8 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by Lann.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Norsuelefantti. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Old news: *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Christian-activists-disrupt-Hindu-Senate-invocation

it's clearly a parody of turkish star trek. you didn't put emoticons, so i can't tell if you're ribbing me or not. There is no arabic(squint your eyes) or hindi in the video. neither is there anything explicitly turkish. (but i guess they might be speaking turkish words with an english pronunciation. Any turks on the sift? Just do a asterix +discuss) It's not the Australian comedian that did this and this

instead some guy on b3ta.com is taking credit for it
clearly the same guy does a dr. who parody
http://www.b3ta.com/links/Doctor_Hooey

feel free to sift dr hooey, i will upvote

>> ^cracanata:

How in the name of all it's good you didn't smell the Arabic/Hindu nature of everything in this video is beyond me.
Shame for the lack of basic language skills. Shame!

How in the name of all it's good you didn't smell the Arabic/Hindu nature of everything in this video is beyond me.
Shame for the lack of basic language skills. Shame!

I don't like nativity scenes in public/government places. Where do you draw the 'religion in government' line, Christian holidays, Islamic holiday's, Jewish holidays, Hindu holidays, Heavens Gate holidays? Sorry Pat but it is better to remove ALL religious oriented holiday's from the public sphere. Everyone is free to celebrate what they wish and when --- PRIVATELY. No single religious group should be represented over another when religion is at the center of the public/taxpayer/government property discussion. The only logical choice is to remove all religion from government and taxpayer supported venues. Let people celebrate their religions anyway they wish PRIVATELY.

Government and those things supported by taxpayer dollars must be free of religion in order to be fair to everyone.

@kceaton1

I wholly agree that I detest these once atheists that have literally taken what is normally a balanced "naught" position as to God(s) existence barring evidence and instead these anti-theists ditch that stance and deem that not only is all religion a wash, but any God is as well. They're very "militant" in nature and seem to draw in those that are less secure about their own opinions; kind of like the Westboro Baptists. Unfortunately, they are also very pro-active, boisterous, and vitriolic in nature--worse of all they call themselves atheists still, giving the rest of us a bad rap.

And they're everywhere. The only place that I can go and say anything about Christianity without being ridiculed is a Christian forum. This goes from the obvious places like atheist forums, to a place like this, to even the comments section on CNN.com. Antitheists seem to outnumber thoughtful atheists at least 100-1.

Some of them though are just plain tired of the charades they have had to play with men they worked with, people they once respected--but, those same people might as well put their workmate, friend, and neighbors into brutal conditions for a simple principle held: atheism. It's happened before, not as ruthless as it may have been in the earlier centuries, but black listing someone in a community can happen. I've seen it happen innumerable times first hand! I can't blame some for their outrage and pointed damnation they hold for others; it was created by those that may complain that the volume and acidity of their words may be too strong--or too true.

Some have been mistreated, and some are just on the hate bandwagon because they are angry, insecure people who scapegoat religion for the evil in the world. Much like an anarchist blames all the evil in the world on governments.

Of course religion has it's share of idiots as well. They are almost always the fundamentalists, like the Westboro clan. Papa (George H. W.) Bush once said that atheists should have no rights in the U.S.--if he had his way--they would not be citizens nor would they be patriots. Because, this is a nation "under God"--atleast after that was added. Maybe Papa Bush didn't know that historical part. Religion also has a grand stand in politics and the media. That is yet another thing that must be remembered is that when an anti-theist does speak it will outrage the religious; but, atheists, anti-theists (even Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhism, etc...), endure the endless exposure and should be expected to remain quiet... Fox News is the epitome of which I speak as it is nothing more than a pulpit for the rich, white, Christian, American, white collar worker.

Stupidity, of course, is not exclusive to any particular group of people, but is common to all of them.

But, there is one more consideration that HAS to be mentioned. As this point gets me to go after religious people all the time. If this makes me anti-theist, because I voiced a concern over what is being said--then anti-theism is far more wide-spread and has NOTHING to do with atheism. I do think this may be a common misconception from just my general experiences on the messageboards, here and elsewhere.

The problem is: Science!

This is especially true for all of the fundamental type religions. They all have a huge laundry list of minor science flaws to HUGE science flaws. Fundamentalism Christianity in the U.S. tends to take the lead in this war of fact versus opinion. There are plenty of fully qualified scientists out there that are religious, but ones that tend to go against the full body of evidence and scientific community to prove a religious claim tend to be "not fully qualified". They tend to use full scientific data and factual evidence to create a new theor...I mean hypothesis (many will try to use "theory", but their reason for their arrival at the new understanding tends to have no basis) and inject a very large amount of opinion, sprinkled with some facts. One such example is the red-shift video provided above by @shinyblurry .

The video I posted does have a basis, the phenomena was legitimately observed:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606294

Obviously it isn't conclusive, but it definitely has merit and should be explored rather than dismissed. I would really like to know the difference between something like this and the pure speculation accepted as fact in big bang cosmology, such as the existence of dark matter and dark energy. They are little more than fudge factors, as well as cosmic inflation, to account for the glaring holes that don't fit observation. That isn't science, but you excuse it because..?

Science can become a VERY heated area of topic when it comes to religion. This begins when a religion: tries to debunk a theory or a part of it, to commandeer a theory and direct a new conclusion to fit an already preconceived destination which has not been peer-reviewed or tested, repeating scientific theories in religious pamphlets or media while purposefully undermining the theory by not presenting in full and correct context or actually printing falsehoods, lying about the nature of scientific testing, repetitiously incorrectly stating current stances on various theories (like radio-carbon dating, etc...), attempts by any churches through the state to eliminate the teaching of branches of science--especially ones that have been tested so much that have attained the rank of THEORY (Evolution, etc...), again the use of lying in media against science--this has reached every facet of media-large and small.

Here's the problem with the so called theory of evolution. What Darwin observed was microevolution, not macroevolution. He observed that species will adapt to their environments. That is scientific fact, and a great discovery. What he did from there is speculate that because species adapt to their environments, that those adaptations would lead to new species, and therefore, that all life has a common ancestor. Since it wasn't something that could be observed, what was supposed to prove his theory would be evidence from the fossil record. There was only one problem with that:

innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ..why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Charles Darwin
Origin of the Species

The total lack of transitional fossils was a complete embarrassment to Darwin. The excuse made was that because the record was so poor, more time was needed to unearth the fossils. Here we are 150 years later, and those transitional forms have failed to materialize. The fossil record is composed mainly of gaps. It also defies all the predictions of gradualism. All the major body types appeared suddenly in the Cambrian explosion without any discernable evolutionary history, and they appeared highly diversified. All the major phyla, classes, orders etc were there at the beginning. Species appear suddenly in stasis and leave just as suddenly. Macroevolution is not science, it has never been observed nor can it be tested. It is a just-so story which does not fit observation.

Christians don't have a problem with science, they have a problem with what isn't science. Macroevolution was a giant leap made by Darwin for which there was no evidence, and the fossil record does not match the predictions of the theory. Because of this, evolutionists have moved away from the fossil record and have used other lines of evidences to prove macroevolution, like common genetics in our DNA. The problem with that is, common genetics also indicates a common designer, and is better indicated by it actually, because of the mosaic pattern we observe in the genome.

I'm sure there are more. History has been a great use to show us what religion WILL do to science, even though all that is being shown is the truth. It truly is a dangerous weapon. If you can't except truth what hope do we have for you. Yes you can be a good person, but somehow you're flawed, unable to except reality.

Historically the church supported scientific inquiry. Science got its start in Christian Europe, and many of the greatest scientists were devout Christians.

When I was a believer (no matter what @shinyblurry says I was; I was Mormon and shiny seems to believe that his religious path is of course a T3 hard-line; were as Mormons just get the basic 56k dial-up...) I FELT the presence of God, or more accurately The Holy Ghost. I had no problem believing in everything science told me when I was religious. I knew it was the truth and I knew that God would not want me to ignore the grand insights into the workings of his masterpiece. I could feel in my soul, the first year I had physics, that something profound had just happened. I had found something I had been searching for my whole life. I felt connected to everything. I began to dismiss those that were religious around me and disliked evolution--to me evolution was so simple and yet such a wondrous way to create the most complex of things from literally the simplest. A literal masterpiece. So I do know that some can believe all that science says, but it's very hard in Christianity.

There are two kingdoms in this world, the kingdom of darkness and the Kingdom of Heaven, and they are both supernatural kingdoms. You can get a supernatural experience in a false religion, but it is just a corrupt copy of the real thing. Were you feeling a burning sensation in your chest? What you were feeling wasn't the Holy Spirit, or the presence of God, but the false spirit that pervades the mormon church. The presence of God is something that goes beyond feelings and sensations. This is how people get duped into false religions, because they get a spiritual experience from a false spirit.

I grew up secular, and when I became a Christian I was more than willing to accept the conclusions of science. I had believed them all my life because they had been taught to me as factual. I was even willing to intergrate them into my faith. It was only after investigating these things that I found, to my shock, that there wasn't any actual evidence for these things, and that they were neither testable or observerd. I changed my mind based on my investigation of the facts and not because of any religious duty. I would still believe it if I thought there was convincing evidence, but it isn't there.

Since you're scientifically minded, let me give you a challenge. You appear to be quite confident that evolution is proven true, so if that is the case, see if you can refute the arguments in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0890510628/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=

So I hope I made a point with this. Anti-theism comes from quite a few directions. The most usual and common sight is that you'll see between someone defending scientific theories, while the less common will be those that have been directly burned by the religious community they most likely once belonged to. The last is of course what was brought up in earlier posts: atheists who turn into anti-theists. They tend to be the kind that will assert that religion is evil no matter how small or insignificant it may play a role in someones life.

It's because they have no idea how much of western civilization is built upon Christian principles and philosophy. What they need to do is educate themselves:

http://www.amazon.com/Book-that-Made-Your-World/dp/1595553223

In the end most atheists boil down to this:

Stephen speaking to a religious friend...
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

~Stephen Roberts

Thought I'd throw in one more bit about the anti-theism comments above, like @GeeSussFreeK 's.

I wholly agree that I detest these once atheists that have literally taken what is normally a balanced "naught" position as to God(s) existence barring evidence and instead these anti-theists ditch that stance and deem that not only is all religion a wash, but any God is as well. They're very "militant" in nature and seem to draw in those that are less secure about their own opinions; kind of like the Westboro Baptists. Unfortunately, they are also very pro-active, boisterous, and vitriolic in nature--worse of all they call themselves atheists still, giving the rest of us a bad rap.

Some of them though are just plain tired of the charades they have had to play with men they worked with, people they once respected--but, those same people might as well put their workmate, friend, and neighbors into brutal conditions for a simple principle held: atheism. It's happened before, not as ruthless as it may have been in the earlier centuries, but black listing someone in a community can happen. I've seen it happen innumerable times first hand! I can't blame some for their outrage and pointed damnation they hold for others; it was created by those that may complain that the volume and acidity of their words may be too strong--or too true.

Of course religion has it's share of idiots as well. They are almost always the fundamentalists, like the Westboro clan. Papa (George H. W.) Bush once said that atheists should have no rights in the U.S.--if he had his way--they would not be citizens nor would they be patriots. Because, this is a nation "under God"--atleast after that was added. Maybe Papa Bush didn't know that historical part. Religion also has a grand stand in politics and the media. That is yet another thing that must be remembered is that when an anti-theist does speak it will outrage the religious; but, atheists, anti-theists (even Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhism, etc...), endure the endless exposure and should be expected to remain quiet... Fox News is the epitome of which I speak as it is nothing more than a pulpit for the rich, white, Christian, American, white collar worker.

But, there is one more consideration that HAS to be mentioned. As this point gets me to go after religious people all the time. If this makes me anti-theist, because I voiced a concern over what is being said--then anti-theism is far more wide-spread and has NOTHING to do with atheism. I do think this may be a common misconception from just my general experiences on the messageboards, here and elsewhere.

The problem is: Science!

This is especially true for all of the fundamental type religions. They all have a huge laundry list of minor science flaws to HUGE science flaws. Fundamentalism Christianity in the U.S. tends to take the lead in this war of fact versus opinion. There are plenty of fully qualified scientists out there that are religious, but ones that tend to go against the full body of evidence and scientific community to prove a religious claim tend to be "not fully qualified". They tend to use full scientific data and factual evidence to create a new theor...I mean hypothesis (many will try to use "theory", but their reason for their arrival at the new understanding tends to have no basis) and inject a very large amount of opinion, sprinkled with some facts. One such example is the red-shift video provided above by @shinyblurry .

Science can become a VERY heated area of topic when it comes to religion. This begins when a religion: tries to debunk a theory or a part of it, to commandeer a theory and direct a new conclusion to fit an already preconceived destination which has not been peer-reviewed or tested, repeating scientific theories in religious pamphlets or media while purposefully undermining the theory by not presenting in full and correct context or actually printing falsehoods, lying about the nature of scientific testing, repetitiously incorrectly stating current stances on various theories (like radio-carbon dating, etc...), attempts by any churches through the state to eliminate the teaching of branches of science--especially ones that have been tested so much that have attained the rank of THEORY (Evolution, etc...), again the use of lying in media against science--this has reached every facet of media-large and small.

I'm sure there are more. History has been a great use to show us what religion WILL do to science, even though all that is being shown is the truth. It truly is a dangerous weapon. If you can't except truth what hope do we have for you. Yes you can be a good person, but somehow you're flawed, unable to except reality.

When I was a believer (no matter what @shinyblurry says I was; I was Mormon and shiny seems to believe that his religious path is of course a T3 hard-line; were as Mormons just get the basic 56k dial-up...) I FELT the presence of God, or more accurately The Holy Ghost. I had no problem believing in everything science told me when I was religious. I knew it was the truth and I knew that God would not want me to ignore the grand insights into the workings of his masterpiece. I could feel in my soul, the first year I had physics, that something profound had just happened. I had found something I had been searching for my whole life. I felt connected to everything. I began to dismiss those that were religious around me and disliked evolution--to me evolution was so simple and yet such a wondrous way to create the most complex of things from literally the simplest. A literal masterpiece. So I do know that some can believe all that science says, but it's very hard in Christianity.

So I hope I made a point with this. Anti-theism comes from quite a few directions. The most usual and common sight is that you'll see between someone defending scientific theories, while the less common will be those that have been directly burned by the religious community they most likely once belonged to. The last is of course what was brought up in earlier posts: atheists who turn into anti-theists. They tend to be the kind that will assert that religion is evil no matter how small or insignificant it may play a role in someones life.

In the end most atheists boil down to this:

Stephen speaking to a religious friend...
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

~Stephen Roberts

/long

I actually took Religion in High School. It was an interesting class to say the least, but didn't sway my opinions on anything religion wise.

In fact, it was one of my reasons for becoming an Atheist. It's where I found out that Jesus wasn't the first "Miraculous" birth, in fact, Zoroaster and Buddha were also born in the exact same fashion.

My favourite part of the class, however, was the field trip. We went to three places, a Hindu temple, a Mosque, and a Buddhist temple.

Hindu temple and Mosque were interesting, but nothing special. The Buddhist temple though was nifty, I walked into the main hall and there were 3 giant golden Buddha statues there, with thousands of candles lit around the room. I was amazed by this, and eager to learn about it expecting our tour guide to be a monk of sorts.

Turns out he was a little middle-aged white guy, who turned out to be a dick. When asked "Why did you become a Buddhist?" we all expected some result that included soul searching, or because of it's outlook on everything. The exact answer we got was "Well, my friends were something different, so I decided to be different, too."

Needless to say, by the end of our tour, none of us were too impressed with this guy. Chinese new years was coming up so they showed us the basement that was being decorated in silks and lanterns, and looked pretty cool. The guide asked us "So, any of you know how to say 'Happy new year' in Chinese?" with a slight smirk on his face.

I looked him square in the eye and said "Happy new year in Chinese."

That's when we got kicked out of the temple.

Worth it.

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.

Bill Maher To Panel On Norway Gunman: "He’s A Christian Terrorist"

3 months prior:
Bill Maher: You’re Not A Christian if You Celebrated Bin Laden’s Death

Let me put it this way, the way I see it every god is as likely to exist as any other god or gods seeing as there is no empirical evidence pointing specifically to one or other. Without some sort of personal revelation I can't see how I could make the leap to Allah or Yahweh or Baal or the Hindu gods or scrap any notion of spiritual belief altogether. I would also be very interested to read this CS Lewis essay that you seem so taken with if you could provide a link.

Interesting stories... anybody willing to share if they explored any other religions after losing faith in Christianity? Anybody here who is an atheist that belonged to a religion other than Christianity before converting?

In my own case, I personally attended Mormon, Catholic, and Protestant churches as a child--my family considered themselves non-denominational Christians. In addition to the Protestant and Catholic Christian friends I had growing up, I also had friends who were Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist, and Hindu. My best friend's dad was a Unitarian pastor. At a very young age it was clear to me that none of the religions could be completely right, but even until today I don't agree that that fact means they all must be completely wrong. Rather, I see certain commonalities in all the faiths and think that each one expresses a kind of truth about our experiences as humans--just from different perspectives.

A pastor at Stanford I talked to once likened it to looking into a room from the outside through a window. You can only see part of the room through one particular window, and looking from other windows reveals other aspects of the room. In the end though, looking through the window is never the same thing as being inside the room and able to verify what's in there for yourself.

So I consider myself both religious and yet agnostic at the same time. I don't know if there is a divinity or divinities. I've heard lots of anecdotal evidence from people from a variety of faiths, but have never seen any empirical proof one way or the other. I certainly don't believe in the monotheistic Judeo-Islamic-Christian "God."

And yet, I don't dismiss religion completely. I'm convinced from my own (subjective) experiences and a growing body of research in the psychology of religion that it can be a very useful tool for improving both individuals and society (although it can be a terrible and dangerous weapon when misused). Going into the future, I would like to see the world's major religions transform themselves--to cut away that which is clearly being abused and to explore more fully that which helps people to bring out their full potential.

By the way, please don't construe that to mean that I think everyone must be religious to bring out their full potential. Like I said, I feel religion is like a tool--it certainly isn't the only one available and might not be right for all people under all circumstances.