Bill Mahers bigoted atheism: His arrogant schtick is just as ugly as religious intolerance

Posted on by

You know what you call someone who makes sweeping generalizations on billions of people based on the extreme actions of a few? A bigot. Bill Maher, for example, is a bigot. And if youre a fan of his smug, dismissive schtick, youre a bigot too.

On Fridays Real Time,Maher, who has been openly atheist his whole career but has been increasingly vocal against organized religion in recent years, squared off against Fareed Zakaria, who gave a powerful rebuttal to Mahers reiteration of the Islam is the motherlode of bad ideas assertion. My problem with the way you approach it, Zakaria said, is I dont think youre going to reform a religion by telling 1.6 billion people most of whom are just devout people who get some inspiration from that religion and go about their daily lives I dont think youre going to change religion by saying your religion is the motherlode of bad ideas, its a terrible thing. Frankly, youre going to make a lot of news for yourself and youre going to get a lot of applause lines and joke lines. Instead, he urged, Push for reform with some sense of respect for the spiritual values. And on behalf of Muslims, Christians, Jews, and anybody else who prays to somebody sometimes, let me just say, thank you.

As the threats terrorism and right wing Christianity have risen in the past few years, Mahers aggressive brand of atheism also popularized by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris has gained a strong following among a certain type of self-professed intellectual. Maher has famously said, Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who dont have all the answers to think that they do which is pretty funny, given the know-it-all arrogance of the anti-religion big leaguers like Maher himself. As Zakaria very eloquently pointed out, that stance has given Maher more power and reach than hes ever had in his long career. But whatever you believe or dont, if youre selling blanket intolerance, you dont get to call yourself one of the good guys. You shouldnt even get to call yourself one of the smart ones.

Im a Christian, which in my urban, media-centric world is basically equivalent to self-identifying as a hillbilly. It also means that I have to accept that I apply the same word to myself that a lot of hateful morons do. But on Sunday at my little neighborhood church, our priest delivered a sermon in which he said, I cant understand how in places like Indiana, people are using Christianity as an excuse to close their doors, when we should be welcoming to everyone. Guess what? Thats faith too. I am also keenly aware that in other parts of the world, people are being murdered for a faith that I am privileged to practice openly and without fear. And anyone, anywhere, who is openly hateful to others for their religion is part of a culture that permits that kind of persecution to endure.

Heres what I would Bill Maher and his smug, self-righteous acolytes to understand. There are literally billions of individuals in this world who are not murderous, ignorant, superstitious, hatemongers, who also happen to practice a religion. Billions of people who I swear to God have no investment in forcing their beliefs on Bill Maher. Right here in the US, there are millions of my fellow Christians who are strongly committed to the ideals of the constitution, and who dont want to live in a theocracy any more than they do.

I recently had a conversation with an atheist friend who asked why, knowing all I do of the wrongs committed by the Catholic church, disagreeing as strongly as I do with many of its positions on womens rights, LGBT equality, and reproductive justice, I continue to stay within it. And my reply was that this is where I feel I can do the most good. I am not a disinterested party. Im a citizen of my church and Im going to continue to demand better of it. I dont, however, want to sell it to anybody else. You dont have to believe in God or however else you may define the concept of something else out there. I dont have all the answers to life, the universe and everything; Im just trying to get through this plane of existence in a manner thats philosophically satisfying and guides me in the direction of not being a selfish jerk. Thats it. All I ask all that many, many, many of us who practice their respective religions ask is that you conduct yourself with respect and compassion and a spirit ofcoexistence, and well do the same. I ask that you not make assumptions about the vast majority of the worlds population based on your own need to feel good about yourself and how smart you are. Like Zakaria says, youre not going to bring about reform that way. And as Maher and his ilk prove, you dont need a religion to be in the business of spreading hate.

See the article here:

Bill Mahers bigoted atheism: His arrogant schtick is just as ugly as religious intolerance

The Age of Transhumanist Politics Has Begun

Posted on by

The founding of the Transhumanist Party of the United States, the intensifying of the U.S. BRAIN-Initiative and the start of Google's project "Ending death" were important milestones in the year 2014, and potential further steps towards "transhumanist" politics. The most significant development was that the radical international technology community became a concrete political force, not by chance starting its global political initiative in the U.S. According to political scientist and sociologist Roland Benedikter, research scholar at the University of California at Santa Barbara, "transhumanist" politics has momentous growth potential but with uncertain outcomes. The coming years will probably see a dialogue between humanism and transhumanism in - and about - most crucial fields of human endeavor, with strong political implications that will challenge, and could change the traditional concepts, identities and strategies of Left and Right.

Roland Benedikter is the co-author of two Pentagon and U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff White Papers concerning the future of Neurotechnology and the Ethics of Neurowarfare (2013 and 2014), several books about global strategic matters (two of those on Xi Jinping's China) and of the upcoming book Neuroscience and Neuroethics: Impacting Human Futures (in cooperation with James Giordano, Springer New York) which will be published in 2015. He has co-authored the commentary "Neuroculture: How to keep ethical pace with the current 'deep' transformations through neurotechnology? for "Leftist Review" with James Giordano in March 2012. Katja Siepmann and Annabella McIntosh conducted the interview.

In the book you co-authored with Pentagon-advisor and Georgetown-neuroscientist and neuroethicist James Giordano "Neuroscience and Neuroethics: Impacting Human Futures" you state that these two fields at the interface between science and politics might lead to bigger changes in the coming years than either conventional politics or science. The reason: Technology is becoming an increasingly more powerful political and social force - not only sectorially or nationally, but globally.

Roland Benedikter: In recent years technology has indeed emerged as a concrete social and political force. 2014 has seen a noticeable intensification of that trend. The traditional political players are poorly prepared for it. What, for example, nowadays takes place in just one year at the interface between the human brain and technology, until recently required a decade. It is an exponential development. The mechanization of society and humanity is occurring within many disciplines- for example, in the form of neurotechnology, which is increasingly used for medical and both dual-use and direct military purposes. But there are other fields too. From neuroeconomics to, neuroaesthetics, neurosprituality, neurosociology and even neuropolitics, the "neuro"-prefix is becoming omnipresent in the understanding and meaning of our time and civilization - and with regard to its self-ascribed identity.

What exactly is going on?

Roland Benedikter: Supporters of "human enhancement"[1], which encompasses scientists, entrepreneurs and politicians and transcends language, cultural and ideological barriers, advocate mechanization of the human body in general and the broad "culturalization" of brain-machine interfaces in particular as the progressive, transformative path for humanity in the 21st century. By playing a consulting role in the "high spheres" of politics, science, and management, representatives of the transhumanist movement (including the World Transhumanist Association), which was initiated in the 1980s, are promoting the fusion of humans and computers. Among other things, they recommend the broad use of implants to enhance cognitive abilities, neural engineering to expand human consciousness and the cyborgization of the body and its tissues and systems in order to increase resilience, flourishing and lifespan.

Sounds gruesome at first. What is the idea behind all this?

Roland Benedikter: The name "transhumanism" is the basic concept that tells it all. Its followers want to go beyond the present human condition. At its core it means to overcome the "natural" limitations inherent in human existence, which is to be born, live relatively short, half-conscious lives, and then die. The supporters of "human enhancement" and "transhumanism" intend to break through these current physical and cognitive (and perhaps even spiritual) barriers. In order to do that, they will pursue biotechnological upgrades to the human body and thus, conceivably, try to eliminate the negative effects of ageing and eventually (at least in their aspiration) even death.

You state (in a scientifically "neutral" sense) that the first breakthrough of this development could now be imminent, but there will also be inescapable associated ethical problems?

Roland Benedikter: Possibly. Those who view the future human being as a technoid being, if not as a body fully integrated into technology - as seem to do, for example, Google's chief engineer Ray Kurzweil or the Oxford professor of philosophy Nick Bostrom, who is the head of the "Future of Humanity Institute" at the faculty of philosophy and the Oxford James Martin 21st Century School -- regard the mid of the century as a probable date for reaching the "singularity." That's the moment when artificial intelligence allegedly surpasses that of human intelligence and becomes in some way "self-conscious", as these thinkers expect.[2] Kurzweil has recently even referred to the year 2029 as the date when technology could reach a level of self-conscious "intelligence".[3] If that happens, even on an approximate basis, it will without doubt affect virtually everything, even though it will likely not occur in as spectacular ways as predicted.

Read the rest here:

The Age of Transhumanist Politics Has Begun

Germany: NATO completes first phase of ‘Exercise Noble Jump’ – Video

Posted on by


Germany: NATO completes first phase of #39;Exercise Noble Jump #39;
German servicemen of the 371 Mechanized Infantry Battalion based in Marienberg, Saxony, carried out alert training on Thursday as part of the first phase of NATO #39;S #39;Noble Jump. #39; -------------------...

By: RuptlyTV

Follow this link:

Germany: NATO completes first phase of 'Exercise Noble Jump' - Video

WW3: Russia and China Vs. NATO The Extermination of Humanity – Nuclear Apocalypse – Video

Posted on by


WW3: Russia and China Vs. NATO The Extermination of Humanity - Nuclear Apocalypse
WW3: Russia and China Vs. NATO The Extermination of Humanity - Nuclear Apocalypse Nuclear holocaust or nuclear apocalypse refers to a possible complete or nearly complete annihilation of ...

By: Rumoaohepta7

Read the rest here:

WW3: Russia and China Vs. NATO The Extermination of Humanity - Nuclear Apocalypse - Video

Module II: Defenses and Privileges: The Fifth Amendment Privilege & Testimony – Video

Posted on by


Module II: Defenses and Privileges: The Fifth Amendment Privilege Testimony
In this video, you #39;ll learn about the various privileges and defenses that may be asserted in opposition to a summons or subpoena. The focus is on the Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimi...

By: Tax Chat

Excerpt from:

Module II: Defenses and Privileges: The Fifth Amendment Privilege & Testimony - Video

More than 70,000 people attended event

Posted on by

NASHVILLE (CNN) -

A pack of 2016 Republicans made their pitch for president Friday before the National Rifle Association's annual meeting in Nashville, blasting the Obama administration for what they described as an erosion of freedom while punctuating their remarks with sharp enthusiasm for Second Amendment rights.

The contenders also used the principles behind gun rights to fire off criticism of President Barack Obama's handling of national security, further signaling the influential role that foreign policy is expected to have in the presidential election.

More than 70,000 people descended upon Music City to attend the convention, but tickets to see the candidates speak in a five-hour long forum was limited to about 5,000 people.

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas was the only declared candidate on stage Friday. Other potential contenders included former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

1. Candidates show off gun credentials

As tradition at the annual NRA gathering, the speakers tried to establish their own longstanding history with guns in different ways. Santorum held up his concealed carry card before the audience and boasted that his wife requested ammunition for an upcoming birthday.

Walker talked about bow-hunting, while Huckabee perused the firearm vendor hall and later listed on stage the guns he grew up with, including his first BB gun at the age of five. "I still have the same gun in mint condition," he said.

Perry screened a video showing off his shooting skills (the same video was also shown at the 2013 NRA convention). The former governor also crowed about the gun manufacturers he recruited to Texas from other states.

For Bush, the NRA meeting was a chance to tout his record, including his A+ rating from the NRA, before a conservative crowd that's largely skeptical of him due to his more moderate positions on immigration and Common Core.

See original here:

More than 70,000 people attended event

Six takeaways from the NRA convention

Posted on by

A pack of 2016 Republicans made their pitch for president Friday before the National Rifle Association's annual meeting in Nashville, blasting the Obama administration for what they described as an erosion of freedom while punctuating their remarks with sharp enthusiasm for Second Amendment rights.

The contenders also used the principles behind gun rights to fire off criticism of President Barack Obama's handling of national security, further signaling the influential role that foreign policy is expected to have in the presidential election.

More than 70,000 people descended upon Music City to attend the convention, but tickets to see the candidates speak in a five-hour long forum was limited to about 5,000 people.

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas was the only declared candidate on stage Friday. Other potential contenders included former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

1. Candidates show off gun credentials

As tradition at the annual NRA gathering, the speakers tried to establish their own longstanding history with guns in different ways. Santorum held up his concealed carry card before the audience and boasted that his wife requested ammunition for an upcoming birthday.

Walker talked about bow-hunting, while Huckabee perused the firearm vendor hall and later listed on stage the guns he grew up with, including his first BB gun at the age of five. "I still have the same gun in mint condition," he said.

Perry screened a video showing off his shooting skills (the same video was also shown at the 2013 NRA convention). The former governor also crowed about the gun manufacturers he recruited to Texas from other states.

For Bush, the NRA meeting was a chance to tout his record, including his A+ rating from the NRA, before a conservative crowd that's largely skeptical of him due to his more moderate positions on immigration and Common Core.

Bush proclaimed to the audience that he's "been with you in trenches" as an "NRA life member since 1986." He also listed the gun rights measures he enacted or maintained as former governor, and defended the stand your ground laws in Florida that became a hot topic following the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

Original post:

Six takeaways from the NRA convention

RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS? Police grabs of legal guns on the rise across US

Posted on by

Cherished family heirlooms were among the 21 firearms Michael Roberts surrendered to the Torrance Police Department in 2010, after his doctor filed a restraining order against him.

The court order was the result of a dispute Roberts had with a member of the doctors staff and, after Roberts pleaded no contest, the matter was resolved. Yet, even though he filed the proper Law Enforcement Gun Release paperwork on four separate occasions, obtained clearance from the California Department of Justice and had two court orders commanding the return of his guns, police refused to hand them over.

With the backing of the National Rifle Association and California Rifle and Pistol Association, Roberts filed a federal lawsuit in May 2014, over the $15,500 worth of firearms. In the end he got the money, but not the guns. The police had had them destroyed.

Second Amendment lawyers say his case is not rare.

NRA and CRPA constantly get calls from law abiding people having problems getting their guns back, said Chuck Michel of Long Beach based Michel & Associates, who represented Roberts in the case. The state Department of Justice wrongly tells police not to give guns back unless the person can document ownership of the gun and it is registered in the state DOJs database. But the law doesnt require this.

Gun owners cant comply anyway, Michel said, because police themselves routinely fail to enter the firearms into the DOJs database, and most people dont have receipts for the guns they own.

While Americans have the constitutional rights to keep and bear arms and protect their property from governments unlawful seizure it is not just in California where guns are seized and destroyed illegally, attorneys charge.

"This kind of below-the-radar bureaucratic gun confiscation is a growing Second Amendment and property rights violation problem, particularly in strict gun control states like California, New Jersey and Massachusetts, said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation. People can't afford to spend tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees to get back a $500 firearm."

The Second Amendment Foundations most recent case involves Rick Bailey, a 56-year-old Navy veteran from Glendale, Ariz., whose entire collection of 28 firearms valued at $25,000 was seized by authorities because of an ongoing dispute with a neighbor.

After Bailey complained over several months to the city of Glendale that his neighbor frequently parked his landscaping companys dump trucks in front of Baileys home -- and toxic chemical odors were coming from his neighbors property -- the neighbor obtained a harassment order against Bailey. Police showed up and seized Baileys gun collection.

Continued here:

RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS? Police grabs of legal guns on the rise across US