71 up votes for this garbage, for shame. And Sifters, with your high and mighty attitudes, at least learn to recognize poop when it stinks up your side of the lawn.

Oh my gosh, now I feel so secure in my beliefs, thank you oh atheist master of the internets.

I'd like to hope most atheists would be smart enough to leave behind the sort of individual that would produce this visual diarrhea if they chose to leave. Let the tongue speakers castrate him or something, nothing would be as excruciating as that sound track.

Would you vote for someone who follows *a* lord? If the problem lies in adhering to a higher power, would you accept someone who does, but simply not to your christian god? If not then ask yourself why, you simply can't argue that Christianity is the most righteous of the major religions when it comes to dealing with financial issues, it has always been at the forefront of corruption.

>> ^shinyblurry:

"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."
And people do worship the almighty dollar. Some people would do practically anything, up to murder and more, for money. If you don't have it, you have no status, no power, and no utility. The poor are despised and ignored; they are ground into the dirt and forgotten about. The love of money is responsible for a great deal of evil in the world. And a small number of people control most of the wealth in the world and lord over everyone else, silently controlling most of the power as well.
Of course absolute power corrupts absolutely, because the human nature is a fallen one. You simply can't trust anyone in power who doesn't truly follow the Lord. That is why Obama is so untrustworthy, because he has lied about being a Christian; he isn't one. Whatever he is, he has a lying and deceitful nature.
Agree with Jon Stewart. Give up in thinking anything good will come out of this administration; it is obviously stacked by the NWO crowd. The treasury is run by goldman sachs. Many other departments are stacked with special interests and big business types. The entire thing is corrupt to its roots. One thing I know, we haven't even begun to be amazed at how screwed up it really is.

My biggest criticism regarding this whole "killing us softly" dialog is that it's always presented as a clear cut crime, there's an offender (media) and a victim (women).
While this is true at a very basic level I find it to be a very innocent approach. If you're going to be candid regarding this whole image issue then at the very least you have to ask yourself, what is my part in this, as an individual?
The answer in my opinion is a sad one, we perpetuate these concepts, we reward this behavior, not just the media, not just men or women, almost all of us. In the company of most women I know I find myself to be (sadly) more of a feminist than they all are combined. Sure, they're quick to fire criticisms about these issues, but when it comes to their part in playing the role that mainstream media and history has defined for them as women they are usually not only content in abiding but find satisfaction in perpetuating these anachronistic concepts.

What I'm basically trying to say is that this issue, to me, is very similar to the whole fast-food industry problem. The industry provides fast, cheap and extremely unhealthy food. People consume, then they rage about having been harmed by these companies. Of course there's an argument to be made against these companies, but to view yourself as a helpless victim is just immature. What are you doing to denounce these concepts? To say, as an individual, I refuse to abide, I refuse to play along, I refuse to eat up what is served to me just because it's being served.
We are not helpless. We need to understand the part we play in a capitalist consumer-driven society, not just cry out as victims.

The saddest thing about this is that even this pile of poo poo her sorry excuse for a brain managed to come up with and convince itself is brilliant is nothing new, it's been done before (unfortunately). I have a better idea, we round up girls like you, introduce them to prostitution and explain to them they would be better serving mankind by whoring themselves out than by trying to be creative, I can't claim pimping is a concept I came up with but at least we know it works.

Also, why do people "mercy-clap"? Wouldn't it be better to shatter her tiny world by letting her know she's retarded than to encourage her to spread her idiocy and bask in it?

Brilliance, yea, that's one way of describing it. Like, I don't wanna sound like an ass I'm just wondering which part of that you found good? the song? the video? both?

that had a serious "She puts the lotion on her skin or else she gets the hose again" vibe to it.

awesome stuff

Yea, and on that note, this may be just the alcohol talking but, shiny, I'm feeling sexually experimental, wanna get it on?

It's very appropriate that you would bring this point up in a Hitchens thread. I can't speak for the rest of the atheists here but, for myself, this isn't about tolerance. I don't tolerate religious faith, much like I don't any other number of things I find completely and utterly ridiculous. What I do tolerate is you (as an example, you, or shiny, or whoever represents those beliefs). I tolerate your right to believe that nonsense, I tolerate your right to live your life according to that nonsense and teach that nonsense to your children, but I will never tolerate the actual nonsense, I will never stop calling bullshit on that nonsense.

Much like you would probably never tolerate, say, I dunno, racism? (hopefully). The racist has every right to be racist and has every right to live his life in peace as a racist, that doesn't mean we shouldn't stomp our feet in rage at the garbage that pours through his mouth. That is the basis of the pursuit of knowledge, asking a forward thinking person to intellectually accept religious belief would be like asking a grown man to accept that sometimes babies come from storks.

>> ^Morganth:

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:

... Like any other slack jawed yokel idiot ... All those who delight in wickedness will be punished for it ... People with no scruples or charity, characterized mainly by their lack of tolerance and narrow mindedness ... it's an ugly thing you do, to yourself and to others. It's a shittier world that you create. So don't be surprised when you get shit in return.

Projecting much? It is you who think you know it all. It is you who judge others. It is you who defines wickedness and sin to match what you wish to be true.
And most importantly, it is you who lack tolerance. I will keep my beliefs to myself just as soon as all you nutjob faithers stop judging my life and stop telling me that you are better than me because you know all the rules.
Faith. The belief in something without any evidence. No proof, no truth! Yet you people throw the word "truth" around like you own it. Go read that ancient, human-penned book you cherry pick quotes from. I did. And that's why I'm no longer a believer. Thank god.


What you're describing has nothing to do with faith. Faith is not "belief in something without any evidence." Faith is trust, the act of being true to something, loyalty. You have faith in a chair when you choose to sit on it - faith that it will hold you. You are faithful to your spouse when you remain true to your marriage vows. Furthermore, faith is built on experience, not blindness. You have faith in the stability of a chair because of your past experience with chairs - they have proven themselves to have the capability of holding you. You have faith in your spouse that he/she will remain true to you because of the history of your relationship together. You do not put your faith in a stranger.

And you think you have tolerance?? Tolerance applies to those who have beliefs different from your own, not the same(Here's a hint: how you treat people like shinyblurry shows how tolerant or intolerant you are).

"I will keep my believes to myself just as soon as all you nutjob faithers stop judging my life..." Do you see what you don't here? Judging someone as being a nutjob for believing in God and expressing an opposing opinion here on the sift, as opposed to all the sane, rational, non-nutjobs who are people that don't believe in God. Would you care to be the pot or the kettle this time?

Shiny, lets assume for a moment that you're right, there is an after life, mr. god will judge us when we die and send us to the corner of shame and eternal hellfire to think about what we've done.

Fine, so I guess we can at least agree on one thing: until that day comes I will actually live, embrace life with all its temptation and unholiness, indulge the devil's ways and blaspheme my ass off, live, love, fuck, drink, hate, whatever the fuck I can get away with. And you, you sad little person, when that day comes you'll be as sad as you are today, you and the countless others who are an affront to life it self. And y'know what? I'll pick hellfire with the likes of Hitchens over your divine garden of twats any day.

I love that this comment didn't bring on a horde of angry replies, unfortunately when I apply this rhetoric here in Israel, to "my people"'s history, the response is not a positive one to say the least. In a few sentences you summed up my feelings for my people's sense of identity and national pride, they are the product of decades of indoctrination the follows that motto of "never forgetting", and it is a shame.

>> ^raverman:

Not to be a prick...
...but "Never Forget" is a little subjective. And it get's abused and misused.
Never forget the loved ones that were lost for nothing? People don't forget loved ones. And it's healthier to grieve and move forward to rebuild your life.
Often it gets used as an emotional way to manipulate people into accepting that the emerging police state is "necessary and unavoidable".

Funny, I was watching that and all I could think about was; I wonder how Anna got her job

/runs /hides

That could all be very well true, but it's not for me or you to decide, just for him. I defend his right as an adult to choose these things, choose them without having the entire world tell him it's not a choice that he made but a succumbing to some mental illness. If he leaves his children fatherless, I still would.

I didn't mean he was necessarily in control of them, that's why I also said some embrace their addictions. It's the complete unwillingness of other people to accept the fact an adult can make that choice that bothers me. If he had no wife? No children? Would his habits be acceptable then? It's not easy to admit but many find more solace in hedonistic pursuits than they do in what is generally accepted as healthy/productive/"good". And even when they "want" to quit, don't make the mistake of thinking that when they don't it's not at all the product of rational thought. Drugs are wonderful, they can take all your cares away, they can make you experience things you would be unable to without them. A user uses first and foremost because he enjoys using, accepting that is healthier than not.

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^NinjaInHeat:
Rocknroll Charlie boy. The only thing that bothers me about this interview is how much disdain this conforming bitch has for hedonism, that and the fact that he agreed to entertain this retarded interview in the first place, he should know better. Some people like to enjoy life, some people can't grasp that notion. I like how black and white "normal" people think the mind of a drug user is. As if when one is using he is immediately completely physically addicted, he is sick and needs help, he does everything not out of choice but as a result of having a sick mind. Some people choose to take drugs, some people manage their addictions and even embrace them to certain extents. If you don't understand that that's fine, no one asks you to understand, just accept.

Really? You seem to think that not being 'normal' is a noble thing, and it is. To be unique, different, original is great. But Charlie is not any of these things. He is just another person who has physiological issues and has chosen drugs and alcohol to treat them.
And now he has had an 'epiphany' and sees everything so clearly, and has fixed his own brain. Yeah, well, I'm sure he thinks he has at the moment, but will you be championing him in the near future when he has crashed back to reality and has discovered that what he thought was the answer to life, the universe and everything was bullshit, and that he will have to self medicate again and then, whoops, he's dead, he died via suicide or accidental overdose or combination of things that should never be combined?
Will you still be championing him then? When he has left his kids with no father? When they will forever look to their dad as a fuckup who didn't get the help he needed when he should have?
HE has not got his addiction under control, he has problems, they will end his life very early. That is not to be applauded.

Rocknroll Charlie boy. The only thing that bothers me about this interview is how much disdain this conforming bitch has for hedonism, that and the fact that he agreed to entertain this retarded interview in the first place, he should know better. Some people like to enjoy life, some people can't grasp that notion. I like how black and white "normal" people think the mind of a drug user is. As if when one is using he is immediately completely physically addicted, he is sick and needs help, he does everything not out of choice but as a result of having a sick mind. Some people choose to take drugs, some people manage their addictions and even embrace them to certain extents. If you don't understand that that's fine, no one asks you to understand, just accept.