Hmm. I'm an atheist, but I kinda disagree with them on this one.

It is an elective course. Don't like it, don't take it -- just like they said. And yes, I would say the same thing if it was an elective course about the Quran or Sharia law.

I took an elective "World Religions" class in my public High School. It was very cool -- we talked about comparative numbers of adherents of various religions and non-religious people, regional and national religious trends, religious shifts over time and what caused them, etc. etc. This was in Kansas, so it could easily have been some conservative Christian right-wing nut just trying to push an agenda, but it wasn't. In my opinion, it was interesting and objective.

However, even if it wasn't, it still would have been an elective class. Hell, even in required classes, I had people pushing subjective opinions down my throat as though they were facts. "Shakespeare was the greatest Western writer in history." The best thing that I learned from classes like that was that sometimes opinions differ, and that is OK -- don't let anyone ever tell you otherwise.

good one!

In reply to this comment by enoch:
i withheld any comment i might have on this topic to see what reaction this video might incur and in what form.
i was not disappointed.

over the past 30 years we have seen the rise of the fundamentalist christian (there is a reason for that) conversely we have also seen the rise of fundamentalist islam (over a longer period).
there are many factors why this has happened which i will not get into but suffice to say that they exist.there are causality reasons for this rise and those reasons are not contended.

i am a man of faith but my faith puts me in a precarious cross hairs between the religious fundamentalist and the secular fundamentalist (yeah.i used the term.get over it because they exist).
i am reviled and ridiculed by BOTH sides of that equation.so i am in a unique position to comment on both schools of thought because both schools have harassed me.

those who admonish me usually practice a subtle passive aggressive form of rebuke but always with the intention of calling me stupid,unworthy and wrong.veiled insults disguised as a debate or discussion.

a typical discussion with a militant atheist:
"you are a man of faith enoch? wow..just wow.and i took you for a person of some intelligence"
and then they try to smooth over their overt insult by remarking "well,i guess thats your thing but i cant see how anybody with critical thinking skills could be a person of faith"
this is the epitome of sanctimonious self-righteous belief in ones own perfect understanding of everything based on their own limited understanding but they feel perfectly justified to project their own hubris upon me,even when i have not spoken ONE word on where my faith resides.they based their entire understanding on me simply on there formulated creation of their own imagination.

my conversations with a fundamentalist christian/muslims does not fare much better and oftentimes even worse.because i do not give authority to holy writ.this does not mean i do not find wisdom nor a certain poetry in sacred writings but rather through my studies it has become apparent that these books are not only man-made but borrowed from each other.
so i can appreciate the words within for their beauty and poetry (and brutal violence) but ultimately have to disregard the edicts within for the simple fact they are not only incomplete but rife with human corruption.

so the christian fundamentalist will revile me as an apostate or even worse:heretic and condemn me to hell,to be damned for eternity.while this self-righteous judgment is FAR more direct than a militant atheist may treat me,what i find most despicable and cowardly is how a christian will hide behind the bible and actually attempt a false compassion (pray for my soul) while simultaneously revile me as an unclean agent controlled by satan.

i find BOTH these positions weak and pathetic and here is why:
fundamentalism,in any form,is the stagnation of the mind and deadening of spirit.
it hinders our ability to question and wonder and to push the boundaries of our known perceptions.
the fundamentalist is convinced (by whatever means)that they are correct with a certitude that is immovable,unshakable and to even allow the possibility of a contrary ideology (very specific in relation to this conversation) is tantamount to admitting oneself to be../gasp..wrong.

now let me stop here for a moment and ask my atheist friends how my comment has made you feel?
are you getting angry with me? irritated? annoyed?
and if so.why?
have i specifically called YOU out?
no.i have not and the reason is most atheists i have had discussions with here on the sift are NOT militant.they are just atheists.normal regular people without an agenda nor a desire to purge me of my faith.

sam harris is a militant atheist and no matter how he may wish to paint it, his writings define him as such.
his attacks on the religious are painted with such broad strokes as to encompass anyone who may have a modicum of faith.he may attempt to smooth over his rough edges but the core message is still there.
and he also seem to be under the impression (falsely imo) that if everyone abandoned faith that somehow human society would miraculously be a better and more utopian world.
total.infantile.naivete'.
this is the reason hedges calls him out on his fundamentalism.harris tends to ignore not only human nature but the preceding centuries of history and thats why i find his arguments to be lacking.

now please understand i am vehemently against fundamentalism and religion is the main offender without a doubt.so when i call harris out as being a secular fundamentalist i do so with that truth in mind and i believe harris is totally unaware that he could be perceived that way (as revealed by many of his posts).

hitchens had it right from the get-go.
he didnt use that broad brush harris uses but rather was specific in his criticisms and rightly so.he understood the history and theology and exposed the wretched hypocrisy which dwelt in the underbelly of all fundamentalism.he went after the church.he went after those who would pervert the word in order to dominate and control the poor and un-educated and he was vicious in his admonishments.

the bible,torah,quran are all tangible books.doctrine is written down to be read and studied and they SHOULD be discussed and debated and not treated like some sacred cow that is untouchable.hitchens was the master of using the very doctrine put forth by the church (or imam) to eviscerate any argument in favor of said doctrine to expose the utter hypocrisy.

i have read hitchens and harris is no hitchens.

i withheld any comment i might have on this topic to see what reaction this video might incur and in what form.
i was not disappointed.

over the past 30 years we have seen the rise of the fundamentalist christian (there is a reason for that) conversely we have also seen the rise of fundamentalist islam (over a longer period).
there are many factors why this has happened which i will not get into but suffice to say that they exist.there are causality reasons for this rise and those reasons are not contended.

i am a man of faith but my faith puts me in a precarious cross hairs between the religious fundamentalist and the secular fundamentalist (yeah.i used the term.get over it because they exist).
i am reviled and ridiculed by BOTH sides of that equation.so i am in a unique position to comment on both schools of thought because both schools have harassed me.

those who admonish me usually practice a subtle passive aggressive form of rebuke but always with the intention of calling me stupid,unworthy and wrong.veiled insults disguised as a debate or discussion.

a typical discussion with a militant atheist:
"you are a man of faith enoch? wow..just wow.and i took you for a person of some intelligence"
and then they try to smooth over their overt insult by remarking "well,i guess thats your thing but i cant see how anybody with critical thinking skills could be a person of faith"
this is the epitome of sanctimonious self-righteous belief in ones own perfect understanding of everything based on their own limited understanding but they feel perfectly justified to project their own hubris upon me,even when i have not spoken ONE word on where my faith resides.they based their entire understanding on me simply on there formulated creation of their own imagination.

my conversations with a fundamentalist christian/muslims does not fare much better and oftentimes even worse.because i do not give authority to holy writ.this does not mean i do not find wisdom nor a certain poetry in sacred writings but rather through my studies it has become apparent that these books are not only man-made but borrowed from each other.
so i can appreciate the words within for their beauty and poetry (and brutal violence) but ultimately have to disregard the edicts within for the simple fact they are not only incomplete but rife with human corruption.

so the christian fundamentalist will revile me as an apostate or even worse:heretic and condemn me to hell,to be damned for eternity.while this self-righteous judgment is FAR more direct than a militant atheist may treat me,what i find most despicable and cowardly is how a christian will hide behind the bible and actually attempt a false compassion (pray for my soul) while simultaneously revile me as an unclean agent controlled by satan.

i find BOTH these positions weak and pathetic and here is why:
fundamentalism,in any form,is the stagnation of the mind and deadening of spirit.
it hinders our ability to question and wonder and to push the boundaries of our known perceptions.
the fundamentalist is convinced (by whatever means)that they are correct with a certitude that is immovable,unshakable and to even allow the possibility of a contrary ideology (very specific in relation to this conversation) is tantamount to admitting oneself to be../gasp..wrong.

now let me stop here for a moment and ask my atheist friends how my comment has made you feel?
are you getting angry with me? irritated? annoyed?
and if so.why?
have i specifically called YOU out?
no.i have not and the reason is most atheists i have had discussions with here on the sift are NOT militant.they are just atheists.normal regular people without an agenda nor a desire to purge me of my faith.

sam harris is a militant atheist and no matter how he may wish to paint it, his writings define him as such.
his attacks on the religious are painted with such broad strokes as to encompass anyone who may have a modicum of faith.he may attempt to smooth over his rough edges but the core message is still there.
and he also seem to be under the impression (falsely imo) that if everyone abandoned faith that somehow human society would miraculously be a better and more utopian world.
total.infantile.naivete'.
this is the reason hedges calls him out on his fundamentalism.harris tends to ignore not only human nature but the preceding centuries of history and thats why i find his arguments to be lacking.

now please understand i am vehemently against fundamentalism and religion is the main offender without a doubt.so when i call harris out as being a secular fundamentalist i do so with that truth in mind and i believe harris is totally unaware that he could be perceived that way (as revealed by many of his posts).

hitchens had it right from the get-go.
he didnt use that broad brush harris uses but rather was specific in his criticisms and rightly so.he understood the history and theology and exposed the wretched hypocrisy which dwelt in the underbelly of all fundamentalism.he went after the church.he went after those who would pervert the word in order to dominate and control the poor and un-educated and he was vicious in his admonishments.

the bible,torah,quran are all tangible books.doctrine is written down to be read and studied and they SHOULD be discussed and debated and not treated like some sacred cow that is untouchable.hitchens was the master of using the very doctrine put forth by the church (or imam) to eviscerate any argument in favor of said doctrine to expose the utter hypocrisy.

i have read hitchens and harris is no hitchens.

hitchens voice will be missed.
i appreciated his brand of atheism because he didnt paint with a broad brush.
he was specific in his criticism.he went after the very thing that the fundamentalist holds sacred i.e:bible,torah,quran.
and he was right to do so.
those are tangible,material texts which can be touched,read and interpreted and therefore totally subject to analysis and NOT off the table just for the simple fact they are considered "holy" by some.

he exposed the contradictions.
the utter hypocrisy of so many churches so-called doctrine and because he used that tactic i never saw him lose a debate.
though some perceived the outcome different (dinesh d'souza comes to mind).
he had such a flair about him and his eloquence and ability to expose the religious rhetoric with a snark that was unmatched.i used to actually burst out laughing.

the debates i watched him in always came down to the most basic common denominator which was simply:we cant prove or disprove the existence of spirit or of god and to attempt to is an exercise in futility.game over.

shine on mr hitchens.

the argument to prove or disprove god is unattainable.
cant do it and to even attempt to concretely prove either side is an exercise in futility.
and is BORING.
now...religious texts are tangible things.
we can touch them,read them and interpret them.
the bible,torah and quran are the WRITTEN word which much doctrine and dogma are based on and henceforth CAN be argued and debated...and should be.
and is NOT boring (to me anyways).

but that is not what i am getting to here.
the point,or question more accurately,that i am driving at and noone has asked.
why would a scientist be a person of faith?
nevermind HOW...but why?

my older sister holds dual doctorates and is a scientist AND a devout lutheran.
does this mean she is incapable of using the scientific method to perform her job due to her belief in jesus?
this is not only ridiculous but patently false.

so..why?
if science is such an amazing dynamic to explain the physical universe we all reside in (which it is btw),then WHY would a scientist also hold on to faith?
i do not have the answer to that but i suspect it may be due to the fact that while science has revealed so much,it has raised more questions than it has answered.
not really a bad thing actually and science has proven an adept system to answer those questions but it has not been able to answer them all.including the biggest of them all.

science has failed to answer one of the most primal questions.now it may in the future but as of now this question has remained unanswered:
who am i?
the fundamental question of consciousness is still unresolved and maybe somebody being told they are just a meatsack may not be enough for them.
maybe they sense/feel they are.."more".

ah.my favorite question to ponder.like a tongue that keeps going back to that chipped tooth.
who am i? what is reality?
http://videosift.com/video/the-primacy-of-consciousness

>> ^MonkeySpank:

QM,
I dare you make one comment without the following words:
Liberal, Communist, Left, Kenyan.
>> ^quantumushroom:
A twisted tale, and the Communist "News" Network predictably attempts to put all of Christendom on trial for the actions of a minority of mentally ill abusers.
Remember when Obama didn’t want us to jump to the conclusion that the shootings at Fort Hood were a terrorist attack by an Islamic jihadist, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan? Obama would rather we forgot that Hasan screamed “Allah akbar” before he mowed down scores of patriotic Americans and gave away Qurans with his business card before his act of jihad.
Where is that famous liberal "reason" now?



His top 5 most upvoted comments have none of them. Maybe he'll learn something, maybe he won't...

QM,
I dare you make one comment without the following words:
Liberal, Communist, Left, Kenyan.

Are you kidding? They're all over the place.

I am not religious at all. In fact, I do not believe in god. However, I understand that these people's actions do not reflect a whole population. I think many Christians would find this appalling, and I would agree with them on that matter. Crazy people are everywhere and blaming an entire population on one person's actions is just absurd - regardless of the cause.

This part was good.

You have selectively decided to berate Muslims but I see no difference between you an your fellow Muslims. Many of your co-believers just want piece and prosperity, but you fail to see that.

Except the muslim earns his reputation. Be sure to wiki 'honor killings'. The quran makes it clear the muslim has 3 choices when meeting infidels: convert them, enslave them or kill them. Any other course of action and you are not a real muslim and can be killed along with the other infidels. Yet far-too-many muslims are clearly faithful as they cause problems wherever they're found en masse.

BTW if this piece was real journalism and not anti-Christian propaganda, the "news" source would've found the nearest Christian pastor/deacon/reverend/priest and asked about the Bible and this couple's alleged barbarism.




>> ^MonkeySpank:

QM,
I dare you make one comment without the following words:
Liberal, Communist, Left, Kenyan.

>> ^quantumushroom:


A twisted tale, and the Communist "News" Network predictably attempts to put all of Christendom on trial for the actions of a minority of mentally ill abusers.
Remember when Obama didn’t want us to jump to the conclusion that the shootings at Fort Hood were a terrorist attack by an Islamic jihadist, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan? Obama would rather we forgot that Hasan screamed “Allah akbar” before he mowed down scores of patriotic Americans and gave away Qurans with his business card before his act of jihad.
Where is that famous liberal "reason" now?

QM,
I dare you make one comment without the following words:
Liberal, Communist, Left, Kenyan.

>> ^quantumushroom:

A twisted tale, and the Communist "News" Network predictably attempts to put all of Christendom on trial for the actions of a minority of mentally ill abusers.
Remember when Obama didn’t want us to jump to the conclusion that the shootings at Fort Hood were a terrorist attack by an Islamic jihadist, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan? Obama would rather we forgot that Hasan screamed “Allah akbar” before he mowed down scores of patriotic Americans and gave away Qurans with his business card before his act of jihad.
Where is that famous liberal "reason" now?

A twisted tale, and the Communist "News" Network predictably attempts to put all of Christendom on trial for the actions of a minority of mentally ill abusers.

Remember when Obama didn’t want us to jump to the conclusion that the shootings at Fort Hood were a terrorist attack by an Islamic jihadist, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan? Obama would rather we forgot that Hasan screamed “Allah akbar” before he mowed down scores of patriotic Americans and gave away Qurans with his business card before his act of jihad.

Where is that famous liberal "reason" now?

I meant star point. You receive a star point for each vid that gets 10 upvotes. Check your member profile to see how many you have. You have at least one b/c this vid sifted. Capice? 25 star points (I think) gets you a bronze star.

I can't speak for anyone else but I am blissfully free of suspicion about god which is why quoting the bible has less than zero effect. It's like quoting a Star Wars novel if you want to convince people that Greedo really did shoot first. It's all fiction. Just like the Quran. And the torah. And the Bhagavat Gita. They can't all be right but they can all be wrong.

And for supposedly being divinely-inspired, the bible is a wildly unimpressive book. However, I'm sure putting all those biblical passages down in your reply made a bunch of clicky noises on your keyboard. So there you go.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'sam harris, islam, jainism, religious extremism is not a problem' to 'sam harris, islam, jainism, fundamentalists, extremists, quran' - edited by xxovercastxx

As communism proves, religious conviction is not required to kill.

But since the libmedia wants to play favorites in bashing one religion while protecting another, their already scant credibility is beyond forfeit.



>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
2009: muslim vermin shoots up Fort Hood shouting 'Allahu Ackbar'.
Libmedia plus Red House: "Uh...we shouldn't rush to judgement."

2011: nutball shoots Norwegians
Libmedia: "This guy is clearly a Christian."


When a muslim vermin acts as a terrorist, he is obeying the will of Allah per the quran.
When a vermin calling himself a Christian acts as a terrorist, he is disobeying the Holy Bible.

Read the old Testament lately? Sorry but both books are fucking stupid and evil and you can use both to justify killing people.

>> ^quantumushroom:

2009: muslim vermin shoots up Fort Hood shouting 'Allahu Ackbar'.
Libmedia plus Red House: "Uh...we shouldn't rush to judgement."

2011: nutball shoots Norwegians
Libmedia: "This guy is clearly a Christian."


When a muslim vermin acts as a terrorist, he is obeying the will of Allah per the quran.
When a vermin calling himself a Christian acts as a terrorist, he is disobeying the Holy Bible.


Read the old Testament lately? Sorry but both books are fucking stupid and evil and you can use both to justify killing people.

2009: muslim vermin shoots up Fort Hood shouting 'Allahu Ackbar'.

Libmedia plus Red House: "Uh...we shouldn't rush to judgement."



2011: nutball shoots Norwegians

Libmedia: "This guy is clearly a Christian."




When a muslim vermin acts as a terrorist, he is obeying the will of Allah per the quran.

When a vermin calling himself a Christian acts as a terrorist, he is disobeying the Holy Bible.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'history channel, christianity, jesus, nicaea, enoch, constantine, new testament' to 'history channel, christianity, jesus, nicaea, enoch, constantine, torah, quran' - edited by xxovercastxx