In a way voodoo is right; it was my fault, and I did a lot of things wrong. Bringing a Christian voice to a secular site is also simply stirring up the hornets nest. Yet, it did happen and it is undeniable. Whether people think it is justified or not, that's up to them. All I know is that my intentions here were from my heart and I didn't mean any harm to anyone.

I was clear from the beginning that I came to lend a Christian voice to the sift. I enjoyed videosift and had been using it for some time before I created an account. I registered an account specifically because of the number of anti-christian videos that I was noticing were hitting the top ten. I wanted to engage with the people here over the topic of Christianity because the sift was, and primarily still is, an echo chamber for the worldview of secular humanism. That's the way the sift likes it, and the sift is intolerant of any voice which challenges that viewpoint. Period, end of story.

There's nothing wrong with my coming to represent Christ, here. Have I utterly failed to do so? Yes, most definitely. However, it is up to me how I want to use this site. I have commented here almost exclusively on religious topics, either on my videos or someone elses it. Occasionally I will comment on a political video or something else, but usually only on religious topics. The point being is that, that is the way I have chosen to use this site. I don't run around and dictate to anyone else how they could or should use the sift, so why should I be singled out? I didn't cause any material harm to anyone, I wasn't off topic, I didn't flout the rules. I was on topic on the videos I commented on, and I brought a Christian viewpoint to the discussion. The sift, being inhabited primarily by atheists, agnostics and anti-theists, utterly rejects that viewpoint. It's not any different if I were to go to the comments section of any major website and say anything positive about Christianity. I would instantly get 2 to 3 comments mocking everything I said.

I stated in my post that I realized that bringing a Christian viewpoint to the sift would get me a lot of flak. I didn't always react well to that, and I acted like a jerk at times. I am sorry for that. I could have done more to build relationships here and I never put in the time. There is some truth to what you have said, that I brought the way I was treated on myself. But your rant is also a product of the simplistic and distorted lens that you view me through. I mean, you on one hand call my treatment here a persecution fantasy and on the other hand say I brought it upon myself. That's just intellectual dishonesty, pure and simply. The truth is, there was a concerted campaign to deny my participation on this site, and whatever you think the reason may be, it did happen.

As to the video, if this video was of a senior consultant from the Bush administration admitting that they systemically deceived the American people this would be #1 on the sift. You're deceiving yourself if you think that the reason this video is being suppressed is due to anything other than the ideological bent of the sift.

Sorry for the delay. I don't really remember who did it, but at least two or three people made a concerted effort to downvote everything I sifted or had sifted..I have 20 discarded videos. After all of that, and even my comments getting consistently downvoted, I pretty much gave up trying to sift videos or really participate in the community. I mentioned it to a few people but I don't think I ever filed a formal complaint.

I'm not really complaining though. I understand that this site is bent primarily towards secular thought and is intolerant of anything else. It is simply a reality that talking about the Lord Jesus Christ in such an environment brings a lot of flak in my direction. That's okay. You're free to have your opinion and I'm free to have mine, and if anyone wants to hate me for that, that's fine too. I'll love them anyway.

@Barbar
what you are speaking of in regards to the 2 religions (judaism/christianity) are the reformations they both experienced.

now there are a myriad of reasons why these reformations occurred:age of enlightenment, renaissance and a new way of thinking=secular philosophy.i could go on but those are the big three.

islam has yet to experience a reformation and reza aslan's book "no god but god" makes the case that islam is in desperate NEED of a reformation,to which harris dishonestly suggests that islam needs while in the same sentence accuses reza of ignoring.the man wrote an entire nook making the case for islamic reformation!

when you are going to criticize belief you have to also ask the "WHY" of that belief.if you strictly confine your arguments to a book then you are ignoring the multitude of factors to the origin of that belief and are actually formulating an argument with the very same absolutist and fundamentalist thinking that you are criticizing.

you are quite literally using fundamentalism to criticize fundamentalism.

example:
harris makes the point that suicide bombers blow themselves up because the quran glorifies martyrdom,with little thought to WHY those young men strapped bombs to their chest in the first place.

when the WHY is the most important question!

and the answer is NOT because the quran demands it of them but rather out of hopelessness brought on by oppression,murder,torture of their friends and family.

the quran offers a rationalization for the suicide bomber.a desperate person will grasp desperately at any thin straw to give their life meaning,but it most certainly not the cause.

this fundamental lack of understanding is why i find harris to be a mediocre atheist thinker.

literalism in regards to scriptural interpretation is a fairly new phenom,(past 100 years),and that includes muslims.

So many holes in your argument.

You're cherry picking the parts of Nazism to fit your anti-religious views. You even made the argument that Russia was dogmatically atheist, which isn't a true characterization of Russia then, either.

The simple fact of the matter is racial supremacy had what was seen as extremely scientific underpinnings with a foundation of Darwin, which then was applied to Social Darwinism, etc.

You had Nazi scientists who were going around the world literally measuring people's skulls, with the assumption that Germans had bigger brain pans, and that must explain why they're the master race.

Those ideas sure as hell weren't religious.

The simple fact of the matter is that there were secular and religious arguments against Nazism, as there also were secular and religious arguments in favor of it at the time.

It's very difficult to argue that the evil of Nazi Germany rose due to the level of dogmatic behavior within Germany. Prior to Hitler's rise, Germany was considered a Western European modernized, industrialized country, and for the time well educated, as was France and Britain. It was far more like Britain and France than it was to Russia.

An even better counterargument - who was the most modernized, secular, educated people in Southeast Asia, and therefore should have been the least likely to instigate war according to your logic? Japan, yet they became an imperial, aggressive power.

The rise of Nazi Germany is something I studied quite a bit of, and boiling it down to how dogmatic the people were is not only overly simplistic, it's not remotely historically accurate. It completely factors out the god awful mistake the Treaty of Versailles from WWI was, the common particular disdain for Jews at the time (some due to religious conflict, for Nazis it was more about race), the dependency of Germany on US loans, which dried up when the Great Depression began, the scientific trends in thought at the time, etc.

Those all converged.

And the reality is that "Muslim" countries are more likely to subject women to numerous horrors simply because more Muslim countries have not modernized their economies yet. Hey, just like every other religion. The reason we treat women well is we've had an industrialized economy far longer, and even then, the speed of it was often circumstantial. Women's rights in the US took a quantum leap forward because of women being needed for labor in WWII (same reason the Civil Rights Movement started so relatively soon after WWII as well).

That's not what he's saying at all.

The bible, or the Quran, or many other texts, just like historical events as they were, or works of literature, or other even historical texts as complex as this often have contradictory ideas. The US constitution is founded on a set of beliefs and ideas that almost all of us subscribe to, yet there are Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Socialists, pragmatists, etc. all deriving very different ideas from the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and more. The reason this is true is because those values often come into conflict, and can outright contradict each other. Freedom vs security, equality vs prosperity, I could go on and on.

With the Bible, you have Catholics, Protestants, subdivided into a plethora of different religions in their own right under the umbrella of Christianity. You have the running joke even within Catholicism that American Catholics aren't really Catholics at all. Not only do different Christians interpret the bible differently, the amount they count on the bible varies between fundamentalists like Jehovah's Witnesses who take the bible extremely literally to extremely secular Christians who have absolutely no problem discarding any part of Christian doctrines when scientific evidence proves otherwise.

You have Christians who act as saintly as Mother Theresa to mobsters.

That's just Christianity. There are extremist Islamic groups that sound more like the Westboro Baptist Church than other Muslims.

But within Christianity, there's "honor thy mother and thy father" and "thou shall not kill". What if your parents are murderers?

That's a crude, and obvious example of conflicting values, but the 10 commandments are simple rules that don't completely resolve every situation.

What's stupid is to believe that you can know about a person's specific ideology just by their religion. Does their religion play a role in their ideology? Absolutely, but how it impacted their ideology has much more to do with their experiences, their natural tendancies, etc. than necessarily their religion. If you grew up in a mob family, honor thy mother and father was more likely the lesson you took from the Bible than thou shall not kill.

And if you look around you, this is plainly obvious. Even look within yourself. We're all a melting pot of lessons and ideas we've learned from school, personal life experiences, our religious beliefs, our parents, our socio-economic backgrounds, our friends, etc. That's why you are different from everyone of your religion, your friends, who you went to school with, your socioeconomic class, etc.

It would be more correct to consider religion one of many paths leading away from enlightenment than secularism as one leading toward it. That would usefully sidestep the sophistry involved in the rebranding of oppressive but secular ideologies as a special kind of religion. Secularists don't need to account for the actions of other secularists any more than people who aren't thieves need to answer for arsons committed by other non-thieves. Muslims, conversely, have signed up for a particular club with a particular set of club rules and practices; they are accountable.

Islam is a homogeneous whole, as much as a global movement can be. Its foundational text is intact and whole, not arbitrarily selected from masses of contradictory documents of dubious provenance. That text explicitly rejects the possibility of interpretation or allegory and there's an established, foolproof mechanism for resolving contradictions. It has a single author, really a single author rather than the fiction of the will of god being channelled through the accounts of various liars, a single founder, and a single exemplar.

The popular view of islam as "a religion that is as varied as any other in the world" is unarguably born from ignorance. It's about as variable as scientology, and substantially less reputable.

To a certain extent, but unfortunately a charismatic (or dictatorial) leadership, or even parents passing on their belief systems to their children, can create or enforce ideals that can shape society. Many people still adhere to religion because "that's the way it's always been", not because the religion actually fits their personal ethics...

In general, I do actually agree with you in regards to the concept that secularity tends to lead to enlightenment, but there are plenty of secular countries that are authoritarian/despotic (North Korea being a shining example), violent and considerably backwards compared to countries which have a high proportion of religious people and freedom. Unfortunately, enlightenment leads to arrogance as well.

The continual push by the media/politicians etc to classify Muslims as a homogenous whole smacks more of an attempt to play on xenophobia and racism than any factual evidence.

Particularly when the enlightened country making the most noise about it has "In God We Trust" printed on their currency. Compound that with provoking and polarising moderate Muslims by marginalising and insulting them? Enlightenment does not preclude gross stupidity.

A simple look at the US (secular mind you) shows stark differences between the north and the south, red states and blue states etc. You're proposing that 1.5 bn people (that would be ~5 times more people than the entire population of the US) spread across most countries in the world are somehow tightly aligned purely because they share a religion that is as varied as any other in the world?

And the mean truth? The arrogance and presumption of "enlightened neighbours" are part of the reasons why certain countries are as they are...

Iran is a classic example. The US (all enlightened and shit) engineers the coup that deposes a democratically elected Prime Minister hailed as a leading champion of secular democracy. And when the Shah was overthrown, it was by fundamentalists lead by Ayatollah Khomeini, ushering in an era of strict theocracy and an abiding hatred of the US.

Your last paragraph highlights the problem perfectly. We have two media reporters, deliberately or ignorantly, disseminating false information which would probably lead to discrimination against Muslims. How ethical is it to incite an entire country to hate over the actions of a tiny percentage of the whole? How ethical is it to ignore humanitarian disasters in countries which have no strategic or natural resource value (and places where no white people have been beheaded)?

And when presented with empirical truth, how ethical is it to refuse to accept it?

It would follow, therefore, that everyone would choose their religion according to their own temperament and there would be no regional grouping of belief.

Would you say, for example, that catholicism in ireland has had no effect on its prevailing culture and no part in the various atrocities that culture has inflicted on the people unfortunate enough to be born into it?

Islam is particularly poorly placed to distance itself from the actions of its adherents. It's a common, but not really excusable, error to generalise from christianity's 'contradictory mess' and necessity of invention in interpretation to what in reality is islam's lamentably direct instructions to its followers.

The difference between countries like turkey and saudi arabia, though turkey's hardly a shining beacon of freedom, is secularity and proximity to more enlightened neighbours. Arguing that some muslims are like this and some muslims are like that is preposterously mendacious when the mean truth is: the less religious people are, the more ethical they are.

His points are, on the face of it, correct. However, the whole question here is whether religion itself creates these issues or if they are inherent in society. One might argue that they are inherent, but that would be incorrect. The fact of the matter is that the more a society is based on science and secularism, the more peaceful and prosperous they will be. See pre-McCarthy United States or Sweden or Canada today.
So I agree with him that painting a large brush across all Muslim countries is idiotic, but at the same time, we can do that quite successfully with secular countries. They are, quite simply, more moral countries. And for those of you who want to argue that Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia were extremely secular and atheist, I urge you to re-evaluate the evidence you have of this. Nazi Germany was distinctly religious in numerous ways, including in the deep relationship they had with the Catholic Church. And it would be easy to succeed on the argument that Soviet Russia, while appearing atheist to the outsider, worshiped an altogether different kind of religion: communism.
While Reza is correct that not all Muslims or their countries are violent or willing to subject women to numerous horrors, they are certainly more likely to than secular countries.

Smoke DMT. Stop being weaklings and DO IT. Yes, it will be "the most intense experience of your life". But, at least you'll have a good understanding of what is actually possible.

Most "secular" or "Religious" people have not had this experience. But, once you have seen "The Light" you will understand the symbolism is everywhere. I'd also say - go read some Lanza - a respected astrophysicist that has controversial ideas on this which he calls "Biocentrism". I do not believe that I understand anything and remain humble to the fact that what I have seen is so bizarre and beyond anyone's imagination or lives themselves. As far as I can see... HELL YES when you die you will go to a non-material realm in another Universe. But, how do we prove that to our monkey brains that believe in Standard Models that have only existed for 1 second and cost 55 Billion Euros to create to prove the centerpiece of the model even exists?

the situation in st louis did not just pop up out of thin air overnight.the tensions between the poor community (mostly black) and the police has been a festering pressure cooker for almost 15 years.

a particularly venal chapter in the st louis police archives is the RNC of 2008,for anybody to absorb some context on the militarization of a police force.

the tinder has been accumulating just waiting for the match.
mike brown WAS that match.
this is not new nor original.
it has happened before.

and as @lantern53 has pointed out:it is the chain of command that sets the tone of how that police force performs their duties.so if those in charge are authoritarian douche nozzles,that attitude tends to trickle down to the everyday cop on the street.

cops by their very nature are authoritarian due to their vocational choice.they respect the chain of command and the authority it represents.to follow orders is to be a "good" cop.

so i do not understand the ridicule that lantern is receiving.he is offering his perspective AS an actual police officer.i am not suggesting that he is right NOR that his opinion somehow exonerates the st louis cop JUST because he is a cop but rather we should listen to someone who actual IS a cop.

there is absolutely ZERO evidence that lantern is a bad cop.we simply do not know how well,or poorly,lantern is at his job.

there IS evidence,however,that lantern tends be a tad racist,authoritarian and contradictory.lantern may be a poor debater but that does not make him a bad cop.

though his defense of zimmerman does reveal an extremely poor judge of character.(seriously lantern?that dude is a full fledged cunt).

but i get it @VoodooV,
lantern is easy pickings.
a right wing authoritarian conservative commenting on a mostly secular left site?
its like shooting fish in a barrel.

sometimes lantern brings it on himself...i know.
his poor debating skills coupled with an almost embarrassing understanding of history and government makes him catnip to someone like you.

its
just
so
easy

i disagree with lantern,pretty much always and i agree that sometimes his biased rhetoric should be taken to task,if only to clear up the bullshit.

but you take it to whole new levels voodoo.
you follow him from thread to thread and chastise and belittle him and THEN act all hurt and shocked when he lashes out at you!

seriously?thats like poking a grizzly bear in the face and then crying when it rips half your face off.

you use the exact same tactics choggie used,but at least he was entertaining.

you are just a bully.
a hypocritical,sanctimonious bully.hiding behind the skirts of others who may find lanterns comments distasteful (which they certainly can be).this is a cowards path and just like all bullies,you rely on the silence of others to continue your persecution of someone who does not have the support of an entire site.

i find your lack of humanity disturbing.
and i will not be silent.
your actions do not deserve respect but rather ridicule.

..I can claim to know far more than you seem to because I went to college and graduated with a degree in science, have a NASA geologist uncle,..

What area of science do you have a degree in? Does having a scientific degree make you an expert in geology? I have a few uncles who are millionaires but that doesn't mean I am good with money or know anything about business.

...Uniformitarianism as described is NOT the cornerstone of geology, that's ridiculous. Geologic forces are not uniform...

Uniformitarianism is the belief that the geological forces at work in present time are the same as those which happened in the past. This is what is meant by the phrase "the present is the key to the past". It is not a belief that all geologic forces are uniform. Again, this theory is the cornerstone of modern geology and also many other sciences. Geologists mix in some catastrophism with their uniformitarianism so they don't really call it uniformitarianism anymore but that is the foundation of geology today.

..and as an anti-science guy..

I am not anti-science; I am a firm believer in the scientific method. What you're calling science cannot be tested with the scientific method, and it is therefore not scientific and requires faith to believe it. I don't have the kind of faith to believe what you believe.

..I would guess you believe the earth is about 6000 years old, right?..

Give or take a few thousand years. I believe we live on a young Earth in a young Universe.

..There is NO evidence of a world wide flood. NONE WHATSOEVER. Either show exactly where the (as yet undiscovered) layer of homogeneous sediment is in the strata world wide or stop lying. You can't, because it didn't happen..

Do you realize there aren't two sets of evidence, one for creation and the other for naturalism? We are looking at the same evidence and coming to different conclusions. There is volumes of evidence for a worldwide flood, in fact the evidence is irrefutable, but if you come to the data with uniformitarian assumptions you will misinterpret it.

A secular geologist looks at the grand canyon and sees millions of years because of his uniformitarian assumptions about the processes that formed it, and his belief in deep time. Because of the assumptions he is bringing to the table, he fails to see how it could have been rapidly formed and deposited, and the evidence in this video proves that it could have been.

You can find the same sediment (from the same place) deposited the same way, all over the world. The explanation that it was a process that took hundreds of millions of years or longer doesn't match the data. There are plenty of lectures which explain what this looks like, and as a scientist you should be able to understand exactly what they're talking about:

It's an interesting video excepting that it is filled with distortions and outright lies:



The claims of this video have widely been debunked even by secular skeptics:

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/

The theory that the historical person of Jesus Christ is derived from ancient mythology is dead in the water. You will not find many in the scholarly community who have drunk this kool-aid.

Essentially that's already how it is in a lot of the world.

When I got married in NZ we had a secular wedding that was essentially a glorified marriage licence signing.

When my friends got married they had a religious ceremony that was.... essentially a glorified marriage licence signing.

As far as the state is concerned, you're married when you sign the documentation. Whatever else you do around that (secular, religious, whatever) is irrelevant.

As for gay weddings and churches, no-one is suggesting forcing churches to perform gay marriages. But once again, this is really, really simple. If you run a business*, you cannot discriminate against either your customers or employees on the basis of ethnicity, gender, religion or sexual orientation.


* and no, there is no special exemption for your business if your business includes art.