Wtf Obama? You should've said "I agree with Mr. Edwards", not talk about some religious and moral values as of non-believers would not have those qualities.
Yea, but, one problem with that statement: How the hell do you translate religious morality without citing God as the justification? god didn't really give a lot of reasons for things other then, "I told you so". You're gonna have some trouble "translating" that one. Reason, Mr. President. Use reason for morality.
The world watches and cries. The United States is a fucking scary place. Someone who is in charge of such an exorbitant military should be ashamed to flaunt their superstitious beliefs, let alone use them to gain bloody support, especially in a time where all warfare is down to differing views on whose all loving God hates whose the most. This shit should not be tolerated any more.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon
@mody1710 Science can't proove that something dont exist. Science can't proove, for example, that unicorns or aliens exist. So why noone believes in unicorns? Because science havent found even one single evidence of its existance.
God, hell, paradise, soul, angels, deamons, satan, talking snake etc. Bible claims existance of all these things, but science havent found single evidence. Why you wont believe in unicorns but believe in this? Because both unicorns and this have 0 evidence.
I just love the way how in America you have to be religious to be elected. We don't here. David Cameron says he goes to church now and then and his coalition partner Nick Clegg is an atheist so this just shows how different the UK and USA really are.
@erpuzzetta01 Its gonna suck if you die and you happen to see Allah. Hope you guessed the correct God, because they can't all be right (but they can all be wrong).
@SuddenlySecular: I understand that; but my faith in our God is just to strong to doubt the existence of Him. Any other God's I do not believe in; just the one.
Obama is not a Christian. He just says that to sucker in the stupid people who will only vote for a christian(because the majority of the american people will not vote for an atheist) The same with Bush he claimed to be a christian, yeah right. more like satanist:
Skull and bones Brotherhood of death, and Bohemian grove.
@ClumsyRoot yes is neutral, but a secular state is weak. Religious people are the majority. A secular state only stop christianity because christians are tolerant, but the state can not stop Islam, when you have millions of muslims in your country an Islamic State is inevitable. Atheists should support Christianity for their own safety, but atheists are crazy they think christians are islamophobics LOL
Christian "tolerance" has little to do with it. Christianity has been tempered in the U.S. because the country has separation of church and state built right into its constitution. Without this protection, it might still have sectarian wars.
You are right, though--atheists should team up with Christians in the face of militant Islam. Unfortunately, leftist nonbelievers often defend Islam, an ideology is thoroughly at odds with the ideals of Western liberal democracy.
@trifulquita15 Atheism is the rejection of theistic beliefs in the supernatural, that is all; there is no ideology or dogma attached to it that atheists follow, the only thing that joins one atheist to another atheist is the fact that they reject theistic beliefs. It really isn't hard to understand. I bet you are one of those idiots who think atheism is some kind of religion with a political agenda, that is the only explanation I can think of as to why you wrote such a dumb statement.
@trifulquita15 Atheism is the rejection of theistic beliefs in the supernatural, that is all; there is no ideology or dogma attached to it that atheists follow, the only thing that joins one atheist to another atheist is the fact that they reject theistic beliefs. It really isn't hard to understand. I bet you are one of those idiots who think atheism is some kind of religion with a political agenda, that is the only explanation I can think of as to why you wrote such a dumb statement.
@1dekidejo nothing more? atheism is ANTI-RELIGION, here in America we have freedom of religion, therefore atheism is against the Constitution. Atheism is also a political ideology and their goals are very clear.
1. Remove the word God from any public building, schools and universities
2. Promoting atheism using the media, the arts and sciences
I have to say, you have a rather cartoonish (and paranoid) view of atheists.
While many atheists are personally "anti-religion," most of us believe firmly in the freedom of conscience. What we oppose is the attempt by religious people to use civil authorities to push their faith.
And so what if some atheists "promote atheism"? How is that any different from any other group promoting its ideas?
If there is a God, wouldn't any attempt to "remove" Him from the world be futile?
@trifulquita15 I think you have a very misinformed opinion on the definition of Atheism.
Try to look it up and decide for yourself what it is after research. Instead of just listening to what your parents, minister etc tells you what it is.
@gnarkillkicksass I know the history of atheism very well. Even if God doesnt exist I'll be against atheism. I prefer to believe in Donald Duck rather than any atheist celebrity
Mao said religion is poison, and atheist communists destroyed the chinese culture in a few years
You know the history of COMMUNISM very well. While it's true that communism is atheistic, you'll find that few atheists are sympathetic with it. Communism is at odds with the ideals of Western liberal democracy, which the vast majority of nonbelievers support.
I would argue that any "faith-based" ideology--be it religious (e.g., Islam) or political (e.g., communism)--can be toxic when allowed to run roughshod over individual rights.
@ClumsyRoot Communism isn't atheistic, it doesn't inherently involve religion or the lack thereof, it's not even inherently secular, nor is it faith-based. It sounds like you're referring to Stalinism, which could still have been a nightmarish totalitarian dictatorship if it were capitalist rather than communist.
Marx's views on religion are well-known, and every communist state has been officially atheistic.
If you promise a "worker's paradise" here on earth, you don't take kindly to people who say that paradise takes place in the NEXT life. Utopian ideologies cannot coexist.
@trifulquita15 Mao was an atheist. Hitler was also catholic who in 1939(give or take a year) said he was doing "gods work".
Now I don't think Christians are all genocidal maniacs (I actually used to be one) so please explain your feelings as to why all people with Atheistic leanings are like Mao?
PS believe it or not - you are also VERY Atheistic. Do you not believe in Zeus? Apollo? Muhammad?
Say no to any of those - welcome to the world of Atheism - the rejection of religions.
That´s what I like with Obama and the Dems overall! :) They´re basically atheists altogether, pretending to "protect" and being "proud" of their own "personal" belief: We all know they don´t give a "shit" about religion, right? Thnx god :) I wish the world and the US were more mature to understand the msg given. . .Christianity and Islam is a religion of MORONS, CRETINS and IDIOTS. No person of any significant intelligence CARES! Put your Bibles and Qurans DEEP INSIDE YOUR IGNORANT ASSES!!!
@brenonion & @nar3sas Without taking sides, even though I too am an atheist, can we please stop arguing about petty things like a difference in beliefs and keep the comments in line with whats on the video. This is youtube, not a discussion forum for morality. thanks :)
'can we please stop arguing about petty things like a difference in beliefs?'
nope. they're far too important. i really am shocked that you would want to discourage such dialogue. especially since we ended the argument fairly amicably and didn't resort to personal attacks. we didn't even discuss morality.... as for 'keep the comments in line with whats on the video'... wow... just wow, welcome to youtube man, if you think thats worth reprimanding then you've got an uphill battle
we all know that if you're not a WASP you cant be president for now. Obama became president because he's partly white, he was against hillary (men > women), and against mccain (who everyone thought was going to be like bush), therefore he was somewhat moral according to the moderates.
I don't understand religion, and to be honest I think most of what religion teaches you is a joke.
I am indeed an atheist, but I have a perfectly acceptable amount of respect for everybody as long as they aren't derogatory towards me, be that religious or otherwise.
What people need to understand is, people can still love, get along and see the beauty of the world without believing any rubbish which the church teaches you. The world was created over 4.6 billion years, not by god in 6 days.
@beeniefide There must be something wrong with you if you believe that Genesis saying that God created the world in 6 days is to be taken literally. It is COMPLETELY symbolic. Learn to look for symbolism when there is an obvious difference between what was written in a text and what actually is. Also note that the Bible was not meant to be completely scientifically accurate. It was meant to be morally accurate, and it is. The evils of the OT were done by the people, not by God.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
Hearing a smart guy like Obama say 'I am proud of my Christian faith' makes me wince every single time.
I don't care if they lose their jobs, people in Congress need to stop lying about their critical thinking skills and admit they are atheists.
I don't care if everyone thinks you can't get elected if you're an atheist. I'm sick of that excuse. We need to stop paying lip service to an absurd and divisive ideology and call a spade a fucking spade.
@brenonion Do you have any evidence Obama is an atheist? If you ask me, not believing he's a Christian just because you don't want him to be makes you no better than the people who think he's really a Muslim
In the audacity of hope, he wrote about how his mother told him about how baseless religion was. He also said 'If you're going to be in politics in Chicago, you'd better have a church to go to.' He has denounced the wicked parts of the Bible openly (its on youtube) and mentioned nonbelievers in his inaugural address. Still my answer is no, I don't have definitive evidence that he is a closeted atheist. I just find it REALLY hard to believe a man of his intelligence buys into theism.
@brenonion Why do you wince every time you hear Obama say that? Does it bother you that someone can be so intelligent and religious at the same time? Also, what do you mean about people in Congress admitting they are atheists? How would you know if they are atheists or not? I agree with you about them lying about certain things, but religion isn't necessarily one of them.
It does bother me that otherwise intelligent people don't apply Critical Thinking 101 to claims that are without rational justification or evidentiary support. Pete Stark is the only openly atheist member of Congress. I doubt that out of 435 representatives and 100 senators there's just ONE person who doesn't believe in fairy tales. It appears only one is willing to risk political suicide in admitting it.
@brenonion Christianity DOES have rational justicification and evidentiary support. There are NDE's, OBE's, the creation of the universe, miracles, proof for Biblical events, and laminin. The members of Congress can critically think things out and still believe in Christianity. I agree with you about it being unlikely that only one person believes in what you call "fairy tales". There must be at least be several others. Of course, I'm sure you know you can't prove those are just "fairy tales".
If there is evidentiary support, why is it called 'faith' and not knowledge? Why do scientists worldwide line up overwhelmingly on one side of the argument? I don't think we're going to settle this, so I suggest you look up clips from the 'Atheist Experience' show here on Youtube or watch a debate between any creationist and Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris. That's what did it for me... listening to both sides of the argument and realizing that atheism was the most logical position.
@brenonion It's faith only for those who don't realize that what they believe in is either supported or not. What do you mean about scientists worldwide "lining up overwhelmingly" on one side of the argument? I hope you don't think most of them are atheists. I've seen "Atheistic Experience", Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris videos. I'm an open-minded person, but those videos don't prove that Christianity is wrong. Atheism is not the most logical postion, but I'm fine with agnosticism.
Are you stupid? Why do you wince at someone else's independent proclamation of their personal beliefs to which they are wholly entitled to? The day you prove to ME that there is no God is the day I will become an Atheist. Until that day, I have seen a profoundly greater amount of evidence suggesting the existence of God rather than the lack of one.
Not at all. I've heard of that uncanny analogy hundreds of times, and the thing is that the moment several men over a multi-millenium span come ALL preaching the same thing about universe-creating pixies, I might consider their existence.
All I hear from atheists every time I try to engage them in a rational debate is a holier-than-thou (the irony) attitude and self-righteous arguments.
So you're going to use is argument from tradition? You do realize the idea of a monotheistic god is derived from polytheism, even the most successful monotheistic conceptions of god is derived from the Babylonian god of war. The monotheistic god isn't even in the historical record till around 600 BCE, there's a longer history of polytheistic gods and animal spirits than that of a monotheistic god.
Rofl, you are showing your historical ignorance now. The idea of a monotheistic God is not derived from polytheism at all. Polytheism is derived from mythology of the unknown, or in other words, people creating separate entities to explain scientific phenomenon, such as precipitation.
The monotheistic God has been around as long as written history exists. Before that, no one can know whether or not there was any belief in one or not.
"The monotheistic God has been around as long as written history exists."
Then you're only demonstrating your ignorance on the topic, even the roots of the earliest monotheistic gods are littered with the idea of polytheism "worship no other gods before me" ring a bell?
"All hundreds of years apart, all in completely different areas of the world, all preaching the same thing."
Again, logical fallacy known as argument from tradition.
"Worship no other gods before me" is emphasized only in Islam and Christianity, the two later religions. These two religions can be seen as a response to the polytheistic religions that were littered in the time of their inception.
Argument from tradition does not apply to my contention because their tradition was not the same at all. They have no means of even knowing about eachother's existence.
Do you know who invented calculus? Two people. Archimedes and Newton.
"Argument from tradition does not apply to my contention because their tradition was not the same at all."
So what, they're still the same types of logical fallacies, arguments from tradition, arguments from authority, there's no independent motivating evidence, you're merely saying "these people believed it so that means something" and not caring about the "why"
"Do you know who invented calculus? Two people. Archimedes and Newton."
Archimedes and Newton were thousands of years apart, seldom knew about each others existence since there wasn't much historical data available during Newton's epoch, and they both found the concept of calculus. This was because calculus is an indomitable truth, and it is there if you find it. This is from which my argument about God is derived from. God must be an indomitable truth since multiple people independently claimed his existence at their personal expense.
"multiple people independently claimed his existence at their personal expense."
Multiple people claims they were abducted by aliens at personal expense, their beliefs may be sincere but it doesn't make the beliefs true. The calculus is a poor analogy because calculus is actually demonstrable and not simple cases of people making claims that cannot be verified.
People have not independently claimed alien abduction, however. You just scripted a completely inane analogy in order to falsely portray my contention as illegitimate. That is horrible debate practice.
Says the guy trying to compare belief in deities (something that can't be independently verified) with calculus (which is demonstrable).
"People have not independently claimed alien abduction"
So what, you can claim that people independently claimed polytheism, not that the concept of god is much more than trying to picture something like superman ruling the universe, which isn't all that creative to begin with.
People have never independently claimed polytheism. Also, when a god is associated with a man, it is usually in order to aid that man in exerting control over the masses. An example of this would be the king of the Inca who called himself a god in order to ensure his people feared him. Monotheistic belief in God is NOTHING like this and serves no worldly benefit to the person claiming belief.
Uh, this is relevant to it actually existing how? It doesn't seem you actually have any evidence and like going off on tangents to avoid actually addressing it. Even if we assumed that god was an idea that no one benefits from aside from the stigma that is attached to non belief in a deity, ignoring any of that how does this address the problem that there's no independent evidence to validate belief that a god exists.
"People have never independently claimed polytheism."
Uh, hindu gods? Greek gods? Norse gods? Babylonian gods? Pantheism is also a concept that's independently claimed from many different religions. I also fail to see how it's relevant even if no other concept (like ghosts/spirits/zombies) was ever independently thought of how it would make it any more likely to be real.
The "Hindu gods" are derived from a monotheistic god that Hindus initially believed in, "Baghwan." Norse gods are connected the greek gods, and the babylonian gods are derived from the monotheistic God that Zoroastrians initially believed in.
Again even if I assumed it were true what effect does it have on the potential truth value of any given claim?
And the god of Christianity, the jews and muslims is derived from earlier polytheistic myths, most god concepts are derived from something, whether it be from spirit worship, worshiping people seen to be greater than people etc etc. If all you're going to do to use that as justification you're on shaky ground.
It contributes to the validity of the claim by strengthening the hominem aspects of the argument. It lends credibility to each claimant of the religion(s.)
You have made a repeated assertion about monotheism being derived from polytheistic myths, BUT YOU'VE never proven it at all. You're just creating a straw man argument to back up your inane position. If you're going to degenerate the dialogue, I'm done with you.
I only argue with people who are open-minded like myself.
I find it amusing that no matter how many times I ask that you have yet to actually provide evidence. Your entire argument appears to only hinge on your assumption that it's the only idea that has been independently thought of in various cultures at various times. Even if I assumed it were true, how does it make it any more likely to be true?
"You're just creating a straw man argument to back up your inane position."
1) Merely pointed out it's nothing special with several examples other than polytheism.
2) I even grant the assumption that even if it were true I ask you specifically how does it actually contribute to the likelihood of being true. So far all you're providing is an argument from popularity and arguments from authority which are logical fallacies
Look, I admire the fact that you're not a zealot and that you actually try to attempt a rational debate with someone else, but let me just say something: I'm never going to stop believing in God. It is an irrational feeling to someone who has never experienced it, but when you seek God with an open mind, and you FIND him, it is a bastion from which you never leave, and a bulwark from which you always seek protection.
1) I'm not telling you to stop believing, I'm merely asking you for your justifications and pointing out why they're invalid or asking your justifications for using those as evidence and providing examples as to why they're invalid to me and most other people for other things
2) That's the definition of a closed mind not an open one
@garith21: You'll see the face of God when you die; as of the same time you're being fucking casted to Hell. Sir, I advise you to believe in God. Here... What if you Atheists are wrong, and we as Christians are right? You'll be roasting in Hell for all of eternity. Well, I will pray for you to see the light of God; and quit being so ignorant.
What if you're wrong then, any other given religion can be right and will cast you into hell, or a god can exist that punishes faith and rewards reason. If I'm right then every moment you waste worshiping something that isn't likely to be true, every dollar you spend on this endeavor is wasted forever and could have gone to doing some good in the world.
Sorry but pascal's wager is the most intellectually bankrupt argument I've ever encountered, which god? None of them are verifiable, why can't god punish faith and reward reason? you can't verify what he does or doesn't want even if he does exist. Also would a god really be so ignorant that he wouldn't know that you're just pretending to believe to avoid punishment and seek reward? And he wouldn't care why you claimed to believe and only that you claim to believe?
Why don't you pray to god for something that will actually be convincing rather than threats or arguments from ignorance or better yet use the brain that you have and examine why you believe a god exists and ask yourself if you actually have a good reason to believe. If you do then please do share, all I ever get so far are "it's a feeling" or "you can't explain this" which aren't particularly compelling for other claims, so why a god?
So you offer something as dumb as pascal's wager and you don't even want to think about the response I gave and just say "you're annoying as fuck". If god is supposedly one of the most important topics around then why don't you care if you have a good reason to believe if it's true? Haven't you even thought a bit about the topic or do you just believe what you were told when you were younger and don't even want to question it now?
Here's the funny part, you want others to ask if they're wrong, but you refuse to ask if you're wrong and refuse to offer any reasonable justification and offer a threat instead. If that reasoning wouldn't convince you to join any other religion why would you expect it to work on anyone else? Perhaps you should ask yourself why you believe before telling other people what they should believe, especially if you care about your beliefs having a likelihood of being true.
@erpuzzetta01 I dont believe he is wrong, just misguided. He can believe in anything he wants and roast in hell if thats what he wants we have nno biz telling him what is right or wrong god will settle up with him when the time comes.
I seek any form of knowledge or approach any given claim with equal amount of skepticism and I do not give special pleading for any one particular idea. Also if god is only believed based upon a feeling or experience that's only evidence of the feeling/experience not of something independent of it. Second of all you've displayed you have a closed mind on the matter, not an open one.
An open mind means that you're willing to approach any given question or claim in the same sort of way as you would for any claim and you're not only willing to change your mind on it but you are also willing to revise any beliefs you have on any given topic. I ask you justifications and point out why I don't believe they're good justifications for a reason, I don't see why you don't defend the justifications and state why if you think they're really legitimate ones.
The whole point of the argument is that there's no distinct and definitive evidence to motivate belief that a deity exists. If I can make up universe creating pixies or the flying spaghetti monster that explain the exact same phenomenon and you can't demonstrably show that it's a god and not those it's the perfect example of why it's nothing more than a post hoc argument from ignorance.
There's no "distinct and definitive" evidence to motivate the belief that a deity doesn't exist either. Saying that "there's no evidence" is a logical fallacy because know one can really claim to REALLY know the nature of this deity.
You can make up a story about universe-creating pixies or the FSM, but until I see evidence of things precipitating from that, I will not believe in those. There have been many known men over the years, geographically and chronologically apart...
...that ALL preached the same thing: belief in one God, piety, and altruism.
Moses, Krishna, Jesus, Muhummad, Zoroaster, Tao, Confucius, Guru Nana, Jacob, Joe, etc. All hundreds of years apart, all in completely different areas of the world, all preaching the same thing. They all did this at the expense of their acceptance, and often position, in society as well. Now you tell me: why on EARTH would someone accept being persecuted and ostracized from society all in the name
of something that doesn't exist? The only logical deduction that can be made it that they THEMSELVES were wholly convinced and accepting of a deity's existence. That kind of conviction generally only comes from reality.
" That kind of conviction generally only comes from reality."
So your argument that every ostracized person for different beliefs automatically makes the beliefs real. Conviction doesn't make beliefs real, it's only evidence of sincerity if anything, but no matter how sincerely a belief is held it doesn't make it any more real. Unless you think every religion's often mutually exclusive gods all simultaneously exist
My argument is not solely based on that, but that contributes to it, of course. Also, I don't think all religions are mutually exclusive. I studied this for my minor, and there are INCREDIBLE similarities between all of the major religions of the world, Islam, Christianity, HInduism, Sikhism, etc.
"My argument is not solely based on that, but that contributes to it"
So what's your "best evidence" that can't be attributable to any other made up claim even if you reject natural explanations. Why do you resort to a burden of proof fallacy rather than providing compelling evidence that a deity actually exists if you actually have something that is compelling and not a post hoc argument from ignorance?
No You John Q Public do not treat the non religiuos equally or 100% of politicans would not portend to be believers so as to get elected. The twofaced bigoty has got to stop.
Pretty pointless. Both of them said more or less exactly what everyone wanted to hear. What their actual actions would be later on when they need to make an actual decision regarding this is more important, and as we know of politicians they're hardly above going back on their word. I wouldn't trust either of these guys one bit.
How, funny, the inferior no-state semitic crap is jealous and angry to an aryan and explains in total agony his hatred. Sorry, I'm quite superior regarding a jew, you idiot. Your arguments are retard. We all know why your shit tribe of subhumans was banned everywhere.
@AryanBulgar You are just a pitiful, small neonazi :-)) What are you proud of when calling yourself "AryanBulgar" ? Do you think you have smth to be proud of? YOU ARE the underhuman, and, yet, you are a degenerate. :-))
@valgez1 Hah, pathetic semite, I'm not "neonazi", cause you can't define the difference between nazi and "neonazi". Sorry, but while you're dirty physically and spritually and have an artificial state of 70 years, I'm full of culture and ancient country, so keep the dellusions you're more than the shit you actually are. Lots of great persons bashed your vile inferior tribe, so...
@AryanBulgar Of course, you are not NeoNazi :-) Not yet . HAHA! You are just a little insecure kid, who tries hard to impress his Local "Fuhrer" , so he lets you lick his toes. You chose a bad leader, choose me instead! I'll raise u to the status of kissing my shoes BTW, I expect you tomorrow in my apartment so you clean my dishes (I'm not allowed to work on Shabath) what I AM allowed, however, is to put Swastika up your fascist ass - so, you'll get twice the pleasure, you fascist piece of crap
@valgez1 No crappy, stereotypical arguments won't help. And Hitler isn't my Fuhrer, neither Germany is my motherland, aryanism is far more ancient than Hitler. And you're absolutely a fag, which is normal for a jew - however Tel Aviv is the gay capitol of the Middle East, haha!
You call others nazis, but you define the non-jews as goyans - tell me - isn't it obvious that you, the inferior scum tribe, are the greatest racists? Stupid semite. Don't even know what fascism is. Done with you.
@AryanBulgar You are done with me? :-)) HAHA! I AM done with you! What ? Running away already, you pathetic under-human fascist ? Oh, sorry, I meant under - swine fascistic creature daring call himself a human. :-) What human are you? You are scum on this Earth - go back to Hell - where you came from, you miserable under-creature, the worst of a kind ever existed on The Earth. Go, Go! Out of my eyes, and don't you dare EVER meet me in person, you fucking PIECE OF UNDER-HUMAN CRAP
@valgez1 I hope you're joking... anyone that thinks that way is a disgrace to this world and any efforts at ever coming together as any society small or world wide.
@chicarbiomed You can only hope for I'm not joking. Today's Christianity is gutless, talking too much of piece and love, thus allowing all sorts of Atheistic hypocrites to raise their heads. The True Faith mush have Sword & Fire in its arsenal and use it when necessary. The devious atheists are the real Satan followers - the real disgrace to the world. Who wants to "Come together" ? The Faith is the only thing that matters - all the rest is hypocrisy like "coming together"
@valgez1 Wow, so you basically want us going back into the dark ages? Perhaps we should start burning witches and people of other faiths again? Cuz you know, "those were the days of glory!". In all seriousness, you better figure out a way to stop the spread of information which enables people to have the education to see through your malicious, false, and disgusting beliefs. You're going to continue to waste your valuable time believing the lies and will never realize it. Good luck!
@chicarbiomed Why dark ages? Beside, it's people who do things, not Faith. At present, it would be enough to birch the atheists on a daily (or weekly - depending on the case) basis - they are the passive Satan followers, so they think twice before saying their heresy. Then we'll make sure they say their morning prayers - if not - birch them ! . Regarding active Satan followers - some sort of rather harsh exorcizm would be needed though...
@valgez1 "they are the passive Satan followers" In the exact same way you are a passive leprechaun follower.
"Regarding active Satan followers - some sort of rather harsh exorcizm would be needed though." Sounds like you're quite the barbaric, sadistic fuckwit.
You're better off closing your eyes, we're not in the dark ages anymore. The brightness of the future is going to hurt, especially when you realize you've been left behind.
@TheHigherVoltage Yeah, all atheists should get some serious ass kicking :-) I bet, in Medieval Times, you'd have kissed The Holly Inquisition's shoes - only some of you were really brave, ready to go to the bonfire for their beliefs / non-beliefs :-) . The rest, like you, cast their voices only because they are allowed to. :-) - Too bad, The Faith is too soft nowadays.
@TheHigherVoltage YOU are the looser :-)) Not me... You are the passive Satan follower, you have no soul, just mortal body, after you die you will rot, you won't even be judged - you'll just cease yo exist :-))) For comparison, Satan worshipers will go to Hell; but even in Hell, there's no place for you.
@valgez1 " YOU are the looser :-)) Not me." Lets find out.
"You are the passive Satan follower" I can't follow something I don't believe in.
"you have no soul" Funny how fuckwits also claim everyone has a soul.
"after you die you will rot, you won't even be judged - you'll just cease yo exist :-))) For comparison, Satan worshipers will go to Hell; but even in Hell, there's no place for you." - makes no sense at all.
@TheHigherVoltage Hey, Looser :-). I'm not Charlie :-( , you idiot. Why do you repeat what I write? Are you a parrot? Rather silly Youtube fashion. The claims that everyone has soul are just not right. The True Believers do have soul, but the ones like you - DO NOT. You're just a piece of mortal meat, no wonder you can't see The Obvious - you've been born unable to see, you are just blind and def. Evrth I say makes sense - but not TO YOU. You're not even a looser - you've nothing to loose
@valgez1 Duh, Infidel literally means non-believer, from the Latin word meaning to trust or believe. You know where the words "Heretic" or "Heresy" come from? From a Greek word meaning 'choice' those who chose to think or follow something other than the official dogma, were Heretics. That would include any free thinker. You think these words are insults, which says a lot about your state of mind.
@jimbobeire Thanks for the academic "definitions" :-) Atheists are infidels, that's right ! Heretic is not necessarily the one you described. It can also be the one who just thinks of himself as original thinker. But, in fact, nothing is original here. I find atheistic thinking to be the most primitive state of human mind, seriously :-))
@valgez1 Yes, your prejudice on that matter is quiet clear, and it's uninteresting & unoriginal. True, not every atheist is a critical thinker, but seeing as we're all born atheists, (or did you 'believe' from birth?) and 99.999% of believers are merely indoctrinated into their parents' religion, rather than making a free choice as an adult, I wouldn't hold theism up as a model of high thinking either, Esp in the times when the commoner wasn't supposed to read or question, simply accept.
@jimbobeire You , for some reason, think that what you say is very "Interesting and Original" ? :-)) We're born atheists ? You are a remarkably "deep" thinker - really, the top of originality! You cannot know what people are born like. People come to believing through their experience, which way you choose - accept or not accept, find your own way or go their way - it's up to you :-) Religion is part of a daily life - these values are cast upon you, just like anything else.
@valgez1 Where did I claim to be interesting and original? So, tell me, you believe that an infant child, who has no concept of where it's toes are, or how to recognise faces, has a belief in a divine entity? While you're at that, explain how a child who isn't old enough to grasp robust logic makes a free choice to join his/her parents religion, rather than simply complying. Or will you dodge and insult as per standard troll practice? :-)
@jimbobeire First, trolling is the best practice ever to deal with idiotic atheistic videos and with idiots atheists themselves, and their "terribly logical" silly arguments. So, take no insult, it's just the way it is. :-)) An infant doesn't rally have a "Free" choice, an infant gets used to the environment, the values are taught. "Robust" logic is a rather dumb concept . Humans are irrational by their nature, dude, go and try to find the things which are beyond your "robust" logic.
@jimbobeire Of course! If you're so open about your being a complete idiot, why can't I open myself to you as well - sure way to peace :-) Ask yourself, you stupid atheist, is infant born able to walk, to talk, to read, to dance ? One thing is sure : infant is born open to all manifestations of the universe, infant doesn't need your idiotic scientific "Proofs", an infant perceives the world by his experience and instincts, until he is exposed to the atheism and then becomes a dumbass like you.
ALL children are born athiests, only after growing up with morons do they learn the term god and religion. more people have died in the name of god, not just one mind you, than any other reason ever.
@pizllexam You haven't any possibility to say what children are born like :-) All you try to put is a cheap atheistic logic manipulation :-). Children are born to find things out - it's like children are born unable to walk - so, how can they walk later in their lives? People would have died for any other reason, - you should be able to separate religion as an institution, as a political organization from the religion as faith. Think about it, - it's all about people
@valgez1 I haven't any possibility? really? because im pretty sure i just did, because it is possible. a child knows how to walk, or learns it rather, by emulating its parents. it learns language by, you guessed it, emulating its parents. and as you said, children are born to find things out, they dont come into this world knowing anything. and how is my understanding of the FACTS a manipulation of logic? it is infact the exact opposite of that. people with "faith" do far more harm than good.
Atleast Obama isn't a nuthead as much as much as the running candidates today..
INMATE2468 2 weeks ago
Wtf Obama? You should've said "I agree with Mr. Edwards", not talk about some religious and moral values as of non-believers would not have those qualities.
MacGovernor 1 month ago
Yea, but, one problem with that statement: How the hell do you translate religious morality without citing God as the justification? god didn't really give a lot of reasons for things other then, "I told you so". You're gonna have some trouble "translating" that one. Reason, Mr. President. Use reason for morality.
EJNewbury 1 month ago
The world watches and cries. The United States is a fucking scary place. Someone who is in charge of such an exorbitant military should be ashamed to flaunt their superstitious beliefs, let alone use them to gain bloody support, especially in a time where all warfare is down to differing views on whose all loving God hates whose the most. This shit should not be tolerated any more.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon
me351 1 month ago 5
Would you treat religious Americans equally?
mody1710 2 months ago
@mody1710 i would treat them better because people who arent religious ARE NOT IDIOTS!! , unlike people who actually believe in that shit
Derryontop100 2 months ago
@Derryontop100
"unlike people who actually believe in that shit"
you just proved what i mean.
mody1710 2 months ago
@mody1710 it is shit man , i mean seriously , they dont know how stupid they sound
Derryontop100 2 months ago
@mody1710 Science can't proove that something dont exist. Science can't proove, for example, that unicorns or aliens exist. So why noone believes in unicorns? Because science havent found even one single evidence of its existance.
God, hell, paradise, soul, angels, deamons, satan, talking snake etc. Bible claims existance of all these things, but science havent found single evidence. Why you wont believe in unicorns but believe in this? Because both unicorns and this have 0 evidence.
ObjectiveImpact 1 month ago
@mody1710 actually i would lock them up sepearate families confiscate property shave their heads and make sure they got raped by homosexuals daily
mittROMNEY666 1 month ago
If you are a proud American, you being racist! You shouldnt be dividing yourself from the rest of the human race.
Typho0n86 2 months ago
I just love the way how in America you have to be religious to be elected. We don't here. David Cameron says he goes to church now and then and his coalition partner Nick Clegg is an atheist so this just shows how different the UK and USA really are.
renaultlover1 2 months ago 5
@renaultlover1
The really stunning thing about that is that the USA are a secular country by law...
entewente 2 months ago
usa. Religion.
Kaaxe 2 months ago
i'm ashamed of my christian background
cawinhosurf 2 months ago 17
the questioner is a faggot. supreme faggot for that superficially intellectual tone. fucken faggot
Choo69 2 months ago
@Choo69 Agreed. Valid question, obnoxious questioner.
Decimus78 2 months ago
I'm Catholic but i back the separation of church and state making it a fair playing field for all faiths.
MrJsanchez801 2 months ago 3
@erpuzzetta01 Its gonna suck if you die and you happen to see Allah. Hope you guessed the correct God, because they can't all be right (but they can all be wrong).
SuddenlySecular 2 months ago
@SuddenlySecular I disagree, I think god is good in all religions, They just call him something different.
MrJsanchez801 2 months ago
@SuddenlySecular: I understand that; but my faith in our God is just to strong to doubt the existence of Him. Any other God's I do not believe in; just the one.
erpuzzetta01 2 months ago
Did Obama really said that? OMG Ewwwwwww
RichtoffenRoach 3 months ago
Obama is not a Christian. He just says that to sucker in the stupid people who will only vote for a christian(because the majority of the american people will not vote for an atheist) The same with Bush he claimed to be a christian, yeah right. more like satanist:
Skull and bones Brotherhood of death, and Bohemian grove.
cesarG222 3 months ago 8
We all know Obama is an atheist. Let's be real.
ChaneyBrinkmanBurlin 3 months ago 2
too bad the GOP dont get it. they want to force their religous beleifs on every one
scorand 3 months ago
0:58 reptilian look from HILLARY (one of the beasts lucifer released in her...)
Burkard 3 months ago
atheism = hypocrisy
Separation of church and state, ok
Separation of atheism and state, no
trifulquita15 3 months ago
@trifulquita15
Perhaps you could elaborate. (But please realize that keeping the state NEUTRAL on matters of religion is not the same as promoting atheism.)
ClumsyRoot 3 months ago
@ClumsyRoot yes is neutral, but a secular state is weak. Religious people are the majority. A secular state only stop christianity because christians are tolerant, but the state can not stop Islam, when you have millions of muslims in your country an Islamic State is inevitable. Atheists should support Christianity for their own safety, but atheists are crazy they think christians are islamophobics LOL
trifulquita15 3 months ago
@trifulquita15
Christian "tolerance" has little to do with it. Christianity has been tempered in the U.S. because the country has separation of church and state built right into its constitution. Without this protection, it might still have sectarian wars.
You are right, though--atheists should team up with Christians in the face of militant Islam. Unfortunately, leftist nonbelievers often defend Islam, an ideology is thoroughly at odds with the ideals of Western liberal democracy.
ClumsyRoot 3 months ago
@trifulquita15
In Europe, on the other hand, Christianity's influence has waned for the simple fact that fewer and fewer people believe that Christianity is true.
ClumsyRoot 3 months ago
@trifulquita15 wut?
TheAmazingNobody 3 months ago
@trifulquita15 Atheism is the rejection of theistic beliefs in the supernatural, that is all; there is no ideology or dogma attached to it that atheists follow, the only thing that joins one atheist to another atheist is the fact that they reject theistic beliefs. It really isn't hard to understand. I bet you are one of those idiots who think atheism is some kind of religion with a political agenda, that is the only explanation I can think of as to why you wrote such a dumb statement.
mgigkgeg 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@trifulquita15 Atheism is the rejection of theistic beliefs in the supernatural, that is all; there is no ideology or dogma attached to it that atheists follow, the only thing that joins one atheist to another atheist is the fact that they reject theistic beliefs. It really isn't hard to understand. I bet you are one of those idiots who think atheism is some kind of religion with a political agenda, that is the only explanation I can think of as to why you wrote such a dumb statement.
mgigkgeg 3 months ago
@trifulquita15 atheism = lack of belief in god or gods,nothing more.so where is conection with state in atheism?
1dekidejo 3 months ago
@1dekidejo nothing more? atheism is ANTI-RELIGION, here in America we have freedom of religion, therefore atheism is against the Constitution. Atheism is also a political ideology and their goals are very clear.
1. Remove the word God from any public building, schools and universities
2. Promoting atheism using the media, the arts and sciences
3. A world without God
trifulquita15 3 months ago
@trifulquita15
I have to say, you have a rather cartoonish (and paranoid) view of atheists.
While many atheists are personally "anti-religion," most of us believe firmly in the freedom of conscience. What we oppose is the attempt by religious people to use civil authorities to push their faith.
And so what if some atheists "promote atheism"? How is that any different from any other group promoting its ideas?
If there is a God, wouldn't any attempt to "remove" Him from the world be futile?
ClumsyRoot 3 months ago
@trifulquita15 1.Religion is using media to promote god
2.religion is using art to promote god since, well since man started to make art.
3.religion wood also use science to promote god but it dosent have any evidence.
4.u are free to belive what you want, but if you others to belive what you do, give them evidence.and no the book dosent count has evidence.
5.ateism is just"lack of belief in god"other things like politics depend on person.
1dekidejo 3 months ago
@trifulquita15 I think you have a very misinformed opinion on the definition of Atheism.
Try to look it up and decide for yourself what it is after research. Instead of just listening to what your parents, minister etc tells you what it is.
gnarkillkicksass 3 months ago
@gnarkillkicksass I know the history of atheism very well. Even if God doesnt exist I'll be against atheism. I prefer to believe in Donald Duck rather than any atheist celebrity
Mao said religion is poison, and atheist communists destroyed the chinese culture in a few years
trifulquita15 3 months ago
@trifulquita15
You know the history of COMMUNISM very well. While it's true that communism is atheistic, you'll find that few atheists are sympathetic with it. Communism is at odds with the ideals of Western liberal democracy, which the vast majority of nonbelievers support.
I would argue that any "faith-based" ideology--be it religious (e.g., Islam) or political (e.g., communism)--can be toxic when allowed to run roughshod over individual rights.
ClumsyRoot 3 months ago
@ClumsyRoot Communism isn't atheistic, it doesn't inherently involve religion or the lack thereof, it's not even inherently secular, nor is it faith-based. It sounds like you're referring to Stalinism, which could still have been a nightmarish totalitarian dictatorship if it were capitalist rather than communist.
skevoid 3 months ago
@skevoid
Marx's views on religion are well-known, and every communist state has been officially atheistic.
If you promise a "worker's paradise" here on earth, you don't take kindly to people who say that paradise takes place in the NEXT life. Utopian ideologies cannot coexist.
ClumsyRoot 3 months ago
@trifulquita15 Mao was an atheist. Hitler was also catholic who in 1939(give or take a year) said he was doing "gods work".
Now I don't think Christians are all genocidal maniacs (I actually used to be one) so please explain your feelings as to why all people with Atheistic leanings are like Mao?
PS believe it or not - you are also VERY Atheistic. Do you not believe in Zeus? Apollo? Muhammad?
Say no to any of those - welcome to the world of Atheism - the rejection of religions.
gnarkillkicksass 3 months ago
I like the first guy's answer better than obama's
RainbowMuffinzz1 3 months ago
That´s what I like with Obama and the Dems overall! :) They´re basically atheists altogether, pretending to "protect" and being "proud" of their own "personal" belief: We all know they don´t give a "shit" about religion, right? Thnx god :) I wish the world and the US were more mature to understand the msg given. . .Christianity and Islam is a religion of MORONS, CRETINS and IDIOTS. No person of any significant intelligence CARES! Put your Bibles and Qurans DEEP INSIDE YOUR IGNORANT ASSES!!!
armelix73 3 months ago 2
@brenonion & @nar3sas Without taking sides, even though I too am an atheist, can we please stop arguing about petty things like a difference in beliefs and keep the comments in line with whats on the video. This is youtube, not a discussion forum for morality. thanks :)
beeniefide 3 months ago
@beeniefide
'can we please stop arguing about petty things like a difference in beliefs?'
nope. they're far too important. i really am shocked that you would want to discourage such dialogue. especially since we ended the argument fairly amicably and didn't resort to personal attacks. we didn't even discuss morality.... as for 'keep the comments in line with whats on the video'... wow... just wow, welcome to youtube man, if you think thats worth reprimanding then you've got an uphill battle
brenonion 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brenonion The Zionists have their Torah. It justifies taking the Temple Mount.
The Islamist extremists have their Koran. It justifies keeping the Dome of the Rock mosque.
The Christian right has their Bible & is paying and praying for Armegeddon.
The human race is about to go extinct from a worldwide nuclear war .
Stop religion now.
IBcooful 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evidence of the existence of God
watch?v=4wV0vV5Hrp0&feature=related
watch?v=BXiNXDDdaK8&feature=related
watch?v=azAOtB65Td0&feature=related
watch?v=RjKGlNVmnqc&feature=related
ThePero20111 3 months ago
we all know that if you're not a WASP you cant be president for now. Obama became president because he's partly white, he was against hillary (men > women), and against mccain (who everyone thought was going to be like bush), therefore he was somewhat moral according to the moderates.
MrBigEnchilada 4 months ago
what ass lickers
cooldaddyy 4 months ago
Comment removed
brenonion 4 months ago
You did notice that Obama did not answered the question, onlý some
vague prhases about freedom of belief.
MultiKronblom 4 months ago
I don't understand religion, and to be honest I think most of what religion teaches you is a joke.
I am indeed an atheist, but I have a perfectly acceptable amount of respect for everybody as long as they aren't derogatory towards me, be that religious or otherwise.
What people need to understand is, people can still love, get along and see the beauty of the world without believing any rubbish which the church teaches you. The world was created over 4.6 billion years, not by god in 6 days.
beeniefide 4 months ago 26
@beeniefide There must be something wrong with you if you believe that Genesis saying that God created the world in 6 days is to be taken literally. It is COMPLETELY symbolic. Learn to look for symbolism when there is an obvious difference between what was written in a text and what actually is. Also note that the Bible was not meant to be completely scientifically accurate. It was meant to be morally accurate, and it is. The evils of the OT were done by the people, not by God.
nar3sas 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
Hearing a smart guy like Obama say 'I am proud of my Christian faith' makes me wince every single time.
I don't care if they lose their jobs, people in Congress need to stop lying about their critical thinking skills and admit they are atheists.
I don't care if everyone thinks you can't get elected if you're an atheist. I'm sick of that excuse. We need to stop paying lip service to an absurd and divisive ideology and call a spade a fucking spade.
brenonion 4 months ago 52
@brenonion Do you have any evidence Obama is an atheist? If you ask me, not believing he's a Christian just because you don't want him to be makes you no better than the people who think he's really a Muslim
ytmndman 4 months ago
@ytmndman
In the audacity of hope, he wrote about how his mother told him about how baseless religion was. He also said 'If you're going to be in politics in Chicago, you'd better have a church to go to.' He has denounced the wicked parts of the Bible openly (its on youtube) and mentioned nonbelievers in his inaugural address. Still my answer is no, I don't have definitive evidence that he is a closeted atheist. I just find it REALLY hard to believe a man of his intelligence buys into theism.
brenonion 4 months ago
@brenonion Why do you wince every time you hear Obama say that? Does it bother you that someone can be so intelligent and religious at the same time? Also, what do you mean about people in Congress admitting they are atheists? How would you know if they are atheists or not? I agree with you about them lying about certain things, but religion isn't necessarily one of them.
nar3sas 4 months ago
@nar3sas
It does bother me that otherwise intelligent people don't apply Critical Thinking 101 to claims that are without rational justification or evidentiary support. Pete Stark is the only openly atheist member of Congress. I doubt that out of 435 representatives and 100 senators there's just ONE person who doesn't believe in fairy tales. It appears only one is willing to risk political suicide in admitting it.
brenonion 4 months ago
@brenonion Christianity DOES have rational justicification and evidentiary support. There are NDE's, OBE's, the creation of the universe, miracles, proof for Biblical events, and laminin. The members of Congress can critically think things out and still believe in Christianity. I agree with you about it being unlikely that only one person believes in what you call "fairy tales". There must be at least be several others. Of course, I'm sure you know you can't prove those are just "fairy tales".
nar3sas 4 months ago
@nar3sas
If there is evidentiary support, why is it called 'faith' and not knowledge? Why do scientists worldwide line up overwhelmingly on one side of the argument? I don't think we're going to settle this, so I suggest you look up clips from the 'Atheist Experience' show here on Youtube or watch a debate between any creationist and Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris. That's what did it for me... listening to both sides of the argument and realizing that atheism was the most logical position.
brenonion 4 months ago
@brenonion It's faith only for those who don't realize that what they believe in is either supported or not. What do you mean about scientists worldwide "lining up overwhelmingly" on one side of the argument? I hope you don't think most of them are atheists. I've seen "Atheistic Experience", Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris videos. I'm an open-minded person, but those videos don't prove that Christianity is wrong. Atheism is not the most logical postion, but I'm fine with agnosticism.
nar3sas 4 months ago
@brenonion
Obama's a Christian in name only. He clearly realized years ago that if he wanted a career in politics, he'd need to feign piety.
If I had to bet, I'd say he's an atheist at heart.
ClumsyRoot 3 months ago
@brenonion amen
jacquelinekroll750 3 months ago
@brenonion very wise this one (yoda)
IMAGO0N 3 months ago
@brenonion
Are you stupid? Why do you wince at someone else's independent proclamation of their personal beliefs to which they are wholly entitled to? The day you prove to ME that there is no God is the day I will become an Atheist. Until that day, I have seen a profoundly greater amount of evidence suggesting the existence of God rather than the lack of one.
TheAdjundantReflex 3 months ago
Comment removed
brenonion 3 months ago
@TheAdjundantReflex
how are you defining god, and how does this god manifest itself? what is your evidence?
brenonion 3 months ago
@TheAdjundantReflex
"The day you prove to ME that there is no God is the day I will become an Atheist."
This is like saying that until you prove universe creating pixies don't exist that it's valid to believe they do exist, it makes no sense.
" I have seen a profoundly greater amount of evidence suggesting the existence of God"
All I ever hear is post hoc arguments from ignorance that could be applied to any number of supernatural concepts for which there is no evidence for.
garith21 3 months ago
@garith21
Not at all. I've heard of that uncanny analogy hundreds of times, and the thing is that the moment several men over a multi-millenium span come ALL preaching the same thing about universe-creating pixies, I might consider their existence.
All I hear from atheists every time I try to engage them in a rational debate is a holier-than-thou (the irony) attitude and self-righteous arguments.
TheAdjundantReflex 3 months ago
@TheAdjundantReflex
So you're going to use is argument from tradition? You do realize the idea of a monotheistic god is derived from polytheism, even the most successful monotheistic conceptions of god is derived from the Babylonian god of war. The monotheistic god isn't even in the historical record till around 600 BCE, there's a longer history of polytheistic gods and animal spirits than that of a monotheistic god.
garith21 3 months ago
@garith21
Rofl, you are showing your historical ignorance now. The idea of a monotheistic God is not derived from polytheism at all. Polytheism is derived from mythology of the unknown, or in other words, people creating separate entities to explain scientific phenomenon, such as precipitation.
The monotheistic God has been around as long as written history exists. Before that, no one can know whether or not there was any belief in one or not.
TheAdjundantReflex 3 months ago
@TheAdjundantReflex
"The monotheistic God has been around as long as written history exists."
Then you're only demonstrating your ignorance on the topic, even the roots of the earliest monotheistic gods are littered with the idea of polytheism "worship no other gods before me" ring a bell?
"All hundreds of years apart, all in completely different areas of the world, all preaching the same thing."
Again, logical fallacy known as argument from tradition.
garith21 3 months ago
@garith21
"Worship no other gods before me" is emphasized only in Islam and Christianity, the two later religions. These two religions can be seen as a response to the polytheistic religions that were littered in the time of their inception.
Argument from tradition does not apply to my contention because their tradition was not the same at all. They have no means of even knowing about eachother's existence.
Do you know who invented calculus? Two people. Archimedes and Newton.
TheAdjundantReflex 3 months ago
@TheAdjundantReflex
"Argument from tradition does not apply to my contention because their tradition was not the same at all."
So what, they're still the same types of logical fallacies, arguments from tradition, arguments from authority, there's no independent motivating evidence, you're merely saying "these people believed it so that means something" and not caring about the "why"
"Do you know who invented calculus? Two people. Archimedes and Newton."
Yet calculus can be verified.
garith21 3 months ago
@garith21
Archimedes and Newton were thousands of years apart, seldom knew about each others existence since there wasn't much historical data available during Newton's epoch, and they both found the concept of calculus. This was because calculus is an indomitable truth, and it is there if you find it. This is from which my argument about God is derived from. God must be an indomitable truth since multiple people independently claimed his existence at their personal expense.
TheAdjundantReflex 3 months ago
@TheAdjundantReflex
"multiple people independently claimed his existence at their personal expense."
Multiple people claims they were abducted by aliens at personal expense, their beliefs may be sincere but it doesn't make the beliefs true. The calculus is a poor analogy because calculus is actually demonstrable and not simple cases of people making claims that cannot be verified.
garith21 3 months ago
@garith21
People have not independently claimed alien abduction, however. You just scripted a completely inane analogy in order to falsely portray my contention as illegitimate. That is horrible debate practice.
TheAdjundantReflex 3 months ago
@TheAdjundantReflex
Says the guy trying to compare belief in deities (something that can't be independently verified) with calculus (which is demonstrable).
"People have not independently claimed alien abduction"
So what, you can claim that people independently claimed polytheism, not that the concept of god is much more than trying to picture something like superman ruling the universe, which isn't all that creative to begin with.
garith21 3 months ago
@garith21
People have never independently claimed polytheism. Also, when a god is associated with a man, it is usually in order to aid that man in exerting control over the masses. An example of this would be the king of the Inca who called himself a god in order to ensure his people feared him. Monotheistic belief in God is NOTHING like this and serves no worldly benefit to the person claiming belief.
TheAdjundantReflex 3 months ago
@TheAdjundantReflex
Uh, this is relevant to it actually existing how? It doesn't seem you actually have any evidence and like going off on tangents to avoid actually addressing it. Even if we assumed that god was an idea that no one benefits from aside from the stigma that is attached to non belief in a deity, ignoring any of that how does this address the problem that there's no independent evidence to validate belief that a god exists.
garith21 3 months ago
@TheAdjundantReflex
"People have never independently claimed polytheism."
Uh, hindu gods? Greek gods? Norse gods? Babylonian gods? Pantheism is also a concept that's independently claimed from many different religions. I also fail to see how it's relevant even if no other concept (like ghosts/spirits/zombies) was ever independently thought of how it would make it any more likely to be real.
garith21 3 months ago
@garith21
The "Hindu gods" are derived from a monotheistic god that Hindus initially believed in, "Baghwan." Norse gods are connected the greek gods, and the babylonian gods are derived from the monotheistic God that Zoroastrians initially believed in.
TheAdjundantReflex 3 months ago
@TheAdjundantReflex
Again even if I assumed it were true what effect does it have on the potential truth value of any given claim?
And the god of Christianity, the jews and muslims is derived from earlier polytheistic myths, most god concepts are derived from something, whether it be from spirit worship, worshiping people seen to be greater than people etc etc. If all you're going to do to use that as justification you're on shaky ground.
garith21 3 months ago
@garith21
It contributes to the validity of the claim by strengthening the hominem aspects of the argument. It lends credibility to each claimant of the religion(s.)
You have made a repeated assertion about monotheism being derived from polytheistic myths, BUT YOU'VE never proven it at all. You're just creating a straw man argument to back up your inane position. If you're going to degenerate the dialogue, I'm done with you.
I only argue with people who are open-minded like myself.
TheAdjundantReflex 3 months ago
@TheAdjundantReflex
"You have made a repeated assertion about monotheism being derived from polytheistic myths"
Have you read "a history of god" by karen armstrong? which I may add is supported by archaeology.
"I only argue with people who are open-minded like myself."
So asking you to provide evidence for your claim being true is "closed minded" you don't mean "open-minded" you mean like minded and nothing more.
garith21 3 months ago
@TheAdjundantReflex
I find it amusing that no matter how many times I ask that you have yet to actually provide evidence. Your entire argument appears to only hinge on your assumption that it's the only idea that has been independently thought of in various cultures at various times. Even if I assumed it were true, how does it make it any more likely to be true?
garith21 3 months ago
@TheAdjundantReflex
"You're just creating a straw man argument to back up your inane position."
1) Merely pointed out it's nothing special with several examples other than polytheism.
2) I even grant the assumption that even if it were true I ask you specifically how does it actually contribute to the likelihood of being true. So far all you're providing is an argument from popularity and arguments from authority which are logical fallacies
garith21 3 months ago
@garith21
Look, I admire the fact that you're not a zealot and that you actually try to attempt a rational debate with someone else, but let me just say something: I'm never going to stop believing in God. It is an irrational feeling to someone who has never experienced it, but when you seek God with an open mind, and you FIND him, it is a bastion from which you never leave, and a bulwark from which you always seek protection.
TheAdjundantReflex 3 months ago
@TheAdjundantReflex
"I'm never going to stop believing in God."
1) I'm not telling you to stop believing, I'm merely asking you for your justifications and pointing out why they're invalid or asking your justifications for using those as evidence and providing examples as to why they're invalid to me and most other people for other things
2) That's the definition of a closed mind not an open one
garith21 3 months ago
@garith21: You'll see the face of God when you die; as of the same time you're being fucking casted to Hell. Sir, I advise you to believe in God. Here... What if you Atheists are wrong, and we as Christians are right? You'll be roasting in Hell for all of eternity. Well, I will pray for you to see the light of God; and quit being so ignorant.
erpuzzetta01 3 months ago
@erpuzzetta01
"What if you Atheists are wrong"
Pascal's wager? Really?
What if you're wrong then, any other given religion can be right and will cast you into hell, or a god can exist that punishes faith and rewards reason. If I'm right then every moment you waste worshiping something that isn't likely to be true, every dollar you spend on this endeavor is wasted forever and could have gone to doing some good in the world.
garith21 3 months ago
@erpuzzetta01
Sorry but pascal's wager is the most intellectually bankrupt argument I've ever encountered, which god? None of them are verifiable, why can't god punish faith and reward reason? you can't verify what he does or doesn't want even if he does exist. Also would a god really be so ignorant that he wouldn't know that you're just pretending to believe to avoid punishment and seek reward? And he wouldn't care why you claimed to believe and only that you claim to believe?
garith21 3 months ago
@erpuzzetta01
"quit being so ignorant"
Why don't you pray to god for something that will actually be convincing rather than threats or arguments from ignorance or better yet use the brain that you have and examine why you believe a god exists and ask yourself if you actually have a good reason to believe. If you do then please do share, all I ever get so far are "it's a feeling" or "you can't explain this" which aren't particularly compelling for other claims, so why a god?
garith21 3 months ago
@garith21: You like re-phrasing my phrases, and other people's phrases, also. I think you're just annoying as fuck, bro...
erpuzzetta01 3 months ago
@erpuzzetta01
So you offer something as dumb as pascal's wager and you don't even want to think about the response I gave and just say "you're annoying as fuck". If god is supposedly one of the most important topics around then why don't you care if you have a good reason to believe if it's true? Haven't you even thought a bit about the topic or do you just believe what you were told when you were younger and don't even want to question it now?
garith21 3 months ago
@erpuzzetta01
Here's the funny part, you want others to ask if they're wrong, but you refuse to ask if you're wrong and refuse to offer any reasonable justification and offer a threat instead. If that reasoning wouldn't convince you to join any other religion why would you expect it to work on anyone else? Perhaps you should ask yourself why you believe before telling other people what they should believe, especially if you care about your beliefs having a likelihood of being true.
garith21 2 months ago
@erpuzzetta01 I dont believe he is wrong, just misguided. He can believe in anything he wants and roast in hell if thats what he wants we have nno biz telling him what is right or wrong god will settle up with him when the time comes.
MrJsanchez801 2 months ago
@TheAdjundantReflex
"when you seek God with an open mind"
I seek any form of knowledge or approach any given claim with equal amount of skepticism and I do not give special pleading for any one particular idea. Also if god is only believed based upon a feeling or experience that's only evidence of the feeling/experience not of something independent of it. Second of all you've displayed you have a closed mind on the matter, not an open one.
garith21 3 months ago
@TheAdjundantReflex
An open mind means that you're willing to approach any given question or claim in the same sort of way as you would for any claim and you're not only willing to change your mind on it but you are also willing to revise any beliefs you have on any given topic. I ask you justifications and point out why I don't believe they're good justifications for a reason, I don't see why you don't defend the justifications and state why if you think they're really legitimate ones.
garith21 3 months ago
@garith21
You're no better than the mindless zealots and creationists that you claim to hate.
TheAdjundantReflex 3 months ago
@TheAdjundantReflex
The whole point of the argument is that there's no distinct and definitive evidence to motivate belief that a deity exists. If I can make up universe creating pixies or the flying spaghetti monster that explain the exact same phenomenon and you can't demonstrably show that it's a god and not those it's the perfect example of why it's nothing more than a post hoc argument from ignorance.
garith21 3 months ago
@garith21
There's no "distinct and definitive" evidence to motivate the belief that a deity doesn't exist either. Saying that "there's no evidence" is a logical fallacy because know one can really claim to REALLY know the nature of this deity.
You can make up a story about universe-creating pixies or the FSM, but until I see evidence of things precipitating from that, I will not believe in those. There have been many known men over the years, geographically and chronologically apart...
TheAdjundantReflex 3 months ago
@TheAdjundantReflex
"know one can really claim to REALLY know the nature of this deity."
Then how can one claim that it even exists in any honest way
"but until I see evidence of things precipitating from that, I will not believe in those."
But you'll make an exception for a deity. Cognitive dissonance much?
garith21 3 months ago
@garith21
...that ALL preached the same thing: belief in one God, piety, and altruism.
Moses, Krishna, Jesus, Muhummad, Zoroaster, Tao, Confucius, Guru Nana, Jacob, Joe, etc. All hundreds of years apart, all in completely different areas of the world, all preaching the same thing. They all did this at the expense of their acceptance, and often position, in society as well. Now you tell me: why on EARTH would someone accept being persecuted and ostracized from society all in the name
TheAdjundantReflex 3 months ago
@garith21
of something that doesn't exist? The only logical deduction that can be made it that they THEMSELVES were wholly convinced and accepting of a deity's existence. That kind of conviction generally only comes from reality.
TheAdjundantReflex 3 months ago
@TheAdjundantReflex
" That kind of conviction generally only comes from reality."
So your argument that every ostracized person for different beliefs automatically makes the beliefs real. Conviction doesn't make beliefs real, it's only evidence of sincerity if anything, but no matter how sincerely a belief is held it doesn't make it any more real. Unless you think every religion's often mutually exclusive gods all simultaneously exist
garith21 3 months ago
@garith21
My argument is not solely based on that, but that contributes to it, of course. Also, I don't think all religions are mutually exclusive. I studied this for my minor, and there are INCREDIBLE similarities between all of the major religions of the world, Islam, Christianity, HInduism, Sikhism, etc.
TheAdjundantReflex 3 months ago
@TheAdjundantReflex
"My argument is not solely based on that, but that contributes to it"
So what's your "best evidence" that can't be attributable to any other made up claim even if you reject natural explanations. Why do you resort to a burden of proof fallacy rather than providing compelling evidence that a deity actually exists if you actually have something that is compelling and not a post hoc argument from ignorance?
garith21 3 months ago
@brenonion
And no, before you ask, I am not a Christian, so don't throw random atheist talking points designed for Christians at me.
TheAdjundantReflex 3 months ago
Obama is a Muslim.
dao3rd123 4 months ago
@dao3rd123 your proof?
Xiasyios 4 months ago
I can't believe how much Obama has aged in 3 years. It has to be a different kind of animal to want to run for president.
hankaaron1961 4 months ago
No You John Q Public do not treat the non religiuos equally or 100% of politicans would not portend to be believers so as to get elected. The twofaced bigoty has got to stop.
masluxx 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My 1 page masterpiece DESTROYS atheism, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 4 months ago
Pretty pointless. Both of them said more or less exactly what everyone wanted to hear. What their actual actions would be later on when they need to make an actual decision regarding this is more important, and as we know of politicians they're hardly above going back on their word. I wouldn't trust either of these guys one bit.
Vire70 4 months ago
How, funny, the inferior no-state semitic crap is jealous and angry to an aryan and explains in total agony his hatred. Sorry, I'm quite superior regarding a jew, you idiot. Your arguments are retard. We all know why your shit tribe of subhumans was banned everywhere.
AryanBulgar 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My 1 page masterpiece DESTROYS atheism, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 4 months ago
Obama's answer was good but I see he does pay a bit of lip service to the Christians and he even continues faith based initiatives.
freethinkerer 4 months ago
@AryanBulgar You are just a pitiful, small neonazi :-)) What are you proud of when calling yourself "AryanBulgar" ? Do you think you have smth to be proud of? YOU ARE the underhuman, and, yet, you are a degenerate. :-))
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1 Hah, pathetic semite, I'm not "neonazi", cause you can't define the difference between nazi and "neonazi". Sorry, but while you're dirty physically and spritually and have an artificial state of 70 years, I'm full of culture and ancient country, so keep the dellusions you're more than the shit you actually are. Lots of great persons bashed your vile inferior tribe, so...
AryanBulgar 4 months ago
@AryanBulgar Of course, you are not NeoNazi :-) Not yet . HAHA! You are just a little insecure kid, who tries hard to impress his Local "Fuhrer" , so he lets you lick his toes. You chose a bad leader, choose me instead! I'll raise u to the status of kissing my shoes BTW, I expect you tomorrow in my apartment so you clean my dishes (I'm not allowed to work on Shabath) what I AM allowed, however, is to put Swastika up your fascist ass - so, you'll get twice the pleasure, you fascist piece of crap
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1 No crappy, stereotypical arguments won't help. And Hitler isn't my Fuhrer, neither Germany is my motherland, aryanism is far more ancient than Hitler. And you're absolutely a fag, which is normal for a jew - however Tel Aviv is the gay capitol of the Middle East, haha!
You call others nazis, but you define the non-jews as goyans - tell me - isn't it obvious that you, the inferior scum tribe, are the greatest racists? Stupid semite. Don't even know what fascism is. Done with you.
AryanBulgar 4 months ago
@AryanBulgar You are done with me? :-)) HAHA! I AM done with you! What ? Running away already, you pathetic under-human fascist ? Oh, sorry, I meant under - swine fascistic creature daring call himself a human. :-) What human are you? You are scum on this Earth - go back to Hell - where you came from, you miserable under-creature, the worst of a kind ever existed on The Earth. Go, Go! Out of my eyes, and don't you dare EVER meet me in person, you fucking PIECE OF UNDER-HUMAN CRAP
valgez1 4 months ago
oops double post
pizllexam 4 months ago
LOL. Does the USA hold IQ tests for president candidates? Because, that'll significantly filter out the idiots. Just saying.
spleasant85 4 months ago
haha Obama is not a christian.
sablemase 4 months ago
I thougt it was a Mike J. Fox video.. f$%¨politics
cacasarq 4 months ago
I would demand birching the non-religious Americans on a daily basis so that they diligently study The Law and say their morning prayers.
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1 I hope you're joking... anyone that thinks that way is a disgrace to this world and any efforts at ever coming together as any society small or world wide.
chicarbiomed 4 months ago
@chicarbiomed You can only hope for I'm not joking. Today's Christianity is gutless, talking too much of piece and love, thus allowing all sorts of Atheistic hypocrites to raise their heads. The True Faith mush have Sword & Fire in its arsenal and use it when necessary. The devious atheists are the real Satan followers - the real disgrace to the world. Who wants to "Come together" ? The Faith is the only thing that matters - all the rest is hypocrisy like "coming together"
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1 Wow, so you basically want us going back into the dark ages? Perhaps we should start burning witches and people of other faiths again? Cuz you know, "those were the days of glory!". In all seriousness, you better figure out a way to stop the spread of information which enables people to have the education to see through your malicious, false, and disgusting beliefs. You're going to continue to waste your valuable time believing the lies and will never realize it. Good luck!
chicarbiomed 4 months ago 22
@chicarbiomed Why dark ages? Beside, it's people who do things, not Faith. At present, it would be enough to birch the atheists on a daily (or weekly - depending on the case) basis - they are the passive Satan followers, so they think twice before saying their heresy. Then we'll make sure they say their morning prayers - if not - birch them ! . Regarding active Satan followers - some sort of rather harsh exorcizm would be needed though...
valgez1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@valgez1 "they are the passive Satan followers" In the exact same way you are a passive leprechaun follower.
"Regarding active Satan followers - some sort of rather harsh exorcizm would be needed though." Sounds like you're quite the barbaric, sadistic fuckwit.
TheHigherVoltage 4 months ago
@valgez1 lmao. It's too bad real fundamental christians aren't as open minded about what they really want.
chicarbiomed 4 months ago
@valgez1 lol sorry, not open minded but openly admit.
chicarbiomed 4 months ago
You're better off closing your eyes, we're not in the dark ages anymore. The brightness of the future is going to hurt, especially when you realize you've been left behind.
chicarbiomed 4 months ago
@valgez1 "The True Faith mush have Sword & Fire in its arsenal and use it when necessary."
Ya...you're right up there with an Islamic jihadist....just another delusional fuckwit.
TheHigherVoltage 4 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage I think atheists are the ultimate infidels.
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1 Coming from a culhead, that's a compliment. Thank you.
TheHigherVoltage 4 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage Yeah, all atheists should get some serious ass kicking :-) I bet, in Medieval Times, you'd have kissed The Holly Inquisition's shoes - only some of you were really brave, ready to go to the bonfire for their beliefs / non-beliefs :-) . The rest, like you, cast their voices only because they are allowed to. :-) - Too bad, The Faith is too soft nowadays.
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1 So how does that psychosis work? "Love each other" = "hurt each other"?
Seems to me you're either a troll or a angry little terrorist in the making. Either way, you're a loser.
TheHigherVoltage 4 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage YOU are the looser :-)) Not me... You are the passive Satan follower, you have no soul, just mortal body, after you die you will rot, you won't even be judged - you'll just cease yo exist :-))) For comparison, Satan worshipers will go to Hell; but even in Hell, there's no place for you.
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1 " YOU are the looser :-)) Not me." Lets find out.
"You are the passive Satan follower" I can't follow something I don't believe in.
"you have no soul" Funny how fuckwits also claim everyone has a soul.
"after you die you will rot, you won't even be judged - you'll just cease yo exist :-))) For comparison, Satan worshipers will go to Hell; but even in Hell, there's no place for you." - makes no sense at all.
Sorry Charlie - you're a loser on several levels.
TheHigherVoltage 4 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage Hey, Looser :-). I'm not Charlie :-( , you idiot. Why do you repeat what I write? Are you a parrot? Rather silly Youtube fashion. The claims that everyone has soul are just not right. The True Believers do have soul, but the ones like you - DO NOT. You're just a piece of mortal meat, no wonder you can't see The Obvious - you've been born unable to see, you are just blind and def. Evrth I say makes sense - but not TO YOU. You're not even a looser - you've nothing to loose
valgez1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@valgez1 "The True Believers do have soul, but the ones like you - DO NOT." And where can I verify this imaginary claim?
"Evrth I say makes sense". Clearly not.
TheHigherVoltage 4 months ago
@valgez1 Duh, Infidel literally means non-believer, from the Latin word meaning to trust or believe. You know where the words "Heretic" or "Heresy" come from? From a Greek word meaning 'choice' those who chose to think or follow something other than the official dogma, were Heretics. That would include any free thinker. You think these words are insults, which says a lot about your state of mind.
jimbobeire 4 months ago
@jimbobeire Thanks for the academic "definitions" :-) Atheists are infidels, that's right ! Heretic is not necessarily the one you described. It can also be the one who just thinks of himself as original thinker. But, in fact, nothing is original here. I find atheistic thinking to be the most primitive state of human mind, seriously :-))
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1 Yes, your prejudice on that matter is quiet clear, and it's uninteresting & unoriginal. True, not every atheist is a critical thinker, but seeing as we're all born atheists, (or did you 'believe' from birth?) and 99.999% of believers are merely indoctrinated into their parents' religion, rather than making a free choice as an adult, I wouldn't hold theism up as a model of high thinking either, Esp in the times when the commoner wasn't supposed to read or question, simply accept.
jimbobeire 4 months ago
@jimbobeire You , for some reason, think that what you say is very "Interesting and Original" ? :-)) We're born atheists ? You are a remarkably "deep" thinker - really, the top of originality! You cannot know what people are born like. People come to believing through their experience, which way you choose - accept or not accept, find your own way or go their way - it's up to you :-) Religion is part of a daily life - these values are cast upon you, just like anything else.
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1 Where did I claim to be interesting and original? So, tell me, you believe that an infant child, who has no concept of where it's toes are, or how to recognise faces, has a belief in a divine entity? While you're at that, explain how a child who isn't old enough to grasp robust logic makes a free choice to join his/her parents religion, rather than simply complying. Or will you dodge and insult as per standard troll practice? :-)
jimbobeire 4 months ago
@jimbobeire First, trolling is the best practice ever to deal with idiotic atheistic videos and with idiots atheists themselves, and their "terribly logical" silly arguments. So, take no insult, it's just the way it is. :-)) An infant doesn't rally have a "Free" choice, an infant gets used to the environment, the values are taught. "Robust" logic is a rather dumb concept . Humans are irrational by their nature, dude, go and try to find the things which are beyond your "robust" logic.
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1 Well, at least you are open about being a troll. Enjoy yourself.
jimbobeire 4 months ago
@jimbobeire Of course! If you're so open about your being a complete idiot, why can't I open myself to you as well - sure way to peace :-) Ask yourself, you stupid atheist, is infant born able to walk, to talk, to read, to dance ? One thing is sure : infant is born open to all manifestations of the universe, infant doesn't need your idiotic scientific "Proofs", an infant perceives the world by his experience and instincts, until he is exposed to the atheism and then becomes a dumbass like you.
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
ALL children are born athiests, only after growing up with morons do they learn the term god and religion. more people have died in the name of god, not just one mind you, than any other reason ever.
pizllexam 4 months ago
@pizllexam You haven't any possibility to say what children are born like :-) All you try to put is a cheap atheistic logic manipulation :-). Children are born to find things out - it's like children are born unable to walk - so, how can they walk later in their lives? People would have died for any other reason, - you should be able to separate religion as an institution, as a political organization from the religion as faith. Think about it, - it's all about people
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1 I haven't any possibility? really? because im pretty sure i just did, because it is possible. a child knows how to walk, or learns it rather, by emulating its parents. it learns language by, you guessed it, emulating its parents. and as you said, children are born to find things out, they dont come into this world knowing anything. and how is my understanding of the FACTS a manipulation of logic? it is infact the exact opposite of that. people with "faith" do far more harm than good.
pizllexam 4 months ago
@pizllexam How EXACTLY do you have a possibility to know what children are born ab