So you're okay with people searching for truth so long as they don't find any answers? Why is it okay for you to say there isn't one true God but it is not okay for me to say that there is? To say this is tolerance is a facade; your tolerance ends when what I believe says you are wrong. The truth is by nature exclusive; just as there is one right answer to 2+2 and an infinite number of wrong answers, it is the same way as to the question of who God is. There is only one right answer, so why should you be surprised, shocked or outraged that I claim it is Jesus Christ, and that His words are truth? And if I sincerely believe that truth, why should you be offended when I claim He is the only way? That is what you would expect a sincere Christian to say, just as a sincere atheist will deny it. We both believe we are right, so why are you more right than I am? Why don't you find people who deny there is one truth, abhorrant? Would you accept other answers to 2 + 2?

>> ^spoco2:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm surprised that atheists enjoy them, considering the explicitly spiritual and christian themes interwoven into their music

Because they are songs sung in general terms of 'A god' and 'A maker' and themes common to people who think and struggle with faith. They do not sing anything like 'Jesus is my lord, he will save me'.
It may be hard for you to fathom, but we have no issue with people searching for or finding solace in faith, what we find abhorrent is people like you who have decided that what they believe IS TRUE and that THEIR BELIEF states that other people are sinful persons bound for an eternity in hellfire.
Their songs are passionate and heartfelt... and I would be not at all surprised to find that in future they have ones that deal with a struggle with and perhaps disillusionment with faith... or not, don't mind either way.
If they become preachy, if they start trying to suggest that they know the one true lord, then they'll lose me.
Up until then I just love their music. As I'm sure you love many things in this world created by athiests

@dag @Fletch @LarsaruS

I think you're all forgetting that Hitler was a master of propaganda, and those statements affirming Christianity were just that. Hitler used a facade of piousness to cement his power with a predominantly Christian populace. Feel free to disagree, but then you have to deal with statements which he made to party loyalists, like these:

"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....
"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 & 7)

Night of July 11-12th 1941

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)

October 10th 1941

"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."

19th October, 1941, night

Doesn't seem like such a warrior for christ now, does he? The cult of personality that fletch is talking about just makes my point. When man tries to get rid of God, he just replaces God with himself. Human beings have the natural desire to worship, whether it is something like money, or power, or celebrity, or themselves, everyone who doesn't know the true God has at least one idol in their life they pay homage too.

To say there is no connection between atheism and communism is absurd. Atheism was at the roots of it, and that according to the communists themselves:

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism"

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism"

Lenin

“With disdain I will throw my gauntlet full in the fact of the world and see the collapse of this pygmy giant. Then will I wander god-like and victorious through the ruins of the world. And giving my words an active force, I will feel equal to the Creator.”

Karl Marx

“The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion”

Karl Marx

So you see there is a connection between atheism and the atheistic regimes that committed uncounted atrocities. Fletch, you're even denial about the definition of atheism, which is the denial of any deity according to the dictionary. A famous quote says that "without God everything is permissable". And that is the logical connection, that a man unrestrained by any thought of ultimate accountability can justify any kind of moral action to himself. Consider this quote from Joel Marks, the professor of philosophy at the University of New Haven

“This philosopher has been laboring under an unexamined assumption, namely that there is such a thing as right and wrong. I now believe there isn’t…The long and short of it is that I became convinced that atheism implies amorality; and since I am an atheist, I must therefore embrace amorality…I experienced my shocking epiphany that religious fundamentalists are correct; without God there is no morality. But they are incorrect, I still believe, about there being a God. Hence, I believe, there is no morality.

Even though words like “sinful” and “evil” come naturally to the tongue as say a description of child molesting. They do not describe any actual properties of anything. There are no literal sins in the world because there is no literal God…nothing is literally right or wrong because there is no Morality"

Please note, I am not saying atheists cannot be moral; I am simply saying that an amoral viewpoint can be a causal factor in committing atrocities, just as much as any zealout. Psychopaths suppress what they know is right and wrong, and dictators ordain it.

It goes back to my original point. It is human nature that is the problem, the corruption of which I attribute to sin. A moral person will be moral in every circumstance, whereas an immoral person will be immoral in every circumstance. You cannot chop it up to specific beliefs of methodologies..they only diagnose the symptom and not the cause.

It's a big planet brother and there are always choices. But as you say, a town with a rotten sheriff is bad news for all that live there.

>> ^TheFreak:

We will all play are part in the machine. Study hard, make the most of your opportunities and get a good job and you get the facade of choices. Fail to assimilate and the system will assimilate you. Either way, you'll play your part.

Someone should set this guy straight and tell him he's not working for the government or the justice "system". He works for the corporate prison system. Because profit is efficiency and more inmates equals more profit. These men are the commodity on trade. That's they're value and their skill, being inmates. The same way your skill in your career is the commodity on trade for the corporation that profits from you.
We will all play are part in the machine. Study hard, make the most of your opportunities and get a good job and you get the facade of choices. Fail to assimilate and the system will assimilate you. Either way, you'll play your part.

@longde

The country had white only policies in a time when the only people who held significant wealth or power were all white people.

We live in a completely different era. The circumstances are different. The country and the people in it think in a completely different manner.

You can't legislate the way people feel so why force a racist asshole to serve the demographics which she or he doesn't approve of [for whatever ignornant reason they have]

Would You Longde support a company if you could NOT eat lunch with your: Gay, Black, Norwegian, Blind, Tourettes, Pregnant, Pastafarian friends there?

Alternately, would you consider it a morally correct thing to support a company who parades around in a multicultural facade. But in actuality is internally racist, prejudice, bigoted?

Lastly, could you explain exactly how "Prejudice leads to blatant corruption and theft."

thanks

Thanks for trying to at least provide some references Ghark. I'm curious how credible you honestly believe them to be though. All but 2 of them are to the same blog, the one is a very short piece by Ynet with nothing more to say than that SANA declares itself the victim and the other is a different blog reporting proof that America supports activists in authoritarian countries.

That last bit seems to be the most veracious of all the claims, but I wouldn't call it 'news'. America(sadly, like virtually all governments) not only supports repressed activists but has also actively supported what can only be called terrorists and has on multiple occasions participated in the overthrow of foreign rulers through covert and even overt assassinations. Don't mistake my claims here as being based on the naive notion that America or the CIA would never do anything like this, as they have and without a doubt will again. My claim is much different, and so is Tarpley's.

The important nuance I think your missing in my disagreement with Tarpley here is that his claim is NOT CIA support for a Syrian uprising. His claim is that there is, in fact, no legitimate Syrian uprising and that it is all a facade orchestrated by the CIA, Mossad, or whomever else he thinks is the puppet master. The truth of the matter is that the Syrian people are now living under their second generation of brutal dictatorship. The truth of the matter is that the Syrian people have seen the difference between the free world and their own, and those people have taken to the streets. Importantly to our discussion here, one of the ways they have seen the difference between freedom and repression has been through social media, like facebook, twitter and to at least some extent our dear videosift here as well.

The sources you referenced supporting Tarpley's notions on Syria all point back to either SANA, the Syrian state media, Al-Alam, the Iranian state media or XinhuaNet, China's state media. For brevity I won't point out the massive number of articles from the NYtimes, the CBC and BBC all reporting on the Syrian protesters being brutally repressed and murdered by Syrian forces. If you wish, I can fill out a page with supporting links, but I hope you might be able to recognize that at the very minimum these sources balance out with equal support. I would go further and posit that state funded media like CBC and BBC are vastly more independent from the state message than SANA and Al-Alam, but it isn't necessary to my argument.

If you accept my generous notion that the above can be called a draw, and we throw them out as having a bias one way or the other, what are we left with?

We are left with Al Jazeera reporting an entirely different story than Tarpley's:
http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Syria

If you want more links from Al Jazeera they have a wealth of stories from all manner of separate and independent sources all backing their overall view that there is a legitimate internal Syrian uprising independently demanding the basic freedoms of a democracy, and the Syrian government met them with deadly repression, over and over and over again.

Is Al Jazeera a pro American tool of the CIA?

I'm going to cite what I consider to be very basic, fundamental facts but if you want references for them I can provide them if you don't trust a 5 second google verification of them.

The UN human rights committee voted 122 in favor of condemning Syria's crackdown, are they a pro American tool of the CIA?

The Arab League has threatened to revoke Syria's membership and asked that Syria allow their monitors into the country as a path to reconciliation, which Syria rejected.

Is the Arab League a pro America tool of the CIA?

Politically correct speech is notorious for presenting a facade of morality in front of nothing.

KO has said sarah palin is a threat, he calls people out as the worst person in the world, but he's the responsible person here?

You're right, the association of Samhain with the Celtic God of the dead is dubious, I retract my comment there. However, you are still way off. The celtics were pagans, and they did more than just light candles. They would build huge bonfires and conduct vegetable, animal and human sacrifices to their gods. Read your own sources. This is macabre to say the least. Whatever the original purpose of the festival, which was terrible enough, it has been further corrupted by the occult over the centuries and more recently the neo-pagan movement. Ritual sacrifice as worship to spirits and spell casting is most certainly done on this day. This is a power day for the pagans. Some call it the devils birthday. Satan is indeed paid tribute, as any worship of spirits goes to demons. Before you try to correct me, let me just tell you that I have a lot of experience with the occult movement and I know exactly what they think about halloween, and how they celebrate it. They look forward to it all year. You think you're just looking at some harmless and quaint tradition, but has an evil origin, and there is much evil done on it; it is nothing any Christian should get near.

>> ^pho3n1x:
There is no "Celtic God of the Dead"...
It's not a celebration of evil at all, and no worship is paid to any "adversary"...
It is a time for passed loved ones to be remembered and honored.
It is a celebration of death, yes, but not in the morbid fashion. The spirits (your loved ones' ghosts) are said to roam more readily during this period, which is why Gaels and Pagans set out a candle (sometimes within a carved turnip) to represent a guiding lantern home.
Also, spirits != demons.
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samhain
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hallo_sa.htm
http://www.chalicecentre.net/samhain.htm
http://wicca.com/celtic/akasha/samhainlore.htm
http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=usxx&c=holidays&sc=samhain&id=1984
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/paganism/holydays/samhain.shtml
>> ^shinyblurry:
Halloween has both Christian and pagan origins. Christian, because November 1st was All Saints Day, and October 31st was All Saints Eve. Pagan, because November 1st is called Samhain, which is the celtic new year. Samhain is the celtic god of death. On the eve of Samhain, pagans would make sacrifices to their gods and the spirits of the dead were said to roam free. Today, the pagan and occult community embraces Samhain as their new year. It is regarded as the day when witches are at the height of their power, and they cast many spells and worship spirits(demons) on this day. Whatever it once was, today, behind the facade of candy and costumes, it is a night when evil is celebrated and worship is paid to the adversary. It is certainly not anything Christians should participate in, nor anyone else with a single ounce of discernment.

There is no "Celtic God of the Dead"...
It's not a celebration of evil at all, and no worship is paid to any "adversary"...

It is a time for passed loved ones to be remembered and honored.
It is a celebration of death, yes, but not in the morbid fashion. The spirits (your loved ones' ghosts) are said to roam more readily during this period, which is why Gaels and Pagans set out a candle (sometimes within a carved turnip) to represent a guiding lantern home.

Also, spirits != demons.

Also, animal sacrifices which are then cooked and eaten? I don't see a problem. Sounds a lot like Thanksgiving.

--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samhain
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hallo_sa.htm
http://www.chalicecentre.net/samhain.htm
http://wicca.com/celtic/akasha/samhainlore.htm
http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=usxx&c=holidays&sc=samhain&id=1984
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/paganism/holydays/samhain.shtml

>> ^shinyblurry:

Halloween has both Christian and pagan origins. Christian, because November 1st was All Saints Day, and October 31st was All Saints Eve. Pagan, because November 1st is called Samhain, which is the celtic new year. Samhain is the celtic god of death. On the eve of Samhain, pagans would make sacrifices to their gods and the spirits of the dead were said to roam free. Today, the pagan and occult community embraces Samhain as their new year. It is regarded as the day when witches are at the height of their power, and they cast many spells and worship spirits(demons) on this day. Whatever it once was, today, behind the facade of candy and costumes, it is a night when evil is celebrated and worship is paid to the adversary. It is certainly not anything Christians should participate in, nor anyone else with a single ounce of discernment.

Halloween has both Christian and pagan origins. Christian, because November 1st was All Saints Day, and October 31st was All Saints Eve. Pagan, because November 1st is called Samhain, which is the celtic new year. Samhain is the celtic god of death. On the eve of Samhain, pagans would make sacrifices to their gods and the spirits of the dead were said to roam free. Today, the pagan and occult community embraces Samhain as their new year. It is regarded as the day when witches are at the height of their power, and they cast many spells and worship spirits(demons) on this day. Whatever it once was, today, behind the facade of candy and costumes, it is a night when evil is celebrated and worship is paid to the adversary. It is certainly not anything Christians should participate in, nor anyone else with a single ounce of discernment.

FEMA: "WTC 4, 5, and 6 are eight- and nine-story steel-framed office buildings, located on the north and east sides of the WTC Plaza, that were built circa 1970. ... Because of their close proximity to WTC 1 and WTC 2, all three buildings were subjected to severe debris impact damage when the towers collapsed. as well as the fires that developed from the debris. Most of WTC 4 collapsed when impacted by the exterior column debris from WTC 2; the remaining section had a complete burnout. WTC 5 and WTC 6 were impacted by exterior column debris from WTC I that caused large sections of localized collapse and subsequent fires spread throughout most of the buildings. All three buildings also were able to resist progressive collapse, in spite of the extensive local collapses that occurred."

So WTC 4, 5, and 6 behave like every other steel-framed building in history, but somehow WTC 7 collapses like a house of cards?

Observing the collapse of 47-story WTC 7 shows it to have all of the features of an implosion engineered by controlled demolition:

-The collapse of the main structure commences suddenly (several seconds after the penthouse falls).
-The building sinks in a precisely vertical manner into its footprint.
-Puffs of dust emerge from the building's facade early in the event.
-The collapse is total, producing a rubble pile only about three stories high.
-The main structure collapses totally in under 7 seconds, only about a second slower than it would take a brick dropped from the building's roof to reach the ground in a vacuum.

But NIST never tests for any explosive residue. Instead they spend 5+ years perfecting a computer model to blame the collapse on office fires.

And skeptics are the crazy ones? If you don't regurgitate government lies, then you're a conspiracy nut?

Go back to bed America.

Good for him. Looks like he's dropped some of the "serious" facade, as well as the straight one.

and you wonder why men don't want to get married...

married men have been portrayed on television as doofuses since the early days of TV -- from Ralph Kramden to Cliff Huxtable to Dan Connor to Ray Barone to Homer Simpson... once they're married, they're effectively neutered and submissive to the exaggerated power of their wives... thus providing a facade to serve as a distraction from the unequal distribution of resources in public education.

>> ^hpqp:

she smokes, even though the taste disgusts her,
twirls hair it take hours to fix.
(notice me)
she'll pose, with self-sufficing nonchalance,
a facade of near perfection.
(accept me)
her body, thin and on display
is all she ever thought she had.
(like me)
but under skin, and smoke, and hair,
and clothes she bought only to please,
behind the blind and listless gaze
of absent glasses, absent will,
she drowns whatever self she was
in fear of being overlooked.
(love me)


I'll take it. You'll never find a better return on just a little love.

she smokes, even though the taste disgusts her,
twirls hair it take hours to fix.
(notice me)
she'll pose, with self-sufficing nonchalance,
a facade of near perfection.
(accept me)
her body, thin and on display
is all she ever thought she had.
(like me)

but under skin, and smoke, and hair,
and clothes she bought only to please,
behind the blind and listless gaze
of absent glasses, absent will,
she drowns whatever self she was
in fear of being overlooked.
(love me)