When a holy book includes an unusual punishment for something, and that punishment is carried out, and when asked afterwards why they did it they point at the book, it seems dishonest to discount the book as ever being a possible inspiration.

When someone decides to smite the neck of an infidel for drawing a picture of the prophet, how can that be construed as something other than a religious grievance? It's a religious punishment for a religious transgression.

The reformations and toning down of the BS in the other monotheisms came following massive popular pressure. I'm hoping for more pressure against these insanities.

You mean like we did with the slaves and the jews? Yes, let's do that. I'm not scared by women who may have a penis. Who knows, maybe it's actually fun.

And while we're both trolling here, here's something I noticed:
Both Clowns and gays are said to have sinisters intentions towards children. You can thank Steven King and monotheism for that.
Don't you think that identifying yourself with a man who loves singing and dressing up and putting on makeup is kinda... you know, faggy? Somehow gayish? Are you into musical theatre?
What's your intention towards children?
Oh, the irony...

Sam makes a great point about the failure of journalism, and I love that he calls out Cenk on the issue at the start. Call it whining if you like, but he's so spot on with his criticism that it alone makes the viewing worthwhile in my opinion.

All Sam is really asking for (not the profiling part) is to acknowledge that it matters what people believe. I'm amazed that this is somehow hard for people to swallow. I think most people would agree with him, fundamentally on this point.

Having accepted the above point (that people are motivated, at least in part, by their beliefs), one of the next things to do is to identify some of humanity's worst ideas, and try to undermine them. It so happens that the horrible ideas Sam is tackling, in general, are in the holy books of the 3 big monotheisms. Since 2 of those 3 have already internally dealt with the most horrendous of their ideas, it leaves the latecomer, Islam, to fall under the microscope. It doesn't help that islam, at it's foundation, attempted to bake in a proof against future refinement and growth.

This seems almost as uncontroversial as a logical chain of thoughts could be, yet somehow people manage to misunderstand them.

In 325, the Council of Nicea set out to officially define the relationship of the Son to the Father, in response to the controversial teachings of Arius. Led by bishop Athanasius, the council established the doctrine of the Trinity as orthodoxy and condemned Arius' teaching that Christ was the first creation of God. The creed adopted by the council described Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father."

Mormons reject the Nicene Creed, believing that Jesus Christ was the first born of the Father in spirit and the only begotten in the flesh. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teaches that God the Father, His son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are one Godhead while remaining 3 distinct beings. The Father and the Son have glorified physical bodies, while the Holy Ghost has only a body of spirit.

The word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible
The word "Trinity" was first used by Tertullian (c.155-230)
The doctrine of the Trinity is commonly expressed as: "One God, three Persons"
The doctrine is formally defined in the Nicene Creed, which declares Jesus to be: "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father."

Facts about the doctrine of the Trinity:
It is not mentioned in the Bible
It does not make philosophical sense
It is not compatible with monotheism
It is not necessary in order to explain the "specialness" of Jesus

In Matthew 3:16-17 of the KJV of the New Testament we read an account that includes all 3 members of the Godhead:

16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Mormons assert that Jesus was not speaking to himself about being pleased with himself, but rather that God the Father was pleased in His son Jesus for being baptized while the Spirit of God descended upon Him (Jesus). This statement also implies that it (The Holy Spirit) was not there beforehand.

John 17:20-21 “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us”

Mormons believe that it is that perfect unity between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost that binds these three into the oneness of the divine Godhead.


See also:

John 17:3 “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Matt 17:1-5 “...after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,

“And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

“And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.

“Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

“While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.”

John 1:1-2, 14 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

Matt. 12:31-32 “And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man (another name for Jesus Christ), it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Atheism, God, History, Enuma Elish, Polytheism, Monotheism, Karen Armstrong' to 'Atheism, God, History, Enuma Elish, Polytheism, Monotheism, Karen Armstrong, Evid3nc3' - edited by messenger

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Christopher Hitchens explains monotheism (Hilarious). Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

@bcglorf

The question of abortion is not about when life begins, it's about weighing the costs and benefits of pursuing a pregnancy, taking into account both the woman and the embryo/foetus/future human being. In order to do this, of course, one must take into account the not only physical health factors, but also the effect each life will have on the other. A woman's life is forever changed by childbirth; often the responsibility for caring and raising said child falls entirely on her shoulders; she may not have the (economic/emotional) resources to care for it, causing there to be two victims. How much does a ball of cells, or an embryo, with no memories, no personality, no identity, ... how much does that weigh against the irretrievable changes its continued existence would make to the woman? Why are some forms of life valued over others? Why do we feel no remorse removing a tumor - a living organism - from a person/animal? It's a question of checks and balances.

And please don't talk about the "potential" human being that an embryo or foetus is. That argument applies for every permutation of fapped sperm and period-flushed eggs that are lost every day. The point @Jinx makes about the debate is completely valid: we can argue (with the help of scientific evidence) the details about the moment when an embryo/foetus becomes capable of suffering/cognition (my opinion is that it's at the moment when the brain is capable of treating and storing sensory input), but the "pro-life" crowd are not up for rational debate, nor are they particularly pro-life. Instead, they will disregard the (quality of the) life of the woman as well as those of the future child simply because of their superstitious beliefs. They are also usually the same ignorant people who will fight against sexual education and the use of contraception for the same reasons and, more generally, against the autonomy of women and their rights over their own bodies (since their belief systems usually stem from the patriarchal desert monotheisms).

*promote

Monotheism gets the Hitchslap.
Christopher Hitchens is dead
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/christopher-hitchens/graydon-201112
May he rest in peace.

Before adding to the debate, I'd like to point out that @kevingrr has made, imo, the most pertinent commentary so far. Notably, that Hedges is intellectually dishonest (and that's a euphemism), and is simply piggy-backing on the success of thinkers such as Harris and Hitchens to sell a couple books, even if that means smearing them and the whole atheist/antitheist movement, grasping at strawmen and making indefensible claims... you know, what religious apologists usually do. (It's actually tempting to invoke * lies, considering how badly he misrepresents Harris, but I'll leave that to the OP to decide).

@dystopianfuturetoday

Of course you're not threatened by Hedges, as he has absolutely nothing to contribute. The so-called "New Atheists" (if you can call Epicurus and Paine "New") are fighting for change, progress, while the religious apologists and fundies are fighting either for the status quo or for regression*. Hedges is just propping himself above everyone else in an attempt to sell books and condescend.

_{(*by progress/regression, I'm speaking of moral, social and intellectual.)}

One thing needs to made clear about religion (the following is also addressed to you @SDGundamX): it is not the fundamentalists that are the problem, it is the fundamentals. And yes, I am not ashamed to admit that that is a quote borrowed from Sam Harris. As kevingrr points out, humanity has made immense moral progress over time, and what has been one of its biggest obstacle has been the fundamentals of religious ideologies, especially the desert monotheisms.

What makes religion religion? Supernatural truth claims. Take that away, and you have philosophy, history, poetry, law, etc... all things that are dependant on human thought and experience, and can be reshaped with experience, evidence, etc. But supernatural truth claims cannot be challenged, cannot be empirically experienced or disproved by anyone, and that is why they are such a powerful tool of manipulation, and why it is child abuse to indoctrinate kids with such beliefs at an age when they take everything their parents/authority figures say as truth (survival demands it). Monotheism is all the more dangerous because it provides an unchallengeable dictatorial authority to whomever wields it (versus polytheism's plurality), be they imams, rabbis, priests or simply bigoted parents.

Saying that we should focus on the bad results of fundamentalism and leave religion itself (and all other forms of superstitious belief) alone is like saying one should focus on the symptoms but ignore the disease. Sure, the symptoms need to be treated, but if we do not also attack the sickness that is causing them we are wasting our time.

I am not saying we shouldn't side with religious moderates to fight the symptoms. But it's not as believers that they should be sided with, but simply as fellow human beings fighting for human well-being and moral progress. If some want to delude themselves into thinking that their actions are driven by the will of an invisible sky-daddy instead of their own humanity and empathy, so be it (although it's pretty sad).

Tags for this video have been changed from 'stephen fry, atheism, monotheism' to 'stephen fry, atheism, monotheism, polytheism' - edited by xxovercastxx

Tags for this video have been changed from 'stephen fry' to 'stephen fry, atheism, monotheism' - edited by Boise_Lib

@lucky760

When I started reading your post I thought it was going to be about Hinduism (which, according to Wikipedia at least, is more or less on equal terms with Buddhism).

I think I understand why the poll is this way: it seems "Western"-oriented, in that the Abrahamic monotheisms are often represented as the leading triad, while the "oriental" religions are lumped together. I think the poll would look very different if it were on an Indian site, for example.

That being said, the lack of Pastafarianism is unforgivable, arrRRR! May His noodly appendages smite you down with tomato sauce stains!

>> ^Contagion21:

>> ^hpqp:
@ponceleon
The pope did recently reject human evolution though... I guess science really doesn't deal kindly with the whole anthropocentric human-worshipping that is at the basis of monotheism, which created god in man's image.

To clarify, he rejected random evolution. That is, that it could have occured naturally and without guidance. (See Dawkins writings on why evolution should never be considered "random" to begin with, but that's another issue entirely.) So, based on what I'm reading in that link, he's not saying we don't have a shared ancestry with other primates, just that IF we do, it's not a random occurance.
So catholics are still allowed to believe that evolution has occured, even for humans, they just have to accept that God is the driving force behind it.


Thanks for pointing this out and also thanks for actually reading the article, unlike (I suspect) the other 7 people who upvoted the original comment.

>> ^hpqp:

@ponceleon
The pope did recently reject human evolution though... I guess science really doesn't deal kindly with the whole anthropocentric human-worshipping that is at the basis of monotheism, which created god in man's image.


To clarify, he rejected random evolution. That is, that it could have occured naturally and without guidance. (See Dawkins writings on why evolution should never be considered "random" to begin with, but that's another issue entirely.) So, based on what I'm reading in that link, he's not saying we don't have a shared ancestry with other primates, just that IF we do, it's not a random occurance.

So catholics are still allowed to believe that evolution has occured, even for humans, they just have to accept that God is the driving force behind it.

@ponceleon

The pope did recently reject human evolution though... I guess science really doesn't deal kindly with the whole anthropocentric human-worshipping that is at the basis of monotheism, which created god in man's image.