The problem with their views is that it's an attack on our views. Christians didn't start these postings - this group did. And have you heard what they said in this video? They intend to do this until the end of Christianity. This is an intolerant, and hateful group.
You see what you want to see. Can't you see that? There is lots of hate to go around. Why are there so disproportionately low numbers of atheists in prison for hate crimes?
No, but with all due respect, atheists were the ones killing millions during Stalin's tenure in the USSR, rule of Pol-Pot in Cambodia, and the Cultural Revolution in China.
Give me a break... It was not "because" then were atheistic that the atrocities occurred. Now, on the other hand, it was precisely "because of monotheistic religion" that we had the wonders of the burning of the Library of Alexandria, the Crusades, hundreds of years and millions of women butchered for witchery, the Inquisition, etc... Before you regurgitate the same old religious standby excuses, do your homework.
Give me a break... It was not "because" then were atheistic that the atrocities occurred. Now, on the other hand, it was precisely "because of monotheistic religion" that we had the wonders of the burning of the Library of Alexandria, the Crusades, hundreds of years and millions of women butchered for witchery, the Inquisition, etc... Before you regurgitate the same old religious standby excuses, do your homework.
Im not trying to proove a point to win an arguement. If God exsists, he must have made himself known right? Experience is never at the mercy of an arguement, one has to humble himself and understand that he needs God. If you want proof start here on your spiritual journey and move out of an "Egyptian state of mind" like the Israelites did to find the ONE TRUE GOD, and learn the biblical progression. My hope for you is eternal life with Jesus. wikipedia jabal al lawz
That passage from Luke is just to give a reason why I doubt he is the son of god. I put my money on wise man cum cult leader, but I am rather biased in that regard.
From Luke 19. 26 And [said Jesus,] I tell you that to everyone who gets and has will more be given, but from the man who does not get and does not have, even what he has will be taken away. 27[The indignant king ended by saying] But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to reign over them--bring them here and [g]slaughter them in my presence! 28 And after saying these things, Jesus went on ahead of them, going up to Jerusalem."
#1 - No it was a parable. It was a ficticious story Jesus used to bring about a hidden truth.
#2 - You claim the story was about "true worship". Read Luke 10:25-37. Seriously though - why specifically choose a samaritan? What was he trying to say?
#3 Do I believe Jesus existed -yes. Do I believe he was the son of god - not at all.
<Good will come to him who is generous and lends freely, who conducts his affairs with justice. Surely he will never be shaken; a righteous man will be remembered forever.>
Just like the samaritan of that famous story Jesus told. Note how in the parable that what the samaritan beleived was immaterial in the story - the key point was what he did.
So according to Jesus actions speak louder than beliefs.
<My "assumptions" aren't based on "assumptions"> You believe this. It is called faith. You can't prove it. I can't disprove it.
So there comes a point where you actively make the choice to believe it, and that action is called faith.
Saying that <Mine aren't just assumptions> isn't really true. I do not question the subject of your faith - only your assertion that is an absolute unquestionable truth.
<The only difference between me and you is where we've placed our faith>. Absolutely true. I never claim that god doesn't exist - only that I believe he doesn't exist. I recognise that such a non-existence claim can NEVER be proven. I am not that stupid. I as an atheist have made assumptions on which I base my worldview - the validity of logic, non-existence of a higher power etc. I recognise these assumptions that I have made. My question back to you is - can you recognise your assumptions?
My "assumptions" aren't based on "assumptions" they're based on a Jesus that came to this earth, died and resurrected (as he said he would). And people that saw him after his resurrection and were willing to forsake all to tell others about him. This list included everything from the uneducated to the most highly educated people of their time. I also believe in a Bible that has prophesied of events that have been fulfilled and are continuing to be fulfilled. Mine aren't just assumptions.
You assume that his witnesses concurred on the same experience, which, according to the gospels, they did not. Additionally, you assume that the canonical gospels are relevant and indeed are the only relevant texts in the entirety of the universe. That is ultimately an assumption. I have no way of honestly proving to myself that Jesus was resurrected.
God gives you hope - I don't deny that. But god doesn't give me hope any more than an invisible pink unicorn.
Think of it this way - how I live my life is largely determined by my beliefs and if I were on my deathbed I would rather have someone respect me having those beliefs than tell me that god loves me. In a similar way I would not deny gods existence if you were on your deathbed.
I would imagine that you base your life on facts, am I right? If so, would you agree that facts can be proven wrong? For example, for many years people believed that the world was flat as a matter of fact. Atheists usually claim that they believe facts not faith, however their facts can be proven wrong, so even believing "facts" takes a certain amount of faith.
Even Atheists have faith in something. The only difference between me and you is where we've placed our faith.
I was refering to how those phrases are used in responding to what is perceived as the threat of atheism. (Hence the 'still' in the second phrase)
If you were in hospital you wouldn't appreciate me denying the existence of god to you. In a similar vein I wouldn't appreciate you affirming the existence of god. This is because in doing so you are also affirming everything that goes with it - including my eternal damnation.
hey madhair, the only difference is that if I were in a hospital bed dying by telling me that God loves me you'd be giving me hope. on the other hand if you denied God to a sick person, you'd be essentially takent their hope away. Think about it.
There is a flip side to this. Everytime I hear phrases like 'I will pray for you' or 'God still loves you' I can't see how I can interpret them but as demeaning. They display a complete lack of respect for my faith and insinuate my ignorance.
But your central point still holds - if a person was comfortable with their faith they wouldn't feel the need resort to ad hoc attacks that serve only to create more hostility.
Madhair, I don't see how phrases like "I'll pray for you" or "God loves you" can be demeaning. If you were sickly ill in the hospital I doubt you would feel demeaned if I said I'll "pray for you" or "God loves you". I think a person's perspective will cause them to see those phrases as demeaning, if you told me that anyone loves me, I'd say GREAT! They should, I'm extremely lovable.
I get where ProphecyKnight is coming from. Chistianity has being trying to convert atheists for centuries. This must be the first time in history where there has been an active campaign to try and convert christians.
Judging by the response to the blasphemy challenge there is a lot of strong feeling out there over this. On both sides.
themadhair, there's nothing run with sharing your opinions with anyone. It's just funny how these Athiest resort to demeaning talk instead of sharing their views with some intellect. For example - ProphecyKnight calling people A-hole and stuff. It's funny how Athiests say we hate them but they use the fowl language against us.
Listen here asshole lol Are they blowing up buildings in order to end christianity? NO! They're not. They believe that its wrong and they're trying to peacefully convert people to atheism. Although i think this is psychotic they're really not hurting you too much. So instead of making dumb atheists look bad. Why don't you try strengthening the religion you believe in? In making this video you are just attacking the people that attacked you. Blah!
But we actually didn't come from nothing, ENERGY & Matter have always existed. The only thing that has a beginning is our universe because "Plank Time" will always exist, even when our Universe is long gone...
It kills me when religious people try to make an argument about existance coming from nothing. They preceive Science as being "wrote in stone" and not growing like their bibles. When Physicist find out what started the Big Bang, their just going to just onto something else.
Such sinister music. The universe is a reason for God's existence? This type of logic would not pass muster on a junior high debate team or a college logic class. If believers would simply admit they have no evidence for God's existence, I would have more respect for them. Instead, they engage in tortured reasoning. It's hard to watch and complete nonsense.
I was a christian for 15 years that's longer than you have been breathing. I was also involved in mistry. I speak on good authority that sugar coating hell is very bad soteriology that could endanger the salvation of a child. Scripture is scripture unless you know better than god?
Telling a child that they will burn in eternal hell for sins against an imagined deity is child abuse. Teaching a child about the existence of Santa is a dishonest fairy tale. I must say when I discovered the truth about Santa I felt angry betrayed. When I found out the truth about God I was to terrified to hold the thought for to long. After a year of deep biblical education. I broke free of the mental slavery of theism.
I'm an athiest and I believe there is nothing wrong with the RRS' beliefs, a bit extreme but not anymore extreme than when the bible that says if you don't believe in God you'll go to hell. People are often very rational about every aspect of their lives, except when it comes to religion. It's so sad to so many people brain washed.
Obviously not. They pick on us because we are less radical or extreme. Truthfully, you attack us because we seem, and probably are, easier prey, right? God bless you.
lol. because a loaded gun still can kill. I am not arguing to quench a disbelieving mind. are you? Well if you have no truth you can show me, or even an argument that is not riddle with fallacy, then we must part ways for the time being. farewell.
the bible says god exists and he is never wrong, and god says the bible is true. Thats circular logic and its fallacy. Thats why its not in science class or any other respected curriculum except theology.
how can I have free will if the choice is already decided? because god made it so? how did he make it so? how can a choice be known and before that choice happens and still have the free will to make that choice?
I respect your belief, but that belief is not one based on history, or science. its a theology.
trust me you don't want to know the history of Christianity. it will only make you an atheist. What you want is a class called theology. Science cant prove god exists, thats why he isn't in science class. History cant prove Jesus exists, thats why he isn't taught in history class. their are no accounts of his existence outside the bible.
God doesn't exist, If he did, we wouldn't have free because we are apart of the plan. Its intellectually dishonest to say he has a plan and we are all apart of it.
And then to say he is all power all knowing and all loving, and then to say we have free will to make a choice, even though he already has a plan for us. Something has to give. If you cant see that, your just going to have to read more books and learn more about the world.
If all happens as to his plan, Then we have no free will to make the choices he wishes (ironic huh?). In turn babies that die before they are baptized go to hell. Is that something an all good god does? Keep in mind that the pope said that purgatory doesn't exist. If one must be baptized because of original sin, then their are many stillborns that go to hell. Is that a good god? We are theological beliefs are views are mandated by our geography. a good god doesn't condemn based off chance.
Why would science need to say anything about god if god supposedly is above scientific scrutiny?
What do you feel is the most convincing argument (or evidence) that god exists? I have given you many good reasons as to how he cannot exist, I have also shown he would not be pleasant to be around if he did.
Thats a romantic thought, but who defines what is the right path? many people in the world beleave in god, but they all do it differently. If Christianity was a true path, their wouldn't be so many denominations. Pulling back, If their was only one true way to worship god, their wouldn't be any jewish people, or people of Islam.
So how do you personally assign judgment or value to what is the right path? ever stop and smell the roses?
I am a first amendment extremist. You are free to think or believe or express yourself however you desire. But creation is everything that science is not. It has no right to be in science class. If schools want to teach theology they should at least be honest that is theology and not science. But to be fair, other theology should be taught as well.
We can see the influence of evolution and it has been observed in under a microscope. evolution is as proven a theory as gravity, which is still a theory today. Just as how we can show that a ball falls to the earth because of gravity, scientists can show that evolution does happen.
While we cant directly see gravity, we see its influence on the natural world. the difference in the two is evolution happens slower. For evolution, Its like watching the hour hand on a clock, and for gravity we can see it by looking at the second hand of the clock. Both occur and both are active.
God is different though. We cant disprove him but that is a slippery slope because the argument for gods existence is falsifiable claim. I can transpose any argument I wish and its still as equally valid to the claim that god exist
again...I have no idea what you mean when you say this, so my response may not make any sense.
Is their something specific that i should believe. because you imply that i am lost, that would imply a definitive path of truth or knowledge, that you feel must be followed. If their was only one path to follow though, everyone would have followed it and its clear that this has not happened.
sorry arjs2010, I must not understand, "ether that or i got ahead of myself"
"do you love anyone? seriously..i'm not being sarcastic. if you do..proove it."
what do you mean by this? its seems to be a loaded statement. If i love someone... prove it? You seem to be alluding to something god related. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then I have no clue what your talking about.
I was addressing RobNieves when i was talking about historical accounts. sorry for the confusion.
I can write love poetry, and i can discribe my feelings of love, but i can not describe a god that is all loving all powerfull and all knowing without making a contradiction.
I can at least prove the one that I love is actively loving me back through "re"actions to my actions. God has no reactions. God is the sugar pill of chance. If something evil happens its not god, but if something good happens it is god. That doesn't work. If god reacts to us, then stop eating and except to live ect... Its problematic allround. The argument that something is too complex for us to know and thus is god is a shame considering we learn more of our would everyday.
Further, if Atheists don't believe in God then why not just leave those people that do, continue to live out their faith? If you don't believe in God, then fine, continue to live as you wish. Why do you feel it necessary to attack Christians such as the RR Squad is doing? They are specifically attacking Christians with their message. I don't see them attacking any other religion. Sure, some people's videos attack other faiths but the RR Squad is just asking you to deny the God of the Bible.
This video attacks evoltuion, but does not prove creation. Who is attacking who? christens like to make public policy. They also want religion taught as science. Perhaps insted tearing down science to get religion taught in science class, they should focus on proving creation. We both know thats impossible... Christians always did like using the back door when it cames to things like this.
You can live out your faith, just don't expect a tax break. Perhaps it Christianity that should stop attacking science, or gays, or witches, or heathens, or druids, or any other people that point out when you when you are wrong.
They are ex-Christians its common sense to stick to what you know. Hursi Ali is speaking out about Islam under the threat of death. Islam is now in the same position where christianity was two centuries back Question faith and we will kill you. The oceans of blood spilled for the imaginary god concept. But I guess atheist agnostics and humanist should sit idle while people of faith continue to kill for there absent gods.
MoonLancer, It is impossible for me to believe that we came from nothing. I'd rather believe that we came from an inteligent God than an explosion that came out of no where. If I told you that two cars crashed in front of my house without any drivers you would think I'm crazy, yet many Atheist believe in a big bang, and further believe that from that big bang this entire world was created. I'm sorry, it just doesn't make sense to me. Maybe I'm just too dumb to understand Atheism.
the big bang is evolution? I don't follow. When you say evolution, you mean science. hmmm war on science... Well its no wonder a creature who evolved to build things thinks that everything around him must be build by something.
Also your statement is a appeal to consequence and is a fallacy. Just because you "rather believe that we came from an intelligent god" does not make it true.
This video try's to say that Christianity is the same thing as Christians. So the people and the denomination are one? Oh good, I have always wanted to put Christianity on trial for burning down Alexandria and creating the dark ages. So I can grab a whole bunch of Christians and do just that. AWESOME!
The greatest thing about this whole argument is that no matter who you are or what you believe Jesus loves you and died for your sins. It's a free give of salvation that can be yours by simply accepting it. Jesus loves Theists and Atheists the same.
Were was Jesus when witches were burned using his name? were was he when Hypatia skin was shredded with clam shells by christen monks? Were was he when Cyril was sainted for these actions? ah yes, the same place he always is, in our hearts. Its a shame that doesn't stop wars like that in Iraq. Instead that love created wars like the crusades.
No the greatest thing about this whole argument is this. I can transpose Christ with any number of false creations such as the Invisible Pink unicorn and the argument nor its meaning has not changed.
MoonLancer, God has given you the free will to refuse or accept him. It's your choice. I'm sorry you're choosing today to refuse his love, I hope someday you'll change your mind before it's too late. I love you in Christ's love and I'll be praying for your well being.
RobNieves, The Invisible pink unicorn has given you the free will to refuse or accept her. It's your choice. I'm sorry you're choosing today to refuse his love, I hope someday you'll change your mind before it's too late. I love you in her love and I'll be praying for your well being.
see what I mean? kind of silly. Try using your own words next time, and then I will too.
MoonLancer, the difference between "the invisible pink unicorn" and "Jesus" is that Jesus was a real person, who did real miracles, who died a real death, and performed a real resurrection that was witnessed by hundreds of people, including people that were willing to loose their lives for him. Denying Jesus existence is like denying Mohamad's existence or any other REAL person in History.
too bad their is't once source outside the bible to backup your claim. what historical accounts, other then the bible, claim that Jesus resurrects, let alone exists? I am willing to read them, if you provided them.
#3 - The Church does support itself in order to continue to get the message of Jesus out. Why? Because we believe that's the message that will ultimately make a difference in the world, whether you agree or not. Also the money that stays in the church is used to teach more people to abandon their self-centered ways to help others as well. As our message grows, so does the help that we send for Humanitarian efforts.
Rob, #3, "Because we believe that's the message that will ultimately make a difference in the world"
I understand that you put money into the organization as a sort of investment in spiritual wellbeing. The problem is the Return On Investment has yet to be verified, even after 2000 years.
"As our message grows, so does the help that we send for Humanitarian efforts."
No, it stays the same. Individuals donate much more, but the extra donations go to church infrastructure.
#2 - Your statements in regards to what the church does and doesn't do are based on what the media has taught you. And we all know that the media cannot be trusted because they only show us what makes Headlines.
You can't generalized the Church. The church that I am apart of does an enormous amount for Humanitarian efforts, not just with money but also in going to help.
Rob, #2, The media doesn't teach me anything. They just report facts, and I interpret those facts. The figures we've been debating about were certainly not headline makers... I agree that the Church cannot be generalized, since it's not a monolithic organization - not even in its RCC form. If your local church does significantly better than the average church, then props to you and your church.
Until the end of Christianity? wow. First, that's impossible, Christianity is the one religion that has evidently gone through the most trials over the years, and yet the religion continues to flourish.I guess Islam,Judaism,Buddhism ,Animism,Hinduism Don't count. The fact that the 'rational' squad to zeros in on one religion,indicates that Jesus rules over all!
The target of the Blasphemy Challenge indicates that Christianity has too much power in the U.S., and has been abusing that power for too long - not that Christianity is true.
Let's see here... 76% of the nation self-identifies as "Christian", while 1%-10% (depending on the survey you consult) self-identifies as "atheist". 228 million Christians donate more than 3-30 million atheists. Gee, what a shocker. *rolls eyes* But that wasn't even what I was talking about. I was talking about the 80% of well-meaning donations that are wasted by churches.
I already said this earlier - The average American Christian donates four times as much as the average American atheist. Have a pat on the back. But 3/4 of that donation goes to church. The average church, in turn, wastes 80% of that money on maintaining and spreading itself, and only spends 20% on humanitarian stuff. Your generosity is being exploited. How about giving the same money to the Red Cross, instead of to your church? Or 1/4 to Red Cross, and 3/4 for your own needs, like atheists do?
wow extensive research on what the church does w. it's money. Maybe you should do exactly the same w. red cross. i bet not 100% of it goes to humanitarian stuff. Secondly, I don't give to the Church, I give back to God sometimes that means church sometimes its charity. The church has needs, bills have to be paid. I don't mind one bit that my money goes into maintaining the house of God.
Again, something I already said earlier - The Red Cross spends 9% on infrastructure, and 91% on humanitarian stuff. I think God should build and maintain his own church infrastructure, since he's omnipotent, and all. He shouldn't need money. Only people need money. None of your donations go to God. Some people waste almost all of it, and some don't. I suggest not giving anything to the people who waste most of it, and give it instead to people who put it to most effective humanitarian use.
Stacey, the Red Cross should spend that kind of percentage on Humanitian efforts because that's it's soul purpose. The Church's purpose is more of an eternal nature. We believe in rescuing people from an eternal hell by telling them of God's love demonstrated through Jesus' Sacrifice. Our purpose is different than the Red Cross, therefore we use our money differently. You may not buy that and that's entirely up to you. However, I wish you would reconsider your position on Divine matters.
"The Church's purpose is more of an eternal nature."
The Church's primary purpose is to expand its own infrastructure. Helping people in need is of distant secondary concern. The Church helps itself with your generous donations long before it thinks of helping others.
Even more importantly than that. Stacey, I'd like you to know that Jesus loves you, and nothing you do can ever seperate you from his love, even the "so-called" Blasphemy Challenge. This whole thing is not about who's right or wrong, but about finding out that there's a God who loves us and wants a relationship with us.
"Stacey, I'd like you to know that Jesus loves you, and nothing you do can ever seperate you from his love, even the "so-called" Blasphemy Challenge."
For one thing, God hates everyone, according to the Bible. (Romans 3:10, Psalm 5:5) Second, God doesn't allow apostates like me back in, according to the Bible. (Hebrews 6:4-6) Third, the Bible god doesn't exist anyway.
Yeah, she doesn't seem to grasp the concept that the Church is the BIGGEST humanitarian effort because that so-called 80% wasted caused it to grow to be the biggest. Perhaps if the Red-Cross would spend money on growth it would start giving as much as the church does.
Secondly, the red cross is practically made up of Christians. It's practically pointless to use it agaisnt Christian Church expenditure.
"the Church is the BIGGEST humanitarian effort because that so-called 80% wasted caused it to grow to be the biggest."
The huge size of the Church only magnifies the waste.
"the red cross is practically made up of Christians. It's practically pointless to use it agaisnt Christian Church expenditure."
The Red Cross is not the Church. It has quite separate Income & Expenditure sheets, and in non-Christian-dominated countries, it's mostly not made up of Christians.
#1 - Your statements in regards to what the Bible says are so wrong. Apparently you haven't read the Bible, but rather bits and pieces and that does not make you an expert on theological matters, so please read the Bible and study it before misquoting it out of context.
Rob, #1. I have read the entire Bible - much of it several times over - other than Psalms, Proverbs, and Song of Solomon, which I've only read parts of. If you wish to dispute my interpretation, or say I'm taking verses out of context, please back up your assertions with some actual arguments, with actual details. Just because your church doesn't focus on the verses I name, it doesn't mean I'm taking them out of context.
"The Red Cross is not the Church. It has quite separate Income & Expenditure sheets,"
Which is irrelevant. You can't seperate the Christian from the Church or the Church from the Christian. Until your facts add in the millions given directly to the Red Cross, Salvation Army or any other then your facts will always be skewed, and you will continue looking like you know nothing of which you speak.
Ok then I won't take this comment literally either and don't take my response literally. What you're saying is absolutely silly ...Literally. I guess we should apply that to everyone. Maybe we can't even take our terrorists threats literally either, huh?
Stacey, that 20% is huge. When was the last time you saw a hospital that started with "St." The percentages is misleading. The Churches of Christianity is the most humanitarian existent.
The 20% is quite large and greatly appreciated. However, it would be given just the same if those Christians all suddenly became atheists. But that's not what I'm concerned about. I'm concerned about the other 80% that is totally wasted. I'd rather see it go to something useful. Like hospitals, food for the hungry, or even just your own retirement fund.
The Church always has been the leader of humanitarian efforts.. Secondly, the majority of the Red Cross is made of Christian people itself. There is absolutely no room for an Atheist to condemn church expenditure seeing as how the atheist world does not even compare to Christian generosity. Even if it is only 20% of what is given. Thirdly, I doubt your figures include the Christians giving outside of the church to the Red Cross, United Way, etc.
First of all, there overall Christian population is orders of magnitude larger than the over atheist population. So that explains why Christians are the majority donors of time and money. That's why I gave figures in percentages and per capita - to make the game fair. And actually, my figures include all charitable giving by all people surveyed. That 80% waste rate is actually made all the worse since it is 80% of such a large number of donations.
Jump to conclusions much? LOL this video is an Embarassment to intillegint Christians. OMG you are so dumb. Why aren't you ashamed of this crap? "The Universe would be a good reason...don't you think? LOL There isn't a single cognet argument in this video. "We wish," you would take this laughable crap off the internet. LOL
You're a drama queen & a moron. He "stutters" cuz the question is so illogical, i.e. "what's wrong with god" implies there is a god. And no one can be sure about anything NOT existing, but as he says, he "most likely doesn't exist." And yes, imagine no religion at all, what a wonderful world.
A better world would be a world without sin. Sin destroys society. Killing destroys society, adultery destroys society, stealing destroys society, coveting destroys society, etc...
"Sin" is a fictional religious construct. It's just whatever happens to upset God - not whatever harms people. For example, masturbation is a "sin", but it harms no one. Killing and stealing are generally harmful, but if you read the Bible, you'll see that God doesn't *really* have anything against them. Adultery is sometimes harmful, sometimes not. Coveting runs the economy.
... and I imagine what could be done with that money, I imagine what could be done with the man-power put into running it, and what could be done with the loving focus of the people within. I imagine those churches as schools, and universities funded by the people. I imagine them as a part of a thriving, healthy, and cooperative community, and I imagine faith in human potential.
I'm sure you give a lot to charity by the way you talk, right? My church has given more money to poor countries and neighborhoods than the Rational Response Squad, I'm sure.
When atheists give donations, they usually give to organizations that don't have any sort of religious stance at all, like the Red Cross or Doctors Without Borders. Atheists don't typically make a big fuss about donating under the guise of atheism. They donate under the guise of simply being human. It's not a donation contest between us and churches.
Giving is not a donation contest, I was just responding to the person that was talking about how the money that was spent on a church building could've been used for something better.
Your response didn't address the criticism, which was that money given to churches could be better spent. The figures I've seen say donations to average churches are spent by the church at a rate of over 80% to maintain/expand church infrastructure, and <20% to humanitarian causes. Compare this to the secular Red Cross, which spends 9% on infrastructure, and 91% on human beings in need. That's why most of my donations go to the Red Cross.
I am one of those that happens to be so lucky to live in what is called the "Bible Belt." I see the most marvelous Churchdes and Mega-Churches created in the name of God dotting every country and city block
I'd like to see how much money Atheists have given to "Katrina or Tsunami Victims" or how much money they've given sent overseas to poor countries. What you're talking is ignorant rubbish. Ask those Mega-Churches what they've done before you speak so foolishly.
The statistics show that religious people in America give about four times as much money as secular people. However, about 3/4 of that money goes into the churches, which use it almost exclusively for self-promotion. So it's pretty much a wash as far as *productive* donations go. Worldwide, the U.S. pales in comparison to more secular nations in per capita donations.
Stacey, ignore this idiot. All he can do is dismiss what you say for not citing every bit of info. It's pathetic really. You can compare his desperate attempts to the fall of Christianity.
They single out Christianity because they live in America. If they lived in India, they would single out Hinduism. In Pakistan, they would single out Islam. In Israel, Judaism. The target religion is just the biggest one around.
You know what you said here is not true. Don't you think it would've been better to insult Muslims instead of Christians, since they were the ones that flew planes into our buildings, not Christians. They chose Christians because we're an easy target. And secondly because they hate us.
It's not Muslim groups that are fighting to keep words like "In God We Trust" on our money or "Under God" in our pledge. Christians were on their mind during the interview, so they were talking about Christians. Because they come into contact with Christians so much more than Muslims, they debunk them first. Don't worry, they'll get around to everyone. ;)
Obviously our Country believes in God, and if Atheists have a problem with that, perhaps they can move to a Communist country that doesn't. There's only one problem I suppose, God will be there also. Sorry.
The vast majority of the country is lukewarm about religion, so of religious nuts such as yourself have a problem with that, perhaps you can move to a country that takes religion more seriously. In 1900, our country obviously believed women should not have the right to vote. Perhaps women should have moved to a more progressive country, instead of fighting for their civil rights, like atheists are doing now.
Stacey, in none of our conversations I've resorting to demean you as a person. I could call a ton of names, but I won't, I would appreciate it if you extented the same courtesy towards me instead of calling me a "religious nut". Christianity teaches people to treat others with respect, I don't believe Atheism teaches that.
Atheism doesn't teach anything at all. It's nothing more than a lack of belief in the existence of gods. So I get my ethics from elsewhere. I apologize for calling you a religious nut. Please replace that phrase with "serious Christian fundamentalist". Also, please stop implying I'm a liar in your comments to me. You've done that a couple times.
Never meant to imply you were lying, sorry if you felt that way. I would however say that I don't agree with the way you view the church. i will say that although the Church is not perfect, many Christians have done a lot of good for society.
I agree that many, many Christians have done many wonderful things. I just think they do those things because they are decent human beings, rather than because they are Christians.
ok so u guys dont beleive any thing so leave every one else alone. no reason for these extremist atheist to hate us wen that chick said "were the most hated" im not pointing this at u but u guys quiestion our beliefs and if u beleive in nothing why be so adiment to end a religion.
so are these guys saitanists or wat cuz appearently hes trying to end christianity
I challenge you to prove I know what I said is not true... Muslims are the violent ones, so they make the headlines, but there atheists in America suffer far, far more oppression from Christians. It comes in forms other than violence, though, so it doesn't make the headlines so much. In any case, the RRS does criticize Islam as well as Christianity. It's not like they must only ever criticize one religion.
you realy like sensationalistic over reading of what people say dont you? so what if they stutter, god forbid someone have his mind going in several different directions when asked a question. and just because he won't stop till the end of something dosn't mean its hate speech, if i say i will need to drink water till the end of time does that mean i hate time?
The Blasphemy Challenge challenges people to commit blasphemy, if christianity ends then the challenge would be compleatly meaningless. and as far as "the universe" sceince is above pointing to things and saying its evidence for something, you have to explain it more!
The stuttering just points to a lack of confidence in what he was saying - then to say "most likely doesn't exist" is insecurity. Also, regarding not stopping til the end of Christianity comment - why didn't he say "the end of Islam" or the end of "Judaism" - Why single out Christianity and not all religions?
Stacey, are you telling me that you believe Moses was a real man? Because if you do, then you admit that the bible is true because Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. Also, Moses had a stuttering problem period, unlike Brian "Sapient" which claims to be sure about everything. To stutter and then say a comment like "most likely doesn't exist" shows insecurity, that's all.
I'm telling you that *the story says* such and such. That's why I said, "according to the story". Sapient's "stutter" was actually just him laughing and trying to talk at the same time. Also, "sure" has several connotations, some of which do not indicate absolute certainty. E.g. "I'm sure we'll make it through the storm just fine, Timmy."
Matthew 4:8 implies the Earth is flat. There are three contradictory lineages given for Jesus' ancestors. Jesus promised his Second Coming would happen before the audience standing before him was had died. There are two totally contradictory accounts of Judas' death and the surrounding events. Is that what you call "reliable"?
hmmm, the OT was written thousands of years ago and translated orally and on paper more times than one can count whuile the NT was written 40 YEARS after the death of the guy named jesus.
No, the infant has not sinned, but the curse of sin has been passed on to them. For example, if a person gets HIV from a sex partner, their child can be born with HIV, though themselves did not abuse the drugs. Our wrong doings can sometimes affect others. In this case the original sin affect humanity as a whole.
A curse is something God carries out, so it's ultimately up to him whether the curse is carried out. Also, Ezekiel 18 - particularly verse 4 - says that God will not kill a child for the sins of anyone else. So you're arguing against Ezekiel 18 here. Since I have so many objections to your theodicy, I'm gonna have to number them. The first one, I'll call A1, and the one about curse culpability is A2, and the one about Ezekiel, I'll call A3.
The Bible does not say that in Ezekiel 18:4, it says "The soul who sins is the one who will die". You can't take verses out of context and claim to have a teaching on what the bible says. The message of the entire bible is that because of Adams sin, it's curse has been passed down to us, and the truth of the matter is that we have all sinned. Therefore, what you said is not true. Be careful because a half truth is a whole lie.
Objection A4: God set up the system by which the "sin" of one man would "curse" the whole of humanity. This was needless. Objection A5: God did not inform Adam & Eve that the whole of humanity would suffer for their actions if they ate the fruit. God only told A&E the half-truth that A&E would die that day. A half-truth is a whole lie.
The universe is a good reason to believe the an omnipotent, loving god, such as the proposed Christian one, doesn't exist. Something more specific, though... How about birth defects and congenital fetal diseases, such as Harlequin type ichthyosis? You should look it up at Wikipedia, and be sure to follow the External Links at the bottom of the article, so you can see some pictures. That's nothing a loving, omnipotent designer would do.
Hey Stacie, I could understand your argument and it makes sense. However, the story of the Bible lets us know that although God created everything good, man's sin caused the earth to be cursed. The imperfections of the world are a direct result of sin.
I have a ton of objections to that line of reasoning. For starters... Did the newborn baby sin? No, not at all. The newborn doesn't deserve to suffer from fatal birth defects and disease. How could a loving, omnipotent deity just sit there and watch an innocent baby suffer like that?
I used to be a Christian, and I thought, man this is tough, with people always giving me a rough time about it. Then I became an atheist, and realized how truly easy life as a Christian was in comparison. I realized that my earlier thoughts about it were just part of the larger Christian persecution complex that is fed to rank-and-file Christians by cynical Christian leaders.
The problem with their views is that it's an attack on our views. Christians didn't start these postings - this group did. And have you heard what they said in this video? They intend to do this until the end of Christianity. This is an intolerant, and hateful group.
RobNieves 3 years ago
You see what you want to see. Can't you see that? There is lots of hate to go around. Why are there so disproportionately low numbers of atheists in prison for hate crimes?
warrenwormhole 4 years ago
These two do NOT speak for all atheists. They speak for atheism in the same way eminem speaks for all black people.
janssnick 4 years ago
In the same way the pope doesn't speak for all christians also.
themadhair 4 years ago
Atheists were the ones killing millions during crusades...
klonkifanko 4 years ago
No, but with all due respect, atheists were the ones killing millions during Stalin's tenure in the USSR, rule of Pol-Pot in Cambodia, and the Cultural Revolution in China.
FranklyMisterShankly 4 years ago
Give me a break... It was not "because" then were atheistic that the atrocities occurred. Now, on the other hand, it was precisely "because of monotheistic religion" that we had the wonders of the burning of the Library of Alexandria, the Crusades, hundreds of years and millions of women butchered for witchery, the Inquisition, etc... Before you regurgitate the same old religious standby excuses, do your homework.
warrenwormhole 4 years ago
Give me a break... It was not "because" then were atheistic that the atrocities occurred. Now, on the other hand, it was precisely "because of monotheistic religion" that we had the wonders of the burning of the Library of Alexandria, the Crusades, hundreds of years and millions of women butchered for witchery, the Inquisition, etc... Before you regurgitate the same old religious standby excuses, do your homework.
warrenwormhole 4 years ago
Im not trying to proove a point to win an arguement. If God exsists, he must have made himself known right? Experience is never at the mercy of an arguement, one has to humble himself and understand that he needs God. If you want proof start here on your spiritual journey and move out of an "Egyptian state of mind" like the Israelites did to find the ONE TRUE GOD, and learn the biblical progression. My hope for you is eternal life with Jesus. wikipedia jabal al lawz
Wazzup132435465768 4 years ago
That passage from Luke is just to give a reason why I doubt he is the son of god. I put my money on wise man cum cult leader, but I am rather biased in that regard.
themadhair 4 years ago
From Luke 19. 26 And [said Jesus,] I tell you that to everyone who gets and has will more be given, but from the man who does not get and does not have, even what he has will be taken away. 27[The indignant king ended by saying] But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to reign over them--bring them here and [g]slaughter them in my presence! 28 And after saying these things, Jesus went on ahead of them, going up to Jerusalem."
themadhair 4 years ago
I love it when Christians cherry-pick the Bible. Read it closely and we'll talk.
warrenwormhole 4 years ago
#1 - No it was a parable. It was a ficticious story Jesus used to bring about a hidden truth.
#2 - You claim the story was about "true worship". Read Luke 10:25-37. Seriously though - why specifically choose a samaritan? What was he trying to say?
#3 Do I believe Jesus existed -yes. Do I believe he was the son of god - not at all.
themadhair 4 years ago
<Good will come to him who is generous and lends freely, who conducts his affairs with justice. Surely he will never be shaken; a righteous man will be remembered forever.>
Just like the samaritan of that famous story Jesus told. Note how in the parable that what the samaritan beleived was immaterial in the story - the key point was what he did.
So according to Jesus actions speak louder than beliefs.
themadhair 4 years ago
a few things here madhair
#1 - The story of the Samaritan Woman wasn't a Parable, Parables were ficticious stories Jesus used to bring about a hidden truth.
#2 - Also the point of the story is not what you said, the point is "true worship" (see John 4:24)
#3 - I thought you didn't believe Jesus existed, but now I see you trying to quote him. Which one is it? Do you believe or not?
RobNieves 4 years ago
<My "assumptions" aren't based on "assumptions"> You believe this. It is called faith. You can't prove it. I can't disprove it.
So there comes a point where you actively make the choice to believe it, and that action is called faith.
Saying that <Mine aren't just assumptions> isn't really true. I do not question the subject of your faith - only your assertion that is an absolute unquestionable truth.
themadhair 4 years ago
<The only difference between me and you is where we've placed our faith>. Absolutely true. I never claim that god doesn't exist - only that I believe he doesn't exist. I recognise that such a non-existence claim can NEVER be proven. I am not that stupid. I as an atheist have made assumptions on which I base my worldview - the validity of logic, non-existence of a higher power etc. I recognise these assumptions that I have made. My question back to you is - can you recognise your assumptions?
themadhair 4 years ago
My "assumptions" aren't based on "assumptions" they're based on a Jesus that came to this earth, died and resurrected (as he said he would). And people that saw him after his resurrection and were willing to forsake all to tell others about him. This list included everything from the uneducated to the most highly educated people of their time. I also believe in a Bible that has prophesied of events that have been fulfilled and are continuing to be fulfilled. Mine aren't just assumptions.
RobNieves 4 years ago
You assume that his witnesses concurred on the same experience, which, according to the gospels, they did not. Additionally, you assume that the canonical gospels are relevant and indeed are the only relevant texts in the entirety of the universe. That is ultimately an assumption. I have no way of honestly proving to myself that Jesus was resurrected.
Redfingers 4 years ago
God gives you hope - I don't deny that. But god doesn't give me hope any more than an invisible pink unicorn.
Think of it this way - how I live my life is largely determined by my beliefs and if I were on my deathbed I would rather have someone respect me having those beliefs than tell me that god loves me. In a similar way I would not deny gods existence if you were on your deathbed.
themadhair 4 years ago
I would imagine that you base your life on facts, am I right? If so, would you agree that facts can be proven wrong? For example, for many years people believed that the world was flat as a matter of fact. Atheists usually claim that they believe facts not faith, however their facts can be proven wrong, so even believing "facts" takes a certain amount of faith.
Even Atheists have faith in something. The only difference between me and you is where we've placed our faith.
RobNieves 4 years ago
I was refering to how those phrases are used in responding to what is perceived as the threat of atheism. (Hence the 'still' in the second phrase)
If you were in hospital you wouldn't appreciate me denying the existence of god to you. In a similar vein I wouldn't appreciate you affirming the existence of god. This is because in doing so you are also affirming everything that goes with it - including my eternal damnation.
themadhair 4 years ago
hey madhair, the only difference is that if I were in a hospital bed dying by telling me that God loves me you'd be giving me hope. on the other hand if you denied God to a sick person, you'd be essentially takent their hope away. Think about it.
RobNieves 4 years ago
There is a flip side to this. Everytime I hear phrases like 'I will pray for you' or 'God still loves you' I can't see how I can interpret them but as demeaning. They display a complete lack of respect for my faith and insinuate my ignorance.
But your central point still holds - if a person was comfortable with their faith they wouldn't feel the need resort to ad hoc attacks that serve only to create more hostility.
themadhair 4 years ago
Madhair, I don't see how phrases like "I'll pray for you" or "God loves you" can be demeaning. If you were sickly ill in the hospital I doubt you would feel demeaned if I said I'll "pray for you" or "God loves you". I think a person's perspective will cause them to see those phrases as demeaning, if you told me that anyone loves me, I'd say GREAT! They should, I'm extremely lovable.
RobNieves 4 years ago
I get where ProphecyKnight is coming from. Chistianity has being trying to convert atheists for centuries. This must be the first time in history where there has been an active campaign to try and convert christians.
Judging by the response to the blasphemy challenge there is a lot of strong feeling out there over this. On both sides.
themadhair 4 years ago
themadhair, there's nothing run with sharing your opinions with anyone. It's just funny how these Athiest resort to demeaning talk instead of sharing their views with some intellect. For example - ProphecyKnight calling people A-hole and stuff. It's funny how Athiests say we hate them but they use the fowl language against us.
RobNieves 4 years ago
Listen here asshole lol Are they blowing up buildings in order to end christianity? NO! They're not. They believe that its wrong and they're trying to peacefully convert people to atheism. Although i think this is psychotic they're really not hurting you too much. So instead of making dumb atheists look bad. Why don't you try strengthening the religion you believe in? In making this video you are just attacking the people that attacked you. Blah!
ProphecyKnight 4 years ago
Thank you for your kind words ProphecyKnight. I'm not attacking anyone, I'm just highlighting the obvious. I'm sorry you feel that way.
RobNieves 4 years ago
But we actually didn't come from nothing, ENERGY & Matter have always existed. The only thing that has a beginning is our universe because "Plank Time" will always exist, even when our Universe is long gone...
SlimmmmCity 4 years ago
It kills me when religious people try to make an argument about existance coming from nothing. They preceive Science as being "wrote in stone" and not growing like their bibles. When Physicist find out what started the Big Bang, their just going to just onto something else.
SlimmmmCity 4 years ago
Such sinister music. The universe is a reason for God's existence? This type of logic would not pass muster on a junior high debate team or a college logic class. If believers would simply admit they have no evidence for God's existence, I would have more respect for them. Instead, they engage in tortured reasoning. It's hard to watch and complete nonsense.
pitbull103 4 years ago
I also didn't know religious people had the brain power to analyze a statement like that, try it on the bibles and you'll be amazed...
SlimmmmCity 4 years ago
Hey Slim,
Christians do have the power to analyze statements and we have tried it on the Bible and that's why we've put our faith on it.
RobNieves 4 years ago
Do they analyze it for "Truth" and "Fact". Oh yeah I forgot, "faith" is the act of Blindly Believing something with out Evidence, Truth, & Fact...
SlimmmmCity 4 years ago
Why do religious people pay so much attention to "THE WAY" people are saying stuff, and not "WHAT" their saying.
SlimmmmCity 4 years ago
I was a christian for 15 years that's longer than you have been breathing. I was also involved in mistry. I speak on good authority that sugar coating hell is very bad soteriology that could endanger the salvation of a child. Scripture is scripture unless you know better than god?
lb10128 4 years ago
I guess only Athiests say truth ---- yeah right!
RobNieves 4 years ago
Telling a child that they will burn in eternal hell for sins against an imagined deity is child abuse. Teaching a child about the existence of Santa is a dishonest fairy tale. I must say when I discovered the truth about Santa I felt angry betrayed. When I found out the truth about God I was to terrified to hold the thought for to long. After a year of deep biblical education. I broke free of the mental slavery of theism.
lb10128 4 years ago
Thank you for equating God to Santa for me.
lb10128 4 years ago
Because teaching a child that hell is a real place at the same time have not one shred of evidence is a form of mental child abuse.
lb10128 4 years ago
I'm an athiest and I believe there is nothing wrong with the RRS' beliefs, a bit extreme but not anymore extreme than when the bible that says if you don't believe in God you'll go to hell. People are often very rational about every aspect of their lives, except when it comes to religion. It's so sad to so many people brain washed.
jyan21 4 years ago
whenn atheists say "end of jesus" they also mean end of islam etc.
angel2901 4 years ago
Obviously not. They pick on us because we are less radical or extreme. Truthfully, you attack us because we seem, and probably are, easier prey, right? God bless you.
TheSeventh 4 years ago
lol. because a loaded gun still can kill. I am not arguing to quench a disbelieving mind. are you? Well if you have no truth you can show me, or even an argument that is not riddle with fallacy, then we must part ways for the time being. farewell.
MoonLancer 4 years ago
the bible says god exists and he is never wrong, and god says the bible is true. Thats circular logic and its fallacy. Thats why its not in science class or any other respected curriculum except theology.
MoonLancer 4 years ago
how can I have free will if the choice is already decided? because god made it so? how did he make it so? how can a choice be known and before that choice happens and still have the free will to make that choice?
I respect your belief, but that belief is not one based on history, or science. its a theology.
MoonLancer 4 years ago
msg1
trust me you don't want to know the history of Christianity. it will only make you an atheist. What you want is a class called theology. Science cant prove god exists, thats why he isn't in science class. History cant prove Jesus exists, thats why he isn't taught in history class. their are no accounts of his existence outside the bible.
MoonLancer 4 years ago
God doesn't exist, If he did, we wouldn't have free because we are apart of the plan. Its intellectually dishonest to say he has a plan and we are all apart of it.
MoonLancer 4 years ago
And then to say he is all power all knowing and all loving, and then to say we have free will to make a choice, even though he already has a plan for us. Something has to give. If you cant see that, your just going to have to read more books and learn more about the world.
MoonLancer 4 years ago
sorry for the break up; youtube thought it was a url when it was one message. wtf?
MoonLancer 4 years ago
and how did he do that? with the bible? the bible is the one claiming his existence as well. That would be circular logic my friend.
MoonLancer 4 years ago
If all happens as to his plan, Then we have no free will to make the choices he wishes (ironic huh?). In turn babies that die before they are baptized go to hell. Is that something an all good god does? Keep in mind that the pope said that purgatory doesn't exist. If one must be baptized because of original sin, then their are many stillborns that go to hell. Is that a good god? We are theological beliefs are views are mandated by our geography. a good god doesn't condemn based off chance.
MoonLancer 4 years ago
Why would science need to say anything about god if god supposedly is above scientific scrutiny?
What do you feel is the most convincing argument (or evidence) that god exists? I have given you many good reasons as to how he cannot exist, I have also shown he would not be pleasant to be around if he did.
MoonLancer 4 years ago
Thats a romantic thought, but who defines what is the right path? many people in the world beleave in god, but they all do it differently. If Christianity was a true path, their wouldn't be so many denominations. Pulling back, If their was only one true way to worship god, their wouldn't be any jewish people, or people of Islam.
So how do you personally assign judgment or value to what is the right path? ever stop and smell the roses?
MoonLancer 4 years ago
I am a first amendment extremist. You are free to think or believe or express yourself however you desire. But creation is everything that science is not. It has no right to be in science class. If schools want to teach theology they should at least be honest that is theology and not science. But to be fair, other theology should be taught as well.
MoonLancer 4 years ago
Just a little question though, if you attribute all good that happens to you as god, do you then see all the bad that happens to you as your sin?
MoonLancer 4 years ago
We can see the influence of evolution and it has been observed in under a microscope. evolution is as proven a theory as gravity, which is still a theory today. Just as how we can show that a ball falls to the earth because of gravity, scientists can show that evolution does happen.
MoonLancer 4 years ago
While we cant directly see gravity, we see its influence on the natural world. the difference in the two is evolution happens slower. For evolution, Its like watching the hour hand on a clock, and for gravity we can see it by looking at the second hand of the clock. Both occur and both are active.
MoonLancer 4 years ago
God is different though. We cant disprove him but that is a slippery slope because the argument for gods existence is falsifiable claim. I can transpose any argument I wish and its still as equally valid to the claim that god exist
MoonLancer 4 years ago
Versus.. how many people that devote themselves 100% to christ ....?
lazerflesh 4 years ago
again...I have no idea what you mean when you say this, so my response may not make any sense.
Is their something specific that i should believe. because you imply that i am lost, that would imply a definitive path of truth or knowledge, that you feel must be followed. If their was only one path to follow though, everyone would have followed it and its clear that this has not happened.
MoonLancer 4 years ago
sorry arjs2010, I must not understand, "ether that or i got ahead of myself"
"do you love anyone? seriously..i'm not being sarcastic. if you do..proove it."
what do you mean by this? its seems to be a loaded statement. If i love someone... prove it? You seem to be alluding to something god related. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then I have no clue what your talking about.
I was addressing RobNieves when i was talking about historical accounts. sorry for the confusion.
MoonLancer 4 years ago
I can write love poetry, and i can discribe my feelings of love, but i can not describe a god that is all loving all powerfull and all knowing without making a contradiction.
MoonLancer 4 years ago
I can at least prove the one that I love is actively loving me back through "re"actions to my actions. God has no reactions. God is the sugar pill of chance. If something evil happens its not god, but if something good happens it is god. That doesn't work. If god reacts to us, then stop eating and except to live ect... Its problematic allround. The argument that something is too complex for us to know and thus is god is a shame considering we learn more of our would everyday.
MoonLancer 4 years ago
seriously do you have any historical accounts? arjs, i'm not quite sure I follow you? How is searching truth something that invalidates love?
MoonLancer 4 years ago
Further, if Atheists don't believe in God then why not just leave those people that do, continue to live out their faith? If you don't believe in God, then fine, continue to live as you wish. Why do you feel it necessary to attack Christians such as the RR Squad is doing? They are specifically attacking Christians with their message. I don't see them attacking any other religion. Sure, some people's videos attack other faiths but the RR Squad is just asking you to deny the God of the Bible.
RobNieves 4 years ago
This video attacks evoltuion, but does not prove creation. Who is attacking who? christens like to make public policy. They also want religion taught as science. Perhaps insted tearing down science to get religion taught in science class, they should focus on proving creation. We both know thats impossible... Christians always did like using the back door when it cames to things like this.
MoonLancer 4 years ago
You can live out your faith, just don't expect a tax break. Perhaps it Christianity that should stop attacking science, or gays, or witches, or heathens, or druids, or any other people that point out when you when you are wrong.
MoonLancer 4 years ago
They are ex-Christians its common sense to stick to what you know. Hursi Ali is speaking out about Islam under the threat of death. Islam is now in the same position where christianity was two centuries back Question faith and we will kill you. The oceans of blood spilled for the imaginary god concept. But I guess atheist agnostics and humanist should sit idle while people of faith continue to kill for there absent gods.
lb10128 4 years ago
MoonLancer, It is impossible for me to believe that we came from nothing. I'd rather believe that we came from an inteligent God than an explosion that came out of no where. If I told you that two cars crashed in front of my house without any drivers you would think I'm crazy, yet many Atheist believe in a big bang, and further believe that from that big bang this entire world was created. I'm sorry, it just doesn't make sense to me. Maybe I'm just too dumb to understand Atheism.
RobNieves 4 years ago
the big bang is evolution? I don't follow. When you say evolution, you mean science. hmmm war on science... Well its no wonder a creature who evolved to build things thinks that everything around him must be build by something.
Also your statement is a appeal to consequence and is a fallacy. Just because you "rather believe that we came from an intelligent god" does not make it true.
MoonLancer 4 years ago
This video try's to say that Christianity is the same thing as Christians. So the people and the denomination are one? Oh good, I have always wanted to put Christianity on trial for burning down Alexandria and creating the dark ages. So I can grab a whole bunch of Christians and do just that. AWESOME!
... wtf
MoonLancer 4 years ago
The greatest thing about this whole argument is that no matter who you are or what you believe Jesus loves you and died for your sins. It's a free give of salvation that can be yours by simply accepting it. Jesus loves Theists and Atheists the same.
RobNieves 4 years ago
Were was Jesus when witches were burned using his name? were was he when Hypatia skin was shredded with clam shells by christen monks? Were was he when Cyril was sainted for these actions? ah yes, the same place he always is, in our hearts. Its a shame that doesn't stop wars like that in Iraq. Instead that love created wars like the crusades.
MoonLancer 4 years ago
No the greatest thing about this whole argument is this. I can transpose Christ with any number of false creations such as the Invisible Pink unicorn and the argument nor its meaning has not changed.
MoonLancer 4 years ago
MoonLancer, God has given you the free will to refuse or accept him. It's your choice. I'm sorry you're choosing today to refuse his love, I hope someday you'll change your mind before it's too late. I love you in Christ's love and I'll be praying for your well being.
RobNieves 4 years ago
RobNieves, The Invisible pink unicorn has given you the free will to refuse or accept her. It's your choice. I'm sorry you're choosing today to refuse his love, I hope someday you'll change your mind before it's too late. I love you in her love and I'll be praying for your well being.
see what I mean? kind of silly. Try using your own words next time, and then I will too.
MoonLancer 4 years ago
MoonLancer, the difference between "the invisible pink unicorn" and "Jesus" is that Jesus was a real person, who did real miracles, who died a real death, and performed a real resurrection that was witnessed by hundreds of people, including people that were willing to loose their lives for him. Denying Jesus existence is like denying Mohamad's existence or any other REAL person in History.
RobNieves 4 years ago
too bad their is't once source outside the bible to backup your claim. what historical accounts, other then the bible, claim that Jesus resurrects, let alone exists? I am willing to read them, if you provided them.
MoonLancer 4 years ago
Stacey
#3 - The Church does support itself in order to continue to get the message of Jesus out. Why? Because we believe that's the message that will ultimately make a difference in the world, whether you agree or not. Also the money that stays in the church is used to teach more people to abandon their self-centered ways to help others as well. As our message grows, so does the help that we send for Humanitarian efforts.
RobNieves 5 years ago
Rob, #3, "Because we believe that's the message that will ultimately make a difference in the world"
I understand that you put money into the organization as a sort of investment in spiritual wellbeing. The problem is the Return On Investment has yet to be verified, even after 2000 years.
"As our message grows, so does the help that we send for Humanitarian efforts."
No, it stays the same. Individuals donate much more, but the extra donations go to church infrastructure.
StaceyMelissa 5 years ago
Stacey
#2 - Your statements in regards to what the church does and doesn't do are based on what the media has taught you. And we all know that the media cannot be trusted because they only show us what makes Headlines.
You can't generalized the Church. The church that I am apart of does an enormous amount for Humanitarian efforts, not just with money but also in going to help.
RobNieves 5 years ago
Rob, #2, The media doesn't teach me anything. They just report facts, and I interpret those facts. The figures we've been debating about were certainly not headline makers... I agree that the Church cannot be generalized, since it's not a monolithic organization - not even in its RCC form. If your local church does significantly better than the average church, then props to you and your church.
StaceyMelissa 5 years ago
Until the end of Christianity? wow. First, that's impossible, Christianity is the one religion that has evidently gone through the most trials over the years, and yet the religion continues to flourish.I guess Islam,Judaism,Buddhism ,Animism,Hinduism Don't count. The fact that the 'rational' squad to zeros in on one religion,indicates that Jesus rules over all!
sodabanana 5 years ago
The target of the Blasphemy Challenge indicates that Christianity has too much power in the U.S., and has been abusing that power for too long - not that Christianity is true.
StaceyMelissa 5 years ago
Stacey, if you want to make it a fair game, then use ratios. Christians own Atheists in amount given. Period. Stop being so stubborn.
Sellthekid4food 5 years ago
Let's see here... 76% of the nation self-identifies as "Christian", while 1%-10% (depending on the survey you consult) self-identifies as "atheist". 228 million Christians donate more than 3-30 million atheists. Gee, what a shocker. *rolls eyes* But that wasn't even what I was talking about. I was talking about the 80% of well-meaning donations that are wasted by churches.
StaceyMelissa 5 years ago
I already said this earlier - The average American Christian donates four times as much as the average American atheist. Have a pat on the back. But 3/4 of that donation goes to church. The average church, in turn, wastes 80% of that money on maintaining and spreading itself, and only spends 20% on humanitarian stuff. Your generosity is being exploited. How about giving the same money to the Red Cross, instead of to your church? Or 1/4 to Red Cross, and 3/4 for your own needs, like atheists do?
StaceyMelissa 5 years ago
wow extensive research on what the church does w. it's money. Maybe you should do exactly the same w. red cross. i bet not 100% of it goes to humanitarian stuff. Secondly, I don't give to the Church, I give back to God sometimes that means church sometimes its charity. The church has needs, bills have to be paid. I don't mind one bit that my money goes into maintaining the house of God.
sodabanana 5 years ago
Again, something I already said earlier - The Red Cross spends 9% on infrastructure, and 91% on humanitarian stuff. I think God should build and maintain his own church infrastructure, since he's omnipotent, and all. He shouldn't need money. Only people need money. None of your donations go to God. Some people waste almost all of it, and some don't. I suggest not giving anything to the people who waste most of it, and give it instead to people who put it to most effective humanitarian use.
StaceyMelissa 5 years ago
Stacey, the Red Cross should spend that kind of percentage on Humanitian efforts because that's it's soul purpose. The Church's purpose is more of an eternal nature. We believe in rescuing people from an eternal hell by telling them of God's love demonstrated through Jesus' Sacrifice. Our purpose is different than the Red Cross, therefore we use our money differently. You may not buy that and that's entirely up to you. However, I wish you would reconsider your position on Divine matters.
RobNieves 5 years ago
"The Church's purpose is more of an eternal nature."
The Church's primary purpose is to expand its own infrastructure. Helping people in need is of distant secondary concern. The Church helps itself with your generous donations long before it thinks of helping others.
StaceyMelissa 5 years ago
Even more importantly than that. Stacey, I'd like you to know that Jesus loves you, and nothing you do can ever seperate you from his love, even the "so-called" Blasphemy Challenge. This whole thing is not about who's right or wrong, but about finding out that there's a God who loves us and wants a relationship with us.
RobNieves 5 years ago
"Stacey, I'd like you to know that Jesus loves you, and nothing you do can ever seperate you from his love, even the "so-called" Blasphemy Challenge."
For one thing, God hates everyone, according to the Bible. (Romans 3:10, Psalm 5:5) Second, God doesn't allow apostates like me back in, according to the Bible. (Hebrews 6:4-6) Third, the Bible god doesn't exist anyway.
StaceyMelissa 5 years ago
Yeah, she doesn't seem to grasp the concept that the Church is the BIGGEST humanitarian effort because that so-called 80% wasted caused it to grow to be the biggest. Perhaps if the Red-Cross would spend money on growth it would start giving as much as the church does.
Secondly, the red cross is practically made up of Christians. It's practically pointless to use it agaisnt Christian Church expenditure.
Sellthekid4food 5 years ago
"the Church is the BIGGEST humanitarian effort because that so-called 80% wasted caused it to grow to be the biggest."
The huge size of the Church only magnifies the waste.
"the red cross is practically made up of Christians. It's practically pointless to use it agaisnt Christian Church expenditure."
The Red Cross is not the Church. It has quite separate Income & Expenditure sheets, and in non-Christian-dominated countries, it's mostly not made up of Christians.
StaceyMelissa 5 years ago
Stacey
#1 - Your statements in regards to what the Bible says are so wrong. Apparently you haven't read the Bible, but rather bits and pieces and that does not make you an expert on theological matters, so please read the Bible and study it before misquoting it out of context.
RobNieves 5 years ago
Rob, #1. I have read the entire Bible - much of it several times over - other than Psalms, Proverbs, and Song of Solomon, which I've only read parts of. If you wish to dispute my interpretation, or say I'm taking verses out of context, please back up your assertions with some actual arguments, with actual details. Just because your church doesn't focus on the verses I name, it doesn't mean I'm taking them out of context.
StaceyMelissa 5 years ago
"The Red Cross is not the Church. It has quite separate Income & Expenditure sheets,"
Which is irrelevant. You can't seperate the Christian from the Church or the Church from the Christian. Until your facts add in the millions given directly to the Red Cross, Salvation Army or any other then your facts will always be skewed, and you will continue looking like you know nothing of which you speak.
Sellthekid4food 5 years ago
"Which is irrelevant. You can't seperate the Christian from the Church or the Church from the Christian."
I'm separating the generous laymen of the Church from the wasteful leaders of the Church organizations.
"Until your facts add in the millions given directly to the Red Cross, Salvation Army or any other then your facts will always be skewed,"
The figures already do include those things.
StaceyMelissa 5 years ago
"The huge size of the Church only magnifies the waste."
1. It can't be considered a waste if it causes church Growth.
a. Church Growth causes more humanitarians.
b. if the Red cross started "wasting" some money like the Church 'supposedly' does, then maybe they would make a bigger impact.
c. Start comprehending our posts. There is a reason there is 3 vs you on this. You are ridiculously wrong. Suck it up.
Sellthekid4food 5 years ago
"1. It can't be considered a waste if it causes church Growth."
It's growth and maintenance that comes at ridiculous expense. That's wasteful.
"b. if the Red cross started "wasting" some money like the Church 'supposedly' does, then maybe they would make a bigger impact."
It already does make a bigger impact on a much smaller budget.
"There is a reason there is 3 vs you on this. You are ridiculously wrong."
Popularity does not equal truth.
StaceyMelissa 5 years ago
Hey Rob, you should not take their words literally - the same with the Bible :) Probably you've never heard about irony.
Relax, man.
szoregi 5 years ago
Ok then I won't take this comment literally either and don't take my response literally. What you're saying is absolutely silly ...Literally. I guess we should apply that to everyone. Maybe we can't even take our terrorists threats literally either, huh?
RobNieves 5 years ago
Stacey, that 20% is huge. When was the last time you saw a hospital that started with "St." The percentages is misleading. The Churches of Christianity is the most humanitarian existent.
Sellthekid4food 5 years ago
The 20% is quite large and greatly appreciated. However, it would be given just the same if those Christians all suddenly became atheists. But that's not what I'm concerned about. I'm concerned about the other 80% that is totally wasted. I'd rather see it go to something useful. Like hospitals, food for the hungry, or even just your own retirement fund.
StaceyMelissa 5 years ago
The Church always has been the leader of humanitarian efforts.. Secondly, the majority of the Red Cross is made of Christian people itself. There is absolutely no room for an Atheist to condemn church expenditure seeing as how the atheist world does not even compare to Christian generosity. Even if it is only 20% of what is given. Thirdly, I doubt your figures include the Christians giving outside of the church to the Red Cross, United Way, etc.
Sellthekid4food 5 years ago
First of all, there overall Christian population is orders of magnitude larger than the over atheist population. So that explains why Christians are the majority donors of time and money. That's why I gave figures in percentages and per capita - to make the game fair. And actually, my figures include all charitable giving by all people surveyed. That 80% waste rate is actually made all the worse since it is 80% of such a large number of donations.
StaceyMelissa 5 years ago
Jump to conclusions much? LOL this video is an Embarassment to intillegint Christians. OMG you are so dumb. Why aren't you ashamed of this crap? "The Universe would be a good reason...don't you think? LOL There isn't a single cognet argument in this video. "We wish," you would take this laughable crap off the internet. LOL
Jasonclay 5 years ago
You're a drama queen & a moron. He "stutters" cuz the question is so illogical, i.e. "what's wrong with god" implies there is a god. And no one can be sure about anything NOT existing, but as he says, he "most likely doesn't exist." And yes, imagine no religion at all, what a wonderful world.
bluespiral58 5 years ago
A better world would be a world without sin. Sin destroys society. Killing destroys society, adultery destroys society, stealing destroys society, coveting destroys society, etc...
RobNieves 5 years ago
"Sin" is a fictional religious construct. It's just whatever happens to upset God - not whatever harms people. For example, masturbation is a "sin", but it harms no one. Killing and stealing are generally harmful, but if you read the Bible, you'll see that God doesn't *really* have anything against them. Adultery is sometimes harmful, sometimes not. Coveting runs the economy.
StaceyMelissa 5 years ago
... and I imagine what could be done with that money, I imagine what could be done with the man-power put into running it, and what could be done with the loving focus of the people within. I imagine those churches as schools, and universities funded by the people. I imagine them as a part of a thriving, healthy, and cooperative community, and I imagine faith in human potential.
Jasonclay 5 years ago
I'm sure you give a lot to charity by the way you talk, right? My church has given more money to poor countries and neighborhoods than the Rational Response Squad, I'm sure.
RobNieves 5 years ago
When atheists give donations, they usually give to organizations that don't have any sort of religious stance at all, like the Red Cross or Doctors Without Borders. Atheists don't typically make a big fuss about donating under the guise of atheism. They donate under the guise of simply being human. It's not a donation contest between us and churches.
StaceyMelissa 5 years ago
Giving is not a donation contest, I was just responding to the person that was talking about how the money that was spent on a church building could've been used for something better.
RobNieves 5 years ago
Your response didn't address the criticism, which was that money given to churches could be better spent. The figures I've seen say donations to average churches are spent by the church at a rate of over 80% to maintain/expand church infrastructure, and <20% to humanitarian causes. Compare this to the secular Red Cross, which spends 9% on infrastructure, and 91% on human beings in need. That's why most of my donations go to the Red Cross.
StaceyMelissa 5 years ago
I am one of those that happens to be so lucky to live in what is called the "Bible Belt." I see the most marvelous Churchdes and Mega-Churches created in the name of God dotting every country and city block
Jasonclay 5 years ago
I'd like to see how much money Atheists have given to "Katrina or Tsunami Victims" or how much money they've given sent overseas to poor countries. What you're talking is ignorant rubbish. Ask those Mega-Churches what they've done before you speak so foolishly.
RobNieves 5 years ago
The statistics show that religious people in America give about four times as much money as secular people. However, about 3/4 of that money goes into the churches, which use it almost exclusively for self-promotion. So it's pretty much a wash as far as *productive* donations go. Worldwide, the U.S. pales in comparison to more secular nations in per capita donations.
StaceyMelissa 5 years ago
Stacey, you're obviously talking out of ignorance here. You assume that what you're saying is true, you have no real evidence of this.
RobNieves 5 years ago
Rob, I just read the stats a couple months ago, so I don't talk from ignorance. I'll have to find the stats again, though.
StaceyMelissa 5 years ago
Stacey, ignore this idiot. All he can do is dismiss what you say for not citing every bit of info. It's pathetic really. You can compare his desperate attempts to the fall of Christianity.
Xfodder4uX 4 years ago
They single out Christianity because they live in America. If they lived in India, they would single out Hinduism. In Pakistan, they would single out Islam. In Israel, Judaism. The target religion is just the biggest one around.
StaceyMelissa 5 years ago
You know what you said here is not true. Don't you think it would've been better to insult Muslims instead of Christians, since they were the ones that flew planes into our buildings, not Christians. They chose Christians because we're an easy target. And secondly because they hate us.
RobNieves 5 years ago
It's not Muslim groups that are fighting to keep words like "In God We Trust" on our money or "Under God" in our pledge. Christians were on their mind during the interview, so they were talking about Christians. Because they come into contact with Christians so much more than Muslims, they debunk them first. Don't worry, they'll get around to everyone. ;)
dreamwalker007 5 years ago
Obviously our Country believes in God, and if Atheists have a problem with that, perhaps they can move to a Communist country that doesn't. There's only one problem I suppose, God will be there also. Sorry.
RobNieves 5 years ago
The vast majority of the country is lukewarm about religion, so of religious nuts such as yourself have a problem with that, perhaps you can move to a country that takes religion more seriously. In 1900, our country obviously believed women should not have the right to vote. Perhaps women should have moved to a more progressive country, instead of fighting for their civil rights, like atheists are doing now.
StaceyMelissa 5 years ago
Stacey, in none of our conversations I've resorting to demean you as a person. I could call a ton of names, but I won't, I would appreciate it if you extented the same courtesy towards me instead of calling me a "religious nut". Christianity teaches people to treat others with respect, I don't believe Atheism teaches that.
RobNieves 5 years ago
Atheism doesn't teach anything at all. It's nothing more than a lack of belief in the existence of gods. So I get my ethics from elsewhere. I apologize for calling you a religious nut. Please replace that phrase with "serious Christian fundamentalist". Also, please stop implying I'm a liar in your comments to me. You've done that a couple times.
StaceyMelissa 5 years ago
Never meant to imply you were lying, sorry if you felt that way. I would however say that I don't agree with the way you view the church. i will say that although the Church is not perfect, many Christians have done a lot of good for society.
RobNieves 5 years ago
I agree that many, many Christians have done many wonderful things. I just think they do those things because they are decent human beings, rather than because they are Christians.
StaceyMelissa 5 years ago
ok so u guys dont beleive any thing so leave every one else alone. no reason for these extremist atheist to hate us wen that chick said "were the most hated" im not pointing this at u but u guys quiestion our beliefs and if u beleive in nothing why be so adiment to end a religion.
so are these guys saitanists or wat cuz appearently hes trying to end christianity
nbwhalin 5 years ago
I challenge you to prove I know what I said is not true... Muslims are the violent ones, so they make the headlines, but there atheists in America suffer far, far more oppression from Christians. It comes in forms other than violence, though, so it doesn't make the headlines so much. In any case, the RRS does criticize Islam as well as Christianity. It's not like they must only ever criticize one religion.
StaceyMelissa 5 years ago
Oh Rob, you are trying too hard.
frid9999 5 years ago
you realy like sensationalistic over reading of what people say dont you? so what if they stutter, god forbid someone have his mind going in several different directions when asked a question. and just because he won't stop till the end of something dosn't mean its hate speech, if i say i will need to drink water till the end of time does that mean i hate time?
evirus 5 years ago
The Blasphemy Challenge challenges people to commit blasphemy, if christianity ends then the challenge would be compleatly meaningless. and as far as "the universe" sceince is above pointing to things and saying its evidence for something, you have to explain it more!
evirus 5 years ago
The stuttering just points to a lack of confidence in what he was saying - then to say "most likely doesn't exist" is insecurity. Also, regarding not stopping til the end of Christianity comment - why didn't he say "the end of Islam" or the end of "Judaism" - Why single out Christianity and not all religions?
RobNieves 5 years ago
Moses stuttered, according to the story. Aaron spoke to the crowds for him. Do you think that means Moses didn't really believe in what he was doing?
StaceyMelissa 5 years ago
Stacey, are you telling me that you believe Moses was a real man? Because if you do, then you admit that the bible is true because Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. Also, Moses had a stuttering problem period, unlike Brian "Sapient" which claims to be sure about everything. To stutter and then say a comment like "most likely doesn't exist" shows insecurity, that's all.
RobNieves 5 years ago
I'm telling you that *the story says* such and such. That's why I said, "according to the story". Sapient's "stutter" was actually just him laughing and trying to talk at the same time. Also, "sure" has several connotations, some of which do not indicate absolute certainty. E.g. "I'm sure we'll make it through the storm just fine, Timmy."
StaceyMelissa 5 years ago
LMAO, is this the best you got?! So what if stacey assumes for a moment the bible is real, she is doing this to be from your viewpoint.
Do you not realize you just kicked yourself in the balls?????????????????????????????
Xfodder4uX 4 years ago
Mr. Nieves needs to read a couple of Robert Ingersoll's lectures. They're on the Internet.
Proteus6666 5 years ago
You need to read the Bible which is so much more realiable than some guy's lectures.
RobNieves 5 years ago
Matthew 4:8 implies the Earth is flat. There are three contradictory lineages given for Jesus' ancestors. Jesus promised his Second Coming would happen before the audience standing before him was had died. There are two totally contradictory accounts of Judas' death and the surrounding events. Is that what you call "reliable"?
StaceyMelissa 5 years ago
hmmm, the OT was written thousands of years ago and translated orally and on paper more times than one can count whuile the NT was written 40 YEARS after the death of the guy named jesus.
I prefer my science book man, copyright 2006
Xfodder4uX 4 years ago
No, the infant has not sinned, but the curse of sin has been passed on to them. For example, if a person gets HIV from a sex partner, their child can be born with HIV, though themselves did not abuse the drugs. Our wrong doings can sometimes affect others. In this case the original sin affect humanity as a whole.
RobNieves 5 years ago
A curse is something God carries out, so it's ultimately up to him whether the curse is carried out. Also, Ezekiel 18 - particularly verse 4 - says that God will not kill a child for the sins of anyone else. So you're arguing against Ezekiel 18 here. Since I have so many objections to your theodicy, I'm gonna have to number them. The first one, I'll call A1, and the one about curse culpability is A2, and the one about Ezekiel, I'll call A3.
StaceyMelissa 5 years ago
The Bible does not say that in Ezekiel 18:4, it says "The soul who sins is the one who will die". You can't take verses out of context and claim to have a teaching on what the bible says. The message of the entire bible is that because of Adams sin, it's curse has been passed down to us, and the truth of the matter is that we have all sinned. Therefore, what you said is not true. Be careful because a half truth is a whole lie.
RobNieves 5 years ago
Objection A4: God set up the system by which the "sin" of one man would "curse" the whole of humanity. This was needless. Objection A5: God did not inform Adam & Eve that the whole of humanity would suffer for their actions if they ate the fruit. God only told A&E the half-truth that A&E would die that day. A half-truth is a whole lie.
StaceyMelissa 5 years ago
The universe is a good reason to believe the an omnipotent, loving god, such as the proposed Christian one, doesn't exist. Something more specific, though... How about birth defects and congenital fetal diseases, such as Harlequin type ichthyosis? You should look it up at Wikipedia, and be sure to follow the External Links at the bottom of the article, so you can see some pictures. That's nothing a loving, omnipotent designer would do.
StaceyMelissa 5 years ago
Hey Stacie, I could understand your argument and it makes sense. However, the story of the Bible lets us know that although God created everything good, man's sin caused the earth to be cursed. The imperfections of the world are a direct result of sin.
RobNieves 5 years ago
I have a ton of objections to that line of reasoning. For starters... Did the newborn baby sin? No, not at all. The newborn doesn't deserve to suffer from fatal birth defects and disease. How could a loving, omnipotent deity just sit there and watch an innocent baby suffer like that?
StaceyMelissa 5 years ago
sin came from god, everything comes from god, that much is obvious man.......
You can't blame sin on humans when god put the tree there knowing eve would take a bite.
Xfodder4uX 4 years ago
I must say I've seen those pictures of these poor baby years ago, just more evidence against the concept of a loving god.
lb10128 4 years ago
I used to be a Christian, and I thought, man this is tough, with people always giving me a rough time about it. Then I became an atheist, and realized how truly easy life as a Christian was in comparison. I realized that my earlier thoughts about it were just part of the larger Christian persecution complex that is fed to rank-and-file Christians by cynical Christian leaders.
StaceyMelissa 5 years ago