Once you get to that level, the things you can do escalate into global affairs. I mean, with millions I would just do all the good shit I want for myself, but once that's covered it would be incredible what you could do - feed all of africa, build infrastructure there, help impoverished countries, research into diseases like aids, malaria, catholicism. Restart the spaceprogram. Shit, your imagination would be the limiting factor.

Or maybe I'd just get like 100 hummers and some McMansions like a real american -_-

@Quboid, Yeah I don't think they are "protecting" their members in the real sense, they are protecting their members from outside ideas and corrupting influences. I also agree with you on the topic of Catholicism, for exactly those reasons. If they are hiding information about their beliefs from the rest of the world, then that qualifies as cultish behavior.

>> ^A10anis:

What is the difference between a "cult" and any other "faith?" There is NO difference. They all take advantage of the weak, desperate, and gullible. They all have leaders who exploit these peoples weaknesses for their own ends. They will all end up consigned to the history class when we realize that education is the key. When you are educated you begin asking questions, which is exactly what these cult leaders want to prevent. Stay stupid and a slave, or get educated and be free.


My definition is that with a religion, the leaders believe the stuff they're peddling, whereas with a cult, the leaders don't. So whether or not Catholicism is a religion comes down to the age old question: is the pope a catholic? I suspect so, therefore in my view, Catholicism is a religion. Do the leaders of Scientology believe in Xenu and Thetans and such like? I suspect that these bunch of bast<<Removed following legal advice>>n't.

The thing was an hour long, and believe it or not, I've seen lots of TV shows of people giving their stories of wacky supernatural/mystical things that happened to them, and I was pretty sure seeing one more wouldn't tip the balance, just like watching another Donald Trump stump speech would lead me to think Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. My first comment was about what you had said about God having patience. My second comment was about my own theory of the link between mental trauma and mystical experience. Neither required me to spend an hour watching it. I'm sure you're probably sick of people lumping you in with all the crazy religious people we see in the world, so why do it to me? I mentioned that I hadn't watched it just in case my prediction was wrong (seems it might have been -- still haven't watched it), in which case you could ignore it or politely tell me so.

The reason young people and atheists (I'm not young, BTW) might not be interested in seeing a show like this is that it's utterly unreliable. Young people in the West are more skilled in critical thinking today than ever before, and atheists are a self-selecting group of people who require reliable evidence for things. To both groups, an anecdotal testimony recreation on TV is one of the least reliable sources of evidence. Your story, SB, as you've presented it here, is more credible than this one, and I've spent many, many hours reading, thinking and commenting about it, so cut me a little slack, will ya? No promises, but I do now intend to watch it all and comment at some time. Relatively busy the next several weeks

Sorry to lump you in, and yes I do understand that time is fleeting. I am not exactly jazzed to watch many of the videos I see here on the sift, but I will if there is potential for a good conversation. It's just a frustration that I encounter that many people are unwilling to consider what you're saying, or indeed even read it. It's probably just a cultural thing. I think more and more people have ADD and we are programmed in the culture to need instant gratification. In any case, I do not say you are like that. You have engaged me and considered what I have said, if not only to falsify it, but that's okay. I have enjoyed our conversations.

I'm not operating in any way towards any god. I don't believe in them, remember? Your specific God cannot exist as described, and I am so sceptical of any other gods that I live as if they don't exist either. You are operating under the faulty premise that I will accept something other than empirical evidence as the foundation of anything I believe. What makes you think I (or any other sceptic) would suddenly change my approach now, when it comes to arguably the single most important fact of my existence? Why would I lower the bar of acceptable evidence when the stakes are the highest? Even if I took a "just-in-case" approach, and did all the things the Bible said, I wouldn't believe in any of the things I was doing. In fact, as I consider that Christianity would make me a worse person, it would be selfish of me to choose to definitely hurt people on the off chance it might save my hide.

I agree that my God, as you currently understand Him, could not exist. Neither am I expecting you to lower your standards; I am only asking you to consider the issue rationally. If God exists, the entire Universe is empirical evidence of His existence. Is this not the case? So logically, trying to find empirical evidence of God is as easy as looking outside, or in a mirror. You happen to think its plausible that this is all happenstance, which I think requires quite a bit more faith than belief in a supernatural creation. I am sure you will disagree because you're a materialist, but your material had to come from somewhere. The main point is, trying to test for God is a fairly absurd idea. How would you do that?

I don't think you should take a "just in case" approach either. Becoming a Christian for fire insurance and nothing else is almost never a genuine conversion. You need to be born again, which is a supernatural transformation of your entire being. Anything short of that and you have no salvation.

When I was a young teen, and I was losing my faith (which had been absolute as a child). It was a bit distressing, and I used to pray that fairly often. I got no answer, and eventually forgot about God. I've always been interested in the concept of faith, but I've never again believed.

This happens to quite a number of catholics. The reason being, catholicism is very nearly a pagan religion, and it's an actual miracle if any Catholics do find God. There are more than a few that are saved, but I wouldn't hazard a guess as to percentages. Only God knows their hearts.

I am. And for me, truth is borne out by empirical evidence and personal experience, not preachers, or ancient fantasy books of dubious origin. I see exactly zero evidence for God. It's not even an interesting theory for me because it only explains, and doesn't predict.

God predicts the future. That's part of what makes the bible credible, is the literal fulfillment of prophecy. The nation of israel, for example, being reformed after 2000 years was predicted by prophecy. Such a thing has never happened before, that a people retained their racial purity and cultural heritage after being scattered all over the world, and then brought back to the same spot to form their own country again. The destruction of Jerusalem was also predicted in advance. As was the coming of the Messiah. There are many of these.

If God makes a box, he doesn't have to live inside the box. He can be eternal, but the word "eternal" itself is bound in time. Maybe you meant "omnipresent?" I'm particular about definitions.

He is omnipresent, yes. Eternal is timelessness..what it means to have no beginning and no ending.

OK. I've done it. I've put my money where my mouth is, and I actually got on my knees next to the computer, put my hands together, and prayed for God to reveal himself. I also told him that I was more interested in truth than in comfort, and if he revealed himself to be true, that I would use his guidance to find and follow the best path I could take in life. I used no biblical terms like "saviour" or "lord" because this is about me and God. If he wants to lead me to the Bible, he can do that. I asked him to be clear -- a double rainbow won't cut it. I was sincere. Any predictions?

My prediction is that God will honor your prayer if you are sincere in your desire to know Him, and the truth about Him. I think He will probably test the genuineness of your prayer. To God, talk is cheap. Anyone can say those words, but only those who mean them will find Him. He may offer you a choice that requires you to soften your heart and do something you wouldn't normally do. So be aware of that in the days to come. If you want my ultimate prediction, I believe that He will save you. God bless.

The cave only contains what you bring with you.

Sadly that video was dead so I couldn't see it. I would like to ask how you actually go about verifying spirituality.

Spirituality may be a real experience, but that does not mean that it is actually real. Paranoia is a real experience too.

Faith is a virus in many ways (obviously not biologically), but it acts as one. That said. you can say that for any meme.

Twisting religion and/or faith for "evil" is easy - anything can be twisted. The fundamental problem is that at the very core, religion is, well, bad. It's detrimental for the human race. We would be in a better place without it. By no means perfect, other factors are at work, tribalism, fanaticism, greed, etc. but nonetheless, it would be a better place, because you could not justify your evil actions through a supreme being. Do you realize how dangerous it is when someone is absolutely convinced they are right? Skepticism is a healthy attribute in a benign society. Spirituality (moreso religion and faith) is detriment to that.

When people argue "oh, look at all the culture and art that religion inspired", I think that's a bunk argument. The art and culture is there in spite of the religion smothering it. The reason all the classic art is about religion, is because churches leeched the money of everyone and therefor were the only ones who could pay for great works of art. If Catholicism had not had a stranglehold on Europe for some 1000 years, the art of the whole period would have been far more varied and fantastic.

I'm ashamed of my fellow man not growing up to face what's really out there, because it's crazy enough as it is without lunacy on top of it.
>> ^jonny:

>> ^gwiz665:
Spirituality is a hoax.
Faith is a virus.
Spirituality is a real, verifiable human experience. There are many paths to having such an experience, some of them involving religion, ritual and/or psychoactive drugs. However much we might disdain the belief in some bearded man in the sky as the source of such experiences, it would be absurd to deny their existence, power, or importance. Religion provides the most accessible path for many people.
I'm not sure what you mean by that second sentence. Do you mean faith in general, i.e., belief in something of which you have no direct knowledge or evidence? Or do you mean faith in the existence of Jehovah, the divinity of Jesus, or some other specific religious doctrine? I'd rather avoid getting into an epistemological argument, but the fact is that everyone relies on faith to a greater or lesser extent. More importantly, though, is just how useful faith can be. No one would argue that it can't be twisted to serve "evil" ends, sometimes without the twister or twisted even being aware of it. But to disregard the usefulness of faith entirely based on its misuse and abuse is ridiculous. It's like telling people not to have sex because of the potential negative consequences.
When I look at religion, I don't understand why it is blamed for so many of the atrocities humans have committed upon each other. The deeper cause is (fundamentalist) tribalism, and it comes in many forms - religious, ethnic, geographic, ideological, etc. All of these have been used as "psychic levers" to inspire people to act in ways they never would otherwise. Even in a hypothetical parallel world in which religion and belief in gods doesn't exist, all of the horrors of which humans are capable would still be found. I'd like to think the artistic output inspired by religion and faith would have other sources as well, but I'm not completely certain of it.

There's still lots of art and architecture made today in the style and theme of old European Catholicism by people who're completely atheistic. I think it's more stylistic and cultural inspirations than religious, because even though the style might've been developed by and incorporated into catholic art and architecture, originally it was from even older cultural and religious styles.

I do not often feel the urge to state my admiration for a comment, but this time, I think, I must. Nice one.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Brothers and sisters.

As an atheist, and a fairly outspoken one at that, I don't feel like Hedges trying to mischaracterize myself or my atheism. I feel like he is trying to challenge me, to keep me from being hypocritical and to make sure that my anger is turned only towards those who do harm, regardless of faith.

I think his criticism of Harris and Hitch have more to do with American attitudes on the middle east than atheists attitudes. Most Americans, myself included, know very little about that region, and what little I/we do know is all negative - sexism, genital mutilation, death threats against cartoonists, jihad, terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, etc. I assume a more realistic picture of the middle east would more closely resemble people of any country. I assume they love their friends and family, that they wish for a better life and a better world for their kids, that they enjoy art and music, that they have skills and hobbies and struggle to make ends meet, that they laugh and joke and mock and criticize the extremists of their country the way we do in ours, that they are frustrated with politics and the power the privileged few lord over them... but portraying humanity of the people in the middle east is something that is simply not done in American media.

I believe that we atheists, who value tolerance, should be making these arguments ourselves, and not trying to brush it under the rug when one of our public figures gets called out. I'm sure if you go through my comments over the years, I've probably made countless fruitless, unproductive and spiteful things about religion. I'm going to make an effort to do and say things differently in the future.

I'm down for coexisting with good people of all walks of life. We all have a common enemy in the powerful individuals who have seized control of our country. I don't want to fight with well intentioned Christians anymore; I want to fight along side them. I want to embrace the social justice that has long been a tradition of both liberalism and Catholicism - among other religions. I want to embrace throwing the money changers out of our democratic temples. I want a society that can be judged on how it treats the least among us. I want to live in a tighter knit, more connected and stronger society; not a selfish, paranoid and weaker one.

I think Hedges sees the problems of our time with remarkable clarity. I'm not threatened by him.

Brothers and sisters.

As an atheist, and a fairly outspoken one at that, I don't feel like Hedges trying to mischaracterize myself or my atheism. I feel like he is trying to challenge me, to keep me from being hypocritical and to make sure that my anger is turned only towards those who do harm, regardless of faith.

I think his criticism of Harris and Hitch have more to do with American attitudes on the middle east than atheists attitudes. Most Americans, myself included, know very little about that region, and what little I/we do know is all negative - sexism, genital mutilation, death threats against cartoonists, jihad, terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, etc. I assume a more realistic picture of the middle east would more closely resemble people of any country. I assume they love their friends and family, that they wish for a better life and a better world for their kids, that they enjoy art and music, that they have skills and hobbies and struggle to make ends meet, that they laugh and joke and mock and criticize the extremists of their country the way we do in ours, that they are frustrated with politics and the power the privileged few lord over them... but portraying humanity of the people in the middle east is something that is simply not done in American media.

I believe that we atheists, who value tolerance, should be making these arguments ourselves, and not trying to brush it under the rug when one of our public figures gets called out. I'm sure if you go through my comments over the years, I've probably made countless fruitless, unproductive and spiteful things about religion. I'm going to make an effort to do and say things differently in the future.

I'm down for coexisting with good people of all walks of life. We all have a common enemy in the powerful individuals who have seized control of our country. I don't want to fight with well intentioned Christians anymore; I want to fight along side them. I want to embrace the social justice that has long been a tradition of both liberalism and Catholicism - among other religions. I want to embrace throwing the money changers out of our democratic temples. I want a society that can be judged on how it treats the least among us. I want to live in a tighter knit, more connected and stronger society; not a selfish, paranoid and weaker one.

I think Hedges sees the problems of our time with remarkable clarity. I'm not threatened by him.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Billy Connolly on Catholicism & Sarah Palin. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'kevin smith, george carlin, jesus, inri, crucifix, plenary, indulgence, catholicism, wow' to 'kevin smith, george carlin, jesus, inri, crucifix, plenary, indulgence, catholicism wow' - edited by xxovercastxx

I'm gonna step out here and defend the Puritans. In the early 17th century the Puritans in England were not happy with the Church of England (which they were a part of at the time). They saw that its reformation had not gone far enough, meaning, it was still way too close to Catholicism. Above all else, Puritans despised Catholicism, the Pope, and everything the Catholic Church did and they didn't want the Church of England to be anything close to it. When they tried to further the reforms within the Church of England, they were blocked. Though protestant, King James I refused to allow the reforms and told the Hampton Court that he preferred the status quo and that the monarch should rule the church through the bishops. The Puritans felt alienated by this move. In 1625, Charles I became king and he tried to dissolve Parliament entirely to neutralize his enemies, which included plenty of Puritans. This, coupled with the Thirty-Years War (Catholics vs. Protestants), which had over 8 million casualties, now being in full-swing prompted the Puritans to flee to the New World.

The Puritans weren't trying to establish a religiously free society. Roger Williams, who wanted separation of Church & State, was banished and founded Rhode Island. However, the Puritans did want their own society where they weren't underneath the authority of the monarch, the Church of England and where they didn't fear for their lives because of what they believed.

LOL! I wasn't at work! Where in the heck did that come from?! It's called context! There's social context (black friend knew me, knows I'm not a racist, knows what the intent was when I said it, I wasn't at work, I wasn't around others who might misinterpret it), and then there's the context of the joke, which you can discern that I'm actually poking fun of society often assuming the black guy did it. I'm smart enough to know I'd never make a joke like that at work. I also know it's a bad idea to for example play solitaire at work, too. Does that mean solitaire is an evil thing? OF COURSE NOT! The only thing you're pointing out is a joke like that heard out of context could be misinterpreted as racist because it involves race. I could see my joke being misinterpreted had my friend not known me. I wouldn't walk into a group of people who didn't know me and say the same joke! For that matter, I wouldn't walk up to a stranger and debate economic theory either. Doesn't make debating economic theory wrong! LOL...

Your point is ridiculous in this case. Racism was very often *fought* by comics using similar tactics. Are you suggesting Richard Pryor, Gene Wilder, Jon Stewart, Whoopi Goldberg, Robin Williams, Louis CK, Eddie Murphy, Bill Cosby, all of them are racists?! It's ridiculous. Jon Stewart, who is ethnically part Jewish, makes jokes relating to Jewish stereotypes, so that makes him anti-semitic?! Kevin Smith made an entire movie making fun of Catholicism, and he's catholic. That makes him a Catholic hater?! There's an entire section of culture that has been positive in this regard, and you don't see this?!

If you can't understand that, your brain can't understand context, and what is acceptable in various social situations. The joke I told to the people I told it to, when I told it made everyone laugh and offended no one, and that was entirely expected. In no way was it ever said or implied that blacks are inferior to whites whatsoever. It's therefore NOT RACIST!

You've never heard of a christian husband telling their wife to do something and then she did it simply because he told her to? Uhhhh, Michelle Bachmann is on record saying that her husband told her to become a tax lawyer, and she did it simply because he told her to. That's what Maher was railing about as sexist, and he's dead right about that. That's not as sexist as him telling her, "Go make me a sandwich!" But it is sexist that she had to do it simply because he told her to because he's the husband, and she's the wife. Unless of course, in their marriage, if she told him to go become a nurse, he also had to do it simply because she told him to. But once that happens, that's no longer "wives must be submissive to their husbands". That's "spouses must be submissive to each other". That's the difference.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

No, what counts is the intent of the joke.
A white guy walks into Harlem and starts cracking racist jokes and telling the offended African-Americans, "It's OK because my INTENTION isn't racist..." If you told your joke where I worked, you'd be hauled into the Human Resources department and either instantly fired, or put through a merry bout of "Sensitivity Training" under the threat of being fired. You know as well as I do that there is an entire industry based around the reality that racism is irrelevant of intention of the speaker. All that matters that a comment can be interpreted as racist by a passer-by. That's racism under the law, and if you walked into the HR department with a bunch of crap about "intention" as your only justification you'd get your @$$ tossed out the door - and justifiably so. Quite frankly, you should be thanking your lucky stars that the guy you cracked wise to, or anyone else else in earshot, decided not to make an issue of it or you'd be unemployed.
If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to tell you other than your brain lacks the ability to comprehend context.
I perfectly understand the archetecture of the excuses you have constructed around yourself. I simply reject them as factually incorrect, mentally simplistic, and culturally insensitive. If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to tell you other than your brain lacks the ability to comprehend.
That's the definition of a bigot - zero tolerance for the ideas of some others. That's not the same as a racist. Nice try diverting that one.
OK - for clarity... Maher is a bigot AND a racist AND a sexist AND whole bunch of other things. And being 'human' is never a justifiable excuse to satisfy Maher when he attacks people he hates. Humans do lots of stupid things. When they do, they are typically held accountable for it rather than getting a free pass.
If the bible says that wives must be submissive to their husbands, that's sexist!
Put simply, Paul's opinions about women are not "Christianity". He was a unique fellow, who also advocated remaining unmarried - and yet that was never christian doctrine. Regardless, as I said before, I've never once met this hypothetical Christian who tells his woman "go make me a sammich". The strawman is more rare than a fiscal conservative thought in Obama's brain. But as I said, roles assumed by couples are less 'sexism' and are more 'practical reality'.
I'm not sure you're aware of this, but people who agree with Maher tend to be the ones who go out of their way to see him live.
Fair enough. I stand corrected in regards to his audience being stacked purposefully. However, I maintain that it is stacked and Maher would be much more moderate in his crass behavior, bigotry, racism, and sexism if he had a more balanced audience that didn't consist of mostly ideologically sympathetic cheerleaders.
Finally, ANYONE to the left of you, you characterize as a neolib, lib, socialist, etc.
Untrue and hyperbole.
Your characterization of his guests isn't accurate in the slightest.
No - I'd say you simply find it uncomfortably accurate and therefore deny it.

I decided to try a different tact with you; I am not ashamed of my beliefs.

>> ^offsetSammy:
I see shiny edited his post (perhaps after realizing how insane it sounded?) Good thing I quoted it, as it's now preserved on the sift for posterity!

God is the one who holds all the authority. The expert insight I have is called spiritual discernment, and you don't have any. You cannot accept the fact that if the bible is true it means that you are utterly deceived and unable to reason about God. That you reject God out of total ignorance. These truths are spiritually discerned and you don't even know you have one. There is absolute truth, and objective good and evil. Satan rules this world and he has spiritual dominion over anyone who doesn't know God. Satan has legal rights to you because you have rejected your creator. He's in your music, he's in these videos, he is in every lie that has been drilled into your mind about God. That's the bad stuff I am talking about, and I am a witness to this activity. I will continue that witness and pray that you reaize the truth before its too late.

>> ^offsetSammy:
What gives you any authority, moral or spiritual, over me? What expert insight do you have that I don't have? How does quoting verses from the bible make any kind of convincing argument whatsoever?
I just love your threatening tone, as if you've seen the light and have witnessed all the baaaad stuff that happens to those who do not see it. You either have a massive superiority complex, are delusional, or both. I'd suggest you're the one that needs to wake up to his 'wicked' ways. Also, your beliefs are crrrrap! Other than that you're probably a pretty nice guy though (actually not being sarcastic).
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm not trying to win a popularity contest, I am here to save lives. Believe what you will, mock me if you want, but don't pile on more condemnation for yourself.
Galatians 6:7
Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.
People blasphemy against God and get some sort of wicked thrill out of it but I assure you its not worth it. I highly encourage you to have a sense of self-preservation.
>> ^offsetSammy:
I've recently started coming to the conclusion that the old mantra of being respectful of others' beliefs is, as Billy Connolly so eloquently put it, crrrap. It is those very beliefs that start wars, fuel bigotry, encourage tribalism, and foster a mistrust and rejection of science and facts. You believe in a magic man in the sky despite no evidence for it? You want me to believe the earth is only a few thousand years old because you read it in a book, despite every scientific investigation saying otherwise? Your beliefs are laughable and deserve the derision they receive.
That is not to say that you, as a person, don't deserve my respect. Of course we should all be respectful of each others' humanity / existence. We're not all so different, after all. But your beliefs are not you. I'll mock them all I want.

What gives you any authority, moral or spiritual, over me? What expert insight do you have that I don't have? How does quoting verses from the bible make any kind of convincing argument whatsoever?

I just love your threatening tone, as if you've seen the light and have witnessed all the baaaad stuff that happens to those who do not see it. You either have a massive superiority complex, are delusional, or both. I'd suggest you're the one that needs to wake up to his 'wicked' ways. Also, your beliefs are crrrrap! Other than that you're probably a pretty nice guy though (actually not being sarcastic).

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm not trying to win a popularity contest, I am here to save lives. Believe what you will, mock me if you want, but don't pile on more condemnation for yourself.
Galatians 6:7
Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.
People blasphemy against God and get some sort of wicked thrill out of it but I assure you its not worth it. I highly encourage you to have a sense of self-preservation.
>> ^offsetSammy:
I've recently started coming to the conclusion that the old mantra of being respectful of others' beliefs is, as Billy Connolly so eloquently put it, crrrap. It is those very beliefs that start wars, fuel bigotry, encourage tribalism, and foster a mistrust and rejection of science and facts. You believe in a magic man in the sky despite no evidence for it? You want me to believe the earth is only a few thousand years old because you read it in a book, despite every scientific investigation saying otherwise? Your beliefs are laughable and deserve the derision they receive.
That is not to say that you, as a person, don't deserve my respect. Of course we should all be respectful of each others' humanity / existence. We're not all so different, after all. But your beliefs are not you. I'll mock them all I want.