With Christo-Judaism religion as an ideaology which has been guiding western humanity for the last 1500 years, it absolutely must be open to the kind of scrutiny and truth telling that thankfully we've been seeing these last few years.

Science and materialism also have to be examined and questioned as ideaologies guiding global cultures.

Major religions are not only incompatible with each other, they are also incompatible with science and rationalism. So whichever school of thought you happen to follow, you will automatically be in conflict with all the others.

Truth is, nobody has a fucking clue what's going on. Not religion, not scientists, not our leaders, not mystics, none of these people can tell you what's really going on or guide you in any better direction than you can guide yourself.

The Bible was written by God
Because God wrote the Bible it is infallible.
If you question the infallibility of the Bible you are a heretic and not worth hearing

(This was written in satirical manner, please take it as such)

>> ^Irishman:
Truth is, nobody has a fucking clue what's going on. Not religion, not scientists, not our leaders, not mystics, none of these people can tell you what's really going on or guide you in any better direction than you can guide yourself.


This is just not true. If you are looking for a grand answer of everything, then yes, no one knows that, but science have answered many, many questions that we can verify ourselves. Mystics guess, religion guesses and even science guesses, but science tests the guess and if it shows to be wrong it is cast aside.

Your other point on "no one knows better than yourself" is one I also disagree with. There are many, many times when a given individual does not know what is right for him or her. If you think it's the right thing to fly off a building, that is not necessarily right.

"The Bible was written by God
Because God wrote the Bible it is infallible.
If you question the infallibility of the Bible you are a heretic and not worth hearing"

Actually, the majority of the Bible was written by men,with a few being written by women. The "Bible" as we know it wasn't even a collaborative "book" until Constantine and his lackeys "organised" the various books into the bible, deciding what works would be included and what works would be left out depending on how they supported the absolute authority of the "church". Of course, then King James once again had the Bible "re-translated", further editing the content to suit the absolute authority of the Church, the King, and Men in general. It has been, and always will be a book written by human beings, for the sake of control. No more, no less. To say that "God wrote it" is not only a grossly false assumption, it's flat out wrong. Not to mention the claim of infallibility...

As for the spanking mentioned in the video, what the f*ck do you think is wrong with 90% of the youth today? Lack of discipline, pure and simple.

Sam Harris is clueless and clearly a forerunner of the Beast. I pity people like Mr. Harris that will lead others to destruction, his will be the greater damnation. No one that has read the Scriptures with a open prayerful mind, and knowledge of their own need of salvation, could come to those ignorant conclusions.

Anyone who reads the Bible should know 2nd Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Then "Rightly Dividing" the word of God we understand that Scripture is given to us THOUGH the writings of holy men INSPIRED BY God. There is no conflict, the Bible was written by men and still is the Holy Word of God.

>> ^Dadeeo:
Sam Harris is clueless and clearly a forerunner of the Beast. I pity people like Mr. Harris that will lead others to destruction, his will be the greater damnation. No one that has read the Scriptures with a open prayerful mind, and knowledge of their own need of salvation, could come to those ignorant conclusions.


What you mean is no one who believes what they read in the bible would come to those conclusions. Well duh.

I love the part about damnation! Do it again!

So... the moral authority for all of life is "ethical intuitions"? Would not those fail us as well? Sam Harris presupposes (without discussion) that men are basically, fundamentally good and that men will define and keep the proper moral standards based on their own "ethical intuitions". How does Sam Harris know that it is wrong to "paddle children" (as his diatribe implies)? Is it wrong to paddle children because the majority of people feel it is against their "ethical intuitions"? Do we need a poll to determine the morality of such events? How would such moral standards ever change over time if there is no set standard to which we may return, and the only 'standard' is current popular opinion? He fails to realize that the only reason he can even determine that it is -allegedly- wrong to stone certain individuals because of the Bible's commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." The true problem Harris has is understanding the apparent contradictions in the Bible. Rather than seeking a greater understanding of these ostensibly conflicting Biblical mandates, he chooses to ridicule all religious positions without clarifying or even considering his own position. His position is, in fact, untenable.

*books

Adding video to channels (Books) - requested by schmawy.

>> ^Blocky:
The Bible was written by God
Because God wrote the Bible it is infallible.
If you question the infallibility of the Bible you are a heretic and not worth hearing


And "God" was created by Man. Your point?

My elementary school in Illinois years ago had a 'paddle'. It hung up on the wall in the Pricinpal's office. Belive me.. it WAS used. I saw ELEMENTARY aged kids coming out of there holding on to their rear ends, red faced, and crying.

That paddle was a BIG piece of wood. It looked like a baseball bat, but instead of round like a bat, it had a large-wide flat surface. A piece of furniture essentially. The thing was finely crafted, and lacquered. Insane.

In reply to this comment by Dadeeo:
Sam Harris is clueless and clearly a forerunner of the Beast.

But we already know that. Why you be walkin' all up in our coven tryin' to start shit?

Jesus iz Lord, ya'll! Preech it frum teh rooftpos adn wurshup his Holey Nam!

I'm John McCain, and I approved this message.

>> ^Dadeeo:
Sam Harris is clueless and clearly a forerunner of the Beast. I pity people like Mr. Harris that will lead others to destruction, his will be the greater damnation. No one that has read the Scriptures with a open prayerful mind, and knowledge of their own need of salvation, could come to those ignorant conclusions.
Anyone who reads the Bible should know 2nd Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Then "Rightly Dividing" the word of God we understand that Scripture is given to us THOUGH the writings of holy men INSPIRED BY God. There is no conflict, the Bible was written by men and still is the Holy Word of God.


I fail to see how this affects anything in the video.

The beginning of the video is talking about how you used to stone women who weren't vigrins on their wedding night, Gays, and children that talked back.

You follow a book that from your own words has been written by men who were inspired by god, and he's telling us to kill people?

You clearly aren't aware of how people stand on the sift, you may feel more comfortable on godtube.

See, to me, if there truly is a higher power that created life, he wouldn't have made mistakes. He wouldn't have made people who enjoy the company of the same sex by accident, he wouldn't have given children free will to talk back to their parents, and he certainly wouldn't have given women the ability to have sex before they were married. See, had god not wanted things to be that way, he wouldn't have made them that way.

But, something just tells me that the all-powerfull being, doesn't make mistakes.

>> ^Dadeeo:
...a open prayerful mind...

Yet another religous oxymoron. Once you start being prayerful, your mind closes like the door on a gas chamber. Go bleet elsewhere, sheep.

>> ^Sniper007:
So... the moral authority for all of life is "ethical intuitions"? Would not those fail us as well? Sam Harris presupposes (without discussion) that men are basically, fundamentally good and that men will define and keep the proper moral standards based on their own "ethical intuitions". How does Sam Harris know that it is wrong to "paddle children" (as his diatribe implies)? Is it wrong to paddle children because the majority of people feel it is against their "ethical intuitions"? Do we need a poll to determine the morality of such events? How would such moral standards ever change over time if there is no set standard to which we may return, and the only 'standard' is current popular opinion? He fails to realize that the only reason he can even determine that it is -allegedly- wrong to stone certain individuals because of the Bible's commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." The true problem Harris has is understanding the apparent contradictions in the Bible. Rather than seeking a greater understanding of these ostensibly conflicting Biblical mandates, he chooses to ridicule all religious positions without clarifying or even considering his own position. His position is, in fact, untenable.


So, you're suggesting you would like the school of your children to whack them in the butt with a paddle? I'm sure glad you weren't my parent. I'm not wholly against the odd smack FROM A PARENT when the situation warrants it, but:
a) It should be done in extreme moderation and only in extreme cases where the child really, really needs to remember how bad the thing they did was.
&
b) It is the PARENT'S choice, in any given moment. I would never want some detached teacher deciding that some puny 'wrong' deserved getting their butt whacked with a paddle. Give them detention, make them write out lines, make them apologize to whoever they did the wrong to, but do not inflict physical harm on my child.

I don't understand how you're trying to shoot him down either? What are you trying to say is the source of our ethical decisions? Are you saying, "well, some people a long time ago wrote down these things, so let's just follow them blindly because... well, we'd rather not have to think about or discuss it ourselves, that requires too much damn thought, and we have better things to do, like bashing gays." Or are you saying "We should seek to better pick and chose which parts of the bible to believe in?" Because if you are, how is that any better than starting with a blank slate? If you're going to discuss and work out what parts out of a text you are going to follow, then why even have the damn thing in the first place?

And if you're going to follow it fully then you're going to be completely contradictory and also an incredibly violent person. (Check out this sift to see the problems with trying to actually follow the bible for a year)

You seem so against norms changing over time, so you are, then, FOR slavery? FOR stoning to death for a myriad of crimes? Really, your position is by FAR the more untenable.

Amen brother!

10 As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue.
11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message (regarding messiah) with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
-Acts 17:10-11

So few people know so little of what the bible actually says in the original hebrew and greek in which it was written. Sam Harris sounds like one of 'em. He's maybe read thru the cliff notes on a few books, then cherry picked the parts that agree with his thesis. Basically he's never studied the whole of scripture.

Neither have most christians, they just believe whatever bigoted nonsense someone tells them without examining the scripture personally to see if it's true.

>> ^Blocky:
The Bible was written by God
Because God wrote the Bible it is infallible.
If you question the infallibility of the Bible you are a heretic and not worth hearing


don't forget the bible (the various writings that were later collected by religious leaders mind you, some accepted, some not accepted) was never collected in written form for at least 2 generations

for 2 generations, the stories making up the bible were passed down PREDOMINANTLY through story telling, with no written version existing... and we are expected to believe those are the actual words according to God

hmmm, ever played that childhood game where you sit in a circle and whisper in the person's ear next to you a sentence... and get a kick of how it changes by the time it makes it around the circle 1x???

He looks like Seth Green

>> ^Sniper007:
He fails to realize that the only reason he can even determine that it is -allegedly- wrong to stone certain individuals because of the Bible's commandment, "Thou shalt not kill."


You just fail.

Your above statement displays an ignorance, arrogance and outright stupidity that quite frankly sickens me, and I'm not quite sure if I should laugh or cry, or bang my head against sharp objects.

How did the jews get to Mount Sinai in the first place? Where they, along with every other hominid and animal, for 3.5 billion years under the impression that murder and thieving was all OK? How come animals ever express kindness and fellowship to their kin, and even other kin?

You've got alot left to explain, and, more importantly, a lot left to read. Try picking up some books on morality, evolution, consciousness and human society. Not to mention a bit of history and general knowledge.

For the shake of clarity, my original post was written in a sarcastic manner. Atheist ahoy!

>> ^Dadeeo:
Anyone who reads the Bible should know 2nd Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Then "Rightly Dividing" the word of God we understand that Scripture is given to us THOUGH the writings of holy men INSPIRED BY God. There is no conflict, the Bible was written by men and still is the Holy Word of God.


The last part is the point that drives me insane when discussing Evolution vs Creationism. If The bible was written by men and should be interpreted with an "open prayerful mind", why is the supposed science and natural history in it all fact?

How can some parts to be interpreted, while others to be taught as fact with no rhyme or reason.

he was hilarious in tropic thunder.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
How did the jews get to Mount Sinai in the first place? Where they, along with every other hominid and animal, for 3.5 billion years under the impression that murder and thieving was all OK? How come animals ever express kindness and fellowship to their kin, and even other kin?


Those second two sentences don't make sense.

Those second two sentences don't make sense.

How exactly? I was responding to sniper007's claim that :

[Sam Harris] fails to realize that the only reason he can even determine that it is -allegedly- wrong to stone certain individuals because of the Bible's commandment, "Thou shalt not kill."

My point was that according to this absurd logic, no one prior to God's handing out the ten commandments (At Mount Sinai, to the Jews) could know that it was wrong to kill and steal, because God hadn't actually told anyone yet. In the second sentence I ask how other animals, who cant read stone tablets or bibles, can still avoid being murderers and thieves, and even express kindness and fellowship towards others.

to Dadeeo:

Are you trolling?

I love the way some bozos downvote comments because they don't agree with the opinions therein.

>> ^pavel_one:
I love the way some bozos downvote comments because they don't agree with the opinions therein.


That's why it's there, mate.

In other words, it's pure fiction.

>> ^Dadeeo:
Sam Harris is clueless and clearly a forerunner of the Beast. I pity people like Mr. Harris that will lead others to destruction, his will be the greater damnation. No one that has read the Scriptures with a open prayerful mind, and knowledge of their own need of salvation, could come to those ignorant conclusions.
Anyone who reads the Bible should know 2nd Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Then "Rightly Dividing" the word of God we understand that Scripture is given to us THOUGH the writings of holy men INSPIRED BY God. There is no conflict, the Bible was written by men and still is the Holy Word of God.

If this is true, then I need to start writing my version of the Bible in which God is a benevolent Creator who doesn't send his children to hell for simply not believing in him. Maybe I'll add some stonings and incest, though, just to make it seem close to the real Bible.

>> ^Dadeeo:
There is no conflict, the Bible was written by men and still is the Holy Word of God.

My favorite part of this highly moral book upon which we should all base our lives is the story of Lot's daughters getting their father drunk and raping him so they'd both get pregnant.

Or when Onan is told by god to impregnate his sister-in-law, but at the last moment he hesitates and "spills his seed on the ground." Which naturally makes God strike him dead on the spot.

Or when Uzziah, remembering that the Ark of the Covenant is not allowed to touch the ground, reaches up to steady it when a Levite carrier falls, and Uzziah is naturally struck dead by God on the spot, because not only is the ark not allowed to touch the ground, but man cannot touch it, either.

Or in the New Testament, after Jesus died, when Ananias and Sapphira lie about their income and the taxes they owed the fledgling church, and are naturally struck dead by God on the spot.

Must I continue? Because I can, if it's necessary. Which should speak volumes about this highly-touted collection of misogynist, incestual, violent and un-scientific drivel concocted by forty men living in ancient times when women and slaves were not humans, when children were to be seen and not heard, when kings massacred thousands under heavenly guidance, when mythology reigned in the minds of uneducated masses and when questioning the goals and directives of your supreme deity caused your immediate death by those who were your brothers and your kin.

No matter who wrote the Bible, either God or man, it speaks to the character of both.

I think Dawkins calls it altruism. God didn't create that. Nature nurtures itself, until it doesn't.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
>> ^Sniper007:
He fails to realize that the only reason he can even determine that it is -allegedly- wrong to stone certain individuals because of the Bible's commandment, "Thou shalt not kill."

You just fail.
Your above statement displays an ignorance, arrogance and outright stupidity that quite frankly sickens me, and I'm not quite sure if I should laugh or cry, or bang my head against sharp objects.
How did the jews get to Mount Sinai in the first place? Where they, along with every other hominid and animal, for 3.5 billion years under the impression that murder and thieving was all OK? How come animals ever express kindness and fellowship to their kin, and even other kin?
You've got alot left to explain, and, more importantly, a lot left to read. Try picking up some books on morality, evolution, consciousness and human society. Not to mention a bit of history and general knowledge.

This kiddo has no idea what he's talking about.

Yet another example of someone taking the Bible COMPLETELY out of context. It hurts my brain to listen to this silliness.

Can you expand tedbater? How is he taking the Bible completely out of context?

in 2008, the bible is out of context.

>> ^tedbater:
This kiddo has no idea what he's talking about.
Yet another example of someone taking the Bible COMPLETELY out of context. It hurts my brain to listen to this silliness.



Srsly, enlighten us as to which parts he's taking out of context. Then point out where thinker247 is taking the Bible out of context, he mentions several things just two posts up from yours. All us heathens would appreciate it a whole heck of a lot.

How is he taking the Bible completely out of context?

Exactly, it helps to provide the explanation, or the context, if you have to.

Take for example something that frequently IS taken out of context (by creationists) Darwin, this bit being one of their favourites:

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.

This quote IS taken out of its context, but it would be insufficient of someone defending Darwin or Darwinism to simply yell "OUT OF CONTEXT!!!" unless we explain how. The above quote is the start of a chapter where Darwin actually EXPLAINS how the eye could have evolved. In context, the quote is merely a set-up, written to draw the reader in, only to explain how the un-intuitive is actually the case.

By contrast, take Sam Harris mention of slavery, there isnt a single chapter or verse in the entire bible that condemns slavery. In a book that is looked as a superb moral guide by billions of people, how is that "taking things COMPLETELY out of context"? Is there a way to hold the bible, perhaps at a certain angle, so that when you read it it clearly condemns the practice of slavery?

>> ^spoco2:
>> crimes? Really, your position is by FAR the more untenable.


So yes paddling works, until the child can fight back.

There is no reason to paddle, there is reason to reason with children, violence only begets violence. Stimulus and response, you kick a dog so many times it will bite you back, and all I can say is you deserved it. So don't kick the dog. Ya dig?

"VINCENT
Just drive.
(beat)
They project onto you their flaws,
what they don't like about themselves,
their lives, whatever. And then they
rank on you, instead...

MAX
How do you know?

VINCENT
I had a father like that.

MAX
Mothers are worse.

VINCENT *
Mine died when I was one. *

MAX
What happened?

VINCENT
He hated whatever I did. Got drunk.
Beat me up all the time.

MAX
Then what?

VINCENT
(intimate)
I killed him. I was 12.
(MORE)

(CONTINUED)

10/4/03 MM revs. (blue) 63A.
46 CONTINUED: (2) 46

VINCENT (CONT'D)
He was the first.
(off Max's look)
I'm kidding. He died of liver cancer.
" - quoted from http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Collateral.html

Point is you never know when as a parent you could cause a problem with a child, you don't beat them you punish them in other ways. But most of the time its because they are defiant of you, and they are trying to create a niche for themselves int he family unit, what do you expect. Its the nature of life, make a niche or die.


PS: Some one said something about paddling people, had to input.

It's depressing to watch atheists who don't really know what they're talking about try to do theology. (I hang out on the IIDB forums, so I see it all the time.)

He claims the laws in Leviticus are "explicit directions for killing people", when in fact there's no evidence any kid was ever killed for talking back to his parents. The error is in trying to literally interpret everything, which is what fundamentalists try to do. To any atheist, I'd recommend reading the Pope's book on Jesus instead to gain a better understanding of what mainstream Christians believe. I'm a protestant, but it's a very brilliant, very well thought out book which explains the difference between casuistic law and general principles in the OT, as well as many other things.

On the issue of morality without Christianity, what he says without saying, is that he can continue to act according to our current set of cultural and ethical norms without being a Christian. Of course he can - it's trivially easy to adopt the norms of a dominant cultural impulse. It's much harder to do what the abolitionists did -- which was to speak out against cultural norms, and risk being killed or branded a lunatic for standing up for something that you believe is right, due to an expanded sense of morality derived from the moral precepts in the Bible.

That's the sort of stuff atheists can't do. Or at least, not very well. All the liberal traditions that atheists have adopted under the banner of "Humanism" were mainly the result of Christian philosophers writing in the Enlightenment era. Religion shouldn't be the basis for war? Christian Enlightenment philosophy. Natural Rights? Human dignity? Separation of Church and State? All of these are concepts which atheists have coopted as their own while pretending that they invented it, and Christians stand opposed to it.

>> ^ShakaUVM:
That's the sort of stuff atheists can't do. Or at least, not very well. All the liberal traditions that atheists have adopted under the banner of "Humanism" were mainly the result of Christian philosophers writing in the Enlightenment era. Religion shouldn't be the basis for war? Christian Enlightenment philosophy. Natural Rights? Human dignity? Separation of Church and State? All of these are concepts which atheists have coopted as their own while pretending that they invented it, and Christians stand opposed to it.


I'd love to read the sources you got some of that information from.
Particularly the "Seperation of Church and State" bit. Considering almost all the founding fathers of the U.S. were deists, not theists.

as a little experiment, try living a day as an atheist

>> Particularly the "Seperation of Church and State" bit.

For example, John Locke's essay Concerning Human Understanding, his Two Treatises on Government, and his Empiricism in general were all touching on the subject of how religion and government should interact. In essence, he was dubious of revelation as being a grounds for evidence, since two people could have disagreeing revelations, which made an especially bad grounds for government. He also rejected rather fully the divine right theory of government.

Of course, nowadays we see these ideas as being firmly atheist ones, but they're basically inherited from the Enlightenment. Fundamentalist Christianity, of course, stems from a charismatic tradition rather than an intellectual tradition (like the Lutheran and Catholic churches) so they reject claims like this... but it would be a mistake to confuse Fundies with Christianity in general (though atheists often do -- it's their favorite straw man).

When it comes to finding enlightenment, there is no atheism and there is no religion; there is only the unadulterated truth. John Locke was a Puritan by birth, but only in name. The man who believed in tabula rasa would not have considered himself a Christian by birth. He was a philosopher, as is any member of mankind who understands that religious belief and the quest for enlightenment do not always converge, nor do they need such a meeting. Truth comes in many shapes, but it is only one truth. So the Puritan, John Locke, and the atheist that writes this both have a common goal--knowledge unconstrained by belief.

>> ^ShakaUVM:
All the liberal traditions that atheists have adopted under the banner of "Humanism" were mainly the result of Christian philosophers writing in the Enlightenment era.

hallelujah! the new gospel of universalism has come at last. Speak the name of reason and thou shalt be saved...

God is reason!
Reason is God!

YO, kulpims!
You do know Zizek, in one of his lectures, trashes Sam Harris for condoning torture in one of his books?

I think this is the lecture
http://www.videosift.com/search?q=why+only+an+atheist

Or are you just procrastinating?

N.B.
(there really should be a cyclops
smiley available, with whom can I speak about this? Take me to the king of the internet! I wish an audience with his majesty!)

For ShakaUVM

"De Monarchia (pronounced Monàrchia) is a treatise on secular and religious power by Dante Alighieri. With this Latin text, the poet intervened in one of the most controversial subjects of his period: the relationship between secular authority (represented by the Holy Roman Emperor) and religious authority (represented by the Pope). Dante's point of view is known on this problem, since during his political activity he had fought to defend the autonomy of the city-government of Florence from the temporal demands of pope Boniface VIII."

Right.

My point is that many of the "atheist" beliefs of today, especially "Religion shouldn't be a reason to kill someone" and "Religion should not be a way to guide government policy", which are ideas that people like Sam Harris use as a bludgeon against Christians, were themselves the results of Christians looking at how the world was going, applying Christian principles to them, and making changes for the better.

It's annoying to see people like Sam Harris not only set themselves up as opposing "Christians" on points like this, but also portraying Christians as parochial retards while still claiming he can act like a perfectly good Christian without believing in God (but what's the point in acting like a Christian if you don't believe in God?).

It's a hideously stupid and self-contradictory stance to take.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by radx.