It's always amusing when Prog-Lib-Dytes start eating each other.

Yeah, it's weird. His douchebaggery slipped under my radar, maybe because I tended to agree with his critiques and observations.

Well - there's a list of others I can give you who are all equally huge d-bags. Just run down the roster of so-called 'journalists' MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, the AP, NYT, USA Today, FOX... And hey - while we're at it throw in the roster of psuedo-journalists posuers on all the blogs & websites. Not to mention all the politicians who play revolving-door journalists. Basically every news outlet you care to name is staffed to the man with 99.9999% smarmy, arrogant, closed-minded, self-important douches who think the world revolves around them and who are so biased and agenda driven that they cannot be trusted to recite a farm report or the local weather - let alone national news.

Olberman was perhaps one of the most exaggerated of the lot, but not by much. And Bill Maher (a staple of the Videosift) is only two hairs and some air away from Olberman. Intellectually they are the same person. News isn't news anymore. It's become increasingly thinly disguised propoganda, and I don't trust a single word of it.

Case in point. This morning I was highly amused to be flipping channels as the Morning "News" shows started up. ABC, CBS, NBC... EERY SINGLE ONE of them started with the exact same thing... Obama's "Job Report" and how things were looking fantastic. I literally just kept rotating through all three channels without stopping, and it was almost the EXACT same words being parroted at the exact same time with the exact same interpretation. They didn't question anything. They just recited Obama's press release flack on it. They ignored the fact that non-working Americans are at an all-time high. They ignored the fact that jobs were only HALF of what was 'projected'. Nope. Just three completely identical, laughably positive "120,000 new jobs!" stories all being repeated almost verbatim. That isn't news. That is propoganda - and it's creepy just how in lock-step these mental midgets are.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

That's true. I do torrent TV stuff a bit - but I actually really like Netflix on demand as a discovery service. I've found heaps of obscure TV and documentaries that I probably wouldn't have seen by torrenting - because with torrenting I usually am looking for a particular show already. Netflix is my favourite way to "watch TV" without a TV.

>> ^spoco2:

Wow, that's a lot of effort.
You could have just installed XBMC on your AppleTv, torrented what you want to watch and be done with it.
If they don't want to take our money, I'll find the easiest possible option to watch the created content. Currently torrenting tv shows and dropping them into xbmc gives a wonderfully easy to use exprience for myself and my wife.
As the US still seems to think the world revolves around their country, they'll keep losing out.
Why do the movie companies keep thinking I'm willing to pay $5 to download a time limited movie rental, which is more expensive than hiring a physical blu ray disc from the local store (although, who does that these days?). Even though there is no staff to pay to man the store, no handling costs, purely the cost of running the site and serving the data. Which is sweet FA.
Why do they think I'm willing to pay $2 per bloody episode of tv shows in a format that's locked into only being able to be played on apple products, when I can instead buy the entire thing on Blu Ray for $25?
It's insane pricing for one, and then just all out stupidity that they lock out entire countries altogether.
So I run XMBC, I torrent, and then I pay for physical copies of what I like. I won't be jumping through hoops to use a US service if they aren't going to provide it locally.

Wow, that's a lot of effort.

You could have just installed XBMC on your AppleTv, torrented what you want to watch and be done with it.

If they don't want to take our money, I'll find the easiest possible option to watch the created content. Currently torrenting tv shows and dropping them into xbmc gives a wonderfully easy to use exprience for myself and my wife.

As the US still seems to think the world revolves around their country, they'll keep losing out.

Why do the movie companies keep thinking I'm willing to pay $5 to download a time limited movie rental, which is more expensive than hiring a physical blu ray disc from the local store (although, who does that these days?). Even though there is no staff to pay to man the store, no handling costs, purely the cost of running the site and serving the data. Which is sweet FA.

Why do they think I'm willing to pay $2 per bloody episode of tv shows in a format that's locked into only being able to be played on apple products, when I can instead buy the entire thing on Blu Ray for $25?

It's insane pricing for one, and then just all out stupidity that they lock out entire countries altogether.

So I run XMBC, I torrent, and then I pay for physical copies of what I like. I won't be jumping through hoops to use a US service if they aren't going to provide it locally.

the world revolves around this guy

Unfortunately, this is something i utterly reject. It doesn't just border on ignorance for you to tell anyone their own desires and thoughts and their sincerity to themselves, it goes over the border and keeps on going. I find it insulting to the highest degree for you to try and impose upon me a lack of sincerity in the things that i do in order to cover the truth of the matter - that i have not felt god, and that is no fault of my own. I will not accept the guilt that the church tries to lay at my door and it only pushes me away by attempting to do so.

I'm sorry if I offended you, but you might not be seeing this from my perspective. From my perspective, I know God exists, therefore, if you don't know God, it means that you haven't truly sought Him out. You've also spent many of your replies telling me all of the reasons why you don't seek Him out and aren't interested in seeking Him out, which lends credence to that theory. You say it's no fault of your own, but scripture says He gives everyone sufficient evidence, which people suppress, and in the end no one is going to have an excuses. I am not trying to offend you by saying that, I just believe scripture and my own experience.

If i were to tell you that if you really really wanted to, you could just admit that god isn't real, and you'll stop believing in an outdated superstition caused by the fear of the unknown - death. Would you like that? No, and you'd be right to be put out. I have no position to tell you your mind or thoughts or sincerity to yourself.

My position is if you do what scripture says, you will know God. That's always been my position.

By saying something like that, you lower yourself to be no better than a crusading atheist - do you not see that? I hope i have not misjudged you; afford me the same respect i afford you, please. If we both decide to dictate to each other our own minds and sincerities, this would be me and you telling each other we're wrong, ignorant, stupid etc., i hope god helps you to find a way of talking to an agnostic atheist without accusing them of ignorance and insincerity, because you did the same thing last time when you reinforced my understanding that theists cannot discuss religion in a fair and balanced manner, and therefore their argument must be weak.

I don't know anything about you other than what you post on this website. I don't assume anything other than you're a person worthy of respect.

It is utterly facile of you to tell me that 2 religions are taken from christianity. You know as well as anyone else that there are thousands of religions and thousands of "gods" i could choose. Why did you cherry pick two religions post christ? You understood my point, yet you decided to avoid it. Regardless, if i got a mormon or muslim in here, they would offer similarly vehement defenses of their own religion followed by casting dispersions on yours; do not skip the underlying point, the religion in question is irrelevant. Your religion is not the oldest religion on the planet, not by a long way; so no, not all revolves around christ.

There are 1000s of religions, most of them in antiquity. If God has revealed Himself to the world, do you think it is going to be through some obscure religion no one has ever heard of? Do you think He is only going to have a handful of adherants? All religions are not the same, and they don't make the same claims. For most of the believers on the planet, Jesus is the central question. Also, Judiasm is the oldest religion on the planet, and that is where Christianity comes from.

Finally, why do you assume that i have not investigated logic and the scientific method? In the past and now, you have occasionally had a negligent way of speaking to me that i don't feel i've deserved.. There are ALWAYS many people out there who are more educated than you are, and i could be one of them.

Maybe you have, and maybe you are. However, we cannot examine the comments you made about mathematics without examining the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature.

I put a lot of time and effort into these posts for you and it's unrewarding.

I have put in some time as well, as thus far I find you addressing the last paragraph or line of my replies and ignoring everything else.

Edit:
Actually, i imagine with all the people you have to reply to it's probably hard to editorialise everything you want to say.

It can be, especially because of the limitations of the medium.



>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^shinyblurry:

This is something He would give to you if you sought it out.

Unfortunately, this is something i utterly reject. It doesn't just border on ignorance for you to tell anyone their own desires and thoughts and their sincerity to themselves, it goes over the border and keeps on going. I find it insulting to the highest degree for you to try and impose upon me a lack of sincerity in the things that i do in order to cover the truth of the matter - that i have not felt god, and that is no fault of my own. I will not accept the guilt that the church tries to lay at my door and it only pushes me away by attempting to do so.

If i were to tell you that if you really really wanted to, you could just admit that god isn't real, and you'll stop believing in an outdated superstition caused by the fear of the unknown - death. Would you like that? No, and you'd be right to be put out. I have no position to tell you your mind or thoughts or sincerity to yourself.

By saying something like that, you lower yourself to be no better than a crusading atheist - do you not see that? I hope i have not misjudged you; afford me the same respect i afford you, please. If we both decide to dictate to each other our own minds and sincerities, this would be me and you telling each other we're wrong, ignorant, stupid etc., i hope god helps you to find a way of talking to an agnostic atheist without accusing them of ignorance and insincerity, because you did the same thing last time when you reinforced my understanding that theists cannot discuss religion in a fair and balanced manner, and therefore their argument must be weak.

It is utterly facile of you to tell me that 2 religions are taken from christianity. You know as well as anyone else that there are thousands of religions and thousands of "gods" i could choose. Why did you cherry pick two religions post christ? You understood my point, yet you decided to avoid it. Regardless, if i got a mormon or muslim in here, they would offer similarly vehement defenses of their own religion followed by casting dispersions on yours; do not skip the underlying point, the religion in question is irrelevant. Your religion is not the oldest religion on the planet, not by a long way; so no, not all revolves around christ.

Finally, why do you assume that i have not investigated logic and the scientific method? In the past and now, you have occasionally had a negligent way of speaking to me that i don't feel i've deserved.. There are ALWAYS many people out there who are more educated than you are, and i could be one of them.

I put a lot of time and effort into these posts for you and it's unrewarding.

Edit:
Actually, i imagine with all the people you have to reply to it's probably hard to editorialise everything you want to say.

I appreciate the entire post, however i understand what faith is entirely. I am unable to make that choice. I merely wanted to assure you that there is no faith in not accepting god. Faith is something you need to believe something you can't prove, and i will elaborate on proof below;

I accept that proof to you is a feeling, or your emotional response to what you percieve as god; whether god exists or not, i know that you have no doubts. But you must accept that to anyone else, your proof is equivalent to someone proving 2+2=10 based on their feeling or emotional response to what they percieve as REAL maths.

Faith isn't based on feelings. Some people may serve God because it makes them feel good, but they are the people who fall away in times of trouble. I serve God because He is God, and He has let me know that in an undeniable way. Believe me, God can give you revelation to the extent that you would say "Lord, it is enough".

As i'm sure you're aware, there are many "gods" (many religions) and many people who would say to you "i hope allah touches you one day and you realise the truth" and you reply to them "no no my friend, it is you who needs to be touched and shown the truth; i pray for you". The real crux of the problem is that both of you use exactly the same arguments to justify the existence of different things, and anyone can use the same arguments to justify the existence of anything.

Do you know why there are similarities between Christianity and Islam? Most people don't seem to know this but Islam is exactly the same as Mormonism. There is no difference between Muhammed and Joseph Smith. The only difference is, one came 600 years after Christianity and the other 1800 years. They are both men who spoke with angels and received "new" revelation, which totally contradicts everything in the bible, then wrote new books and claimed it was authoratative over the Old and New Testaments. They're both counterfeit, cultist religions based on Christianity. This is what the bible says about receiving new revelations from angels:

Galatians 1:8

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

2 Corinthians 11:14

And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light

So, when it comes down to it, it is all revolving around the central claim of Christianity, which is that Jesus is God.

Anything at all may be proven true if you accept someone else's "i feel it/i know it" argument, and when presented with this, i must reject it because it can make anything and everything true at once - it can prove that my hair is really green and so i can't trust the evidence of my own eyes. If i can't trust any of my senses, how can i also trust my senses telling me god is real?

It isn't a matter of convincing yourself of anything, it is matter of God giving you revelation that He exists. He gives this revelation to those who dilligently seek Him. Neither is empiricism the measure of reality because there are many things that empiricism cannot prove.

The alternative is to build a logical set of steps and rules (like maths, physics) of undeniable truth; if i have one of something, and one more of that something, i have two of that something. Using this concept i can follow logically to the scientific conclusion; i love truth, and as you can see it requires no faith for me to follow. If the most diverse creature in the universe appeared next to me right now, he would be ONE of those diverse creatures, and even in his language and reference frame he would know that he is ONE, and another of him would make TWO; there is absolutely no faith in this as i'm sure you'll agree. Even god says there is only ONE god. There cannot be TWO or more. Even "god" accepts maths to be universally true. The bible's pages are numbered. The animals went in TWO by TWO. There is no faith involved.

There are things that even science must assume is true, such as the uniformity in nature. Science can't be done without that fundemental assumption. The same goes for the laws of logic. Where do they come from? Where do you get absolute laws from in this ever changing material reality? Where Why is nature uniform? If you are interested in logic you should investigate these questions.

But we could back and forth on this all day. We both know these things to be true, and we both agree on them. But you will say that "when you know, you know". And that is fine by me, i accept that as something that might happen, as we've said before, but i can't let a falsehood be told without challenging it (to my detriment)

What I am saying is that isn't a matter of just knowing, it is a matter of revelation. There are two ways to know something about God. To either be omnipotent yourself, or receive revelation from an omnipotent being. God gives a general revelation in the Creation of His eternal power and Godhead, so that everyone is facing the evidence that God exists, and He also gives a special revelation of His Son Jesus Christ. This is something He would give to you if you sought it out.

>> ^dannym3141:

[...]
I'll certainly check out your suggestions, and thanks for your replies Please keep posting more d'n'b, even if sometimes only the two of us watch the vid and only you upvote! I doubt that will happen often though.
In reply to this comment by kir_mokum:
well, d'n'b isn't defined by reese basslines and amens. that's the stereotype but it's a much, much more diverse genre. i assure you "madness" is a straight up d'n'b tune. check out good looking/looking good, creative source, early hospital, defunked, warm communications, soundtrax recordings, soul:r/revolv:r/signature. if you like that hive tune, you'd probably like some of seba's tunes or alaska or paradox or breakage or anything "drumfunk" (assuming you hadn't heard of them).

well, d'n'b isn't defined by reese basslines and amens. that's the stereotype but it's a much, much more diverse genre. i assure you "madness" is a straight up d'n'b tune. check out good looking/looking good, creative source, early hospital, defunked, warm communications, soundtrax recordings, soul:r/revolv:r/signature. if you like that hive tune, you'd probably like some of seba's tunes or alaska or paradox or breakage or anything "drumfunk" (assuming you hadn't heard of them).

@enoch
I'm gonna respond as I run through your comments.

To talk about fundamentalism, you have to have a foundation (something holy) to be fundamental about. Secular fundamentalism is a misnomer, but I do know what you mean - militant, head-in-the-sand atheists, who are right no matter what, with nothing to back up their case. Those do exist. Heh, I guess the establishment clause or the constitution might be regarded as sacred in some circles.

I am constantly surprised when otherwise very smart people attest to a faith, or indeed a religion. It's not that they are stupid, but they don't apply critical thinking to their faith, for whatever reason, some say "it's meant to by mysterious", "it can't be analyzed with critical thinking", "it's beyond reason". It is like an alcoholic justifying his addiction.

Of course, the word "faith" may mean different things to different people, so to preemptively judge someone before they've said anything about what it means to them is unfair. "I have faith in love".. well la di dah, that so nice.

Stubbornness is the death of discovery, I completely agree there. "The sun revolves around the earth.. because... YOUR FACE that's why!"

I am very open-minded to new ideas, even though it might not seem like it in my comments here, but that's entirely because no one has yet presented any new ideas with any shred of evidence or backup other than, for instance, the bible which is not a credible source. @shinyblurry, I'm looking at you.

I would love to purge you of your faith, enoch, but I don't want to do it by fire. I want you to essentially do it yourself by looking at the world in amazement, looking at how things work, and so on and so on in the same way as I came to this conclusion myself.

I would agree with Harris that all other things being equal, the world would be better without religion than with it. Not a heaven on earth at all, but better.

Harris and Hitchens do go at religion from different angles. Hitchens attack religion, while Harris is attacking faith. You have to remember their background as well, Hitchens was a historian and journalist, while Harris is a neuroscientist. From a neuroscientist standpoint faith is the interesting part, while from an observational position like a journalist the results of faith and religion is the interesting part. So they go after what they think is interesting.

Daniel Dennett also goes against faith, because he's a cognitive scientist (and a bloody brilliant one at that).

Like arguing about God, arguing about Faith requires a definition of the word, otherwise we all just talk about different things.

"the meat of what you are talking about is the prove/disprove god.
this is a futile argument,for neither side can conclusively prove either position.so just as an intelligent person has to leave the option that god MAY exist (though unlikely in their view),the person of faith has to come to the exact same conclusion but in reverse.
my view is that this argument is a waste of time and produces nothing of value."
This cannot be proved either way, but that does not at all mean the two sides are equal. The argument is a waste of time until someone who claims X exists brings some evidence to the table to back up the claim, until that time the discussion is moot.

Why someone has faith, religion etc. is far more interesting, agreed.

Faith carries a stigma, because it implies a whole lot of things, which is why it is judged very quickly.

I'll concede that I may simply not understand people of faith, I don't see the allure of it. I don't have it and I don't miss it, and essentially I see it as a breach of an otherwise floating reasonable boat. heh. I've still not really seen good results of anyone having faith.

>> ^Auger8:

I'm sure the system can be fixed but as it is now it just seems like lobbying breeds corruption.
>> ^Boise_Lib:
@Auger8 @Sagemind
Lobbying is a good thing.
Many years ago I was a member of a successful, grassroots organization which hired a full time lobbyist to talk to state legislators.
Lobbying is not inherently evil.
What is needed is to enforce the existing laws against bribing public officials and re-enact the laws against immoral campaign contributions BRIBES.
Getting rid of Super-PAC's would be an excellent start.
I also really like the Canadian laws against paid political commercials.



Sure, the big money lobbyists are the problem now--because they get away with bribery. Enforce the existing laws--re-enact the laws which were repealed (by lawmakers bought and paid for)--and nail shut the revolving door for congresspeople and staff who move to lobbying positions (Gingrich and Dodd).

But, If lobbying itself is gone how will you be able to talk to your representatives? By email?

The system--as it stands now--is a heaping pile of festering shit. Many people need to go to jail over it. But, that doesn't mean the good parts of the system (which have been captured by the Industrial/Military/Bank/Corporation complex) should be completely scrapped--just fixed.

It won't be easy--but it can be done.

No wonder they pay people to gimp devices so you have to watch those ads, I'd be pissed if I paid half a million dollars and you didn't watch my 30 second ad.

Although I'd argue the scarcity of commercials, they seem to be getting more plentiful as the years go by, seems the scarcity thing was forgotten awhile back. Hour long show is really 40 minutes show and 20 minutes commercials. And hell they even put commercials and stuff in during the credit, on the screen at the bottom while watching and even during the opening bits. Not to mention product placing and what not. Hawaii 5-0 cars and tech placement even mentioning features of the cars and tech during the show.

So.......scarcity.....meh. Content not revolving around advertising is probably the real scarcity.

The real issue is about would you treat your own children in the same way.

Is it permissible to test a person by taking such extreme measures. Would such an experience be psychologically safe and beneficial for a child? Is it suitable to test adults in the same manner.

It's just not a valid comparison, JohnBrown. You can't draw an inference as to what you might do in comparison as to what God might do. God is a much different sort of parent, who has a much different role in a persons life than that of a custodial guardian. He handles issues of life *and* death. Humans obviously want to go through life with the least amount of suffering possible. That isn't always good for them, and as anyone knows, sometimes you have to learn the hard way. Obviously God knows what we can and cannot handle, and what is or isn't beneficial for us.


What led up to his actions and what followed his actions are all digressions and diversions from the actual action taken - this takes away from the action and the conclusions that must be drawn from them based on the knowledge we current have in regards child rearing. Today this activity would at the mildest be called bullying and intimidation and more precisely as a threat of murder. Today we know that type of practice is damaging to the human psyche, it distorts a persons reality and their ability to function affectingly within the community. Today we know that this type of activity breeds and embeds dysfunctionality deeply into the psyche of society.

I'm not sure how you feel you can apply principles of child rearing to God, who handles all of the myriad complexities of the world, and of our individual lives. Do these principles include how to prepare ones spirit for eternal life?

To carry out the same or similar acts towards children or other people is clearly seen as dangerous and harmful. The danger and harm is perpetuated through its having become a part of the biblical and therefore the core of Christian teaching.

Now you segue into this very different subject which is specifically predicated on your unbelief. First you're talking about God hypothetically committing immoral actions, and then when you feel you've established it, you turn the argument into a problem with Christianity itself. The problem is that you haven't established it, and your presupposition about God being compared to a human parent is false.

The basis of the Christian belief system that the beliefs in part or in whole must come before all else is the greatest impediment we face in regards an obvious to provide sound and effective safety and protection mechanism in place to safeguard children from exposure to such violent thinking - more so when it is supported by an entire religious and belief system.

If God exists, obviously God comes first. Just like you put your family first before other people. Yet, this isn't a selfish thing. If you put God first in your life you are more likely to love other people. These are the two greatest commandments:

1. Love the Lord thy God with all of your heart, all of your soul, and all of your understanding.

2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

Jesus said that everything in the bible hinged on those two commandments. As you can see, God felt it was very important that we should love other human beings. This is hardly "violent thinking". Your problem, and the problem of every other atheist, is that in your desperate attempt to dismantle Christianity, you try to find something in the Old Testament to make your case, because it's quite obvious that Jesus taught us to be selfless, compassionate, and loving. You have no argument against verses like this:

Matthew 5:39-48

But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

So you try to find difficult verses in the OT and completely ignore all of the obvious good in the NT. It really shows the weakness of your arguments.

We know today that if we want to develop our full potential that we should provide a safe and protective environment. Religion can never provide that whilst ever it preaches these types of dysfunctional practices as a core part of their religion for to do so is to once again put the rights of their belief before the rights and needs of their children.

Full potential? Christians live longer, and are happier and healthier than non-believers:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8480505/Faith-good-for-your-health.html

We're also far more likely to give to charity, and when we do, we give four times as much:

http://therooftopblog.wordpress.com/2006/12/01/christians-and-conservatives-give-more-to-charity-abc-says/

Parents can never become genuine advocates for children and their rights while ever they hold the right of their religion first and foremost as this act places the rights of their children on a lower level. This is more harmful to the child when the issue revolves around an act of abuse or the threat of such an act. Most religions stack such a bevy of fear and phobias onto their beliefs and subsequently onto their children to such an extent that what is in actual fact an abuse of the child's right to be free from the fears and phobias of other; that includes their own parents and whatever rights they perceive to belong to them.

Children's rights, their safety and protection can never be first and foremost in a religion; their rights will always be secondary to the religion and the perceived right of the parent.

Ridiculous, and unfounded. Putting God first means to obey His commands to love one another, and to see all people, children and adult, in the image of God. There is no connection between putting God first and abusing your kids. Some people may used a warped understanding of Christianity to mistreat their children, but that is possible for any belief system.

>> ^JohnBrown

The real issue is about would you treat your own children in the same way.

Is it permissible to test a person by taking such extreme measures. Would such an experience be psychologically safe and beneficial for a child? Is it suitable to test adults in the same manner.

What led up to his actions and what followed his actions are all digressions and diversions from the actual action taken - this takes away from the action and the conclusions that must be drawn from them based on the knowledge we current have in regards child rearing. Today this activity would at the mildest be called bullying and intimidation and more precisely as a threat of murder. Today we know that type of practice is damaging to the human psyche, it distorts a persons reality and their ability to function affectingly within the community. Today we know that this type of activity breeds and embeds dysfunctionality deeply into the psyche of society.

To carry out the same or similar acts towards children or other people is clearly seen as dangerous and harmful. The danger and harm is perpetuated through its having become a part of the biblical and therefore the core of Christian teaching.

The basis of the Christian belief system that the beliefs in part or in whole must come before all else is the greatest impediment we face in regards an obvious to provide sound and effective safety and protection mechanism in place to safeguard children from exposure to such violent thinking - more so when it is supported by an entire religious and belief system.

We know today that if we want to develop our full potential that we should provide a safe and protective environment. Religion can never provide that whilst ever it preaches these types of dysfunctional practices as a core part of their religion for to do so is to once again put the rights of their belief before the rights and needs of their children.

Parents can never become genuine advocates for children and their rights while ever they hold the right of their religion first and foremost as this act places the rights of their children on a lower level. This is more harmful to the child when the issue revolves around an act of abuse or the threat of such an act. Most religions stack such a bevy of fear and phobias onto their beliefs and subsequently onto their children to such an extent that what is in actual fact an abuse of the child's right to be free from the fears and phobias of other; that includes their own parents and whatever rights they perceive to belong to them.

Children's rights, their safety and protection can never be first and foremost in a religion; their rights will always be secondary to the religion and the perceived right of the parent.

By "closest at hand", I didn't mean that you grabbed it right away. While you did spend years coming to Jesus, it's no coincidence that you did, IMO. You say that among religions, you were particularly prejudiced against Christianity for it's implausibility. This doesn't surprise since it was the one you were most familiar with, and so the one you had seen the most problems with, until you investigated the other ones, and found them even worse. As you have noted several times yourself, growing up in the West, you were also strongly prejudiced towards Christianity, since a large part of our cultural ethos and moral code stems directly from it, even for us atheists. So, if you were going to discover that one religion was the true one, it would almost certainly be a strain of Christianity as it's the one that fits your own culture's moral code the best. If you'd chosen Voodoo instead, then your careful search of religions would be something worth pointing to as evidence.

I was prejudiced against Christianity because I didn't believe Jesus was a real person. I had never actually seriously investigated it, and I was also remarkably ignorant of what Christianity was all about, to the point that it might strain credulity. So no, it wasn't due to familiarity, because there wasn't any. I was just naturally inclined to reject it because of that doubt about Jesus.

At the point at which I accepted it, I had already rejected religion altogether. I was no more inclined to accept Christianity than I was Voodoo or Scientology. I had my own view of God and I viewed any imposition on that view as being artificial and manmade. The *only* reason I accepted Christianity as being true, as being who God is, is because of special revelation. That is, that God had let me know certain things about His nature and plan before I investigated it, which the bible later uniquely confirmed. My experience as a Christian has also been confirming it to this day.

These definitions, especially the ones about Satan are really self-serving. You declare that you have the truth, and part of that truth is that anyone who disagrees with you is possessed by the devil, which of course your dissenters will deny. But you can counter that easily because your religion has also defined satanic possession as something you don't notice. Tight as a drum, and these definitions from nowhere but the religion's own book.

My view is not only based on the bible but also upon my experience. I first became aware of demon possession before I became a Christian. I had met several people who were possessed by spirits in the New Age/Occult movement. At the time, I didn't know it was harmful, so I would interact with them and they would tell me (lies) about the spiritual realm. I thought it was very fascinating but I found out later they were all liars and very evil. It was only when I became a Christian that I realized they were demons.

I don't think everyone who doesn't know Jesus is possessed. If not possessed, though, heavily influenced. Everyone who sins is a slave to sin, and does the will of the devil, whether they know it or not. The illusion is complex and intricate, traversing the centers of intellect, emotion, memory, and perception, and interweaving them; it is a complete world that you would never wake up from if it wasn't for Gods intervention. The devil is a better programmer than the machines in the Matrix.

Actually, it was a very different feeling from that. I didn't feel I was the target of any conspiracy. I had stumbled into one --my group of friends-- but I was ignorant of the conspiracy before I had my experience. After I had it, I realized that they were all part of something bigger than me that I could never understand, and that I was actually in their way, that my presence in their group was really cramping their style a lot, slowing things down, forcing them to get things done surreptitiously. I realized they weren't going to directly remove me for now, but I didn't know how long their patience would last. So I removed myself, and hoped they'd leave me alone. In hindsight, they were horrible friends to begin with, so it was no loss for me. Losing those friends was a very good move for me.

Whatever they were involved in, it sounds like it wasn't any good. I can get a sense for what you're saying, but without further detail it is hard to relate to it.

Again, you're claiming you are right, and everything untrue comes from Satan, and if I have any logical reason to doubt your story, you can give yourself permission to ignore my logic by saying it is from Satan and that's why it has the power to show the Truth is wrong. So, any Christian who believes a logical argument that conflicts with the dogma is, by definition, being fooled by Satan, and has a duty to doubt their own mind. Even better than the last one for mind control. It does away utterly with reliance on any faculty of the mind, except when their use results in dogmatic thoughts. Genius. Serious props to whoever came up with that. That's smart.

God is the one who said "Let us reason together". I accept that you have sincere reasons for believing what you do and rejecting my claims. If you gave me a logical argument which was superior to my understanding, I wouldn't throw it away as a Satanic lie. I would investigate it and attempt to reconcile it with my beliefs. If it showed my beliefs to be false, and there was no plausible refutation (or revelation), I would change my mind. The way that someone becomes deceived is not by logical arguments, it's by sin. They deceive themselves. You don't have to worry much about deception if you are staying in the will of God.

Like, if you say you believe God exists, I say fine. If you say you know God exists, I say prove it's not your imagination. If you say evolution is wrong, ordinarily I wouldn't care what you believe, except that if you're on school board and decide to replace it with Creationism or Intelligent Design in the science curriculum, then I have to object because that causes harm to children who are going to think that they are real science, and on equal footing with/compatible with/superior to evolution.

Have you ever seriously investigated the theory of evolution? Specifically, macro evolution. It isn't science. Observational science is based on data that you can test or observe. Macro evolution has never been observed, nor is there any evidence for it. Micro evolution on the other hand is scientific fact. There are definitely variations within kinds. There is no evidence, however, of one species changing into another species. If you haven't ever seriously investigated this, you are going to be shocked at how weak the evidence actually is.

evolution is unproved and unprovable. we believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.

sir arthur keith
forward to origin of the species 100th anniversay 1959

You may be right. I may be right. I think it's more likely that I'm right, but that's neither here nor there. How do you know you're not seeing things that aren't there? My experience proves the human mind is capable of doing so and sustaining it. The bible could have been written by several such people. Maybe in that time and place, people who ranted about strange unconnected things were considered to be prophets, and once plugged into the God story, they went to town. I'm not saying it's true, just a possible theory.

There isn't anything I can say which will conclusively prove it to you. The reason being, because my testimony is reliant upon my judgement to validate it, and you don't trust my judgement. You are automatically predisposed to doubt everything I have to say, especially regarding supernatural claims. So asking me to prove it when you aren't going to believe anything I say about it is kind of silly. All I can say is that I have been around delusional people, and the mentally ill, very closely involved in fact, and I know what that looks like. I am as sharp as I ever have been, clear headed, open minded, and internally consistant. You may disagree with my views, but do you sense I am mentally unstable, paranoid, or unable to reason?

Also, the prophets in the bible weren't ranting about strange, unconnected things. The bible has an internal consistancy which is unparalled, even miraculous, considering that it was written by 40 different authors over a period of 1500 years in three different languages.

If I was "in it" and deceiving myself then, I was in something and deceiving myself before. My beliefs about all supernatural things remain unchanged by my experience, that's to say, I still don't believe they exist.

I didn't either, so I understand your skepticism. Until you see for yourself that material reality is just a veil, you will never believe it. But when you do see it, it will change *everything*.

First, not claiming to have created anything doesn't mean he didn't do it, or that he did [edit] claim it and the records were lost. Two, hold the phone -- this rules out Christianity. Genesis states the world was created in six days a few thousand years ago, or something. You can argue that this is metaphorical (why?), but surely you can't say that world being flat, or the sun rotating around the Earth is a metaphor. These are things God would know and have no reason to misrepresent. Since it's God's word, everyone would just believe it. And why not? It makes just as much sense that the Earth is round and revolves around its axis.

There is no reason to include Gods who made no claim to create the Universe, which is most of them. If their claims are lost in antiquity, we can assume that such gods are powerless to keep such documents available. What we should expect to find, if God has revealed Himself, is an active presence in the world with many believers. This narrows it down to a few choices.

I don't argue that this is metaphorical, I agrue that it is literal. I believe in a young age for the Earth, and a literal six day creation.

[On re-reading the preceding argument and the context you made the claim, it is a stupid see-saw argument, so I'm taking it back.] Consider also there are tens of thousands of different strains of Christianity with conflicting ideas of the correct way to interpret the Bible and conduct ourselves. Can gays marry? Can women serve mass? Can priests marry? Can non-virgins marry? And so on. Only one of these sects can be right, and again, probably none of them are.

The disagreements are largely superficial. Nearly all the denominations agree on the fundementals, which is that salvation is through the Lord Jesus Christ alone. There are true Christians in every denomination. The true church is the body of Christ, of which every believer is a member. In that sense, there is one church. We can also look at the early church for the model of what Christianity is supposed to look like. The number of denominations doesn't speak to its truth.

2. The method itself doesn't take into account why the religion has spread. The answer isn't in how true it is, but in the genius of the edicts it contains. For example, it says that Christians are obliged to go convert other people, and doing so will save their eternal souls from damnation. Anyone who is a Christian is therefore compelled to contribute to this uniquely Christian process. I can't count the number of times I've been invited to attend church or talk about God with a missionary. That's why Christianity is all over the world, whereas no other religion has that spread. Also, there are all sorts of compelling reasons for people to adopt Christianity. One is that Christians bring free hospitals and schools. This gives non-truth-based incentives to join. The sum of this argument is that Christianity has the best marketing, so would be expected to have the largest numbers. The better question is why Islam still has half the % of converts that Christianity does, even though it has no marketing system at all, and really a very poor public image internationally.

Yet, this doesn't take into account how the church began, which was when there was absolutely no benefit to being a Christian. In fact, it could often be a death sentence. The early church was heavily persecuted, especially at the outset, and it stayed that way for hundreds of years. It was difficult to spread Christianity when you were constantly living in fear for your life. So, the church had quite an improbable beginning, and almost certainly should have been stamped out. Why do you suppose so many people were willing to go to their deaths for it? It couldn't be because they heard a good sermon. How about the disciples, who were direct witnesses to the truth of the resurrection? Would they die for something they knew to be a lie, when they could have recanted at any time?

3. This kinda follows from #1, but I want to make it explicit, as this, IMHO, is one of the strongest arguments I've ever come up with. I've never presented it nor seen it presented to a believer, so I'm keen for your reaction. It goes something like this: If God is perfect, then everything he does must be perfect. If the bible is his word, then it should be instantly apparent to anybody with language faculties that it's all absolutely true, what it means, and how to extrapolate further truths from it. But that's not what happens. Christians argue and fight over the correct interpretation of the bible, and others argue with Christians over whether it's God's word at all based on the many, many things that appear inconsistent to non-Christians. In this regard, it's obvious that it's not perfect, and therefore not the word of God. If it's not the word of God, then the whole religion based on it is bunk.

The issue there is the free will choices of the people involved. God created a perfect world, but man chose evil and ruined it. Gods word is perfect, but not everyone is willing to accept it, and those that do will often pick and choose the parts they like due to their own unrighteousness. We all have the same teacher, the Holy Spirit, but not everyone listens to Him, and that is the reason for the disagreements.

I didn't say people needed it. I said having a religion in a scary universe with other people with needs and desires that conflict with your own makes life a lot easier and more comfortable. Religion, in general, is probably the greatest social organizing force ever conceived of, and that's why religions are so attractive and conservatively followed in places with less beneficial social organization (i.e., places without democracy), and lower critical thinking skills (i.e. places with relatively poor education).

People come to Christianity for all sorts of reasons, but the number one reason is because of Jesus Christ. There is no such thing as Christianity without Him. I became a Christianity for none of the reasons you have mentioned, in fact I seem to defy all of the stereotypes. I will also say that being a Christianity is lot harder than not. Following the precepts that Christ gave us is living contrary to the ways humans naturally behave, and to the desires of the flesh. As far as education goes, Christianity has a rich intellectual tradition, and people from all walks of life call themselves followers of Christ. You're also ignoring the places where Christianity makes life a lot more difficult for people:



In contrast, in times and places where people on a large scale are well off and have a tradition of critical thinking, the benefits of having a religion as the system of governance are less apparent, and the flaws in this system come out. It becomes more common for such nations to question the authority of the church, and so separate religion from governance. The West has done so, and is leading the world. Turkey is the only officially secular Muslim nation in the world and has clearly put itself in a field apart from the rest, all because it unburdened itself of religious governance when an imposed basic social organization structure was no longer required.

Then how might you explain the United States, where 70 percent of people here call themselves Christian, 90 percent believe in some kind of God, and almost 50 percent believe in a literal six day creation?

You're right, and you may not know how right you are. Modern scientific investigation, as away of life, comes almost entirely from the Christian tradition. It once was in the culture of Christianity to investigate and try to understand the universe in every detail. The thought was that understanding the universe better was to approach understanding of God's true nature -- a logical conclusion since it was accepted that God created the universe, and understanding the nature of something is to reveal the nature of its creator (and due to our natural curiosity, learning things makes us feel better). The sciences had several branches. Natural science was the branch dealing with the non-transcendent aspects of the universe. The transcendent ones were left to theologists and philosophers, who were also considered scientists, as they had to rigorously and logically prove things as well, but without objective evidence. This was fine, and everyone thought knowledge of the world was advancing as it should until natural science, by its own procedures, started discovering natural facts that seemed inconsistent with the Bible.

This isn't entirely true. For instance, Uniforitarian Geology was largely accepted, not on the basis of facts, but on deliberate lies that Charles Lyell told in his book, such as the erosion rate of Niagra Falls. Evolution was largely accepted not because of facts but because the public was swayed by the "missing links" piltdown man and nebraska man, both of which later turned out to be frauds.

That's when people who wanted truth had to decide what their truth consisted of: either God and canon, or observable objective facts. Natural science was cleaved off from the church and took the name "science" with it. Since then, religion and science have both done their part giving people the comfort of knowledge. People who find the most comfort in knowledge that is immutable and all-encompassing prefer religion. People who find the most comfort in knowledge that is verifiable and useful prefer science.

The dichotomy you offer here is amusing; Christianity is both verifiable and useful. I'll quote the bible:

Mark 8:36

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

>> ^messenger: