hehe. I'll submit to you that a spiritual atheist, especially one that prays, is internally inconsistant.

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:
And it looks like some atheists just aren't as religious and dogmatic as you are..take for example this statistic from the 2008 Pew survey:
According to one underreported 2008 U.S. Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey, 21 per cent of atheists expressed at least some certainty of belief in God or universal spirit, and 10 per cent admitted to praying on a weekly basis.
Nor should we be surprised to learn that more “than 20 per cent of atheist scientists consider themselves to be ‘spiritual,’ according to a Rice University study.” From the Religion News Service: “The findings, to be published in the June issue of the journal Sociology of Religion, are based on in-depth interviews with 275 natural and social scientists from 21 of the nation’s top research universities.”
Seems that yours is the world view that isn't quite matching up to reality..

Hello! McFly! This is what I have been trying to tell you! Atheist doesn't mean "closed to the possibility". It means "not convinced". It's a large umbrella that covers many different levels of skepticism. And it is certainly not a concept that can be proven or disproven!

>> ^shinyblurry:

And it looks like some atheists just aren't as religious and dogmatic as you are..take for example this statistic from the 2008 Pew survey:
According to one underreported 2008 U.S. Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey, 21 per cent of atheists expressed at least some certainty of belief in God or universal spirit, and 10 per cent admitted to praying on a weekly basis.
Nor should we be surprised to learn that more “than 20 per cent of atheist scientists consider themselves to be ‘spiritual,’ according to a Rice University study.” From the Religion News Service: “The findings, to be published in the June issue of the journal Sociology of Religion, are based on in-depth interviews with 275 natural and social scientists from 21 of the nation’s top research universities.”
Seems that yours is the world view that isn't quite matching up to reality..


Hello! McFly! This is what I have been trying to tell you! Atheist doesn't mean "closed to the possibility". It means "not convinced". It's a large umbrella that covers many different levels of skepticism. And it is certainly not a concept that can be proven or disproven!

The Bible is a storybook, that's all. A conspiracy to me, is a cover up of a crime.

You've convinced yourself pretty well with your strange arguments. Just because the Bible cites historical architectural knowledge doesn't mean there's a God. It just means that the people who wrote it at the time obviously took inspiration from their time period and what existed. It doesn't mean EVERYTHING they wrote is now true, they just had a reliable backdrop to their story, why would they write about a places and gatherings and cities and nations and locations that didn't exist, when they are wanting to trick people at the time? Surely it's a requirement to portray the world correctly and then use your lies in preaching to trick people to believing it.

I don't know how you can be so misguided to think proving the bible's archaeological facts leads it to prove all the crazy beliefs of a God and Satan and a Virgin birth, etc.

I can write a book about WW2, citing all the battles, bombs dropped, people killed, gatherings etc, and then just add in a load of stuff about how Hitler was actually secretly taking orders from a magical Unicorn called George who hated everyone, and that the allies were being advised by a giant Elephant called Bob who was kind and benevolent. So apparently in 2000 years, people like you will believe it all because all the archaeological data was proved in my story.

Talking about Christian's persecutions means nothing, brainwashed people are brainwashed, they think they will go to heaven if they do good, and go to hell if they stop believing in God. So no matter what persecution there is, until they are actually allowed to see sense, they will continue to believe in God and teach their children to believe in God.

Also I'd look at the surveys the other way, 79% of the people in the survey didn't believe in God, and 90% don't pray weekly. Then in the other survey 80% of the scientists aren't spiritual. That's a good amount of people who are sane. There has to be at least some crazy scientists otherwise we might miss out of some discoveries.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You think the bible is a conspiracy? lol..first of all most of the people who started the church were martryed for their beliefs. If they knew it was a lie, they wouldn't have died for it. The romans persecuted and martyred Christians for hundreds of years. There simply was no advantage to being a Christian in those days. It was very likely to get you killed.
And for being made up it sure is historically accurate:
"Now of course, archaeology could never prove that the Bible is divinely inspired, but it can help build a case for the historical reliability of the Bible. And it certainly has. For the past 150 years archaeologists have been verifying the exact truthfulness of the Bible's detailed records of various events, customs, persons, cities, nations, and geographical locations.
In every instance where the Bible can be, or has been checked out archaeologically, it has been found to be 100% accurate. The Bible has proven so accurate that archaeologists often refer to it as a reliable guide when they go to dig in new areas.
Nelson Glueck, who appeared on the cover of Time magazine and who is considered one of the greatest archaeologists ever, wrote: “No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.” [Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publications Society of America, 1969), 31.]
These are the words of a man who has who has been credited with uncovering more than fifteen hundred ancient sites in the Middle East. [ “Archaeology: The Shards of History,” Time, December 13, 1963, accessed November 18, 2010.]
There have been more than 25,000 discoveries within the region known as the "Bible Lands” that have confirmed the truthfulness of the Bible."
And it looks like some atheists just aren't as religious and dogmatic as you are..take for example this statistic from the 2008 Pew survey:
According to one underreported 2008 U.S. Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey, 21 per cent of atheists expressed at least some certainty of belief in God or universal spirit, and 10 per cent admitted to praying on a weekly basis.
Nor should we be surprised to learn that more “than 20 per cent of atheist scientists consider themselves to be ‘spiritual,’ according to a Rice University study.” From the Religion News Service: “The findings, to be published in the June issue of the journal Sociology of Religion, are based on in-depth interviews with 275 natural and social scientists from 21 of the nation’s top research universities.”
Seems that yours is the world view that isn't quite matching up to reality..

You think the bible is a conspiracy? lol..first of all most of the people who started the church were martryed for their beliefs. If they knew it was a lie, they wouldn't have died for it. The romans persecuted and martyred Christians for hundreds of years. There simply was no advantage to being a Christian in those days. It was very likely to get you killed.

And for being made up it sure is historically accurate:

"Now of course, archaeology could never prove that the Bible is divinely inspired, but it can help build a case for the historical reliability of the Bible. And it certainly has. For the past 150 years archaeologists have been verifying the exact truthfulness of the Bible's detailed records of various events, customs, persons, cities, nations, and geographical locations.

In every instance where the Bible can be, or has been checked out archaeologically, it has been found to be 100% accurate. The Bible has proven so accurate that archaeologists often refer to it as a reliable guide when they go to dig in new areas.

Nelson Glueck, who appeared on the cover of Time magazine and who is considered one of the greatest archaeologists ever, wrote: “No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.” [Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publications Society of America, 1969), 31.]

These are the words of a man who has who has been credited with uncovering more than fifteen hundred ancient sites in the Middle East. [ “Archaeology: The Shards of History,” Time, December 13, 1963, accessed November 18, 2010.]

There have been more than 25,000 discoveries within the region known as the "Bible Lands” that have confirmed the truthfulness of the Bible."

And it looks like some atheists just aren't as religious and dogmatic as you are..take for example this statistic from the 2008 Pew survey:

According to one underreported 2008 U.S. Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey, 21 per cent of atheists expressed at least some certainty of belief in God or universal spirit, and 10 per cent admitted to praying on a weekly basis.

Nor should we be surprised to learn that more “than 20 per cent of atheist scientists consider themselves to be ‘spiritual,’ according to a Rice University study.” From the Religion News Service: “The findings, to be published in the June issue of the journal Sociology of Religion, are based on in-depth interviews with 275 natural and social scientists from 21 of the nation’s top research universities.”

Seems that yours is the world view that isn't quite matching up to reality..





>> ^Mazex:
I don't think he hates God, because that would mean a God exists for him to hate, maybe he hates the idea of God. I think he like most sane people hate the idea that people brainwash their kids with dribble from a book that a load of people conspired to write and revise so that they could influence the world, control/enslave uneducated people and get rich off them for 2000 years.
There's a very simple reason for having the view of atheism, God has not been proven to exist, there is no empirical evidence, and there is a lot of logical reasoning behind why it is a lie and why religion only prospers from indoctrinating children and weak minded people, and can not prosper from trying to convert educated people into it.
Religion has only come so far because of human fear. Soon once our lifespans will increase much more and we will hopefully advance medicine far enough that people won't be as afraid of death any more and there'll be a massive shift away from religion, in the same way education shifted people away from it in the industrial era.
>> ^shinyblurry:
You do know atheism is a world view, don't you? Hitchens couldn't provide any reasons for his view..yes he definitely hates the judeo-christian god, that's clear..but this is a philosophical argument..and Hitchens failed on every point to provide any compelling reasons for his views. I've always been of the mind that two reasonable people can come to a reasonable agreement based on the facts. And I think William Craig was reasonable here..he gave hitchens every opportunity to refute his arguments, which he failed to do

The thing is people belive in this dumb fuck mith that people with lots of money worked for that money.

they allso belive that fincail succsess is a skilled or something that good people achive , they are totaly ignorent to the fact that the biggest fincail rewards are for people that work out how to best Game the system not people that best contribute to socity.

the perpouse of money in our modern system is to allow for the ruling few to remain in absalut comfort and power , Not as a covenant bartering tool as it was intended.

>> ^peggedbea:

1. the lower income brackets DO pay something. sales tax, excise taxes, property taxes. and disproportionately so. the lower/middle income families spend a greater portion of their monthly incomes on taxable goods and services, where the higher income brackets have a higher rate of savings... they're saving a greater portion of their income, therefore not spending it on taxable goods and services.
states that have no state income tax (like texas) and rely solely on sales, excise and property taxes typically have a regressive taxation system... meaning the bulk of the burden of the state and municipal operating budgets are placed disproportionately on lower/middle income families.
2. i'm a working single mom with 2 kids. i work my ass off. i don't live beyond my means. i take care of my things. if a 15% flat tax rate were implemented guess who'd be (back) on government assistance??? i don't have 15% of my income left over at the end of the month. i typically can put 10-12% of my income back, split between a retirement account and a rainy day fund. a flat tax rate would create more problems than it would solve for the working poor with families to care for. and for 2 years i couldnt even dream of doing that. (i got laid off in 09 and JUST NOW got back to full time work that also pays a living wage)
>> ^bobknight33:
So is you issue with large corporations ( like GE ) not paying any tax due to loopholes or that their tax bracket is or is not high enough?
Would it not make since to cut all loopholes and give a relativity flat tax based on quarterly statements?
I agree with Qm The rich are pitching way more then anyone else. Still they stay filthy rich. But should they pay more? Should not the lower income bracket also pay something? If they would at least pay some tax they would have a better understanding of what is going on with respect to taxes.
Personally I would like a flat tax. I would even say ok to a excessive rate of 23% just to keep politicians from bitching and moaning that the children/ elderly will starve if we go to a flat tax.
Every thing I'm getting at is really for a smaller Government with a Keep it simple stupid mentality.
There is no reason for a person to spend 40 hours in figuring out their federal taxes each year.
And there is no reason for GE to post 14 Billion in profits (would wide) and not pay any taxes in the USA.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^quantumushroom:
The "evil rich" pay 38% of all taxes already. The 'bottom' 50% pay less than 2% of taxes yet slurp up plenty of government "services".
Dismissing the moral component for a moment, you could tax the rich at 99% and it wouldn't matter. There isn't enough money to cover a perpetually expanding government and the endless wants of the wish-to-haves.

You didn't define "evil rich", but the bottom 80% only control 15% of the wealth in this country, while the top 1% alone controls over 40% of the wealth.
I'd also disagree on who gets more out of government services. The rich mostly get their payoffs in the form of tax loopholes so they don't show up on lists of "government spending". For example, see how GE got $3.2 billion from the government for filing their taxes this year. That's a hell of a tax credit, and it doesn't show up in anyone's federal budget proposal!

1. the lower income brackets DO pay something. sales tax, excise taxes, property taxes. and disproportionately so. the lower/middle income families spend a greater portion of their monthly incomes on taxable goods and services, where the higher income brackets have a higher rate of savings... they're saving a greater portion of their income, therefore not spending it on taxable goods and services.
states that have no state income tax (like texas) and rely solely on sales, excise and property taxes typically have a regressive taxation system... meaning the bulk of the burden of the state and municipal operating budgets are placed disproportionately on lower/middle income families.

2. i'm a working single mom with 2 kids. i work my ass off. i don't live beyond my means. i take care of my things. if a 15% flat tax rate were implemented guess who'd be (back) on government assistance??? i don't have 15% of my income left over at the end of the month. i typically can put 10-12% of my income back, split between a retirement account and a rainy day fund. and for 2 years i couldnt even dream of doing that. (i got laid off in 09 and JUST NOW got back to full time work that also pays a living wage) a flat tax rate would create more problems than it would solve for the working poor with families to care for.

>> ^bobknight33:

So is you issue with large corporations ( like GE ) not paying any tax due to loopholes or that their tax bracket is or is not high enough?
Would it not make since to cut all loopholes and give a relativity flat tax based on quarterly statements?
I agree with Qm The rich are pitching way more then anyone else. Still they stay filthy rich. But should they pay more? Should not the lower income bracket also pay something? If they would at least pay some tax they would have a better understanding of what is going on with respect to taxes.
Personally I would like a flat tax. I would even say ok to a excessive rate of 23% just to keep politicians from bitching and moaning that the children/ elderly will starve if we go to a flat tax.
Every thing I'm getting at is really for a smaller Government with a Keep it simple stupid mentality.
There is no reason for a person to spend 40 hours in figuring out their federal taxes each year.
And there is no reason for GE to post 14 Billion in profits (would wide) and not pay any taxes in the USA.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^quantumushroom:
The "evil rich" pay 38% of all taxes already. The 'bottom' 50% pay less than 2% of taxes yet slurp up plenty of government "services".
Dismissing the moral component for a moment, you could tax the rich at 99% and it wouldn't matter. There isn't enough money to cover a perpetually expanding government and the endless wants of the wish-to-haves.

You didn't define "evil rich", but the bottom 80% only control 15% of the wealth in this country, while the top 1% alone controls over 40% of the wealth.
I'd also disagree on who gets more out of government services. The rich mostly get their payoffs in the form of tax loopholes so they don't show up on lists of "government spending". For example, see how GE got $3.2 billion from the government for filing their taxes this year. That's a hell of a tax credit, and it doesn't show up in anyone's federal budget proposal!

So is you issue with large corporations ( like GE ) not paying any tax due to loopholes or that their tax bracket is or is not high enough?

Would it not make since to cut all loopholes and give a relativity flat tax based on quarterly statements?

I agree with Qm The rich are pitching way more then anyone else. Still they stay filthy rich. But should they pay more? Should not the lower income bracket also pay something? If they would at least pay some tax they would have a better understanding of what is going on with respect to taxes.

Personally I would like a flat tax. I would even say ok to a excessive rate of 23% just to keep politicians from bitching and moaning that the children/ elderly will starve if we go to a flat tax.

Every thing I'm getting at is really for a smaller Government with a Keep it simple stupid mentality.

There is no reason for a person to spend 40 hours in figuring out their federal taxes each year.

And there is no reason for GE to post 14 Billion in profits (would wide) and not pay any taxes in the USA.


>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^quantumushroom:
The "evil rich" pay 38% of all taxes already. The 'bottom' 50% pay less than 2% of taxes yet slurp up plenty of government "services".
Dismissing the moral component for a moment, you could tax the rich at 99% and it wouldn't matter. There isn't enough money to cover a perpetually expanding government and the endless wants of the wish-to-haves.

You didn't define "evil rich", but the bottom 80% only control 15% of the wealth in this country, while the top 1% alone controls over 40% of the wealth.
I'd also disagree on who gets more out of government services. The rich mostly get their payoffs in the form of tax loopholes so they don't show up on lists of "government spending". For example, see how GE got $3.2 billion from the government for filing their taxes this year. That's a hell of a tax credit, and it doesn't show up in anyone's federal budget proposal!

>> ^quantumushroom:

The "evil rich" pay 38% of all taxes already. The 'bottom' 50% pay less than 2% of taxes yet slurp up plenty of government "services".
Dismissing the moral component for a moment, you could tax the rich at 99% and it wouldn't matter. There isn't enough money to cover a perpetually expanding government and the endless wants of the wish-to-haves.


You didn't define "evil rich", but the bottom 80% only control 15% of the wealth in this country, while the top 1% alone controls over 40% of the wealth.

I'd also disagree on who gets more out of government services. The rich mostly get their payoffs in the form of tax loopholes so they don't show up on lists of "government spending". For example, see how GE got $3.2 billion from the government for filing their taxes this year. That's a hell of a tax credit, and it doesn't show up in anyone's federal budget proposal!

That god-botherer seemed all over the place. At the end saying "I'm not asking a sociological question". I doubt he even could.

Your review has made me want to see it. If only to work out if De Niro has more than two scenes. Without him we'd be wondering who the hell Manning was. Well, we still do, but De Niro's name sells the film.

I don't know much about AD whatever but it sounds like it was a label created and applied in the States. I think the sociology of that is very interesting. Doctors start applying the label and before you know it you have largely socially created condition. And then the drugs are ingested...

re the concept of the film we'll certainly all be modding our minds and bodies in the new few hundred years if you believe the futurists. Will that make people less stupid? I'd like to think so.

Oh and I almost forgot: Psychology, sociology and behavioral science aren't sciences, huh?

I've been thinking about these concepts since middle school..

Basically the entire reason I study sociology.

Very inspiring stuff. =]

DISCRIMINATION (d-skrm-nshn)
1. (Sociology) unfair treatment of a person, racial group, minority, etc.; action based on prejudice

Everyone who loves democracy and freedom and on the same page discriminates these people are the very cause that one day we will lose these things that millions died for.
Congrats.

>> ^Deano:

Anyone know why this comment was downvoted so much? Seems a bit like overkill to me. I didn't much like this clip either - there's humour to be had from this situation but this approach seems too crass.
>> ^thepinky:
HAS ANYONE ELSE NOTICED THAT THIS VIDEO ISN'T FUNNY AT ALL? Really. It isn't funny. And I don't think it has anything to do with the fact that I'm a girl. It just isn't even funny. A big downvote.



There seems to be a herd mentality on certain things. When you see a comment on -5, you all the sudden feel a weight that you need to decide to upvote or downvote. The same happens when someone is also very high, to take extra time and consideration on those comments that have reached some type of arbitrary personal threshold. I find that whole dynamic very interesting. A comment will go for ages on 0, then once it gets a vote on either side you slowly watch the votes rack up, very interesting from a sociological standpoint.

Thanks for posting this.

I don't think religion talk is taboo on the Sift. Recently there have been a spate of videos showing the ugly side of religion and what has followed has almost always been a string of "religion sucks" and "all religious people are idiots" or "all religious people are insane--they believe in fairy tales" sort of comments. I, for my part, have done my best to turn the tide of these comments when I come across them and get people to think beyond stereotypes and over-generalizations. As you have pointed out in this post, religion is such a multi-dimensional cultural and sociological phenomenon dismissing all religion on such grounds as mentioned above seems fairly ignorant to me.

In terms of what you wrote above, I think spiritual beliefs are not as based on "creativity" as you seem to believe. Many spiritual people compare their beliefs with their experiences and refine them in a way that is similar to the scientific process. The difference is that they work with subjective and unobservable data (i.e. their feelings) as opposed to objective observable data. If this process didn't occur, the world's major religions would have remained static over the course of their existence. Of course, there most certainly are people out there who close their eyes to anything that doesn't fit into their spiritual framework, but I don't think that describes most spiritual people--just fundamentalists and ideologues.