such an a hole.
>> ^shinyblurry:
What the bible clearly states is that God is the one who grants repentance which will lead to knowledge of the truth. Only He can change your heart and turn you from the sins that have overcome and ensnared you. God is the one who calls you out of rebellion against Him and gives you the gift of faith. So, what I can do is point you in the right direction, give you reasons I believe are sufficient, and relate my personal experience. I pray that God will use it, but only God can save you.

Religious texts clearly state all kinds of crazy stuff. Fortunately for civilization, most of the really crazy ideas have faded or been re-interpreted so we (in the Western world anyway) no longer burn witches, beat women for menstruating in public, etc.

What kind of douche hides himself from all but a few people and then tortures anyone who doesn't believe he exists? Oh yeah, the christian god. If I'm going to follow a god, I'll pick one that isn't such an a**hole.


>> ^shinyblurry:

What the bible clearly states is that God is the one who grants repentance which will lead to knowledge of the truth. Only He can change your heart and turn you from the sins that have overcome and ensnared you. God is the one who calls you out of rebellion against Him and gives you the gift of faith. So, what I can do is point you in the right direction, give you reasons I believe are sufficient, and relate my personal experience. I pray that God will use it, but only God can save you.

Try using logic instead of the latest atheist meme. If God is God, can anyone force Him to reveal Himself? The answer is no..therefore, only God could reveal His existence to someone. So anyone trying to prove God on the basis of an argument, or disprove God based on a lack of empirical evidence, isn't thinking about the matter very deeply. Specficially, Christians who try to prove God solely on the basis of argumentation haven't read the bible. It is not our work, it is Gods work.

>> ^DerHasisttot:
>> ^shinyblurry:
The entire argument is irrelevent. I cannot convince you to have faith; that is a gift from God. What the bible clearly states is that God is the one who grants repentance which will lead to knowledge of the truth. Only He can change your heart and turn you from the sins that have overcome you. God is the one who calls you out of rebellion against Him and gives you the gift of faith. So, what I can do is point you in the right direction, give you reasons I believe are sufficient, and relate my personal experience. I can pray that God will use it, but only God can save you.

Sb's entire argument is irrelevant. I cannot convince Sb to have faith; that is a gift from the unseen dog. What the book about dogs clearly states is that the unseen dog is the one who grants repentance which will lead to knowledge of the truth. Only He can change your heart and turn you from the sins that have overcome you. The unseen dog is the one who calls you out of rebellion against Him and gives you the gift of faith. So, what I can do is point you in the right direction, give you reasons I believe are sufficient, and relate my personal experience. I can pray that the unseen dog will use it, but only the unseen dog can save you.

The entire argument is irrelevent. I cannot convince you to have faith; that is a gift from God. What the bible clearly states is that God is the one who grants repentance which will lead to knowledge of the truth. Only He can change your heart and turn you from the sins that have overcome and ensnared you. God is the one who calls you out of rebellion against Him and gives you the gift of faith. So, what I can do is point you in the right direction, give you reasons I believe are sufficient, and relate my personal experience. I pray that God will use it, but only God can save you.

>> ^blankfist:

So, we're now equating the conditional support of a poorly written and overreaching law to racism now? Interesting.
Equality is good. Racism is bad. We get it. You can't change the hearts and minds of people through legislation. You can only achieve that through discourse and being persuasive.


See? Denial of good done by legislation.

If you really want to wade into this conversation again, why not pick up where we left off last time?

So, we're now equating the conditional support of a poorly written and overreaching law to racism now? Interesting.

Equality is good. Racism is bad. We get it. You can't change the hearts and minds of people through legislation. You can only achieve that through discourse and being persuasive.

i dont think anyone is arguing that she is not entitled to the help. simply pointing out the hideous hypocrisy in her zealous world view.

she spent her lifetime preaching that societies are not responsible for taking care of their most vulnerable members, and when she too became one of the vulnerable she did not have a change of heart, world view, perspective... she took the money under an assumed name and continued carrying the torch for objectvism and a culture of self-interest. that's cowardice and hypocrisy at its worst.

and her writings have become the anthems for a movement of self interested white people. people who say things like .....
"my grandmother was on food stamps, but she deserved it, there's just too many people getting food stamps who just don't deserve them"
... without even a thought about the implications of that statement.. that there are people who don't deserve to eat. and that someone should decide who they are and systematically weed them out.

what ayn rand was saying is that there are people who don't deserve to live, but that she is not one of them.

fuck any rand.

Hrm, tad off pon. Yes, children are prone to imagine what they are taught AND what they are not taught. My daughter at two and a half was pretending to be a nurse and talking about her awesomely pronounced "stethoscope" and blood pressure cuffs. But she WAS taught that--as you say. At three, however, it became all her imagination! I don't teach her half the fairytales she recites, yet she brings shit out of the closet that amazes me... Really deep too... She does this often, as smart children do.

We do not simply demand to understand as you so narrowly define humanities' natural instinct of belief. Otherwise, we would have flocked to science and would have abandoned religion hundreds of years ago. Look at how we flock naturally to the easier way of everything else in life (Such as technology,) and science certainly is easier than religion! However, we, as a species, do not do this? Ever ask why? Because we imagine, even to this date, and we do it well. Hell, we read imaginations, watch imaginations, even live imaginary lives every day! And you say we are just curious! Lolz, yeah, that’s why we watch Harry Potter too! Lolz.

No, it is not that we are curious---we dream, we fly, we bask in our own delusions. Thor did not just explain thunder---he was thunder and a way of life that excited people.

Do not get me wrong pon, I understand your dislike of religion and those that push/force it upon weaker people. Just like any government, religion is 100% a form of exerted control upon others.

Now, just to point out something, not all religion is based on threats. Buddhists, and hell, even Jehovah's Witness do not preach doom and gloom (My mother was/is a devote Witness and for that I became an atheist. However, they never once preached hell and eternal suffering.)

Also, if we did not have religion---the blame-peice of humanity and our woes and evils---we would still have our woes and evil. And probably the same amount too.

The world wars for control, finate resources and personal amusement. It does not fight over ideals, although we hide behind those ideals so we can feel virtuous.

Lastly, religion does not have to stand on its own logic. See, if god exists, he is the single most powerful creature to ever exist. And if he does not exist? He is the single most powerful IDEA to ever exist. Not much difference huh? Same effects...
You point out that religion cannot stand on its own logic… Well, faith is not logical anyways! Not logical at all. How many times as a boy did I have faith in my mother only to be deceived and let down time and time again? Hundreds, because she was constantly lying and I constantly wanted an honest mother. But, like a fool I believed. How many cancer patients have faith that they can get better? Should we tell them how insane their beliefs are? (Because their beliefs are insane.)

See, that's the beauty of faith. It deceives whether in religion, family, friends, health, etcetera. Everyone's mother will let them down, yet most will have faith nevertheless.

Just let it go pon, we have always had irrational faith and always will. Try to live the best you can until the day that you cannot live anymore. It is all we can do. Try to change the heart of man, not his faith.



>> ^ponceleon:
Sorry Lawdeesaw, but children are NOT prone to "believe" the way you mean it... they are prone to LEARN. It is only ADULTS that fill their mind with bullshit that make them christians, muslims, scientologists, etc.
In fact, religions have to resort to THREATS (you will go to hell) to brainwash their young into suspending their disbelief at all the crap that DOESN'T make sense.
Take my 4 year old god-daughter for example. She's constantly asking questions about her parents faith which they have to answer with "because God wants it that way."
Really? Fuck that. Religion can't stand on its own logic, so it had to start mostly with the mentally vulnerable, which usually equates to children which are impressionable by fairy tales and threats of eternal damnation.
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Ugandan-Minister-Making-A-Huge-Fool-Of-Himself#comment-1008434'>^Lawdeedaw</a>:<br />
Otay...<br> <br> @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Seric" title="member since May 20th, 2008" class="profilelink">Seric</a>; Good points. That is how I believe (Though I worded it differently.) I simply realize that when you take the plastic face away, these same men and women who use religion as a justification will still be just as hateful.<br> <br> @BiycleRepairMan; Thanks for furthering my point, albeit unintentionally. Hitler was allowed because of the evil of people (Even good people can be evil.) There was no mask, there was no reason "decent" people were psychotic. It just happened, mostly because they were sheep. See, without religion, people will move on to find another reason to hate, kill, murder, rape and plunder. Economy? Perhaps... Race? Sure. Humans will be just as evil.<br> <br> But religious people are insane? Are children insane because they believe in superstitions? Santa? You are insane kid!!! Tooth Fairy?! Insane, take this child to the asylum! (By your technical explanation, children are insane to you… ) You also discredit the billions of people religious and spiritual as insane... Well, I guess it is human nature to be insane which makes them the sane ones?! Crap, I am screwed.<br> <br> "Bigotry? Check. Racism? Check. Sexism? Check. Discrimination? Check. Superstition? Check. Martyrdom? Check. Obedience to authority? Check." I was unaware that all religions taught that stuff... Well, the Native Americans cannot be so preachy now can they! Druids too! Ha, in your face! Buddhists? Bwaha.<br> <br> Oh, and half the people don't follow the good parts of religion anyways... Why, because they are evil people. You give too much credit to the average person who hides behind a "good" idea... The average German was a psychopath because they allowed Hitler his rule; and so is the average American who walks by a man just ran over by a car---and takes a photo with his cell phone.<br> <br> @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/ponceleon" title="member since February 8th, 2008" class="profilelink">ponceleon</a>; Explaining religion because it is a natural part of human thought is okay. Justifying actions because of religion is not. No one "justified" religion because of anything.<br> <br> Children are prone to belief because they are built that way. You cannot stop it, just curb it with time. It is built into us. I.e. explaining religion, not justifying it.<br> <br> On the uneducated part, my father, myself, brothers and all had an eighth grade education and guess what? Atheists all...<br></em>