assume the "that" which you request evidence for is the part where I say this is retconning, subversion, plot holes, etc. This is my own opinion; my own conclusion; after everything I have seen and read over the course of my life. I cannot simply provide a citation for this.

The gospels were written by people unknown and are, with few exceptions, held not to have been written by the people whose names adorn them and are not generally thought to have been written by singular authors, for that matter. Given this, we can't say anything about their beliefs. My expectations would be that some authors had an honest belief in what they wrote and that others had ulterior motives. I have a hard time seeing how an author could intentionally write something that contradicts the Old Testament if (s)he truly believed it were holy.

Yes, that is what I wanted evidence for, because you seemed to have stated it as if it were conclusively proven. I would ask you how you can justify it without a single citation? We have very early manuscript so we know what the early church was working with. When and how exactly do you think this retconning took place?

I will ask for evidence that the NT account of Satan contradicts the OT.

Now, to say the gospels are written by unknowns is simply not plausible. First, for this to be possible, you would have to argue that the church universally agreed on their authorship without any dissension. This strains credulity..entire denominations have been formed over far less important points. For there not to be even be a whiff of controversy in the early church over their authorship proves this theory to be bunk. You also have the fact that they were written in the memory of living witnesses, including the disciples. This would be a check on their authenticity.

I do not deny that Jesus of Nazareth was a real man, no. It's not a fantastic claim to say that a man lived in the desert 2000 years ago, so I see no reason to even worry about it. Do I believe he was the son of a god who rose from the dead? No. That sort of thing is going to need some solid evidence.

Well, if Jesus was a real person it really puts a damper on your theory. The details of His life were widely known about, and there were obviously quite a few witnesses as to who He really was. Do you really think its plausible that so many devout jews in the 1st century would completely estrange themselves from their culture and heritage and willingly martyr themselves over a clever fable? It seems like they also would need some solid evidence to do something like that, and a story about Jesus that many people knew to be false wouldn't hardly qualify.

And there is solid evidence. Have you considered any of the evidence mentioned here?:


But Jesus and Dawkins are both straying from the topic. Let's focus here.

You've mentioned in this thread that ha-Satan was the prosecutor in God's court. I like this analogy; I've used it once or twice before. But the question is, why does Job need to be tortured to determine if he is guilty? God is supposed to be all-knowing so He should already know the outcome. It sounds like God runs a kangaroo court.

You're talking about a very narrow definition of omniscience which is logically contradictory. For instance, under this strict definition of omniscience God would have to know every thought He would ever have and be locked into that thought process for eternity. This would make God no better than a robot. But the nature of God by definition is transcendent of this. If God knew every thought He would ever have, there is no reason He couldn't throw them all away and think something else. Does He necessarily have to anticipate everything He would ever think to still be omniscient? No, because it is to know everything that can be known, and I don't think even God can anticipate all of His thoughts, although we can always count on them being consistant with His nature.

Therefore, although God can surely anticipate the actions of limited beings, His own dynamic reactions to His creation can give His creatures a measure of freedom from this predeterminatism and can themselves have dynamic choices. There is no sense in the bible that God is just "going through the motions". He reacts dynamically according to what His creatures do. He gives choices..for instance, He made the prediction that the 4th generation of Israelites would enter into the land He had prepared for them, but it actually turned out to be the 5th generation due to disobedience. So for these reasons I don't necessarily think God is running a kangaroo court. I think He tests our hearts, and gives us genuine choices with genuine consequences.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If you would kindly provide some evidence of that I would happily debunk it for you, because as it stands your conspiracy claims are fairly ridiculous. The gospels were written by people with sincere beliefs, as evidenced by their martyrdom..or perhaps you think it is reasonable to believe that the disciples would be willingly tortured and killed in excruciating ways for something they knew to be a lie, when all they had to do was recant? They were also written in the memory of living witnesses. Are you one of those people who deny that Jesus even existed? Even dawkins is intellectually honest enough to admit it:
I assume the "that" which you request evidence for is the part where I say this is retconning, subversion, plot holes, etc. This is my own opinion; my own conclusion; after everything I have seen and read over the course of my life. I cannot simply provide a citation for this.
The gospels were written by people unknown and are, with few exceptions, held not to have been written by the people whose names adorn them and are not generally thought to have been written by singular authors, for that matter. Given this, we can't say anything about their beliefs. My expectations would be that some authors had an honest belief in what they wrote and that others had ulterior motives. I have a hard time seeing how an author could intentionally write something that contradicts the Old Testament if (s)he truly believed it were holy.
I do not deny that Jesus of Nazareth was a real man, no. It's not a fantastic claim to say that a man lived in the desert 2000 years ago, so I see no reason to even worry about it. Do I believe he was the son of a god who rose from the dead? No. That sort of thing is going to need some solid evidence.
But Jesus and Dawkins are both straying from the topic. Let's focus here.
You've mentioned in this thread that ha-Satan was the prosecutor in God's court. I like this analogy; I've used it once or twice before. But the question is, why does Job need to be tortured to determine if he is guilty? God is supposed to be all-knowing so He should already know the outcome. It sounds like God runs a kangaroo court.

>> ^shinyblurry:

If you would kindly provide some evidence of that I would happily debunk it for you, because as it stands your conspiracy claims are fairly ridiculous. The gospels were written by people with sincere beliefs, as evidenced by their martyrdom..or perhaps you think it is reasonable to believe that the disciples would be willingly tortured and killed in excruciating ways for something they knew to be a lie, when all they had to do was recant? They were also written in the memory of living witnesses. Are you one of those people who deny that Jesus even existed? Even dawkins is intellectually honest enough to admit it:

I assume the "that" which you request evidence for is the part where I say this is retconning, subversion, plot holes, etc. This is my own opinion; my own conclusion; after everything I have seen and read over the course of my life. I cannot simply provide a citation for this.

The gospels were written by people unknown and are, with few exceptions, held not to have been written by the people whose names adorn them and are not generally thought to have been written by singular authors, for that matter. Given this, we can't say anything about their beliefs. My expectations would be that some authors had an honest belief in what they wrote and that others had ulterior motives. I have a hard time seeing how an author could intentionally write something that contradicts the Old Testament if (s)he truly believed it were holy.

I do not deny that Jesus of Nazareth was a real man, no. It's not a fantastic claim to say that a man lived in the desert 2000 years ago, so I see no reason to even worry about it. Do I believe he was the son of a god who rose from the dead? No. That sort of thing is going to need some solid evidence.

But Jesus and Dawkins are both straying from the topic. Let's focus here.

You've mentioned in this thread that ha-Satan was the prosecutor in God's court. I like this analogy; I've used it once or twice before. But the question is, why does Job need to be tortured to determine if he is guilty? God is supposed to be all-knowing so He should already know the outcome. It sounds like God runs a kangaroo court.

If you would kindly provide some evidence of that I would happily debunk it for you, because as it stands your conspiracy claims are fairly ridiculous. The gospels were written by people with sincere beliefs, as evidenced by their martyrdom..or perhaps you think it is reasonable to believe that the disciples would be willingly tortured and killed in excruciating ways for something they knew to be a lie, when all they had to do was recant? They were also written in the memory of living witnesses. Are you one of those people who deny that Jesus even existed? Even dawkins is intellectually honest enough to admit it:



>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^shinyblurry:
There's only one Satan. He is a liar and the father of it. He lied to Eve in the garden, he tempted Jesus in the desert, and he is deceiving the world about the gospel.
That there is no Devil in Judaism is widely and readily known. Claims placing him in the Old Testament are contradicting that text, the supposedly infallible word of God. This is Christian retconning in order to close up plot holes and create a more subversive religion that can better be used to control the masses through fear and intimidation.

What's with those ladies' garb? Did Fabio collect his 72 virgins in anticipation of his nose martyrdom?

>> ^VoodooV:

3. Show that Atheists really aren't on the attack like the Christians would like you to believe. Christianity is always pretending that it's being victimized and oppressed and it simply isn't true. That needs to be exposed.

Christianity has benefited from martyrdom for so long, it appears they simply cannot conceive of any other approach to an issue. Except those where they simply refuse to accept anything resembling facts, of course.

(a copy of the messy comment above)

A collection of verses from the Qur'an about unbelievers

A person's beliefs about life (and afterlife) have a huge effect on how they live and perceive the value of other people's lives; it is nothing like blaming school shootings on violent video games, unless you assume that the shooters actually believed they lived inside a videogame.

The Qur'an, Islam's founding text, makes it quite clear that
a) The unbeliever will burn in hellfire forever (e.g. 4:56)
(nothing new here, M's recycling the holy texts already in existence)
and b) the unbeliever must be killed if he does not accept Islam (4:89), either by God or "or at our hands" (9:52); only Islam can exist on earth (2:193).
See this article on the history of Jihad and martyrdom in Islam.

Of course, the majority of muslims, like any other group of human beings, aspire to live their peaceful lives, etc. The difference between Islam and Christianity or Judaism, apart from its youth, is that it is founded upon a character and his book that are highly impervious to the effects of secularization. While the Bible is an edited compilation of transcripts written by several authors over centuries, the Qur'an was written by one warrior general in the space of his lifetime; questioning any part of the book's infallibility puts the whole faith in question, a risky thing when you read what the book in question has to say about non-believers. (I could go on, but really, Harris says it so much better than me in "The End of Faith" ...for free!).

But you want evidence, so here are a few things to ponder, in relation to what the Qur'an, and thus Islam, has to say about the topics in question. (Keeping in mind that Mohamed did not invent the barbarities that the book contains; they were contemporaneous, he simply enshrined them as the "infallible" word of God. Also: Mohamed's life, as transcribed in the Hadith, is considered a role model).

Honour killing: women considered property of men (see s.4:34) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_hon
orkilling_2.html
Honour killing: adulterers should be killed anyway, no?
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/07/24/2003180222

Because of sharia law's stance on adultery, it remains a crime in several Islamic countries
(sharia law is for the most part copied from the Torah/OT; in Islam, adultery is one of the worst sins/crimes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zina_(Arabic) ):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery#Criminal_penalties

Also, denouncing rape can get you jailed... for adultery:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=7943698

homosexuality: illegal in 75/195 countries; 32/48 Muslim countries. In 8 countries it is punishable by death... under sharia law, of course (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, Sudan, Nigeria, la Mauritania and Somalia).

Condoning slavery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_slavery#Slavery_
in_the_contemporary_Muslim_world

forced marriage of minors: what Islamic doctrine/scholars say: http://muslim-quotes.netfirms.com/childbrides.html
women protest age limit laws: http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=88589
more statistics on child brides (once again, the problem did not stem from Islam, but is upheld by it... Mo+Aisha): http://marriage.about.com/od/arrangedmarriages/a/childbride.htm

Apostasy and human rights: http://www.iheu.org/node/1541

Of the 126 designated terrorist organisations, 73 (60%) are religious, 65 (51%) are Islamic extremists. To compare, the second highest ranking terrorist-fueling ideology, communism, has only 21 (17%) groups. Jihad anyone?

Government report on link between Koranic schools and terrorism: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21654.pdf

Of the 17 "Significant Ongoing Armed Conflicts of 2010", only 5 are not marked by religious ideologies (only 2 if communism is counted as a religious ideology). Eleven of these conflicts involve Islamists, who are either trying to instate an Islamic theocracy (in accordance with the teachings of the Qur'an), or they are fighting Muslim governments that are considered not "Muslim" enough.

@SDGundamX

You really don't seem to get it; you keep saying that Harris (and myself) are speaking of Muslims as a group, when what is being discussed, what you so blithely discard, is the motivation that the ideology of Islam provides for violent and unethical action. Where does sharia law come from? Islam. Why do certain populations fight to keep it in place? Because of their religious faith. Why is terrorism and suicide bombing depicted as religious martyrdom by certain religious leaders and a percentage of muslims? Because it has basis in the Qur'an.
Harris is not saying "be afraid of muslims", he's saying "beware the content and effects of Islamic ideology when put into practice".

I should have known that you would not be content with the evidence, because what you want me to show is something I do not argue (nor does Harris), i.e. that muslims are more prone to violence than non-muslims. Just because the effects of an ideology and its doctrines are not universally put into action by its adherents does not mean that it bears no effect. In Uganda, the MP responsible for the "Kill the gays" bill makes it very clear that his motivations are religious, but according to your (il)logic, because other countries with Christian populations do not punish homosexuality with the death penalty, this bill has nothing to do with Christianity.

Nobody is saying that religion is the only cause or aggravating circumstance in all these cases of violence and unethical behaviour, but it is definitely one to be reckoned with; and Islam, in this day and age, is the religious ideology that causes the most harm around the world. If you can't see that, fine, remain willfully oblivious to what is happening around the world, but don't think for a minute that the millions of muslims suffering because of Islam (yes, the majority of its victims are muslims themselves) are going to thank you for your culturally relativistic "respect".

@SDGundamX

(just so you know, I do not agree with everything Harris says, but he makes quite a few good points).

Interesting extract from this article (bold=added): http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/holy-terror


Of course, the Bible is not the only ancient text that casts a shadow over the present. The social policy that can be derived from the Koran currently poses even greater dangers. According to this text, it is the duty of every Muslim man to make war on unbelievers (Koran 9:73 and 9:123), and such men are promised eternal happiness after death. It is true that many Muslims seem inclined to ignore the Koran’s solicitations to martyrdom and jihad, but we cannot overlook the fact that many are not so inclined, and they now regularly murder innocent noncombatants for religious reasons. The phrase “the war on terrorism” is a dangerous euphemism that obscures the true cause of our troubles in the world, because we are currently at war with precisely the vision of life prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran. Anyone who reads this text will find non-Muslims vilified on nearly every page. How can we possibly expect devout Muslims to happily share power with “the friends of Satan”? How can we expect the faithful to feel about people who God himself is in the process of “mocking,” “cursing,” “shaming,” “punishing,” “scourging,” “judging,” “burning,” “annihilating,” “not forgiving,” and “not reprieving”? While there are many charges that can be fairly leveled at men like Osama bin Laden, perverting the teachings of the Koran is not among them. Why did nineteen well-educated, middle-class men trade their lives in this world for the privilege of killing thousands of our neighbors? Because they believed that they would go straight to Paradise for doing so. It is rare to find the behavior of human beings so fully and satisfactorily explained. And yet, many of us are reluctant to accept this explanation.

Religious faith is always, and everywhere, exonerated. It is now taboo in every corner of our culture to criticize a person’s religious beliefs. Consequently, we are unable to even name, much less oppose, one of the most pervasive causes of human conflict. And the fact that there are very real and consequential differences between our religious traditions is simply never discussed. Anyone who thinks that terrestrial concerns are the principal source of Muslim violence must explain why there are no Palestinian Christian suicide bombers. They, too, suffer the daily indignity of the Israeli occupation. Where, for that matter, are the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? The Tibetans have suffered an occupation far more brutal. Where are the throngs of Tibetans ready to perpetrate suicidal atrocities against the Chinese? They do not exist. What is the difference that makes the difference? The difference lies in the specific tenets of Islam.

A collection of verses from the Qur'an about unbelievers

A person's beliefs about life (and afterlife) have a huge effect on how they live and perceive the value of other people's lives; it is nothing like blaming school shootings on violent video games, unless you assume that the shooters actually believed they lived inside a videogame.

The Qur'an, Islam's founding text, makes it quite clear that
a) The unbeliever will burn in hellfire forever (e.g. 4:56)
(nothing new here, M's recycling the holy texts already in existence)
and b) the unbeliever must be killed if he does not accept Islam (4:89), either by God or "or at our hands" (9:52); only Islam can exist on earth (2:193).
See this article on the history of Jihad and martyrdom in Islam.

Of course, the majority of muslims, like any other group of human beings, aspire to live their peaceful lives, etc. The difference between Islam and Christianity or Judaism, apart from its youth, is that it is founded upon a character and his book that are highly impervious to the effects of secularization. While the Bible is an edited compilation of transcripts written by several authors over centuries, the Qur'an was written by one warrior general in the space of his lifetime; questioning any part of the book's infallibility puts the whole faith in question, a risky thing when you read what the book in question has to say about non-believers. (I could go on, but really, Harris says it so much better than me in "The End of Faith" ...for free!).

But you want evidence, so here are a few things to ponder, in relation to what the Qur'an, and thus Islam, has to say about the topics in question. (Keeping in mind that Mohamed did not invent the barbarities that the book contains; they were contemporaneous, he simply enshrined them as the "infallible" word of God. Also: Mohamed's life, as transcribed in the Hadith, is considered a role model).

Honour killing: women considered property of men (see s.4:34) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_honorkilling_2.html
Honour killing: adulterers should be killed anyway, no?
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/07/24/2003180222

Because of sharia law's stance on adultery, it remains a crime in several Islamic countries
(sharia law is for the most part copied from the Torah/OT; in Islam, adultery is one of the worst sins/crimes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zina_(Arabic) ):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery#Criminal_penalties

Also, denouncing rape can get you jailed... for adultery:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=7943698

homosexuality: illegal in 75/195 countries; 32/48 Muslim countries. In 8 countries it is punishable by death... under sharia law, of course (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, Sudan, Nigeria, la Mauritania and Somalia).

Condoning slavery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_slavery#Slavery_in_the_contemporary_Muslim_world

forced marriage of minors: what Islamic doctrine/scholars say: http://muslim-quotes.netfirms.com/childbrides.html
women protest age limit laws: http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=88589
more statistics on child brides (once again, the problem did not stem from Islam, but is upheld by it... Mo+Aisha): http://marriage.about.com/od/arrangedmarriages/a/childbride.htm

Apostasy and human rights: http://www.iheu.org/node/1541

Of the 126 designated terrorist organisations, 73 (60%) are religious, 65 (51%) are Islamic extremists. To compare, the second highest ranking terrorist-fueling ideology, communism, has only 21 (17%) groups. Jihad anyone?

Government report on link between Koranic schools and terrorism: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21654.pdf

Of the 17 "Significant Ongoing Armed Conflicts of 2010", only 5 are not marked by religious ideologies (only 2 if communism is counted as a religious ideology). Eleven of these conflicts involve Islamists, who are either trying to instate an Islamic theocracy (in accordance with the teachings of the Qur'an), or they are fighting Muslim governments that are considered not "Muslim" enough.

edit: html's not working, so this looks like crap. sorry, i'm too tired to rearrange right now.


>> ^SDGundamX:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/hpqp" title="member since July 25th, 2009" class="profilelink">hpqp
You repeated his speaking points and provided no evidence to support them and then insinuated that I know nothing of Islam's teachings to boot. You've clearly learned from your teachers (Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens) quite well.
Show me some evidence please that shows that Islamic followers are more likely to cause harm to fellow human beings than others. By evidence I mean an empirical study that controls for other factors that include but are not limited to: education, income, regional cultural factors (other than religion), and local political systems (or lack thereof as the case may be, for example in countries such as Somalia).
And no, you didn't correct that for me. It doesn't matter their stated reasons for committing the violence. People who resort to violence do so for a complex array of reasons. I dispute the notion that people commit violence soley "because of their religion" any more than school shootings occur "because kids play violent video games."

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>

BicycleRepairMan - Ever heard of Godwin's Law?

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

I've been waiting for it to happen.

campionidelmondo - I'm sure you've just made this the most channeled video



>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

But it's easy to blame a concept rather than a people...
I know its a cliche to bring up Hitler in every discussion,but I have to ask, following this logic, what about the nazis? Sure we can say that Hitler was an evil, manipulative, charismatic monster or whatever, but that will never explain the widespread support from millions of Europeans he received. Where they all evil monsters? No. turns out most of the people who made the whole thing happen were completely average people, people who loved their families and so on. Sure they were poor, the economy was failing, they were largely uneducated perhaps, but still, most of them were just nice people. Sane people.
Sane people subscribing to an insane ideology, and thats the problem, and undoubtably one of the most dangerous things in the world. Its why nazism is dangerous, because it itself is insane, but it can capture sane people.
If you had to be a raving lunatic psychopath to fall for nazism, there would never have been a holocaust. Hitler would be a failed artist with a tinfoil hat rambling about how jews really controlled the world, and nobody would listen.
Religious ideas are just as insane, far-fetched and ridiculous as any of those promoted by the nazis, but somehow, its never the religion's fault that people behave like idiots when they do their best to follow them, its always evildoers who use religion for evil instead of good. Thats an insane argument, and it would work just as well for nazism: it wasnt nazisms fault that the holocaust happened, it was Hitler who used it for evil instead of good, after all, as I've already argued, most Nazis were perfectly normal people who wouldnt hurt a fly, so how could there possibly be anything wrong with it?
The answer is obvious to anyone with half a brain: Nazism is an uninformed, hateful, fascistic, authoritarian, conspiratorial, insane ideology that despite the insanity managed to convince a lot of people for whatever reason, and it doesn't speak to Nazism favor that most of those people were perfectly sane. In fact, that only makes it more dangerous, and not necessarily more sane.
The same principle works for religion: those of us who criticize it are perfectly aware that most of its followers are good, that doesn't make the religion good. This is why we ask ourselves : well, what does the religion preach, then? Bigotry? Check. Racism? Check. Sexism? Check. Discrimination? Check. Superstition? Check. Martyrdom? Check. Obedience to authority? Check.
The list goes on and on, but you get the point. This stuff is in the Bible, its in the Quran and so on, and its preached every day by the most trustful servants of religions. The more devout, the more of these points will probably apply to you, but most religious people are not generally assholes, but I credit that to their human side, and not their religious side.


>> ^campionidelmondo:

anatomy controversy lies

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.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Otay...
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Seric" title="member since May 20th, 2008" class="profilelink">Seric; 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.
@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.
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.
"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.
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.
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/ponceleon" title="member since February 8th, 2008" class="profilelink">ponceleon; 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.
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.
On the uneducated part, my father, myself, brothers and all had an eighth grade education and guess what? Atheists all...

Otay...

@Seric; 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.

@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.

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.

"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.

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.

@ponceleon; 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.

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.

On the uneducated part, my father, myself, brothers and all had an eighth grade education and guess what? Atheists all...

But it's easy to blame a concept rather than a people...

I know its a cliche to bring up Hitler in every discussion,but I have to ask, following this logic, what about the nazis? Sure we can say that Hitler was an evil, manipulative, charismatic monster or whatever, but that will never explain the widespread support from millions of Europeans he received. Where they all evil monsters? No. turns out most of the people who made the whole thing happen were completely average people, people who loved their families and so on. Sure they were poor, the economy was failing, they were largely uneducated perhaps, but still, most of them were just nice people. Sane people.

Sane people subscribing to an insane ideology, and thats the problem, and undoubtably one of the most dangerous things in the world. Its why nazism is dangerous, because it itself is insane, but it can capture sane people.

If you had to be a raving lunatic psychopath to fall for nazism, there would never have been a holocaust. Hitler would be a failed artist with a tinfoil hat rambling about how jews really controlled the world, and nobody would listen.

Religious ideas are just as insane, far-fetched and ridiculous as any of those promoted by the nazis, but somehow, its never the religion's fault that people behave like idiots when they do their best to follow them, its always evildoers who use religion for evil instead of good. Thats an insane argument, and it would work just as well for nazism: it wasnt nazisms fault that the holocaust happened, it was Hitler who used it for evil instead of good, after all, as I've already argued, most Nazis were perfectly normal people who wouldnt hurt a fly, so how could there possibly be anything wrong with it?

The answer is obvious to anyone with half a brain: Nazism is an uninformed, hateful, fascistic, authoritarian, conspiratorial, insane ideology that despite the insanity managed to convince a lot of people for whatever reason, and it doesn't speak to Nazism favor that most of those people were perfectly sane. In fact, that only makes it more dangerous, and not necessarily more sane.

The same principle works for religion: those of us who criticize it are perfectly aware that most of its followers are good, that doesn't make the religion good. This is why we ask ourselves : well, what does the religion preach, then? Bigotry? Check. Racism? Check. Sexism? Check. Discrimination? Check. Superstition? Check. Martyrdom? Check. Obedience to authority? Check.

The list goes on and on, but you get the point. This stuff is in the Bible, its in the Quran and so on, and its preached every day by the most trustful servants of religions. The more devout, the more of these points will probably apply to you, but most religious people are not generally assholes, but I credit that to their human side, and not their religious side.