whenever I see new advances in prosthetic technology I can only say this:

How many documented miracles are there in which a person's limb was instantly and magically regrown by mythological beings?

Gods can't make your lost limbs grow again. Science and technology are certainly doing their part though.

>> ^Sagemind:

Emotions, hate and everything negative create a killer - thereby emotion, forgiveness and love shall set him free.
...And by free, I mean free to remorse and begin a process of feeling what it is to be human again.
Since negative forces create a killer, condemnation and negativity will never penetrate to hard shell he has around him. The unexpected realization that someone is reaching out, someone you expect only condemnation from can be the chisels to start the first crack of remorse and acceptance that maybe someone out there cares.


Very well put.

He is so used to negative feedback from people, it probably just fuels how he validates his actions. It is the unexpected act of kindness that he was not prepared for.

When I see someone who is sick, I see a symptom of that illness. When I see a member of society acting in this fashion I see a symptom of a social illness. We are all responsible for our own actions, don't get me wrong. However I wonder if there was any point in this man's upbringing where something could have been done differently so that he wouldn't have brought so much pain to others.

On a side note I have a ton of respect (despite his tendency towards believing in mythology) for a man who can forgive another for such a devastating act of cruelty.

"Amish Man Rides in a Car, Changes His Life"...
"Amish Man Drinks Latte, Life Forever Altered"...
"Amish Man Shaves Beard, Life Changed Again"...
"Amish Man Masturbates, Life Definitely Changed"...

if you really want to change your life, stop believing in an idiotic, self-serving book of tall tales and mythology.

I found these to be presumptuous. They do happen to some people, maybe even most people, but they don’t happen to all. Many people of no religion, and despite immense tragedies, live happy and fulfilling lives, and feel happy and fulfilled on their death beds. I’d further argue that people with religious faith also get depressed. I suspect you’d counter that anyone who is depressed has insincere faith. That seems tautological to me, but either way, it’s moot, for now.

Well, the central argument of the video is that life without God is meaningless. You've already agreed with that point, so the argument now seems to be is whether someone can be happy and fulfilled with a meaningless life. I'm sure there are plenty of people who weren't believers who died happily in ignorance of the truth, but the question is, did they understand that their life was meaningless? I doubt it. It is not something that many people are able to face, and even if they could, they certainly don't live that way. In some way or another, they are deluding themselves and living as if their life does have meaning.

Some people do, at least in part. It’s a lot more complex than just a lack of hope though. For some people it’s due to a tragedy, or overwhelming cognitive dissonance, or it’s simply chemical, and has no correlation with anything in their lives at all. Maybe I’m nitpicking. I just want to make clear that depression is a mental disorder and is not a synonym for, "lack of hope because I don’t have God in my life."

Hope is what keeps people going. Without hope, you are just going through the motions. When you have hope and lose it, it is emotionally devastating. A person without any hope is a person most likely clinically depressed.

You can call depression a kind of mental disorder, and some people may be born without the right chemical receptors for instance, but most people are depressed because of a lack of hope. A person, for instance, who worked their whole life and lost their retirement in an afternoon, or a mom whose kids abandoned her to live in a nursing home. They are not mentally ill, they are simply facing the cold, stark reality of their situation.

Here you slipped into metaphysical talk that means nothing to me, full of judgemental words ("sick and depraved") and terms that I had just told you I don’t accept as objective concepts ("evil"). You also know that I don’t think there’s any hope in your Yahweh God since he’s a mythological character, so I’m not sure where that’s coming from.

The point being, that if there is no God then no one is in the drivers seat here on planet Earth. I would be surprised if the extreme fragility of our civilization escaped you. If you look at history, and you contrast it to what is going on today, you will find that the new is simply the old in different packaging. We're watching the exact same game show, simply on a grander and more dangerous scale. Humanity has never been closer to utterly destroying itself anytime in its history than it is today. I'm sure, like everything else in creation, you will attribute that to dumb luck. However, if you think everything is a numbers game, then sooner or later the odds say that cooler heads will not prevail and there will be a civilization annihilating calamity. The truth is, it is only the sovereign hand of God that is restraining this from happening.

The reason I made that comment about God is because of your comment about your depression. The reason you have that feeling that if you believed in God you wouldn't be depressed is because you know there is hope in God.

(Also, not that it’s critical to the discussion, but I’d like a reference for your poll about young people not knowing who Hitler was.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/29/half-german-teens-dont-know-hitler-dictator_n_163659 3.html

Now, about "bliss". I didn’t define what I meant by that, so you didn’t understand it. I’ll make up for that now. By “bliss”, I don’t mean immediate pleasure, or instant gratification, or fulfillment of a goal, or basically anything you mentioned. I do mean a great powerful feeling of being centred, being in tune, achieving self-fulfillment, overflowing joy, love, inner peace, elation, connection, lightness, "harmony", "rapture" or a feeling that many describe as "doing what I was born to do/meant to be doing" or "transcendent". It’s the kind of happy that boosts your immune system and makes people around you feel good about themselves as well. (The words in quotes aren’t words I tend to use myself—I’m employing them to help clarify the concept I’m talking about.)

If you understand now what I mean by "bliss" (as opposed to instant gratification, etc.), you’ll understand that people don’t follow their bliss and rape people, nor find inner peace by beating their wives, and so there’s no need to append any rules about not hurting. I can’t imagine how anybody’s bliss could ever include causing harm to other people, but I’ll even address that hypothetical, towards the end of this comment.

Thanks for the elaboration. I am familiar with the philosophy of Sam Harris, and I figured you were borrowing from him, but it is good to know where you stand. My original point, however, still stands. You say you can't imagine someone finding bliss in hurting people. Well, have you ever heard of psychopaths? They do indeed find their bliss in acquiring power and control and making other people miserable, and they feel absolutely no remorse for doing so.

You also say that you feel the best state of a human being is to be blissfully happy. I'm sure everyone will agree with you that feeling blissfully happy is good. However, why should we believe this is actually what good is?. Yes, it feels good to feel good, but this doesn't tell us why we *ought* to do anything. Maybe this is just incredibly selfish and the opposite of good, or somewhere in the middle is true, or maybe none of it. You give no actual reason (beyond arbitrary statements like that which makes the world better or worse) to equate feeling good with moral goodness. In a meaningless Universe, neither is there any basis for thinking that you have any moral duties. This leads me to some questions that you didn't actually address in the last post. Let me ask them again because they are central to this discussion:

In a meaningless Universe there is no actual right and wrong, so why shouldn't you just do whatever you want? Why waste your time trying to navigate some moral landscape that you don't even believe really exists? Why not just take what you can, when you can, before you lose the opportunity?

I'll also address some of your comments:

In all cases, whatever they did, it was because they were feeling bad about something, weren’t centred, and reacted from "lizard brain" instincts of individual survival rather than from human compassion

People do evil because they get carried away by their lusts and become enticed. You view this as some sort of ignorance, or automatic function. Not so. When a person is doing wrong, they are almost always entirely aware of this, but simply override their moral restraints with their desire to fulfill their lusts. People are responsible for the evil that they do, not society, environmental factors, their parents, or anything else.

Divine morality isn’t necessary. Having any collective understanding of what is good and what is bad is enough. For most of humanity’s existence, even up to now, there hasn’t been a clear standard. In patches of geography where there was one, it only applied well to that time and culture. Just as ordinary people supplanted kings and emperors as absolute leaders without society collapsing, and just as ordinary people supplanted religions are sole arbiters of the law without society collapsing, ordinary people can supplant religion as arbiter of what is good and what is bad as well, and society will continue not to collapse.

I've already agreed with you that we all have a God given conscience that tells us right from wrong. Therefore, we don't need to read the bible to know that it is wrong to murder or steal. However, what God has commanded is that we all repent and believe in the gospel. This is something you aren't going to intuitively understand without being told.

And better than a list of what’s good and what’s bad is a system that determines for us what’s good and what’s bad. I’ve seen one model that I like, delivered by Sam Harris. The most salient bit starts at about 10:00 and runs to around 27:30. If you don’t want to watch it now, I’ll summarise the most important ideas: For a moral code to have meaning, it has to apply to some form of consciousness – it cannot apply to rocks and dust. Then there’s the central point which requires you to imagine "the worst possible misery for everyone", and assume that this situation is "bad". "Good" is then defined in terms of moving people away from this "worst possible misery for everyone". That’s it. I recommend hearing it from Harris himself.

I am familiar with his system, to which I reiterate the point; what is the ground for associating moral evil with misery and moral good with "moving people away from misery". Where do you get moral duties in a meaningless Universe?

The three advantages that occur to me of this system over Yahweh’s morality are that it’s a simple system rather than a long intricate list, so it’s quick to teach, easy to absorb, understand and reference, hard to corrupt, and all-inclusive; there’s absolutely nothing random about it, so odd details like not being allowed to wear garments made from two different thread types won’t make it in and there’s nothing objectionable about it from the standpoint of people who just want to do the right thing; and it’s truly universal in that it applies equally well now as it would have in 4000 BC China, in 30 AD Mesopotamia, or will in 12 000 AD Mars, so it’s broadly acceptable too.

The morality that God gives can be summed up in two commandments: Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and all thy mind and all thy strength, and love thy neighbor as thyself. As Jesus told us:

Matthew 22:40

All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments

That's a very simple system. When you love God and other people everything else follows naturally.

Every act that is good makes things better for people. If an act makes the world worse, then it’s bad. Simple. Lots of generalities can be derived from it, like killing people is bad, respecting other people’s property is good, and there’d be no arbitrary crap about touching pig skin being bad or extra-marital sex being bad.

On the contrary, it's all arbitrary, because "what makes things better for people" or what "makes the world worse" is something determined by consensus. If everyone in the world agreed that torturing babies for fun made things better for people, it would be good in your view. If your moral system allows for this possibility, I think that's a sign its time to throw it away.

Even more generally, we clearly don’t require any god to tell us what’s good and what isn’t. We already have a conscience inside us that tells us what’s good and what isn’t regardless of laws. I know you believe that Yahweh made our conscience for us. Even if that were so, it doesn’t change the fact that if properly relied upon, a conscience precludes the need for an external set of laws. Any law that echoes what everyone naturally feels already is superfluous. Any law that contributes to human misery is morally wrong and deserves to be disregarded.

If this were true, there would be no need for courts, judges, prisons, or police officers. There are also laws which may make some people miserable but are necessary for the greater good.

You state that without a divine moral standard that exists outside our consciousness, there is no objective justice. This is true by definition. Without a true objective moral code, you further argue that nobody can condemn any action as bad without being hypocritical, so in effect, everything is permissible. This is not the case, however. Although the moral code I advocate isn’t "objective" in the sense that it exists beyond our consciousness, it is universal among humans. And if we’re only attempting to determine moral behaviour for humans, then a universally accepted standard among humans suffices, regardless of where we think it came from.

It doesn't suffice, though. Yes, we can both agree there is a universal morality among human beings. How is that fact supposed to serve as grounds to invent an arbitrary system of good and evil based on people following their bliss and avoiding misery? I could just easily reverse the two and say the existence of universal morality justifies that too. I could say that the existence of a universal morality justifies that we should all love eggplants and hate rutabagas. There is no logical connection here between the system you've created and universal morality.

If there is no objective morality, then nothing is really wrong. Any system you create in the end is a human invention, based on human interpretation, and agreed upon by human consensus. You still cannot get an ought from an is. Good could be defined as a world of people who love each other, or a world of people who love to eat children. What is wrong then is simply based on your personal preferences.

The arguments I make here don’t describe a perfect system. That’s wasn’t my intention. I believe they do, however, answer your concerns about non-objective morality being insufficient to guide humans.

I understand that this wasn't meant to be perfect. It has, however, raised more concerns than it answered.

>> ^messenger

@shinyblurry

Of what you said above in the first two paragraphs about the consequences of accepting meaninglessness as reality, just about all of it I fully agree with. For clarity, I’ll mark the exceptions:

the closer you are to death the less happy and hopeful you will become
and
Eventually, when enough tragedy happens to you, you will break down and the future will become more and more like a millstone around your neck.

I found these to be presumptuous. They do happen to some people, maybe even most people, but they don’t happen to all. Many people of no religion, and despite immense tragedies, live happy and fulfilling lives, and feel happy and fulfilled on their death beds. I’d further argue that people with religious faith also get depressed. I suspect you’d counter that anyone who is depressed has insincere faith. That seems tautological to me, but either way, it’s moot, for now.

Further, you comment that, "people become depressed because of a lack of hope."

Some people do, at least in part. It’s a lot more complex than just a lack of hope though. For some people it’s due to a tragedy, or overwhelming cognitive dissonance, or it’s simply chemical, and has no correlation with anything in their lives at all. Maybe I’m nitpicking. I just want to make clear that depression is a mental disorder and is not a synonym for, "lack of hope because I don’t have God in my life."

For all of our so-called progress, humanity is just as sick and depraved as it always has been. Evil is increasing, not decreasing, and mankinds destructive appetites will never be satiated. There is no hope in man, but there is in God. I think you know that.

Here you slipped into metaphysical talk that means nothing to me, full of judgemental words ("sick and depraved") and terms that I had just told you I don’t accept as objective concepts ("evil"). You also know that I don’t think there’s any hope in your Yahweh God since he’s a mythological character, so I’m not sure where that’s coming from.

(Also, not that it’s critical to the discussion, but I’d like a reference for your poll about young people not knowing who Hitler was.)

All that is to say I pretty much agree with your view of what meaninglessness implies, and if there’s any bits that you want to explore more, I’m all for it.

Now, about "bliss". I didn’t define what I meant by that, so you didn’t understand it. I’ll make up for that now. By “bliss”, I don’t mean immediate pleasure, or instant gratification, or fulfillment of a goal, or basically anything you mentioned. I do mean a great powerful feeling of being centred, being in tune, achieving self-fulfillment, overflowing joy, love, inner peace, elation, connection, lightness, "harmony", "rapture" or a feeling that many describe as "doing what I was born to do/meant to be doing" or "transcendent". It’s the kind of happy that boosts your immune system and makes people around you feel good about themselves as well. (The words in quotes aren’t words I tend to use myself—I’m employing them to help clarify the concept I’m talking about.)

If you understand now what I mean by "bliss" (as opposed to instant gratification, etc.), you’ll understand that people don’t follow their bliss and rape people, nor find inner peace by beating their wives, and so there’s no need to append any rules about not hurting. I can’t imagine how anybody’s bliss could ever include causing harm to other people, but I’ll even address that hypothetical, towards the end of this comment.

Lots of people do bad things to others and themselves, and later on, some may consider what they did was bad, or they might not. If they still think it was OK, it’s because they’ve used some kind of justification, like, "She did it to me first," "She was teasing me. What did she think would happen?" or, "He had it coming," or "I had no choice," And so forth. These are all rationalizations after the fact, justifications that allow them to still consider themselves as good people rather than change their behaviour or take responsibility for having done something wrong. These don’t address the real reason these people did these things. In all cases, whatever they did, it was because they were feeling bad about something, weren’t centred, and reacted from "lizard brain" instincts of individual survival rather than from human compassion.

I believe that the natural and best state for a human being to be is happy (and here again, I mean blissfully happy). Every bit of programming we have nudges us towards certain actions by rewarding us with feelings of happiness, or reduced misery. We only live once, so I would modify your description only slightly to, “taking what bliss you can when you can”.

Divine morality isn’t necessary. Having any collective understanding of what is good and what is bad is enough. For most of humanity’s existence, even up to now, there hasn’t been a clear standard. In patches of geography where there was one, it only applied well to that time and culture. Just as ordinary people supplanted kings and emperors as absolute leaders without society collapsing, and just as ordinary people supplanted religions are sole arbiters of the law without society collapsing, ordinary people can supplant religion as arbiter of what is good and what is bad as well, and society will continue not to collapse.

And better than a list of what’s good and what’s bad is a system that determines for us what’s good and what’s bad. I’ve seen one model that I like, delivered by Sam Harris. The most salient bit starts at about 10:00 and runs to around 27:30. If you don’t want to watch it now, I’ll summarise the most important ideas: For a moral code to have meaning, it has to apply to some form of consciousness – it cannot apply to rocks and dust. Then there’s the central point which requires you to imagine "the worst possible misery for everyone", and assume that this situation is "bad". "Good" is then defined in terms of moving people away from this "worst possible misery for everyone". That’s it. I recommend hearing it from Harris himself.

The three advantages that occur to me of this system over Yahweh’s morality are that it’s a simple system rather than a long intricate list, so it’s quick to teach, easy to absorb, understand and reference, hard to corrupt, and all-inclusive; there’s absolutely nothing random about it, so odd details like not being allowed to wear garments made from two different thread types won’t make it in and there’s nothing objectionable about it from the standpoint of people who just want to do the right thing; and it’s truly universal in that it applies equally well now as it would have in 4000 BC China, in 30 AD Mesopotamia, or will in 12 000 AD Mars, so it’s broadly acceptable too. Every act that is good makes things better for people. If an act makes the world worse, then it’s bad. Simple. Lots of generalities can be derived from it, like killing people is bad, respecting other people’s property is good, and there’d be no arbitrary crap about touching pig skin being bad or extra-marital sex being bad.

Even more generally, we clearly don’t require any god to tell us what’s good and what isn’t. We already have a conscience inside us that tells us what’s good and what isn’t regardless of laws. I know you believe that Yahweh made our conscience for us. Even if that were so, it doesn’t change the fact that if properly relied upon, a conscience precludes the need for an external set of laws. Any law that echoes what everyone naturally feels already is superfluous. Any law that contributes to human misery is morally wrong and deserves to be disregarded.

You state that without a divine moral standard that exists outside our consciousness, there is no objective justice. This is true by definition. Without a true objective moral code, you further argue that nobody can condemn any action as bad without being hypocritical, so in effect, everything is permissible. This is not the case, however. Although the moral code I advocate isn’t "objective" in the sense that it exists beyond our consciousness, it is universal among humans. And if we’re only attempting to determine moral behaviour for humans, then a universally accepted standard among humans suffices, regardless of where we think it came from.

The arguments I make here don’t describe a perfect system. That’s wasn’t my intention. I believe they do, however, answer your concerns about non-objective morality being insufficient to guide humans.

• because i've done pretty decent research on what they have to say and it's almost entirely and demonstrably horseshit (that's a scientific term)

• my agreeing with them isn't particularly important because what they say is commonly if not always outside their area of expertise (icke's area of expertise is football, chopra is technically a medical doctor, and haramein's is, well, nothing). because of this their understand of their "proof" is painfully poor and their conclusions from their proof is laughable. and as i like to say, even if they are right, the method that got them there was wrong (so to speak).

• they do seem to be crazy people who's insanity infects others. SO many people buy into this kind of wishful thinking and i think it's dangerous and damaging to the intellectual process and infrastructure we've spent so long building. it's baseless new age bullshit perpetrated by charlatans.

• babies and puppies are delicious, i don't know what's wrong with you.

• the blanket statement is due to most/all of these ideas having been completely discredited.

• i don't care what you call yourself or them but they are saying things that are untrue. if they were just making up a new mythology that didn't try to have any basis in science or facts then i wouldn't care but they pretend that certain theories mean things when they don't understand the theories in the first place.

• it can be discussed but in that discussion, like this one, it can be dismissed pretty quickly.

• i don't know anything about your "faith" so i can't really comment on it but if you're telling people your faith is an objective truth then we have a problem.


to be clear, i have seen the movie. i know who this kid is and i've seen his other movies (one i liked). just because he spent a lot of money on his informal research does give credence to said research. by volume, i could probably find more information on this type of nonsense than the science they're supposedly basing these ideas on. AKA there is SO much of this garbage out there.



>> ^enoch:

>> ^kir_mokum:
anything that takes deepak chopra, nassim haramein, and david icke seriously is not worth paying attention to.

i wasnt going to comment but curiosity has gotten the better of me.
why would you state that with such authority?
because you disagree with those people?
find their theories to be suspect?
are they crazy people whose insanity may infect others?
do they eat babies and kick puppies?
why the blanket dismissal?
because one is a spiritualist who has a different way of approaching the human condition?
or that another has wild conspiratorial theories?
does that invalidate them from participating in discussions on what we should do?
and if that is the case..
what about me?
i am a man of faith.everything i do and say is born from my faith.
yet the form my faith takes would make me an apostate and i would have been executed only a few hundred years ago.
does me being a man a faith invalidate my opinions?
the man who made this movie is from the gamble family.the proctor and gamble family.
he spent his wealth on researching and discovery and made a movie revealing his conclusions and possible solutions.
the movie has a very humanist philosophy.
and he uses many many people to help express what he sees as an end game with global elite to control us.chopra and icke are only one of many.
i guess i just dont understand absolutist thinking.
chopra and icke?
well it must be about a. b. or c. and therefore should be ignored.
that just seems so.......limiting......to me.
i found some of the claims in the movie to be questionable and other things i agreed with wholeheartedly,but i have to give gamble credit for putting his ideas out there.
that takes balls.

When I was younger, they had a saying: "perpetrate'n", usually meant in the sense that someone was faking something, usually a gangster lifestyle, usually by acting thuggish. More accurately, I think these people are perpetuating.

As in, they are perpetuating a mythology and confirming stereotypes.

Also, I went to high school in Jax, and it was awful. Fuck Florida.

That gave me a headache! It's just so much easier not believing in any of that tripe. I'd rather sit back, relax, and not stress about mythology.

You've apparently missed all those Russian driving videos or ANY Japanese game show. Or almost every single press release from Vatican City. I could seriously go on all night. But you get my point.

>> ^Dread:

>> ^deathcow:
>> ^G-bar:
im just flabbergasted at how the U.S. is an empire with a population such as this...


Yeah ALL Americans are like this, and NOBODY from other countries, weird eh

It is strange that the vast majority of videos demonstrating the intellectually challenged and their points of view tend to originate from the good old U.S. of A. Perhaps it has something to do with a lack of educational funding over the past few decades, or a complete disregard for quality education and a belief that education can be formed around some mythological views.
I guess every village has its idiot(s)... I lost my village a long time ago

>> ^deathcow:

>> ^G-bar:
im just flabbergasted at how the U.S. is an empire with a population such as this...


Yeah ALL Americans are like this, and NOBODY from other countries, weird eh


It is strange that the vast majority of videos demonstrating the intellectually challenged and their points of view tend to originate from the good old U.S. of A. Perhaps it has something to do with a lack of educational funding over the past few decades, or a complete disregard for quality education and a belief that education can be formed around some mythological views.

I guess every village has its idiot(s)... I lost my village a long time ago

Very well stated. The devil's bell (which it's called in Ecuador and which name I like more than the others) has strong mythology about it, but it is apparently so difficult to extract the Datura from it, that most people I talked to about it just sort of laughed me off. I've spent more than two months traveling in both Ecuador and Colombia, six of those weeks studying with a leading northern Andean ethnographer. When you're on the road, it's a lot of fun to talk about these kinds of extreme phenomena, but for the most part, it's touristy b.s. The plant is much more famous for the hallucinogenic tea that can be made from the flowers themselves, which is also fatal if prepared incorrectly. Btw, Datura is the same compound that produces the infamous Vodou zombies in Haiti, made famous by Harvard ethnobotanist Wade Davis's "The Serpent and the Rainbow."

Vice loves to sensationalize this kind of thing, and I'm frankly a little annoyed at the characterization of the current political atmosphere in Colombia. Even the U.S. State Department's travel.state.gov, which is notoriously over-sensitive, has only qualified warnings about the dangers of traveling in rural areas. Colombia is a lot safer than the introduction to this story has painted it. Total disservice to the country and culture that gave this journalist his story. But Vice likes to dirty it up to sell mags to hipsters.

Still, totally entertaining and somewhat informative. Nice find.>> ^legacy0100:

lol I don't know about this one. Vice reporters are often a bit naive at times...
Still this was very well Directed. Had great atmosphere and pacing. Very good.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@jncross
Um.. it's "christians" who are always interjecting themselves and their cultist beliefs into the lives of non-religious folks.
I'd love to ignore you crazy bastards but:
You're the ones always ringin' my doorbell at 8 am on a saturday handing me flyers about how i'm a sinner.
You're the ones always forcing your cultist beliefs into public education and scientific discussions.
You're the ones always insisting that christianity be the one and only cult recognized by government.

It's pretty difficult to ignore someone or something that constantly in your business telling you how shitty a person you are for not believing their crazy backwardass mythology.


I'm sure it's easy for non Christians to say that we are always the one picking the fight. Just as a couple of brothers would point at each other and say "HE STARTED IT!" All I can say is I believe in God and if that doesn't suit you...Fine, but that doesn't change the fact that this video is nothing but people mocking God because they felt like it. I'm sure some Christians have done wrong in the past and they are way over doing things. Yet all I can say is that we are not all like that and some if not most of us are more willing to live and let live if both extreme sides would knock it off. You don't have to believe what I believe all I ask is that you let me practice that belief in any setting I want. One thing I notice is the people that don't understand Chrisitianity are also the people that lump us all in one group. Every group, minority, or religion has a few nuts and Christians are no exception. Once again though I don't care if you believe in what I believe in I just wanted to say that the people that made this video are basically no better than the same people that call you a sinner, or force Christiantiy in your face, and insist the Christian way of life is the only way. My point was simple all you have to do is turn and walk away and don't give them another thought. That would make a better point than trying to tell us that we are wrong. Because frankly we don't care if you think we are wrong because we think the same about you. So we are in a forever tug of war and trust me neither of us will ever win until our last days and the proof is in front of us. Either you are right and nothing happens when we die or we are right and we are judged by God.

@jncross

Um.. it's "christians" who are always interjecting themselves and their cultist beliefs into the lives of non-religious folks.

I'd love to ignore you crazy bastards but:

You're the ones always ringin' my doorbell at 8 am on a saturday handing me flyers about how i'm a sinner.

You're the ones always forcing your cultist beliefs into public education and scientific discussions.

You're the ones always insisting that christianity be the one and only cult recognized by government.


It's pretty difficult to ignore someone or something that constantly in your business telling you how shitty a person you are for not believing their crazy backwardass mythology.

"Science isn't taught in church, so why are you trying to teach church in science class?"
Absolutely spot on. Let them practice their bronze age mythology in private. This is the 21st century, it has no place in schools, politics, or the every day lives of free thinking, educated, rational humans.

>> ^longde:

As long as they're not hurting anyone, let them have their rituals. Shit, in the states people do the same things behind closed doors and pay a fortune for the privilege.


They are hurting the weak minded, ignorant, and gullable who witness this barbaric nonsense who, in turn, will promulgate it. Let them do it behind closed doors. Infact, let them keep ALL their bronze age mythological nonsense private, out of schools, out of politics and out of 21st century life.