Taking God's name off dollar bills because one does not believe in Him is the same as taking George Washington off the one dollar bill because one does not believe in him. There may be just one American out there somewhere who does not believe in George Washington but he is still a minority. This is an extreme example. Other events that America recognizes as true but are still unbelieved by Americans include the moon landing and the Holocaust. Does that mean they are not true?
Criminals may not make the majority of Americans either but America accepts persecution of them. Just as crime, this is an issue of right and wrong. Our society says that it does not matter if what we believe is right or wrong, true or false, just as long as it makes you feel happy. The difference here is, unlike committing crimes, you are allowed to believe what you want.
@Flash02021990 "please don't insult what you can't comprehend" fallow your own rule because you must not understand evolution. I am being sensible. I go with the facts and almost all of the experts on a topic and not go with a small group of people who have been showen wrong more than once and keep repeating what they say. You do know that you demaning me to conform to you standers isn't going to happen. What's that nano tech thing about?
@Flash02021990 Demski and Behe's only real arument is they can't imagin or understand how something happened. Saying you are to stupid to think of a way for it happen so it cvouldn't have happened isn't an arugment: It's what I like to call bullshit. If you would kindly go watch some real science videos and not the dishonest "Explled" you might just learn something.
The arguments from ignorance amazes me. If we don’t know, we search for answers. To assert truth without proof is ignorance. I’m not talking “absolute truth”, but truth being the best explanation we have at the time. Speaking in terms of absolutes may give some comfort and a sense of control, but face it, we have no control, we could be snuffed out at any time.
Oxygen , nitrogen carbon hydrogen etc, u cannt see them in ur room, but they r there. In the past ppl didnt know that air contains different elements but now we know. if u cant see them, that does not meen they dont exist. The key point here r SPIRITS, can u see them??? U think all religion have the same element, but thats not correct, they r different exactly like air. Islam and Christianity have different spirits. Islam from Satan, Christianity from the creator the real God who loves us
I subscribe to Evid3nc3 and really believe his video to be the best over all (in my opinion). But, I was curious what other placers' videos were like and so thanks for including it here as I subscribe to this channel as well.
I think contests like such and interviews with famous Atheists in the media will eventually bring about the realization of rational thinkers and gradually get rid of religion all together... ^.^
@Multimixvideos How can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@1tabligh Atheist don't, by definition, believe what you wrote. Scientists do. Science has, based on centuries of study and advancement, been able to show us the evidence for the connection, down to the molecular level, of all life on this planet. Science, reason, logic...these are the gifts of the power of thought. Religion seeks to limit and destroy them. Religion seeks to dominate humanity with, as Sam Harris has rightfully said, "iron-age fairytales". Religion is for the weak of mind.
@sTevefor3 Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories. Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, ....
everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, ...
@1tabligh Um, wrong. You claimed that "atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings". This is inherently absurd. Not all atheists are scientists. The burden of proof of the existence of supernatural beings or entities rests squarely on the shoulders of religion. Those of us who choose to live in *this* reality do so because it is the only one from which we can choose.
to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
@sTevefor3 Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear. ...
@1tabligh I take it you mean "when man conjures up explanations for things that happen that he doesn't yet understand"...like, say for instance, your belief in the Tooth Fairy, or Zeus, or miracles. As we advance in our knowledge of our universe, we leave behind our childish innocence and discover that the universe is a truly awe-inspiring wonder, at the same time a cruel and cold place that cares not if humans exist or if we ever existed.
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
@1tabligh Again, the proof of the existence of any deity lies on the shoulders of those who believe in it. All you've done is put together words that are empty and have no purpose other than to cloud the issue. Prove that your god exists, and that he or she is any different than any other god of human history. or just STFU.
@sTevefor3 If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
@1tabligh But Man, without the benefit of the application of scientific instruments and criteria, found it necessary to create God, so he could perceive the existence of something that *doesn't* exist, because, since Man created it, he finds, as you have, that he can't prove the existence of this thing (God) without resorting to superstition and myth.
@sTevefor3 We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
I think I can answer for you. The reason why scientists dismiss God as a possibility, (even when considering the "whole mass of unknowns") is because EVERY single "Known", or scientific truth that has been discovered points to a naturalistic world. So yes, we nonbelievers make the assumption that the rest of the unknowns are naturalistic as well. A fallacy, but I don't care. As a believer, all you would have to do is find ONE SINGLE scientific truth that is supernaturally explained.
@igotsachubby Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories. Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, ....
everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, ...
to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
Once again... If you could please provide a single scientific truth, a single peice of reality that is only explained by the supernatural that would be great.
Now, concerning your metaphor about the candle light in a vast night desert; although, beautiful it is complete bullshit. How can you know that the sum of pooled human knowledge is only a candle compared to what is called an "unknown"? Now, if we are talking about muslim countries; that, thanks to "ALLAH" are centuries...
are centuries behind western cultures. So yes, if you're talking about those countries they are in the dark ages and have never risen out of the hole that your religion has kept them in. However, thanks to science and secular societies, that are not racist/sexist/homophobic, we have risen out of that hole you are still, and we will never go back.
Your religion is a joke, allah doesn't exist. You have every right to believe what you want, I have the right to point out your stupidity.
@igotsachubby Are you descending from a human ancestor or a wannabe monkey ancestor?
Do you understand english distinctly?
No dodging the questions and quibbling in vain!
YES OR NO?
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
Depends... 1 generation I descend from human ancestors (my parents). 1,000 or more generations probably starting to get ape ancestry. What does evolution (which is a fact), have to do with the existence of God? (specifically ALLAH!!!)
next question, the first source of existence is considered matter in the form energy in an infinitely dense point called a singularity. NO GOD REQUIRED.
I believe I've answered your questions (with no quibbling!!).
@igotsachubby If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
I agree with that. As do most atheists. On the flip side, just because something COULD exist, doesn't mean that it does. I am open to all evidence, and when/if some evidence is provided for the existence of God, I would gladly switch my beliefs. Untill then, I will remain objective. I call myself an atheist due to the fact that it has been thousands of years since the 3 major religions were created, and they have not found any evidence for their God. I don't see it happening anytime soon
@igotsachubby We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.
Who ever said that "scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation"..? Because, I sure didn't. For example, we know that atoms exist in this world not becuase we can directly sense them, but because through massive amount of testing; their existence is shown. It's been a while since I was in General Chemistry, but I do remember a few tests some scientist ran to discover atoms. ie "Milliks"? oil drop experiment, the gold foil experiment etc...
@igotsachubby When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on
scientific principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.
personal experiences, "logic", non of these are evidence for God.
I'm sorry, but you started off this argument very strong, and I was actually impressed; however, you have slowly gotten lazier and and your argument has become extrememly pathetic.
You have every right to believe in God if you wish, that is your right.
The rest of us cannot believe in something just because it makes us feel good. I require evidence to justify my beliefs. You have not provided that. Thanks.
In his equation, Einstein says that energy is equal to the mass of muter times the velocity of light squared (E = mc2 where E is energy, m mass, and c velocity of light). The velocity of light is equal to 186,282 miles per second. Also, the mass is equal to the energy divided by the velocity of light squared (m= E/c2).
With this, it became established that the atom with its protons and electrons is nothing in reality but concentrated energy ....
that can be analyzed and reduced to its primordial state. Thus, according to the modern analysis, energy is the substratum of the world. It is manifested in various shapes and in numerous forms, whether sonic, magnetic, electrical, chemical or mechanical.
In light of this, the duality between matter and radiation, between particles and waves, and between the appearance of electrons sometimes as matter and some other times as light was no longer strange. Rather, ...
it became somewhat understood; since all these phenomena are [but] forms of one reality, namely, energy.
Then how can the atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
Some brainless atheists regard matter as independent and imagine that it has itself gained this freedom and elaborated the laws that rule over it.
But how can they believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Materialism imagines that lowly objects are the source for the emergence of higher objects without troubling to ascertain whether the higher, in fact, exists at the level of the lower. If lowly matter is unable even at the highest stage of its development, namely thought and reflection— ....
either to create itself or to violate any of the laws that rule over it, it follows ineluctably that it is unable to create other beings and the laws regulating them. How, then, can it be believed that lowly matter should engage in the creation and origination of higher beings or have the power to bestow existence on lofty phenomena?
Is it at all feasible to regard all the geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *** unknowing and unperceiving ***, is his creator and that of all beings?
Then how can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *** unknowing and unperceiving ***, is his creator and that of all beings?
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!
You know, I absolutely love these kinds of videos, spreading thinking that encourages logical reasoning, but who are we kidding? The target audience (ie those who believe in a god) refuses to listen anyways, because they choose to make themselves ignorant, so that they dont actually start questioning the fact that their religion might not be accurate. Its ridiculous. Maybe we should just kill them all.
@pyromaniac4290 Perhaps these videos are effective when it comes to "fence-sitters", those who are currently indifferent, or those who are ignorant on the subject. Plus, those who believe in god have varying levels of conviction.
Free energy technology exists!But the coverup is very strong,if you want a real Free energy Magnet Motor, get the blueprints at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,take part in the revolution!
Right. Only "true Christians" are as immoral as the Bible says to be.
Not every Christian commits the sin of idolizing the word of the Bible, a book written by men, over the message of love and peace that they believe was delivered by Jesus. Not all believe the cruel acts of the book are fit to inflict on each other in modern society. But they do still believe in Jesus's sacrifice to absolve sins, and so are Christian.
I'm an agnostic atheist and secular humanist, btw.
@rkyeun That may explain how you are so ignorant about the bible.
I never really practiced and I know jesus said in timothy that "not a jot nor tittle of the old rules shall be abolished"
And that mean you can't throw out the old testament because you don't like it.
Also jesus (who is god) sacrificed himself (to go live in heaven and basicly be the first human on earth to live in eternal bliss, boohoo) to himself, because god is the punisher, for sin ... that god created.. makes sense.
Yeah yeah, and it also says plants were made before the sun. A lot is obviously wrong, and not what people use as the basis for their faith. Yes, you CAN throw out the Old Testament if you don't like it. All atheists do.
Of course it doesn't make sense. I suppose I'm more amused by your exceptional overreaction.
If you consider anyone who disagrees with you in any way to be responding with nonsense and opinions, you're not rational enough to deserve an explanation as to how two homosexual people can still be Christian. That it happens is a fact. You can deny it with whatever fundamental literalist view of the Bible you like, but that isn't what most people do.
If you feel the need to have the last word, it's yours. I won't be continuing this discussion with you.
@rkyeun And you can continue to use straw men and put words into my mouth.
All I ever said was anyone who IS religious and GBLT is fucking stupid, just like a jewish person joining the Aryian nation.
I never denied their existance, I just pointed out how ignorant they have to be to worship a god who says to murder them on sight for existing... the same god who created them gay
Oh and using childish tactics like "giving me the last word" or "being the bigger person" doesn't work, so good try.
You know what other nations have references to "god" in their official regalia?
Nazi Germany ("Gott mit uns / God with us") and Saudi Arabia ("لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله / There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah"). Do we, a nation built on the principle of individual freedoms and democracy want to share something in common with two of the most oppressive and cruel nations ever to exist on earth?
Who would "thumbs down" this vid? 34 folks who may fall into that category and one distracted fucktard who clicked the wrong button - ME. AK!!!! DRAT.
@europauluk i understood the meaning of faith, and it's not very convincing.. sorry if i might have offended, because i would have if it was 10 years ago.
This video is WITH OUT MERIT, just random nonsense with NO ETHOS to give it any credibility against KNOWLEDGE, INTEGRITY and AUTHORITY of the contents of the BIBLE.
@Quipert : And they would translate better to a global audience rather than the America-centric message of the winner. Not that the message was wrong at all, it was spot on. But it speaks to one nation and not the world.
I like only first vid rest is poor and saying that homos are normal thing... no its not its against nature and always will be.... humans are fucked up..... they made religions with made up gods and they fucking all things that moves and that which not moves... humankind is just fucked up. I like to watch how everything works... I just observe :]
@7BeAsT9 You are incorrect - homo.s. behavior is found in all mammalian species in nature and has also been observed among birds. This is not just related to sex - in animals that form social bonds, mate behavior is also displayed, such as raising young together / building a nest, etc. In studies with rats, hs behavior is relatively rare until there is stress on the overall population. Once there is stress due to a shortage of food/ space, hs behavior increases to about 10% of the population.
@KnowledgeIsAwesome Yes, I've had two 'girl teams' in my pigeons-- They loved each other just as much as a male/female pair, they just had four eggs, not the standerd two, and of course, no babies.
I agree. While the winner is limited to america, and well, does give a good history lesson, the first two still have that little "oompf"-message you wouldn't expect.
You realy have no idea of what Jesus was talking about!!!!
Your a lost soul who has obviously been part of a religion and is now confused, I will pray for you to find the right way because your now only following man´s ways!
wrong wrong wrong Where did you learn that contradictive theory?
That´s exactly what Jesus kept telling us to stay away from..Religion, faith is not a religion because another word for faith is trust, trust is what we normaly have in our parents! You need to accept God´s sacrafice Jesus and stay away from religion!
What was the sacrifice? What did God give up that could not easily be acheived again by God? Men and women have died for the benefit of others in the past; they're dead; really dead, they will never come back. They sacrificed all that they were to benefit others. God's sacrifice is only a minor inconvenience compared to that.
And to both Goodanswerman777, and PhalanxPerception - I understand the desire to know WHY we are here. I understand the power to believe what grownups told you as kids. I understand that simple comments on a YouTube page can't convince someone to leave all they believed and trusted. But I hope you're doing as much research on the topic as I have. After the many books I've read, the house upon hours of debates I've watched, I'm honestly unpersudeded by religious arguments.
This is becouse the Great Pasta has not touched you with HIS noodly apendage yet! Come and find salvation: turn to be a pastafarian! And that energy of the great Past be with you not only on sundays, but in all days of your life, with souce, forever! RAmen!
As someone born in 1953, I have (since I was aware of them) felt the McCarthy era changes were never subject to my consent and so not subject to my practice.
However, I have been told that prior to WW2, the pledge included a raised hand salute to the flag (palms up). This was excised for it's similarity to the Nazi salute and it is something I would not do today either. Go figure.
If God created me, only he knows what I need to believe in him. People ask "What would you accept as evidence for God?" I can't think of ANYTHING! Every possibility is something I'd want to study scientifically as I'd feel there was a natural explanation. It's Gods choice to make himself known 2 me. If he never chooses to make himself known, thus me never believing in him, than he's chosen to create me just to send me to hell. Lovely! Ironically, the bible even says God chooses who may know him.
just let me put this in balck and white.thare is no scientifec explanatoin to God im sorry but to his creatoin yes thats the earth and the universe just please go outside and look around thare are things that prove of things in the bible like that the bible is true,for instence thare are prophices in the bible talking about what jesus would do,for jesus to fuffile all the things prophiside in the old testmnet would be like filling the state off texes full of nickrls looking for a silver doller.
@goodanswerman777 there is no need an explaination of something that quite probably doesen't exist.
the fact that a madeup character (jesus) does what the madeup prophecies tell, he will do is about as impressive as the existence of a Ring in the book(s) "lord of the rings" especially if you keep in mind, that all those prophecies where well known to the people whol lived at the time jesus is supposed to live... there where probably houndreds of ppl. triing to fullfil the prophecies.
In the books I'm reading, the character Richard Rahl fulfills several prophecies. I guess I should pray to him.
"Father Rahl guide us. Father Rahl teach us. Father Rahl protect us. In your light we thrive. In your mercy we are sheltered. In your wisdom we are humbled. We live only to love you. Our lives are yours."
What I dont get is, by doing this, arent we treating Atheism like a religion? I thought that being Atheist was all about no religion, but instead facts. But isnt it a fact that most of the world has a religion and we are a minority. Face it; they strongly believe there is a god, probably stronger than we believe there isnt. We arent going to change there mind.
@billy9495 first of all: atheism is just a minority in the US... on a world scale atheists and agnostics make a significant precentage.
second point: there are many people out there who never actually thought about their belief. And campaigns like these encurage people to think for them selfes.
third point: showing what atheism actually is about reduces prejustive images like "they just wanna sin" 'n BS like that. Especially in the US there are a lot people who are afraid of "outing" themself.
@BalthazzarCH (cont.) a forth point religious people affect non-religious peoples lifes all the time.... this needs some furter explaination. fortunately someone else already made a great example for that: /watch?v=xnbXlkNavwo
The only thing I disagree with is the compairison of sexuality and race with religon. Religon, or in my case lack there of, is a choice. Therfore I think that it is not quiet on the same level as sexuality or race
The first vid, ends with the statement its just a book, If someone believes the Bible they are try ing to warn you. How about getting rid of anti smoking adds, or advertisements warning people of all kinds of stuff after all most of it comes from books wrote by people?
@PhalanxPerception well... 1st of all anti somkeing adds don't get offended and screem at you if you do smoke anyway. 2nd somkeing is a proovable cause for cancer. 3rd. Smokeing adds don't threat you with unproovable and infinate punishment. 4th the effects of smokeing are testable, peer reviewable, verifiable and most importanlty: provable!
I think the 2nd place winner: "Imagine No Religion" has to be the best video. It had the best concept, best camera work, and of course, the best song one can possibly use in a video about secularism.
@frankjohnson123 Non-believers in the US is more like 15-20% which puts them just below Catholics and above all other religious denominations for demographics. And why should any faith have the 'right' to tell others who to love, how to spend their Sundays, who can hold public office, ... why must a faith have control over the lives of people that do not even share the same belief?
Your not being pushed around. Your being told you don't have divine entitlement. Deal with it.
Non-believer =/= atheist. Agnostics and general non-religious people are put under that label. I'm with you, just so you know. I'm responding to the guy that said Christians are pushed around by atheists.
I guess both can be right depending on how you look at it. OED: [non-believer] A person who does not believe in something, esp. one with no religious faith; (occas.) spec. a person who does not accept a particular religious belief or doctrine.
The last one supports what I'm saying, because both agnostics and atheists aren't part of religious doctrine.
Good Vide... Thanks..
Spasatcom 1 month ago
Taking God's name off dollar bills because one does not believe in Him is the same as taking George Washington off the one dollar bill because one does not believe in him. There may be just one American out there somewhere who does not believe in George Washington but he is still a minority. This is an extreme example. Other events that America recognizes as true but are still unbelieved by Americans include the moon landing and the Holocaust. Does that mean they are not true?
imschroeder 4 months ago
Criminals may not make the majority of Americans either but America accepts persecution of them. Just as crime, this is an issue of right and wrong. Our society says that it does not matter if what we believe is right or wrong, true or false, just as long as it makes you feel happy. The difference here is, unlike committing crimes, you are allowed to believe what you want.
imschroeder 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Flash02021990
"God is real just look at dna or the bacterial flagelum" - Neither of which require devine intervention
"watch expelled no intelligence allowed" - Nah, seen enough of Ben Stein lying to people. He can't even remain consestant to himself
whiteowl1415 4 months ago
@Flash02021990 "please don't insult what you can't comprehend" fallow your own rule because you must not understand evolution. I am being sensible. I go with the facts and almost all of the experts on a topic and not go with a small group of people who have been showen wrong more than once and keep repeating what they say. You do know that you demaning me to conform to you standers isn't going to happen. What's that nano tech thing about?
kokofan50 4 months ago
@Flash02021990 Demski and Behe's only real arument is they can't imagin or understand how something happened. Saying you are to stupid to think of a way for it happen so it cvouldn't have happened isn't an arugment: It's what I like to call bullshit. If you would kindly go watch some real science videos and not the dishonest "Explled" you might just learn something.
kokofan50 5 months ago in playlist kokofan50's favorites
"The Catcher in the Rye", "Lord of the Flies", "Through the Looking Glass", "The Doors of Perception", and...
"New Moon"...?
The hell?
MrEdLoop 5 months ago
congrats to the winners!
MusicOfTheSystem 5 months ago
wish I would came to YouTube earlier
ThePeacefulAtheistt 7 months ago
0:52 hahaha lmfao this guy screwed up his one objective, STANDING UP
Slacktoo 8 months ago
These videos are amazing. Congrats to the winners.
Naaaaaaayr 9 months ago
The arguments from ignorance amazes me. If we don’t know, we search for answers. To assert truth without proof is ignorance. I’m not talking “absolute truth”, but truth being the best explanation we have at the time. Speaking in terms of absolutes may give some comfort and a sense of control, but face it, we have no control, we could be snuffed out at any time.
benaberry 10 months ago
the 2nd one made me cry. nice
jakepinoywolrd85 1 year ago
Oxygen , nitrogen carbon hydrogen etc, u cannt see them in ur room, but they r there. In the past ppl didnt know that air contains different elements but now we know. if u cant see them, that does not meen they dont exist. The key point here r SPIRITS, can u see them??? U think all religion have the same element, but thats not correct, they r different exactly like air. Islam and Christianity have different spirits. Islam from Satan, Christianity from the creator the real God who loves us
Tkilller 1 year ago
lol where are the hipsters brooding with the ipods in the first one??
sk8tertater 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FFreeThinker my msn in profile! Project Reason Video Contest Winners
sexykatie90 1 year ago
I subscribe to Evid3nc3 and really believe his video to be the best over all (in my opinion). But, I was curious what other placers' videos were like and so thanks for including it here as I subscribe to this channel as well.
I think contests like such and interviews with famous Atheists in the media will eventually bring about the realization of rational thinkers and gradually get rid of religion all together... ^.^
Multimixvideos 1 year ago
@Multimixvideos How can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh Atheist don't, by definition, believe what you wrote. Scientists do. Science has, based on centuries of study and advancement, been able to show us the evidence for the connection, down to the molecular level, of all life on this planet. Science, reason, logic...these are the gifts of the power of thought. Religion seeks to limit and destroy them. Religion seeks to dominate humanity with, as Sam Harris has rightfully said, "iron-age fairytales". Religion is for the weak of mind.
sTevefor3 1 year ago
@sTevefor3 Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories. Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, ....
1tabligh 1 year ago
everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh Um, wrong. You claimed that "atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings". This is inherently absurd. Not all atheists are scientists. The burden of proof of the existence of supernatural beings or entities rests squarely on the shoulders of religion. Those of us who choose to live in *this* reality do so because it is the only one from which we can choose.
sTevefor3 1 year ago
to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh Oh, and I forgot to add: you're supremely deluded. Just sayin'...
sTevefor3 1 year ago
@sTevefor3 Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh I take it you mean "when man conjures up explanations for things that happen that he doesn't yet understand"...like, say for instance, your belief in the Tooth Fairy, or Zeus, or miracles. As we advance in our knowledge of our universe, we leave behind our childish innocence and discover that the universe is a truly awe-inspiring wonder, at the same time a cruel and cold place that cares not if humans exist or if we ever existed.
sTevefor3 11 months ago
Comment removed
sTevefor3 11 months ago
God and Empirical Logic.
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh Again, the proof of the existence of any deity lies on the shoulders of those who believe in it. All you've done is put together words that are empty and have no purpose other than to cloud the issue. Prove that your god exists, and that he or she is any different than any other god of human history. or just STFU.
sTevefor3 11 months ago
@sTevefor3 If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
1tabligh 11 months ago
@1tabligh But Man, without the benefit of the application of scientific instruments and criteria, found it necessary to create God, so he could perceive the existence of something that *doesn't* exist, because, since Man created it, he finds, as you have, that he can't prove the existence of this thing (God) without resorting to superstition and myth.
sTevefor3 11 months ago
@sTevefor3 We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.
1tabligh 11 months ago
@1tabligh ...and you're still delusional. Bye.
sTevefor3 11 months ago
@sTevefor3
I will make it easy for you to answer!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 11 months ago
I think I can answer for you. The reason why scientists dismiss God as a possibility, (even when considering the "whole mass of unknowns") is because EVERY single "Known", or scientific truth that has been discovered points to a naturalistic world. So yes, we nonbelievers make the assumption that the rest of the unknowns are naturalistic as well. A fallacy, but I don't care. As a believer, all you would have to do is find ONE SINGLE scientific truth that is supernaturally explained.
Good luck
igotsachubby 11 months ago
@igotsachubby Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories. Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, ....
1tabligh 11 months ago
everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, ...
1tabligh 11 months ago
to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
1tabligh 11 months ago
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
1tabligh 11 months ago
@1tabligh
Once again... If you could please provide a single scientific truth, a single peice of reality that is only explained by the supernatural that would be great.
Now, concerning your metaphor about the candle light in a vast night desert; although, beautiful it is complete bullshit. How can you know that the sum of pooled human knowledge is only a candle compared to what is called an "unknown"? Now, if we are talking about muslim countries; that, thanks to "ALLAH" are centuries...
igotsachubby 11 months ago
are centuries behind western cultures. So yes, if you're talking about those countries they are in the dark ages and have never risen out of the hole that your religion has kept them in. However, thanks to science and secular societies, that are not racist/sexist/homophobic, we have risen out of that hole you are still, and we will never go back.
Your religion is a joke, allah doesn't exist. You have every right to believe what you want, I have the right to point out your stupidity.
igotsachubby 11 months ago
@igotsachubby Are you descending from a human ancestor or a wannabe monkey ancestor?
Do you understand english distinctly?
No dodging the questions and quibbling in vain!
YES OR NO?
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
1tabligh 11 months ago
@1tabligh
Depends... 1 generation I descend from human ancestors (my parents). 1,000 or more generations probably starting to get ape ancestry. What does evolution (which is a fact), have to do with the existence of God? (specifically ALLAH!!!)
next question, the first source of existence is considered matter in the form energy in an infinitely dense point called a singularity. NO GOD REQUIRED.
I believe I've answered your questions (with no quibbling!!).
PRAISE ALLAH! hahaha
igotsachubby 11 months ago
@igotsachubby If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
1tabligh 11 months ago
I agree with that. As do most atheists. On the flip side, just because something COULD exist, doesn't mean that it does. I am open to all evidence, and when/if some evidence is provided for the existence of God, I would gladly switch my beliefs. Untill then, I will remain objective. I call myself an atheist due to the fact that it has been thousands of years since the 3 major religions were created, and they have not found any evidence for their God. I don't see it happening anytime soon
igotsachubby 11 months ago
@igotsachubby We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.
1tabligh 11 months ago
Who ever said that "scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation"..? Because, I sure didn't. For example, we know that atoms exist in this world not becuase we can directly sense them, but because through massive amount of testing; their existence is shown. It's been a while since I was in General Chemistry, but I do remember a few tests some scientist ran to discover atoms. ie "Milliks"? oil drop experiment, the gold foil experiment etc...
Where is the evidence for God?
igotsachubby 11 months ago
@igotsachubby When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on
1tabligh 11 months ago
scientific principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.
1tabligh 11 months ago
@1tabligh
personal experiences, "logic", non of these are evidence for God.
I'm sorry, but you started off this argument very strong, and I was actually impressed; however, you have slowly gotten lazier and and your argument has become extrememly pathetic.
You have every right to believe in God if you wish, that is your right.
The rest of us cannot believe in something just because it makes us feel good. I require evidence to justify my beliefs. You have not provided that. Thanks.
igotsachubby 11 months ago
@igotsachubby The atheist Delusion!
In his equation, Einstein says that energy is equal to the mass of muter times the velocity of light squared (E = mc2 where E is energy, m mass, and c velocity of light). The velocity of light is equal to 186,282 miles per second. Also, the mass is equal to the energy divided by the velocity of light squared (m= E/c2).
With this, it became established that the atom with its protons and electrons is nothing in reality but concentrated energy ....
1tabligh 11 months ago
that can be analyzed and reduced to its primordial state. Thus, according to the modern analysis, energy is the substratum of the world. It is manifested in various shapes and in numerous forms, whether sonic, magnetic, electrical, chemical or mechanical.
In light of this, the duality between matter and radiation, between particles and waves, and between the appearance of electrons sometimes as matter and some other times as light was no longer strange. Rather, ...
1tabligh 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
it became somewhat understood; since all these phenomena are [but] forms of one reality, namely, energy.
Then how can the atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 11 months ago
God and Empirical Logic.
Matter or God?
Take your choice!
Some brainless atheists regard matter as independent and imagine that it has itself gained this freedom and elaborated the laws that rule over it.
But how can they believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery!
1tabligh 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God and Empirical Logic.
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Materialism imagines that lowly objects are the source for the emergence of higher objects without troubling to ascertain whether the higher, in fact, exists at the level of the lower. If lowly matter is unable even at the highest stage of its development, namely thought and reflection— ....
1tabligh 11 months ago
either to create itself or to violate any of the laws that rule over it, it follows ineluctably that it is unable to create other beings and the laws regulating them. How, then, can it be believed that lowly matter should engage in the creation and origination of higher beings or have the power to bestow existence on lofty phenomena?
Is it at all feasible to regard all the geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
1tabligh 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *** unknowing and unperceiving ***, is his creator and that of all beings?
Then how can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
1tabligh 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?
1tabligh 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *** unknowing and unperceiving ***, is his creator and that of all beings?
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!
1tabligh 11 months ago
Comment removed
sTevefor3 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you liked these videos, click on my name and watch a few of my short, yet thought provoking videos. Such as:
'Why agnostics should be atheists'
'Is America a Christian nation'
'Under God in the pledge of allegiance'
'Why people Believe in God, but put their Faith in Men'
Learn how, with facts, to prove religious nonsense to be just that--NON-sense.
sgapplebee 1 year ago
3rd place was the best in my opinion
GHortaV 1 year ago
Holy shit, Evid3nc3 won 10 grands?!
Ignorantf00l 1 year ago
You know, I absolutely love these kinds of videos, spreading thinking that encourages logical reasoning, but who are we kidding? The target audience (ie those who believe in a god) refuses to listen anyways, because they choose to make themselves ignorant, so that they dont actually start questioning the fact that their religion might not be accurate. Its ridiculous. Maybe we should just kill them all.
pyromaniac4290 1 year ago
@pyromaniac4290 In due time...
ryanp123456 1 year ago
@pyromaniac4290 Perhaps these videos are effective when it comes to "fence-sitters", those who are currently indifferent, or those who are ignorant on the subject. Plus, those who believe in god have varying levels of conviction.
ToListen 1 year ago
@ToListen touche
pyromaniac4290 1 year ago
Free energy technology exists!But the coverup is very strong,if you want a real Free energy Magnet Motor, get the blueprints at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,take part in the revolution!
narragansettharco 1 year ago
but more importantly, "Imagine there are no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for." - John Lennon
djyankee251 1 year ago
Thanks for posting this.
davemuscato 1 year ago
The next time I see a nutcase throwing scripture onto a crowd, like the first video, I'll read passages from the Lord of the RIngs out loud.
amorphousguy 1 year ago
@amorphousguy or whatever book/mag I'm reading. Often Scientific American when on a bus.
BardlyG 1 year ago
My list of winners: 3rd place winner should have been 2nd, 2nd 1st and 1st 3rd.
I just disagree. ^_^ E PLURIBUS UNUM!
CalicoVall 1 year ago
The second one was brilliant.
MsGrrargh 1 year ago
The second one is so good it gives me chills in the best way :)
jiveturkey86 1 year ago 5
3:01 FTW! :)
l337pwnage 1 year ago
@ the second video...
What book was that justice reading from?
If he is marrying to women he wouldn't be using a bible.
If it was a legal book why would he need it? doesn't he know the legal pledges and whatnot by memory?
lol ok I am nitpicking but that bugged me.
FuturePants 1 year ago
@FuturePants
Maybe he's a Christian justice using the Bible as part of his ceremony to marry two Christian women.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun lmao
Yes using a book that says murder the people you are marrying
Your logic is flawless.
FuturePants 1 year ago
@FuturePants
Maybe not all Christians are as immoral as the Bible says to be.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun Those are not christians, according to the book they believe is THE 100% TRUE INSPIRED WORD OF THE ALLMIGHTY GOD.
They are all blasphemers and are going to hell.
This is the problem that arises with believing in an all-powerful being.
There is no room for debate, not if you are being honest, because the bible said it and choosing to ignore it doesn't change what your god said.
Before you get all pissy when I say "you" i mean the metaphorical "you"
FuturePants 1 year ago
@FuturePants
Right. Only "true Christians" are as immoral as the Bible says to be.
Not every Christian commits the sin of idolizing the word of the Bible, a book written by men, over the message of love and peace that they believe was delivered by Jesus. Not all believe the cruel acts of the book are fit to inflict on each other in modern society. But they do still believe in Jesus's sacrifice to absolve sins, and so are Christian.
I'm an agnostic atheist and secular humanist, btw.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun That may explain how you are so ignorant about the bible.
I never really practiced and I know jesus said in timothy that "not a jot nor tittle of the old rules shall be abolished"
And that mean you can't throw out the old testament because you don't like it.
Also jesus (who is god) sacrificed himself (to go live in heaven and basicly be the first human on earth to live in eternal bliss, boohoo) to himself, because god is the punisher, for sin ... that god created.. makes sense.
FuturePants 1 year ago
@FuturePants
Yeah yeah, and it also says plants were made before the sun. A lot is obviously wrong, and not what people use as the basis for their faith. Yes, you CAN throw out the Old Testament if you don't like it. All atheists do.
Of course it doesn't make sense. I suppose I'm more amused by your exceptional overreaction.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun I'm not the one argueing bro.
I am stating facts and you are responding with nonsense and opinions
FuturePants 1 year ago
@FuturePants
If you consider anyone who disagrees with you in any way to be responding with nonsense and opinions, you're not rational enough to deserve an explanation as to how two homosexual people can still be Christian. That it happens is a fact. You can deny it with whatever fundamental literalist view of the Bible you like, but that isn't what most people do.
If you feel the need to have the last word, it's yours. I won't be continuing this discussion with you.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun And you can continue to use straw men and put words into my mouth.
All I ever said was anyone who IS religious and GBLT is fucking stupid, just like a jewish person joining the Aryian nation.
I never denied their existance, I just pointed out how ignorant they have to be to worship a god who says to murder them on sight for existing... the same god who created them gay
Oh and using childish tactics like "giving me the last word" or "being the bigger person" doesn't work, so good try.
FuturePants 1 year ago
@rkyeun I'm not the one argueing bro.
I am stating facts and you are responding with nonsense and opinions
FuturePants 1 year ago
I loved the second video in this tube. Awesome. I hope that happens some day.
happyidiottalk 1 year ago
all great videos
rogamortis 1 year ago
You know what other nations have references to "god" in their official regalia?
Nazi Germany ("Gott mit uns / God with us") and Saudi Arabia ("لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله / There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah"). Do we, a nation built on the principle of individual freedoms and democracy want to share something in common with two of the most oppressive and cruel nations ever to exist on earth?
veronicafan2000 1 year ago
@veronicafan2000 why did you call it nazi germany?
themine691 1 year ago
THAT is awesome. The first video was sooooo incredible. lol I loved it.
judaserebus 1 year ago
Christianity, Islam, and Mormonism are mutualy exclusive.
Weesnauh 1 year ago
Execellent Video!
morgannicgregor 1 year ago
They're all pretty awesome.
10kzebra 1 year ago
They all deserve an award.
But, Evid3nc3 has other great vids.
Check out his channel.
gjsterp 1 year ago
I, for one, wish they would bring back the Greek and Roman gods. I'm sick to death of Allah, God, Jesus, and the holy spirit they rode in on.
ananiasacts 1 year ago 11
This comment has received too many negative votes show
all shitty, athiestism is just another religion, even more dogmatic than islam and chritianity
TheRepublicX 1 year ago
@TheRepublicX
The fact that you call it "athiestism" makes me think that you, y'know... don't know what the hell you're talking about at all in any way whatsoever.
stygiansyntax 1 year ago 14
@TheRepublicX, it's true. We worship the square root of negative one.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The second video was the best IMO. understated, clever and more universal.
TC2642 1 year ago
The second video was the best IMO. understated, clever and more universal.
TC2642 1 year ago 2
Another AWESOME video man, A++ to you.
squirreljester2 1 year ago
for the first prize winner, can the pledge be reverted back to the 1952 version?
emancoy 1 year ago 2
That's Awesome , really Awesome
hanybackup 1 year ago
new moon lmao!
ihavethebestusername 1 year ago
Evid3nc3 =D
El3ctricPenguin 1 year ago
The first one is brilliant and entertaining.
The third one is informative and riveting.
The second one is ponderous, overly long, and sucky. It doesn't even belong in the same category as the other two.
Good going, makers of videos one and three!
TheProphetNabob 1 year ago
Did he say Athiens in 4:43. Yes hi did LOL!!
N0CR3AT0R 1 year ago
i wanted that kid's toy car to explode so badly
AchievementSpanker 1 year ago
Who would "thumbs down" any of these videos?
34 ideologues - out of touch with reality and abhorrent of peace
Thanks for posting these here - it was great seeing them all together.
Elaina43 1 year ago
Who would "thumbs down" this vid? 34 folks who may fall into that category and one distracted fucktard who clicked the wrong button - ME. AK!!!! DRAT.
Elaina43 1 year ago
Good try ,but you haven´t convinced me! Find a relationship with The Heavenly Father and only then will you understand the meaning of faith,
europauluk 1 year ago
@europauluk i understood the meaning of faith, and it's not very convincing.. sorry if i might have offended, because i would have if it was 10 years ago.
maddyboi1973 1 year ago
This video is WITH OUT MERIT, just random nonsense with NO ETHOS to give it any credibility against KNOWLEDGE, INTEGRITY and AUTHORITY of the contents of the BIBLE.
JSilverstar21 1 year ago
hmmm I liked the first two better than the winner. I think they displayed a lot more creative thought. just one guy's opinion.
Quipert 1 year ago 17
@Quipert : And they would translate better to a global audience rather than the America-centric message of the winner. Not that the message was wrong at all, it was spot on. But it speaks to one nation and not the world.
WolfmanJoeHunter 1 year ago
@Quipert it won because it was voted in %^#*@ u$a
I like only first vid rest is poor and saying that homos are normal thing... no its not its against nature and always will be.... humans are fucked up..... they made religions with made up gods and they fucking all things that moves and that which not moves... humankind is just fucked up. I like to watch how everything works... I just observe :]
7BeAsT9 1 year ago
@7BeAsT9 You are incorrect - homo.s. behavior is found in all mammalian species in nature and has also been observed among birds. This is not just related to sex - in animals that form social bonds, mate behavior is also displayed, such as raising young together / building a nest, etc. In studies with rats, hs behavior is relatively rare until there is stress on the overall population. Once there is stress due to a shortage of food/ space, hs behavior increases to about 10% of the population.
KnowledgeIsAwesome 1 year ago
@KnowledgeIsAwesome Yes, I've had two 'girl teams' in my pigeons-- They loved each other just as much as a male/female pair, they just had four eggs, not the standerd two, and of course, no babies.
morgannicgregor 1 year ago
@7BeAsT9
You're an absolute uneducated moron.
Aaberg123 1 year ago
@Aaberg123 lol then who the fuck are you? complete shithead... you dont have any arguments, you just insult pfff u are loser
7BeAsT9 1 year ago
@Quipert
I agree. While the winner is limited to america, and well, does give a good history lesson, the first two still have that little "oompf"-message you wouldn't expect.
TheGeekySkeptic 1 year ago
Indeed! Be united USA! Be one! Like your nation should! Or else, it would be the FSA (Fragmented States of America!)
HimmiJoe 1 year ago
Wow, those are awesome.
DueCarnage 1 year ago
You realy have no idea of what Jesus was talking about!!!!
Your a lost soul who has obviously been part of a religion and is now confused, I will pray for you to find the right way because your now only following man´s ways!
europauluk 1 year ago
wrong wrong wrong Where did you learn that contradictive theory?
That´s exactly what Jesus kept telling us to stay away from..Religion, faith is not a religion because another word for faith is trust, trust is what we normaly have in our parents! You need to accept God´s sacrafice Jesus and stay away from religion!
europauluk 1 year ago
What was the sacrifice? What did God give up that could not easily be acheived again by God? Men and women have died for the benefit of others in the past; they're dead; really dead, they will never come back. They sacrificed all that they were to benefit others. God's sacrifice is only a minor inconvenience compared to that.
kezamel 1 year ago
@europauluk While true that faith is a synonym for trust, it has separate meaning:
faith as in religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
trust as in reliance: certainty based on past experience
(Princeton WordNet)
Trust requires evidence (past experience) to verify its certainty. You trust in someone for a reason.
Faith, in this regard, is the opposite. It requires no evidence. Providing evidence for it makes it not faith, but reasoned trust.
SenariXarn 1 year ago
What religion was the wheel-looking thing at the end? I immediately thought 'pirates' but since that's too cool to be true...
eridaniblack 1 year ago
@eridaniblack The wheel is either Buddhism or Hinduism. Wikipedia both and check em out =) Google search would provide an answer as well.
SenariXarn 1 year ago
And to both Goodanswerman777, and PhalanxPerception - I understand the desire to know WHY we are here. I understand the power to believe what grownups told you as kids. I understand that simple comments on a YouTube page can't convince someone to leave all they believed and trusted. But I hope you're doing as much research on the topic as I have. After the many books I've read, the house upon hours of debates I've watched, I'm honestly unpersudeded by religious arguments.
MagnumDB 1 year ago
This is becouse the Great Pasta has not touched you with HIS noodly apendage yet! Come and find salvation: turn to be a pastafarian! And that energy of the great Past be with you not only on sundays, but in all days of your life, with souce, forever! RAmen!
anonimoculto 1 year ago
@MagnumDB You're right in your position, and about the dollar, I think the same, too! FSM bless you!
anonimoculto 1 year ago
FUCK YOU LOSERRRRRERERE
brazzer92 1 year ago
As someone born in 1953, I have (since I was aware of them) felt the McCarthy era changes were never subject to my consent and so not subject to my practice.
However, I have been told that prior to WW2, the pledge included a raised hand salute to the flag (palms up). This was excised for it's similarity to the Nazi salute and it is something I would not do today either. Go figure.
Unit63 1 year ago
If God created me, only he knows what I need to believe in him. People ask "What would you accept as evidence for God?" I can't think of ANYTHING! Every possibility is something I'd want to study scientifically as I'd feel there was a natural explanation. It's Gods choice to make himself known 2 me. If he never chooses to make himself known, thus me never believing in him, than he's chosen to create me just to send me to hell. Lovely! Ironically, the bible even says God chooses who may know him.
MagnumDB 1 year ago 11
just let me put this in balck and white.thare is no scientifec explanatoin to God im sorry but to his creatoin yes thats the earth and the universe just please go outside and look around thare are things that prove of things in the bible like that the bible is true,for instence thare are prophices in the bible talking about what jesus would do,for jesus to fuffile all the things prophiside in the old testmnet would be like filling the state off texes full of nickrls looking for a silver doller.
goodanswerman777 1 year ago
@goodanswerman777 there is no need an explaination of something that quite probably doesen't exist.
the fact that a madeup character (jesus) does what the madeup prophecies tell, he will do is about as impressive as the existence of a Ring in the book(s) "lord of the rings" especially if you keep in mind, that all those prophecies where well known to the people whol lived at the time jesus is supposed to live... there where probably houndreds of ppl. triing to fullfil the prophecies.
BalthazzarCH 1 year ago
@goodanswerman777
I think that everything outside proves Odin / Wotan. What are we going to do now?
franklindelanobluth0 1 year ago
@goodanswerman777
In the books I'm reading, the character Richard Rahl fulfills several prophecies. I guess I should pray to him.
"Father Rahl guide us. Father Rahl teach us. Father Rahl protect us. In your light we thrive. In your mercy we are sheltered. In your wisdom we are humbled. We live only to love you. Our lives are yours."
grimthane 1 year ago
@grimthane
We should ban fire.
Grospoliner 1 year ago
@MagnumDB
Doesn't it set an impossibly high standard?
Grospoliner 1 year ago
@Grospoliner
I'm sorry, does what set an impossibly high standard?
MagnumDB 1 year ago
God's mentality, the way you described it.
Grospoliner 1 year ago
@Grospoliner
If God is truly as Christians describe him - all powerful - than nothing is impossible for him (or her, or it...).
MagnumDB 1 year ago
What I dont get is, by doing this, arent we treating Atheism like a religion? I thought that being Atheist was all about no religion, but instead facts. But isnt it a fact that most of the world has a religion and we are a minority. Face it; they strongly believe there is a god, probably stronger than we believe there isnt. We arent going to change there mind.
billy9495 1 year ago
@billy9495 first of all: atheism is just a minority in the US... on a world scale atheists and agnostics make a significant precentage.
second point: there are many people out there who never actually thought about their belief. And campaigns like these encurage people to think for them selfes.
third point: showing what atheism actually is about reduces prejustive images like "they just wanna sin" 'n BS like that. Especially in the US there are a lot people who are afraid of "outing" themself.
BalthazzarCH 1 year ago 2
@BalthazzarCH (cont.) a forth point religious people affect non-religious peoples lifes all the time.... this needs some furter explaination. fortunately someone else already made a great example for that: /watch?v=xnbXlkNavwo
BalthazzarCH 1 year ago
The only thing I disagree with is the compairison of sexuality and race with religon. Religon, or in my case lack there of, is a choice. Therfore I think that it is not quiet on the same level as sexuality or race
Zhaan4ever 1 year ago
The first vid, ends with the statement its just a book, If someone believes the Bible they are try ing to warn you. How about getting rid of anti smoking adds, or advertisements warning people of all kinds of stuff after all most of it comes from books wrote by people?
PhalanxPerception 1 year ago
@PhalanxPerception well... 1st of all anti somkeing adds don't get offended and screem at you if you do smoke anyway. 2nd somkeing is a proovable cause for cancer. 3rd. Smokeing adds don't threat you with unproovable and infinate punishment. 4th the effects of smokeing are testable, peer reviewable, verifiable and most importanlty: provable!
BalthazzarCH 1 year ago
@BalthazzarCH only death LOL
PhalanxPerception 1 year ago
yeah .. ignore all the rest... death is a lot worse than ethernal punishment, right?
BalthazzarCH 1 year ago
"Imagine no zionism."
- undergroundresistor, 30.03.2010
undergroundresistor 1 year ago
Comment removed
BalthazzarCH 1 year ago
Awesome, excellent and brilliant. Well done to all the winners!!!
O2BSoLucky 1 year ago
I think the 2nd place winner: "Imagine No Religion" has to be the best video. It had the best concept, best camera work, and of course, the best song one can possibly use in a video about secularism.
alphacause 1 year ago
@frankjohnson123 Non-believers in the US is more like 15-20% which puts them just below Catholics and above all other religious denominations for demographics. And why should any faith have the 'right' to tell others who to love, how to spend their Sundays, who can hold public office, ... why must a faith have control over the lives of people that do not even share the same belief?
Your not being pushed around. Your being told you don't have divine entitlement. Deal with it.
VeritasLiber 1 year ago 2
@VeritasLiber
Non-believer =/= atheist. Agnostics and general non-religious people are put under that label. I'm with you, just so you know. I'm responding to the guy that said Christians are pushed around by atheists.
frankjohnson123 1 year ago
@frankjohnson123 Non-believer does equal atheist.
Atheism just means lack of belief in a deity.
Agnosticism is orthogonal to the theism/atheism line.
Chal113 1 year ago
@Chal113
I guess both can be right depending on how you look at it. OED: [non-believer] A person who does not believe in something, esp. one with no religious faith; (occas.) spec. a person who does not accept a particular religious belief or doctrine.
The last one supports what I'm saying, because both agnostics and atheists aren't part of religious doctrine.
frankjohnson123 1 year ago