Yahweh has NEVER given evidence of his existence. No more so than any other god anyhow. They all answer prayer equally and randomly well. They all claim to have made the universe/world, they all claim to be the true one... Near death experiences differ by culture expectations of that culture and don't all conform to the supposed Christian expectation... he has done nothing to make himself stand out from the rest of the gods that Christians dismiss. Heck, I've never seen a Frost Giant or evidence they ever existed, so clearly Odin has one up on Yahweh.

In the 4,000 years or so from Adam and Eve's time in the Garden to Jesus, Yahweh couldn't or wouldn't make himself known to the other races. He didn't reveal himself to those in Africa, Asia, the Americas or Europe, just to one tiny specific group of people in the Middle East. If couldn't then he's not the omnipotent, omnipresent god he claims, if he wouldn't that makes him a racist ass not worthy of following by picking one people to be his chosen people.

The only reason Europe became Christian was forced conversion when the Christian armies of Rome forced them to, which setup a tradition of most Europeans and later Americans being born into a faith. Were the exact same people born in Saudi Arabia they "would know that they know" that Islam is the true religion, or same in India but applying to Hinduism.

And saying that atheists have had supernatural experiences and can change to theism when talking about it, ignores the whole point of the video, especially the part when he talks about the linked Darren Brown video, which demonstrates that it is easy to make a spiritual experience happen that has no basis on any real god.

By way of example: I used to be a heavy evangelical Christian, I watched TBN and Fox News religiously (pun intended, see this old post of mine here on the sift from an old account that I couldn't recover http://videosift.com/usercomments/Charon... heck see my Revelations from the Word posts on my blog, http://www.brianathomas.com/archives/category/religion/revelations-from-the-word/ or more embarrassing my older political posts http://www.brianathomas.com/archives/category/politics/ which while progressive now, go to page 4 or so around June 2008 and back and you see a Libertarian and further back Republican with some crazy anti-vaccine paranoia , climate change denialism, science denaillism and other things I'm deeply ashamed of now)... I've had deep and meaningful spiritual experiences with god. After Republicans ruined Christianity for me (as the Republican party is clearly 100% against every teaching of Jesus... and yeah we can tick that off as being humans, but god does nothing to correct them, he may have spoke to my heart or whatever one wants to say to have more empathy, but over half the Christians in this nation still vote for a party 100% devoid of the teachings of the Jesus of the Bible while claiming to do it for Christian reasons) and I eventually lost faith (while Republicans are the reason I initially lost faith, they aren't the reason I stayed away, god is a dick is why I stayed away). After I lost faith in the Christian god, I gave paganism a try, and I've had just a meaningful spiritual experiences while worshiping at a Druid rite as I have at any Christian church. This is why people pick a religion, first by accident of birth (most people are Christian in the US because their parents were, and back to Europe where going back further they were forced to convert by invading Christian armies), second by choosing one that connects more personally with them... for many they see the hypocrisy of Christianity (and its general lack of empathy) but do connect with some form of paganism, and pagans generally have a patron god they serve above most others, and that god is the one they have a deep connection to, the same deep connection that Christians claim to have with Jesus/Yahweh... One doesn't drive a plane into a building killing 3,000 plus people without a deep and meaningful relationship with their god, and to dismiss t hat relationship as being deceived is naive and demonstrates a lack of empathy.

Now, I will allow the possibility that god does exist, but not in the form Christians propose, but perhaps closer to what the US Founding Fathers believed, but perhaps expanded a bit with more modern knowledge. A Deist like view. That this god somehow this god, created the energy and set into motion the laws of this physical universe that spun out from the big bang, but he's had nothing to do with anything since then. Perhaps all religions actually worship the same god but with their own culture's expectations and interpretations. However this would mean that all religions and lack there of are equally valid, which most faiths (aside from most modern paganism) doesn't allow for as their claim rests on being the true one.

I've rambled on far too long already so I'll leave it at that.

"teaches right behavior"....
Do you mean like owning slaves, murdering infidels and heretics, raping women, crusading, inquisitioning, conquesting, etc.... Yeah, great book of morality, and wonderful moral behavior exhibited by it's believers...not.

It's only because people fail to follow the religious ideas wholly that religion is tolerated at all. If people acted like the fanatical Muslims, taking every word as law and acting on it, Christianity would have been outlawed in the US at the inception of the country (indeed, many of the founding fathers seemed to want this, at least in part). The 3 major western religions all require 'holy war' to spread the belief system if read honestly.

What he said is that only psychotics need religion to restrain them from immorality. If you aren't psychotic, religion harms you more than helps you.

Any catholic hospital would qualify as one opened by psychotics, since one of their 10 important rules is "no statues of anything", yet they do nothing but worship statues and icons. They institutionally ignore any 'rule' that's inconvenient, and insist on absolute adherence to any that further their current goals, which may change 180 deg tomorrow. Sure sounds psychotic to me.

Same thing to me.
Constitution based republic...according to Bob's definition that's a bit redundant.
Strong democratic tradition/tendencies = representative democracy (in my eyes). Not a true democracy, because the founding fathers did not trust the masses to get it right every time because masses are reactionary, but did trust those educated gentlemen they elected to do the right thing (a mistake, but understandable considering the morals of the time).
I did ignore the 'federal' part, but I thought it didn't need saying, since we were only talking about the federal government. Of course, our government is a confederation/federation of the states. An important part of that is the agreement by all that that rules of the federation always override the rules of the constituent parts.

Sure thing...I learned some new things from that book. For instance, Franklin was often carried in by prisoners (on a kind of early work release program) in a 'sedan chair'. Not the picture I have in my mind of him.

No Bob, just no. That is not correct on any point. (except that we were a republic...but a democratic representative republic)
I went to one of the best private schools in America, Kinkaid in Houston, and they DID teach civics (and history) quite well, thank you.
Last year I also read a great book about what really happened, taken directly from the notes of those who were there at the Philadelphia constitutional convention in 1787, called "Miracle At Philadelphia" which I suggest you read.
We have always been a democratic representative republic. It was what the founding fathers set up. It is not a 'trend' of the last few centuries. I can't fathom what you are referencing.
Perhaps you reference us having the electoral college, which are 'elected' representatives that actually elect our governing representatives, as opposed to a true direct democracy? That is not a new, or evolving thing either.
The constitution is not a history lesson, it's a civics lesson. Miracle at Philadelphia is history. Check it out.

#birthcertificate
#Benghazi
#guessthenextscandal
(or to say it another way, I don't think this will gain traction outside the far-right)

I'm curious @blankfist, are you irate at the Republicans for not telling you what was really in the bill they had the opportunity to read (but you did not)? You expect this from the democrats, so they only lived up to expectations, no? The republicans could have made this point long before the vote on ACA, but instead opted to claim Grandma was going to be sent to the death panels and other nonsense.
And, I must think those who are surprised in any way either missed or misunderstood the supreme court decision last time the ACA was defended, when they said the ACA was legal BECAUSE it is a tax. Anyone who was in the dark should have understood at that point, they made it clear. That's why I don't think this is likely to gain traction, it's not news, it's just rehashing 5 year old politics in the hope that most people don't recall what happened back then and will be angry about it again. That's how I see it.

I do agree, the climate that makes misrepresentation of what's actually in a bill is terrible for everyone. It would be much better if we could bar lawyers from holding any high public office/representative position, as many founding fathers wanted. Then bills might be written in clear language (by all sides). Good luck getting that though.


EDIT: Wanted to downvote the intent of the video, but wanted to upvote the funny song....so I'll just not vote.

It's fuxxing maddox, founding father of trolls. What did you expect?

Incorrect. The "founding fathers" wrote into the Constitution that only non-slaves, land owning males could vote. That's what they wanted. It was Andrew Jackson who had the idea to enfranchise all men (but still not blacks or women though).

In any case, I still think voting is misguided at best.

I can see his point though. Founding fathers were far from perfect..and he's right, they are idolized. If we were to meet the founders right now, I'm sure they'd say some fucked up shit even the most conservative would now think of as barbaric. I think at the very least, they definitely favored landowners over non. They certainly didn't think women should vote. so they certainly weren't strangers to the idea that some people had more rights than others.

We make the same argument about weapons, that the founding fathers never could have foreseen how guns have advanced and proliferated in present day so we routinely argue that the 2nd amendment needs to be revisited. The left focuses on "well regulated" and the right focus on "shall not be infringed" No matter what side of the aisle you're on...it needs to be revised if only for clarity.

By that same token, I don't think the founders could have foreseen how powerful corporations have become or income inequality problem. Gov't used to have the power to revoke a company charter pretty much on whim...that ability is long gone

Absolutely not. The founding fathers wanted everyone (that was considered a person at the time) to have a say in their government, not only the rich or educated. They did set it up so only the 'educated' (and rich?) would be elected, with the electoral college that does the actual electing. Never did they support paying to vote, that's a thing they wanted to insure against.

And why was it a military base? Because all those "founding fathers" who poured a butt load of money into PT were in danger of losing it all when Seattle got port status instead of us. Those "founding fathers" still had lots of pull in Washington DC, so they got the Fort put here to prop up the local economy. And now it is a State Park -- one of the few that actually doesn't need any tax funds to stay open -- it actually makes a profit.

Plus there are wonderful bunkers to play in. And walks to take through the woods.

Have you ever seen An Officer and a Gentleman, with Richard Gere and Debra Winger? That was filmed here. All the base scenes were filmed at Fort Worden. A couple of years before I got here. You could tell which buildings were used in scenes -- or rather, which SIDES of buildings were used in scenes. They repainted the buildings a pristine white -- if they were in camera view. So the backsides were all peeling and nasty.

That was before the Fort started making money, of course. All the sides of the buildings look nice now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1Ehz_cAMGc

You can see the Fort at :57, 1:05,1:52 and the iconic 2:06. All a brisk 15 minute walk from my house. Look out my kitchen window, and you can see the tree covered hill that is the Fort. (The jogging scene at :38 is on the other side of the hill - sheer bluffs to the water.)

It is indeed a very neat place. You watch that movie, come over here, and I'll give you a tour, okay?

I'm no fan of Bush obviously, but the guy needs to tone down his hatred of Bush. It kinda undercuts his otherwise accurate message. He keeps talking about the contempt the rich has for the poor. Well...he's displaying that same contempt.

They keep referring to things like revolution and "coming storms" I don't think that's how change is going to occur. Back when people were ACTUAL slaves or maybe they were free but were starving to death. They pretty much had nothing to lose so I think it was actually easier for them to commit to change by violent means.

well...things are different now. We're not physical slaves, but you can argue that we're economic slaves. Even poor people usually aren't starving. food is cheap, at least shitty food is. It's a sort of gilded cage. So it's harder to get to that tipping point of committing to a "revolution"

I think he's wrong though, I think change will occur through democracy. It's just going to be extremely slow, extremely painful, and it's going to be a lot of setbacks along the way. I think there will be a lot of moments that will generate outrage. I just don't think there will ever be revolts as this guy describes unless the vote gets taken away and things get monumentally worse.

I just don't there will be any magic shortcuts to a fair and equitable society. Even if there was a revolt. what do the revolutionaries do to make things better? It's relatively easy to revolt, but if you win, then the real work begins. It's easy being an armchair general, but when you actually do have to make decisions that affect thousands, if not millions of people, It's not that easy.

I think the key thing is that there are just too many who don't actually agree with the founding fathers "that all men are created equal" If we actually believed in that idea. A lot of these injustices would not occur.

Where's the love. I not hear to say that the Republican are morally superior in today's society.

I'm not implying that the Republicans are in the same groove as Lincoln. But still they freed the slaves , set up black Colleges and the the NAACP.

While the Democrats wiped their slaves, formed the KKK and hindered the civil rights for as long as possible. Democrats are despicable. They promote equal rights only if you view is the same as theirs. They have enslaved the poor for over 50 years, telling them keep voting for us and well keep giving you substandard living. That's not freedom that's enslavement.

All of this and the media of today hails the Democrat party as the greatest party of mankind. What blind sheep.



Even worse if you are a black republican. You are deemed an Uncle Tom by the left. That's the exact opposite of the original meaning.

By far the Republicans are the lessor of 2 evils. Both parties are corrupt beyond any sense of the measure.

Both are so far from the ideals founding fathers and the Constitution.

Isnt that the Bible?

Oh nvm. I sometimes get confused because some people seem to worship the founding fathers as Gods. Oh America, please tell the rest of us how we can be great like you.

No, but absence of evidence is absence of evidence. Do I need more periods for that to make sense? Reports/leads. are. not. factual. evidence.
Are you suggesting that they should have had the right to invade any home or neighborhood that a tipster mentioned to them, because you seem to be. And you call me a nutjob? Hmmm.
To address your previous rant...
Because one person may have posed a danger to some does not suspend the rule of law, which requires EVIDENCE, not a guess, that there is actually 'imminent danger' of harm or destruction of evidence or escape...they could not have had that for random searches in Boston, if there were any.
I agree, your ignorance is embarrassing. Searching based on hunch or guess is unreasonable. Simple enough?
It's funny that you have apparently pegged me into some hole you dislike, because you know far less about me that we know about the bombers activities in the hour being discussed and have already made numerous quick false assumptions, but that's your prerogative.
I understand the fourth amendment, it has been widely interpreted by many. You seem to believe that anyone with a different interpretation from yours must be a brain dead idiot that needs a spanking. I simply feel that anyone that wants to freely give up the rights that many paid dearly to secure should instead move to somewhere that already governs the way they would like. They do exist, and I meant it about Australia, it seems great but it's not the USA.
edit: please don't take that as 'if you don't like it then get out!', it is a reasonable idea for those unhappy with the way the current system is working out, especially given the difficulty of changing it.
I take your argument to the logical conclusion, which is that if you think dangerous criminals in the area makes random searches legal, then you think the police may enter your home at any time, you have said nothing to dispute that, just called it dumb and BS. If one murderer is dangerous and worthy or house to house search, is another somehow not? Please explain and cite where the law draws the line.
Please attempt to make a rational argument and not a third grade name calling session. I made no flights from logic that I can see and freely stated I was commenting based on the 'facts' in the description, and did not resort to name calling.
Recall what one of the smartest founding fathers famously said (and quadrophonic kindly reminded me of) "Those that would sacrifice essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither." Benjamin Franklin

This is some ignorant trash here. Would the Founding Fathers know that we'd have nukes too?