Science isnt winning anything. Again the problem that atheists have in their reasoning, which is odd that this man who im guessing claims to be a scientist (smart) also makes, is that because a person is of a particular religion does something wrong it means that religion is wrong. The Bibile doesnt say that a kid having a seizure is possesed. Thus, how did religion fail. Religion isnt a medical handbook last I checked.
@stuttgurth Exsamples only makes the case stronger, but not the case, you are right about that. But the general problem with religion is that it provides the "easy escape" of supernatural explaination without reason and evidence, and on that basis you can leap to a lot of very dangerous places.
Are all relions equally dangerous/bad - no. Janism seems quite safe.
Do they fail when it comes to give reasonable explainations - yes.
I love how he doesn't bother to use any facts to make his case. Oh, those silly ancients who didn't know WHY we're here, unlike us enlightened moderns!
Religion will disappear from this planet in 2 more centuries, the new generations of the world will make more use of the brains and common sense than some people at the present time, the new generations will learn that religions evolved from myths, tattle tales*, superstitions, if our universe has millions of years of existance, human beings will be able to wait around 200 years. * some tattle tales: Adan and Eve, original sin, some ghosts watching us from the sky, the rainbow etc etc etc etc.
the romans destroyed all the knolege in the world of that time but if he didn't by the middle ages man would have made it to the moon with that information.
@narutoboys9700 The Romans only destroyed some knowledge of the western world such as libraries of Egypt and some other conquered societies, which can at least partially explain why the Chinese, Koreans, Japanese and Indians, etc. were more advanced, might not have been if Romans and others hadn't destroyed so much knowledge.
REV 22-16 IS THE BRIGHT AND MORNING STAR-VENUS WORSHIP--ITS ALL ASTROTHEOLOGY-JESUS IS REPTILLIAN WORSHIP-AND HE WAS BARIED IN SRINIGAR-INDIA--ANYWAYS--CHRISTIANITY IS --A THROW AWAY SOLAR CULT RELIGION WAKE UP-THE SAME STORY WAS RUNNING AROUND THE MED FOR `1000 YEARS BEFORE RA HORUS--MYTHRA-KRISHNA-SAME STORIES --IT CAME THRU THE MEROVIGN BLOODLINE THIS RELIGULOUS NONSENSE
ww.youtube.com/watch?v=vkXOwBIRX7Y-please watch and understand ur own BIBLE-CHECK CONSPIRITUALITY-RAP
Consciousness is my awareness of existence, 'cognito ergo sum' and the anthropic principle have explained consciousness. Proof that science can't make any hypotheses of what consciousness is; Science relies on empirical evidence, but the question of consciousness is one not of evidence other than consciousness itself. Science can explain a function which explains a natural occurance of consciousness (evo by natural selection) but it does not concern what consciousness is.
@mrfrankincense " ...Philosophy makes statements that must be true, they lack the need for empirical evidence" - really?? :P No offense, but when I read that sentence I laughed out loud. If you believe a statement simply "must be true" without any empirical evidence supporting it, then I'm wasting my time talking to you about this. You obviously have no scientific training - and by the way, science HAS explained (and proven) a plethora of information concerning consciousness.
Consciousness can not be explained by physical science because consciousness is
not physical. Physical science is the world as perceived by our outer 5 senses and is
the object of consciousness. The mind is itself an object of consciousness but it is not sensed thru our outer senses. To define the mind in terms of the world of our outer senses is makes for nonsense. The mind is a reality in and of itself which should be accepted as much as the physical.
Religion itself thrives on anti-intellectuality and mob-mentality. Religion is plain dangerous, people are willing to do the bidding of some book to fill the void they feel? But they don't know God, so religions fills that void. Religion, a bureaucracy by people who are corrupt and have bad intentions.
Faith is nothing more than glorifying non-critical thinking and sheep-like behavior.
Ignorance is knowing the truth and shunning it deliberately.
For example, telling a religious person evolution arguements, they nod, they say they have read about it, they say they have talked to "many" scientists who oppose it and therefore shun what you just said...
Welcome to ignorance.
Religion explains why these people are ignorant.
Not the other way round, you mean lack of knowledge.
@fredb3 they are conditioned to eliminate any rational thought.
Their religions says "believe" and t heir neurons connect in a way to accomodate the crazy fairy stories.Because they think they would be punished if they thought otherwise.
Stupidity is knowing better and carrying on regarless of fallacy or injury.
Looking at my previous comment I have worded it badly;
They don't know the truth, because they deliberately haven't read the research and so they are ignorant of the facts, but then lie about having actually read the research, and as a result of thier deliberate stupidity they come across beligerant, stubborn and insulting to the scientific community.
there must be some research that shows constantly changing your website's layout is beneficial in some way because youtube, facebook, and every other site keep doing it despite the obvious reality that it frustrates (many) people
It's quite telling to read the comments on videos like this and compare the carefully reasoned and informed posts by atheists with the emotional rambling drivel posted by the religious.
Indeed ignorance is only a proof that we need knowledge. As for scientific methodology I can argue that if you wish. You say you need physical evidence. I can discuss with you my scientific approach. However remember when you talk about Egyptians and Indians you are talking about civilizations that go in time1000s of years compared to an illiterate man who lived about 63 years the messenger of Islam... are you prepared?
People 200 years ago could make the same claims you are making today. Keeping in mind they have not yet discovered any of the things you have named some still thought that religion was fiction made by man. On the other hand others as exposed to more knowledge became more convenced of the existence of a creator. Knowledge is light
Art. Love. Infinite spontaneity. Free will. On and on and on. Some things simply do not correlate to mathematical formulas.
Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla, actual scientist, and someone vastly smarter than you will ever be.
i totally agree with this video i always say don't assume what you don't know and to me religion is one big assumption.science is the way to go and if their is a god we will know soon enough.
You said everything I want to say to every religious person. They probably link this video to be evil and wrong and you being a infidel and so one, to keep their lies and fairytales going on.
"We WILL understand spiritual experience SO WELL at some point at the level of the brain (blah blah) - we'll understand it in a way that makes a MOCKERY (blah blah)" ..... Oh really? And why haven't "we" tackled that problem yet, Sam? I wonder if this Ben Stiller look alike is privy to the fact that psychologists, neurologists, and any other scientist of the brain will tell you: We cannot explain consciousness. It is a mystery beyond the capabilities of science. Have some perspective.
@sphericalpyramid ...just because there are still mysteries about the brain now, doesn't mean that scientists won't discover the answers to those questions later in their research. It's like he said - seizures and illnesses used to be mysteries too, and we used to attribute them to religion experiences. Now we know it's SCIENCE. The same will happen with other "religious" experiences - it's only a matter of time.
@seabrain Wrong. Scientists have been searching and searching and studying and studing the "ghost in the machine", namely consciousness, and have collectively - to a person - come up with a goose egg. Nada. Zilch. And you know why? Like I said already: it is beyond the reach of science. Any actual scientist will tell you that science is an ongoing process, and is never to be finished. Some things it simply cannot explain. The origin of life, for instance. Consciousness. Andy Dick.
Consciousness is not "beyond the reach of science", some of it is just beyond our current understanding. Scientists also "searched and searched" (quoting your words) for an explanation for thunder and lightning, as well as disease, and until they found an answer they thought these things were the work of gods or evil spirits. The same will happen with consciousness - science will find an explanation and your superstitions, as well as everyone else's, will no longer be needed to explain it.
@mrfrankincense Philosophy is very subjective, and it is not a solid science that is supported by empirical evidence. Most of philosophy is just speculation and hypotheses or unproven theories. Science is already starting to explain consciousness and what hasn't been discovered yet will be discovered by scientists - it's only a matter of time.
@seabrain Philosophy makes statements that must be true, they lack the need for empirical evidence. Science, which is based upon empirical observations has had its hypotheses disproven time and time again, the wave model of EM radiation for example, science just provides the best hypothesis with the available evidence. But don't get me wrong, I know exactly how correct science is. Science however has no claim to understanding consciousness. I'm running out of space so another comment...
@mrfrankincense " ...Philosophy makes statements that must be true, they lack the need for empirical evidence" - really?? :P No offense, but when I read that sentence I laughed out loud. If you believe a statement simply "must be true" without any empirical evidence supporting it, then I'm wasting my time talking to you about this. You obviously have no scientific training - and by the way, science HAS explained (and proven) a plethora of information concerning consciousness.
@seabrain There are many questions that do not need empirical evidence to be answered, for example; 'Is there anything in the universe that can answer questions?' To which I could reply, without use of empirical evidence; 'Well, as I'm ansewring you right now then the answer must be yes.' That answer undoubtedly must be true. However the hypotheses of science which support empirical evidence have often been disproven, such as the caloric theory of heat (the second example that I've given you)...
@seabrain Could you name any part of this plethora of information Science has 'proven' (the same way that Science once proved Geocentrism)? Science can explain things like the origin of conscious entities and what kind of algorithm can lead to consciousness, but it can't explain the nature of consciousness as consciousness is not a phenomenon of evidence etc. it is a phenomenon of awareness and questions in the realm of Philosophy.
@mrfrankincense Yes, I can. Ever heard of neurons? Nerve cells? The five senses? The basic function of the human brain? Consciousness just means self-awareness. We are aware of ourselves because millions of nerve cells in our brains are firing off in different directions, and because we have EYES and EARS that allow us to sense what is going on around us. It's not some fluffy, mystical, philosophical enigma like you're making it out to be.
@seabrain If you awoke tomorrow to find that your life had just been a dream and you were actually a butterfly, living in a universe where processes went differently each time you did them and therefore science was impossible, your scientific explanation of consciousness would have been wrong. Whereas your consciousness must still exist, 'I think therefore my mind must exist,' nothing enigmatic, fluffy or mystical about that logical truth.
@seabrain@seabrain If you awoke tomorrow to find that your life had just been a dream and you were actually a butterfly, living in a universe where processes went differently each time you did them and therefore science was impossible, your scientific explanation of consciousness would have been wrong. Whereas your consciousness must still exist, 'To question my existence, I must have think therefore my mind must exist,' nothing enigmatic, fluffy or mystical about that logical truth.
@mrfrankincense - If I woke up tomorrow to find out that I was a buttefly, the SAME scientific laws would still exist, whether I understood them or not. Science doesnt change when consciousness changes. Butterflies just have lower intelligence, and probably less awareness, than humans do. Science doesn't become "impossible" for a buttefly just because they cant understand it. I might not understand the chemical properties of stars, but the stars still exists. And yes, your argument IS fluff lol.
@seabrain Did you read what I said, another example; 'You wake tomorrow in a world where processes lack any predictability, science is just something that you had dreamt up.' Without predictability science is impossible. Then your scientific explanation would be wrong, but it would be the same consciousness that you had in the dream therefore epistemologically science can't know about consciousness. You seem rather ignorant of Philosophy, read a bit about it before you talk about it.
@seabrain Philosophy makes statements that must be true, they lack the need for empirical evidence. Science, which is based upon empirical observations has had its hypotheses disproven time and time again, the wave model of EM radiation for example, science just provides the best hypothesis with the available evidence. But don't get me wrong, I know exactly how correct science is. Science however has no claim to understanding consciousness. I'm running out of space so another comment coming...
Not at all. I have a very high view of humanity; which is why I oppose any and every instrumentation that contributes to its detriment...in this case: propaganda. It's not a low opinion of humanity to think of the mystery of consciousness to be beyond its grasp..quite the contrary. It's a fascinating thing to be a literal and figurative vehicle for consciousness to manifest itself through. This consciousness enables each of us to be one with ourselves, with each other, and with the universe.
Spirituality is usually the belief that the mind and it's awareness are NOT exclusively the product of the brain. Sipritual people hope (if they don't outright believe) that something of them will remain after the death of their animal being.
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
-- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955
I'm pretty sure that Einstein had a good argument for a belief in a creator. Most people don't, no matter how educated they are, and that really was my point.
Religion has an escape plan for reality, its called faith.
alot of religious people do have religon because they fear death or other things but some have seen supernatural unexplainable things like i have experienced and that's my reason for believing but before that i was questioning it a lot as I saw more things that are fishy about it
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Sam Harris is a Jewish-Buddhist, he himself subscribes to a religion. Although he cops out and says he is "spiritual" not religious. Same thing. He's dishonest.
your an idiot, don't say something about someone if you don't know what your talking about. He studied buddhism and said we should take from the teachings of the buddha which are psychological and good advise, but when they turned it into a religion it became dumb.... jewish-buddhist??? one believes in god and the other doesn't, that makes no sense. maybe the dumbest statement i've heard in a while.
@dubj630 Spiritual is not the same as religious. People are inherently spiritual creatures .. this is not "owned" by organized religion .. it is self-owned by each person. Religion is NOT the gatekeeper spirituality, they have only hijacked it for other reasons.
You're full of shit. I've read every book, article, whatever, of Harris's. You people are infamous for outright fabrications. Why don't you provide a footnote to your little fairy tale, and I'll eat my words.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Jews like sam harris are nothing but a thick band of thieves, plagiarizers, and liars who have a special genious for getting gullible dumb-massess to fall for their repetitive lies and brainwashing tactics such as judaism, atheism, communism, talmudism, israelitism, holohaux lies, etc. FIRE UP THE OVENS MY FRIENDS, I'll throw that dirty kike sam harris and christopher hitchens in and then we;ll watch them scream for their "yahweh."""
i dont need to quote anyone else, especially a jew, because I am a real free thinker. Unlike you, I dont allow jews like hitchens and harris to do my thinking for me......
You are not a free thinker for so many reasons, you are a anti-semantic thinker. No actually intelligent person who is a free thinker would say the things you are saying. Obviously you won't agree because you come off quite ignorant but I think anyone else who reads what you've said will know who is right here. I could have said it in more own words but I decided not use the words of someone you were hating on. Sorry to tell you this but you're 99.9% the same has Harris and Hitchens or anyone.
oh, ok, i get it...i make fun of the jewish religion and im an anti-semite and ignorant, while the jews hitchens and harris make fun of religion, they are free thinkers and full of reason....lol, whatever,,,maybe you should invest in some of bernie madoffs ponzi schemes....
Well, you hate jews, that makes you an anti-semite. Further advancing my statement that you are ignorant if you couldn't understand that. They don't make fun of religion, they are criticizing it on the flaws within it. They don't just put out blank assertions, they give the reasons they make the arguments against religion. All you have done is say something along the lines of , oh they are jews so they are evil and tricking us. Anti-semantic ideology has been indubitably refuted.
Marlon Brando once said about the jews in hollywood "we have seen the Nigger and Greaseball, we've seen the Chink, we've seen the slit-eyed dangerous Jap, we have seen the wily Filipino, we've seen everything but we never saw the Kike. Because they knew perfectly well, that that is where you draw the wagons around." Bottom line, every sacred cow is fair game for jews, except their own religoin. accusations of antisemitism are nothing more than a ploy to shut people who are telling the truth
Obviously you're beyond reasoning with or having a intelligent discussion with for that matter. I don't get you get off saying that Hitchens and Harris don't criticize Judaism, they have whole chapters in their books about the old testament. Neither of them practice Jewish practices either. Antisemitism is hostility towards Jewish people, you certainly sound hostile towards Jewish people to me, therefore you are a anti-semantic, period! Send me a personal message if you really having something.
exactly~jews like hitchens &harris have written chapters criticising the "old testament," but they NEVER, ever, have criticised the Talmud. The same talmud that calls for the cheating and robbing of gentiles, the same Talmud that calls for the sexual exploitation of gentiles (no wonder jews control hollywood and pornography). To me, antisemitism is nothing more than someone who refuses to conceed that jews are the greatest people that ever existed, so yes, im an antisemite and proud~
"Pixie dust? There's no mention of any MAGIC Pixie Dust."
I'm not surprised that you can't recognize a metaphor when you see one. Of course there is no mention of Magic Pixie Dust. If there were, the lie of macro evolution would be self-evident.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"It's like santa clause. YOU must reduce your mentality to a child to believe it."
You're right about this much. Children are more intelligent than most adults. Before we brainwash them they are able to see life for what it is - created. A scientist, on the other hand, looks at life and religiously concludes that it must be the result of a random chaotic processes. Rather than allowing the evidence to point to the obvious, scientists will go out of their way to avoid the God Hypothesis.
Speaking of children....if you ask a child who has not been exposed to religion if he/she believes in a god, you will almost always get the answer, no.
So you're right about that: "Before we brainwash them they are able see life for what it is-
The trouble you're having with it is that some religiot has convinced you of some half truths about abiogenesis.
There are some great sites to learn the "correct" aspects of abiogenesis, and evolution for that matter.
Not true, Sh1PIT. If you don't introduce children to the concept of a god they don't believe in one, although about half of 4 year olds have an imaginary friend. I guess some just never let go of the concept:)
Religion never claimed to be science, so to call it failed sciences is blatantly ignorant of the facts. I guess for all your Darwinist out there, ignorance is bliss!
I don't recall ever saying that religion was science... I'll look back through whatever I wrote but I can't imagine myself saying something so wrong. It most certainly is not science but I WILL repeat a Hitchens line which is, "Religion is our first and worst attempt at philosophy, meteorology, biology, etc..."
"It most certainly is not science but I WILL repeat a Hitchens line which is, "Religion is our first and worst attempt at philosophy, meteorology, biology, etc...""
Is Hitchens an authority on religion? No, his not. Therefore, his assertions against religion are demonstrative of his own ignorance. Unfortunately, those who parrot is assertions are even more ignorant than he.
Religion/Church/Christianity was THE "all knowing" authority in early history. Why do you think people were burned at the stake if they presented facts to the contrary?
That being said, religion has ALWAYS claimed to know ALL about the world and its origin.
Galileo's discovery was so profound that Christians REFUSED to look threw the telescope, claiming it to be Satan's work.
Anything that puts religion in its primitive light always has the anti-christ or Satan excuse. silly stuff
All I have to say is prove your imagined god is real you ignorant people of blind faith. God never existed because their is no such thing outside of the imagination. Religion is a sham that is depriving this world of forward progress. Keep your faith to yourself if you have to have it because you're so weak. Don't harass me with your ideas of a "god" unless you can prove beyond a doubt that one ever existed...impossible retards.
I'm a recently de-converted Christian who has always had doubts about it but who finally took the "leap of faith" (pardon the pun) and told family and friend of my deconversion. It's been a little rough and I'm looking for a support group. Will you be my friend? ;-) Of course, it doesn't hurt that you are as cute as a button! ;-P
"Galileo's discovery was so profound that Christians REFUSED to look threw the telescope, claiming it to be Satan's work"
Your knowledge of history is pathetically inaccurate. I'm sure that this like all of your assertions are based on something you heard from someone who heard it from someone else. Try reading a book for yourself and stop parroting what everyone else has already been parrotting. It's getting old.
"Any claims of "MAGIC" and the miraculous (virgin births, resurrections, etc.) ALL come from religion."
At least the religious are honest enough to admit the need for the miraculous to account for the first life. Macro evolutionists hypocritically presuppose miracles by holding to the belief that life come from non-life and the information comes from non-information. They hypocritically hold to this miraculous presupposition while scorning the religious for believing miracles are possible
blazingmissy, you're a stripper! I knew it! You're real name is LoQuayshus! I already saw your tits! Their cute little, little, little titties and they SUCK! You need big tits if you want the big bucks, bitch.
I don't know what your motive is for this slander but I'm not a stripper you prick, and I don't find this funny if this is another one of your jokes.
I'm in my mid 40's. I don't think I'd be sliding around a pole for attention. I have a brain. So do you. NOW use it, and stop this b.s. of slander all over the net. or I'm going to report you.
I'll tell you what's annoying. When good people refuse to let go of tradition and allows our world to be ran by ruthless elites who find your traditional thinking to be a VERY USEFUL TOOL for exploitation.
PLEASE allow common sense to guide your thinking. Listen to this man, there's not ONE thing he's deceiving you about.
Can you say the same about our govt and it's advocation of the dominant philosphy of Christianity?
Allow your logic to work...your filtering out of such logic is dut to the fact that it conflicts with info the media, govt. and religion has fed into our brain.
"PLEASE allow common sense to guide your thinking. Listen to this man, there's not ONE thing he's deceiving you about."
Common sense is in the forefront of my mind. His entire argument against God is to attack every man made religion in the world, when religions and the existence of God are entirely seperate arguments. I have yet to hear Sam Harris give one good reason why anyone should believe there is no God.
"Can you say the same about our govt and it's advocation of the dominant philosphy of Christianity?"
Religion and the existence of God are completely different arguments. You can't say God does not exist because the Catholic Church did this and that. His arguments are examples of the argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy.
I don't say god doesn't exist b/c the Catholic church did this or protestants did that.
I simply say that the existance of a god is highly unlikely based on ALL academic areas of knowledge and like tooth fairies and leprchauns, there's no proof.
"I simply say that the existance of a god is highly unlikely based on ALL academic areas of knowledge and like tooth fairies and leprchauns, there's no proof. "
Based on ALL academic areas of knowlege, God is the most probabl hypothesis with chemical evolution and abiogenesis being the most improbable. Just like fairies and leprechauns, there's not evidence for macro evolution.
First off, the reason it seems highly improbable to you is b/c you've been ill taught. I suggest you go to reputable sites and learn evolution 101 to dispel the myths concerning evolution that you may have been subjected to.
First off, I was an Atheist for 20 years. My Atheism was based on my trust and belief of all the bullshit written in your science books. It wasn't until I dared question your holy science books, that I realized how full of shit they all are. I'm well versed in Evolutionary THEORY and it is nothing more than Neo-Darwinian propaganda used to blind naive morons from seeing the truth. I suggest you stop using oxymorons such as "reputable sites" in the same sentence. It makes you look stupid.
Yeah no kidding same with atomic THEORY, Germ THEORY, Cell THEORY, the THEORY of Gravity... All a whole bunch of propaganda, who on earth would want to use one of these THEORIES to help people?
Everything which exists exists, it comes to the same definition as God.
It is all made of the same stuff whatever one calls it, one substance, if it is infinite then it is necessarily perfect and can have had no cause.
It is certainly Very Very big indeed, perhaps even infinite; branes colliding in unknowable dimensions like a sea who's ripples are universes coming into being.
I didn't mention evolution, you did. But since you did I'll add to your comment.
Evolution is true because it has verifiable evidence to back it up, and it has stood the test of the scientific method for 150 years without being unproven by many scientists.
Thus your accusation of putting words in my mouth :"It's like saying evolution is true b/c I say so." is silly. Replace the word evolution with god and you have your flawed thinking, not mine.
"Evolution is true because it has verifiable evidence to back it up"
I have yet to see or hear of any evidence that isn't tainted by your religious presuppostions. There is no evidence that points to macroevolution, there is only a biased interpretation of fossil evidence.
If anyone has any questions as to the validity of the Theory of Evolution. You only need to google the words "nylon eating bacteria". This is a current event proving the idea of evolution. Some Flavobacterium were found in a waste pond at a plastics plant that had evolved new enzymes to break down the nylon waste products. Nylon is a new man made construct that was invented in 1935 and the bacteria were discovered in 1974. Proof positive that evolution is no theory.
Interesting. I'll look into that. But, flavobacterium adapting to to their environment to break down nylon waste products is an example of microevolution, not macro. An example of macroevolution, which is what we are arguing about here, would be the flavobacterium evolving into a new species that is not a flavobacterium. Since nobody is disagreeing that species can adapt to their environments and learn to break down new materials or grow different types of beaks, your argument is invalid.
The truth is that genetics are proving it true. You may be right about the micro/macro distinction but there is no bias in the fossil records. There are a multitude of branches of the tree that are sparsely filled in but then there are others that are so full of proof you'd really have a hard time denying it unless your own bias showed thru. Look up Kenneth Miller's 2 hour video somebody posted and learn a little something if you really doubt it.
The other apes have 48 chromosomes while we humans have 46... Religious people point to this discrepancy as proof positive that we aren't part of that branch. This is false! Genetics shows that chromosome 2 in humans is a merged chromosome because each chromosome has telomeres at the end of each chromosome. Chromosome 2 in humans has 4 telomeres in it and 2 centromeres... Watch Ken Miller's 2 hour lecture here on youtube.
Science doesn't make THE CLAIM to know EVERYTHING, retard. Only an arrogant, mindless retard would. What science has given us and discovered has CREDIBILITY, because it can be tested.
Religious dogma claims to know life's origin and mindless minions will kill to protect this ignorance and keep it at the forefront.
"mindless minions will kill to protect this ignorance and keep it at the forefront."
You mean mindless minions like those who killed millions of Jews in the name Evolutionism? I have no doubt that a mindless minion like yourself would have done quite well in Hitler's army.
"Grow up. There's no Santa Clause. "
At least we agree on something. Grow up, there is no magic pixie dust that causes non-living chemicals to turn into living chemicals.
Pixie dust? There's no mention of any MAGIC Pixie Dust.
Any claims of "MAGIC" and the miraculous (virgin births, resurrections, etc.) ALL come from religion. It's like santa clause. YOU must reduce your mentality to a childs to believe it.
"ONLY religion CLAIMS to know it ALL, backed up by NOTHING."
Religion doesn't claim to know it all, people do. Religion is a man-made system of beliefs and practices. Christianity and Judaism are religions based on documented historical events as well as archeological facts. Although, neither Christianity nor Judaism are based on scientific facts, they are backed up by scientific facts. The only people who deny this are scientists who hold to their unsubstantiated, biased presuppositions.
Christianity claims to know the origin of the universe and the order of humanality (Man first, then women, which I highly doubt, based on parthenogenesis)
Both religions are based on events surrounding the era, like the Forrest Gump movie, mixed with some true world events and some unsubstantiated.
There are a few links to Ken's lecture... One of them is 4 minutes and 23 seconds long... This is the relevant part describing the chromosome distinction I mentioned previously.
"The other apes have 48 chromosomes while we humans have 46"
Or, it proves that someone monkey's with the chromosomes to create humans. I can play semantic games too. Those aliens have been abducting us for thousands of years.
"Religious people point to this discrepancy as proof positive that we aren't part of that branch"
Religious Darwinist point to this discrepancy as proof positive that we are part of that branch.
You can't argue with a religious Darwinist who is intolerant of those who dare question his worldview. Pull your head out of your ass and read a book.
Believing what Darwin postulated, and which has been vindicated with abounding evidence doesn't make one religious about it... It just means that I'm smart enough to see what's staring me in the face as evidence that is true. I have 2 uncles that are doctors, as is my father (he was 1 of 8 kids), and they all know it to be true. Do you REALLY think that our schools would teach Darwinism as long as they have if it wasn't true? Can you point me in the direction of the Darwinian church?
yeah, after re-reading I saw that and realized my mistake. people still get the point but I also get that some others will see that and say what a dumbarse, and then not listen. oh well.
"there are others that are so full of proof you'd really have a hard time denying it unless your own bias showed thru."
Perhaps it's your own bias that prevents you from denying it.
"Look up Kenneth Miller's 2 hour video somebody posted and learn a little something if you really doubt it."
I've seen it and it still doesn't prove that one species and evolve into another. All it proves is that someone can draw pretty pictures to present an idea.
The only thing genetics has proven is that a species can adapt, which is nothing new.
"there is no bias in the fossil records."
I agree, there is no bias in the fossil record; the bias doesn't show up until a biased scientist or science book author inserts it into our science books. Furthermore, what do you mean the by the "fossil record". Are you referring to the artist renderings in museums and science books? A picture is not a fossil.
"Allow your logic to work...your filtering out of such logic is due to the fact that it conflicts with info the media, govt. and religion has fed into our brain."
My logic is the sharpest it's ever been. Perhaps it is you who is filtering out logic in order to accept a conclusion you want to except and not because it is actually a logical conclusion. Neither the media, government nor religions have any influence on the logical conclusion of the existence of a deity.
Darwinism isn't a religion, nor does it dominate the masses via the media. You know that christianity is the dominant philosophy in our culture in the U.S.
I'm not claiming to be all wise....I know that being realistic and rational concerning our world will be our salvation, otherwise we're going to destroy ourselves....and we're doing a good job of it now.
It's time to move to a resource based society, where all human beings benefit.
"I know that being realistic and rational concerning our world will be our salvation, otherwise we're going to destroy ourselves...."
Being realistic and rational about the world has nothing to do with God or religion.
"It's time to move to a resource based society, where all human beings benefit."
Until another dictator, like Hitler, comes into power and decides that black or brown people aren't human and decides to exterminate them to support his "survival of the fittest" worldview
If there is a creator he'd be rather silly. The entire universe is a shitty hostile place to live. Life on earth is based on stealing ressources from one another. To me this looks more like a coincidence than a "creation". The so-called "intelligent" design is completely unintelligent and botchy. Anyone who thinks that nature is perfect is an ignorant and most likely a religious person. Natural products are crap. And if you don't believe it have a look at your teeth when you're 60 years old.
Agreed. And speaking of our teeth, the fact that there is not enough room in our mouth for wisdom teeth should be seen as evidence of no perfect designer, but indicative of natural causes. In time, evolution may provide us with a remedy, such as:
1) no wisdom teeth or
2) more jaw space.
Other examples of non perfect design: joints, retina, appendix, sinus space, etc.
It's time for us to think like educated adults and let go of our primitive, anthropomorphic past in regard to nature.
The science of human behavior is so important. Human behavior is still so misunderstood. Behavior is the result of an evolutionary history, environmental history, and the current situation. If one has more positive consequences that go along with religious experience they are more likely to be a believer and vice versa. Things are a little more complicated, but that is the framework. Read About Behaviorism by B.F. Skinner if you want to find out how and why religion perpetuates ignorance.
A classmate in high school (next to a hospital) had seizures. My teachers took the bible and exorcised her. Although I wasn't yet an atheist at that time, I did have a compulsion to protest. I did not.
Science isnt winning anything. Again the problem that atheists have in their reasoning, which is odd that this man who im guessing claims to be a scientist (smart) also makes, is that because a person is of a particular religion does something wrong it means that religion is wrong. The Bibile doesnt say that a kid having a seizure is possesed. Thus, how did religion fail. Religion isnt a medical handbook last I checked.
stuttgurth 3 months ago
Comment removed
neuromatiker 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stuttgurth Exsamples only makes the case stronger, but not the case, you are right about that. But the general problem with religion is that it provides the "easy escape" of supernatural explaination without reason and evidence, and on that basis you can leap to a lot of very dangerous places.
Are all relions equally dangerous/bad - no. Janism seems quite safe.
Do they fail when it comes to give reasonable explainations - yes.
neuromatiker 4 weeks ago
I love how he doesn't bother to use any facts to make his case. Oh, those silly ancients who didn't know WHY we're here, unlike us enlightened moderns!
stallion4life 3 months ago
Religion will disappear from this planet in 2 more centuries, the new generations of the world will make more use of the brains and common sense than some people at the present time, the new generations will learn that religions evolved from myths, tattle tales*, superstitions, if our universe has millions of years of existance, human beings will be able to wait around 200 years. * some tattle tales: Adan and Eve, original sin, some ghosts watching us from the sky, the rainbow etc etc etc etc.
tumamacantaybaila 4 months ago
RELIGION=RETARDATION!
flightkiller09 5 months ago
the romans destroyed all the knolege in the world of that time but if he didn't by the middle ages man would have made it to the moon with that information.
narutoboys9700 5 months ago
@narutoboys9700 The Romans only destroyed some knowledge of the western world such as libraries of Egypt and some other conquered societies, which can at least partially explain why the Chinese, Koreans, Japanese and Indians, etc. were more advanced, might not have been if Romans and others hadn't destroyed so much knowledge.
hydrolito 4 months ago
Ignorance is of human product, and is in found in all, even atheists. Ignoring this fact makes you ignorant.
DarkArtistKaiser 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
REV 22-16 IS THE BRIGHT AND MORNING STAR-VENUS WORSHIP--ITS ALL ASTROTHEOLOGY-JESUS IS REPTILLIAN WORSHIP-AND HE WAS BARIED IN SRINIGAR-INDIA--ANYWAYS--CHRISTIANITY IS --A THROW AWAY SOLAR CULT RELIGION WAKE UP-THE SAME STORY WAS RUNNING AROUND THE MED FOR `1000 YEARS BEFORE RA HORUS--MYTHRA-KRISHNA-SAME STORIES --IT CAME THRU THE MEROVIGN BLOODLINE THIS RELIGULOUS NONSENSE
ww.youtube.com/watch?v=vkXOwBIRX7Y-please watch and understand ur own BIBLE-CHECK CONSPIRITUALITY-RAP
exposingthemachine 8 months ago
Consciousness is my awareness of existence, 'cognito ergo sum' and the anthropic principle have explained consciousness. Proof that science can't make any hypotheses of what consciousness is; Science relies on empirical evidence, but the question of consciousness is one not of evidence other than consciousness itself. Science can explain a function which explains a natural occurance of consciousness (evo by natural selection) but it does not concern what consciousness is.
mrfrankincense 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrfrankincense " ...Philosophy makes statements that must be true, they lack the need for empirical evidence" - really?? :P No offense, but when I read that sentence I laughed out loud. If you believe a statement simply "must be true" without any empirical evidence supporting it, then I'm wasting my time talking to you about this. You obviously have no scientific training - and by the way, science HAS explained (and proven) a plethora of information concerning consciousness.
seabrain 9 months ago
he looks like Ben Stiller!
1642poltergeist 9 months ago
Sam haris is jewish :)
BeamSurfer 11 months ago
Consciousness can not be explained by physical science because consciousness is
not physical. Physical science is the world as perceived by our outer 5 senses and is
the object of consciousness. The mind is itself an object of consciousness but it is not sensed thru our outer senses. To define the mind in terms of the world of our outer senses is makes for nonsense. The mind is a reality in and of itself which should be accepted as much as the physical.
humansaretheworld 1 year ago
The question is why does religion have the capacity to override the rational mind?
The answer is that religion fulfills the human need to identify and "bond" with a
tribal group identity. Every primitive tribal group knows that they are the special tribal
group and the groups stories(myths) are true. Churches/religions fulfill the human
need to belong to a tribal group in our modern societies. We are initiated into churches or tribes at puberty.
humansaretheworld 1 year ago
"invisible friends|" "demonic presences"
you are exactly describing schizophrenia,,, well humans are schizophrenic primates who believe (and make others also believe) in their delusions.
narkiz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Religion itself thrives on anti-intellectuality and mob-mentality. Religion is plain dangerous, people are willing to do the bidding of some book to fill the void they feel? But they don't know God, so religions fills that void. Religion, a bureaucracy by people who are corrupt and have bad intentions.
Faith is nothing more than glorifying non-critical thinking and sheep-like behavior.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 year ago
people that subscribe to religion are ignorant, arrogant, stupid and/or scared. bottom line
enott93 1 year ago 2
No it doesn't that isn't ignorance.
Ignorance is knowing the truth and shunning it deliberately.
For example, telling a religious person evolution arguements, they nod, they say they have read about it, they say they have talked to "many" scientists who oppose it and therefore shun what you just said...
Welcome to ignorance.
Religion explains why these people are ignorant.
Not the other way round, you mean lack of knowledge.
fredb3 1 year ago
@fredb3 they are conditioned to eliminate any rational thought.
Their religions says "believe" and t heir neurons connect in a way to accomodate the crazy fairy stories.Because they think they would be punished if they thought otherwise.
narkiz 1 year ago
@fredb3 I think you're confusing plain ol' ignorance and wilful ignorance.
Ignorance is when you don't know something and wilful ignorance / stupidity is knowing the facts and ignoring them.
oliethefolie 10 months ago
@oliethefolie Your right;
Ignorance is not knowing.
Stupidity is knowing better and carrying on regarless of fallacy or injury.
Looking at my previous comment I have worded it badly;
They don't know the truth, because they deliberately haven't read the research and so they are ignorant of the facts, but then lie about having actually read the research, and as a result of thier deliberate stupidity they come across beligerant, stubborn and insulting to the scientific community.
Better?
fredb3 10 months ago
@fredb3 Yeah, much better :p
oliethefolie 10 months ago
there must be some research that shows constantly changing your website's layout is beneficial in some way because youtube, facebook, and every other site keep doing it despite the obvious reality that it frustrates (many) people
planetdarwin 1 year ago
It's quite telling to read the comments on videos like this and compare the carefully reasoned and informed posts by atheists with the emotional rambling drivel posted by the religious.
chansetwo 1 year ago
Dear Quantum
Indeed ignorance is only a proof that we need knowledge. As for scientific methodology I can argue that if you wish. You say you need physical evidence. I can discuss with you my scientific approach. However remember when you talk about Egyptians and Indians you are talking about civilizations that go in time1000s of years compared to an illiterate man who lived about 63 years the messenger of Islam... are you prepared?
retlifwolley 1 year ago
Dear Quantum.
People 200 years ago could make the same claims you are making today. Keeping in mind they have not yet discovered any of the things you have named some still thought that religion was fiction made by man. On the other hand others as exposed to more knowledge became more convenced of the existence of a creator. Knowledge is light
retlifwolley 1 year ago
@QuantumQuacks
"Nothing is beyond the reach of science."
Art. Love. Infinite spontaneity. Free will. On and on and on. Some things simply do not correlate to mathematical formulas.
Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla, actual scientist, and someone vastly smarter than you will ever be.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
@TheDreamMechanic but there are numerical methods to solve problems for which you can not fit an analytical solution,
narkiz 1 year ago
i totally agree with this video i always say don't assume what you don't know and to me religion is one big assumption.science is the way to go and if their is a god we will know soon enough.
tdaggert 1 year ago
"the jews are the masters of the lie." - Arthur Schopenhauer
ForTheArticles 1 year ago
This is not correct.
Humanity still largely ignorant.
Islam provides proof for those who can test proof that religion (Islam) is the accepted way to live as humans.
retlifwolley 1 year ago
you still dont know why you are hear?
we still do not know all the causes?
Our Origin is still a mystery and to this mystery there are many theories?
we will understand question is when ??
offcourse false relegion is being exposed thorugh science ...
pakiweb 2 years ago
You said everything I want to say to every religious person. They probably link this video to be evil and wrong and you being a infidel and so one, to keep their lies and fairytales going on.
TheNewVideos 2 years ago
"We WILL understand spiritual experience SO WELL at some point at the level of the brain (blah blah) - we'll understand it in a way that makes a MOCKERY (blah blah)" ..... Oh really? And why haven't "we" tackled that problem yet, Sam? I wonder if this Ben Stiller look alike is privy to the fact that psychologists, neurologists, and any other scientist of the brain will tell you: We cannot explain consciousness. It is a mystery beyond the capabilities of science. Have some perspective.
sphericalpyramid 2 years ago
@sphericalpyramid ...just because there are still mysteries about the brain now, doesn't mean that scientists won't discover the answers to those questions later in their research. It's like he said - seizures and illnesses used to be mysteries too, and we used to attribute them to religion experiences. Now we know it's SCIENCE. The same will happen with other "religious" experiences - it's only a matter of time.
seabrain 2 years ago
@seabrain Wrong. Scientists have been searching and searching and studying and studing the "ghost in the machine", namely consciousness, and have collectively - to a person - come up with a goose egg. Nada. Zilch. And you know why? Like I said already: it is beyond the reach of science. Any actual scientist will tell you that science is an ongoing process, and is never to be finished. Some things it simply cannot explain. The origin of life, for instance. Consciousness. Andy Dick.
sphericalpyramid 2 years ago
Consciousness is not "beyond the reach of science", some of it is just beyond our current understanding. Scientists also "searched and searched" (quoting your words) for an explanation for thunder and lightning, as well as disease, and until they found an answer they thought these things were the work of gods or evil spirits. The same will happen with consciousness - science will find an explanation and your superstitions, as well as everyone else's, will no longer be needed to explain it.
seabrain 2 years ago 13
@seabrain Philosophy has already come to understand consciousness
mrfrankincense 9 months ago
@mrfrankincense Philosophy is very subjective, and it is not a solid science that is supported by empirical evidence. Most of philosophy is just speculation and hypotheses or unproven theories. Science is already starting to explain consciousness and what hasn't been discovered yet will be discovered by scientists - it's only a matter of time.
seabrain 9 months ago
@seabrain Philosophy makes statements that must be true, they lack the need for empirical evidence. Science, which is based upon empirical observations has had its hypotheses disproven time and time again, the wave model of EM radiation for example, science just provides the best hypothesis with the available evidence. But don't get me wrong, I know exactly how correct science is. Science however has no claim to understanding consciousness. I'm running out of space so another comment...
mrfrankincense 9 months ago
@mrfrankincense " ...Philosophy makes statements that must be true, they lack the need for empirical evidence" - really?? :P No offense, but when I read that sentence I laughed out loud. If you believe a statement simply "must be true" without any empirical evidence supporting it, then I'm wasting my time talking to you about this. You obviously have no scientific training - and by the way, science HAS explained (and proven) a plethora of information concerning consciousness.
seabrain 9 months ago
@seabrain There are many questions that do not need empirical evidence to be answered, for example; 'Is there anything in the universe that can answer questions?' To which I could reply, without use of empirical evidence; 'Well, as I'm ansewring you right now then the answer must be yes.' That answer undoubtedly must be true. However the hypotheses of science which support empirical evidence have often been disproven, such as the caloric theory of heat (the second example that I've given you)...
mrfrankincense 9 months ago
@seabrain Could you name any part of this plethora of information Science has 'proven' (the same way that Science once proved Geocentrism)? Science can explain things like the origin of conscious entities and what kind of algorithm can lead to consciousness, but it can't explain the nature of consciousness as consciousness is not a phenomenon of evidence etc. it is a phenomenon of awareness and questions in the realm of Philosophy.
mrfrankincense 9 months ago
@mrfrankincense Yes, I can. Ever heard of neurons? Nerve cells? The five senses? The basic function of the human brain? Consciousness just means self-awareness. We are aware of ourselves because millions of nerve cells in our brains are firing off in different directions, and because we have EYES and EARS that allow us to sense what is going on around us. It's not some fluffy, mystical, philosophical enigma like you're making it out to be.
seabrain 9 months ago
@seabrain If you awoke tomorrow to find that your life had just been a dream and you were actually a butterfly, living in a universe where processes went differently each time you did them and therefore science was impossible, your scientific explanation of consciousness would have been wrong. Whereas your consciousness must still exist, 'I think therefore my mind must exist,' nothing enigmatic, fluffy or mystical about that logical truth.
mrfrankincense 9 months ago
@seabrain @seabrain If you awoke tomorrow to find that your life had just been a dream and you were actually a butterfly, living in a universe where processes went differently each time you did them and therefore science was impossible, your scientific explanation of consciousness would have been wrong. Whereas your consciousness must still exist, 'To question my existence, I must have think therefore my mind must exist,' nothing enigmatic, fluffy or mystical about that logical truth.
mrfrankincense 9 months ago
@mrfrankincense - If I woke up tomorrow to find out that I was a buttefly, the SAME scientific laws would still exist, whether I understood them or not. Science doesnt change when consciousness changes. Butterflies just have lower intelligence, and probably less awareness, than humans do. Science doesn't become "impossible" for a buttefly just because they cant understand it. I might not understand the chemical properties of stars, but the stars still exists. And yes, your argument IS fluff lol.
seabrain 9 months ago
@seabrain Did you read what I said, another example; 'You wake tomorrow in a world where processes lack any predictability, science is just something that you had dreamt up.' Without predictability science is impossible. Then your scientific explanation would be wrong, but it would be the same consciousness that you had in the dream therefore epistemologically science can't know about consciousness. You seem rather ignorant of Philosophy, read a bit about it before you talk about it.
mrfrankincense 9 months ago
@seabrain Philosophy makes statements that must be true, they lack the need for empirical evidence. Science, which is based upon empirical observations has had its hypotheses disproven time and time again, the wave model of EM radiation for example, science just provides the best hypothesis with the available evidence. But don't get me wrong, I know exactly how correct science is. Science however has no claim to understanding consciousness. I'm running out of space so another comment coming...
mrfrankincense 9 months ago
@seabrain his last two blog posts put consciousness on a pedestal
PsychedelicSexDream 2 months ago
I'm dissapointed that you have such a low view of humanity.
drasked 2 years ago
Not at all. I have a very high view of humanity; which is why I oppose any and every instrumentation that contributes to its detriment...in this case: propaganda. It's not a low opinion of humanity to think of the mystery of consciousness to be beyond its grasp..quite the contrary. It's a fascinating thing to be a literal and figurative vehicle for consciousness to manifest itself through. This consciousness enables each of us to be one with ourselves, with each other, and with the universe.
sphericalpyramid 2 years ago
Spirituality is usually the belief that the mind and it's awareness are NOT exclusively the product of the brain. Sipritual people hope (if they don't outright believe) that something of them will remain after the death of their animal being.
mipoi 2 years ago
Intellectual honesty is NOT a part of so many lives on this planet, even when they are educated.
That blows my mind, how an educated person cannot see the problems with belief in a deity.
Where in the fuck is everyones bull shit meter, its peggin the poop, big time.
Wake the fuck up, A lie is a lie even if everybody believes it, the truth is the truth even if nobody believes it.
AntEyeTheist 2 years ago
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. Seneca the Younger
AntEyeTheist 2 years ago
einstein believed in a deity, and he was intellectual
98stwarmachine 2 years ago
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
-- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955
AntEyeTheist 2 years ago
he didn't believe in a personal God but he believed the universe had a creator...
98stwarmachine 2 years ago
"He believed the universe had a creator..."
Yes, He called it nature.
I believe Einstein was an Agnostic Atheist.
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
Curiosity has its own reason for existing.
-- Albert Einstein
AntEyeTheist 2 years ago
You could be right.
I'm pretty sure that Einstein had a good argument for a belief in a creator. Most people don't, no matter how educated they are, and that really was my point.
Religion has an escape plan for reality, its called faith.
-AntEyeTheist
AntEyeTheist 2 years ago
his research pointed to a creator, and
alot of religious people do have religon because they fear death or other things but some have seen supernatural unexplainable things like i have experienced and that's my reason for believing but before that i was questioning it a lot as I saw more things that are fishy about it
98stwarmachine 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Supernatural Unexplainable" things, how about "unexplained" things.
A Bic lighter is supernatural to a primitive man until it is explained.
To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today. Isaac Asimov
"His research pointed to a creator".
I respectfully disagree.
AntEyeTheist 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sam Harris is a Jewish-Buddhist, he himself subscribes to a religion. Although he cops out and says he is "spiritual" not religious. Same thing. He's dishonest.
dubj630 2 years ago
Jewish-buddhist? Be serious.
codyatbest 2 years ago
your an idiot, don't say something about someone if you don't know what your talking about. He studied buddhism and said we should take from the teachings of the buddha which are psychological and good advise, but when they turned it into a religion it became dumb.... jewish-buddhist??? one believes in god and the other doesn't, that makes no sense. maybe the dumbest statement i've heard in a while.
midwest9595 2 years ago
@dubj630 Spiritual is not the same as religious. People are inherently spiritual creatures .. this is not "owned" by organized religion .. it is self-owned by each person. Religion is NOT the gatekeeper spirituality, they have only hijacked it for other reasons.
moreliaman 2 years ago
You're full of shit. I've read every book, article, whatever, of Harris's. You people are infamous for outright fabrications. Why don't you provide a footnote to your little fairy tale, and I'll eat my words.
VanGoghsEar1890 2 years ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
@VanGoghsEar1890 Emmanuel = a being, an incarnated Pleiadian from the Pleiades system, a son of Mary and "angel" (also Pleiadian) Gabriel.
Born around 25-27 July. NOT December 25, the birthday of Sol Invictus (Dies Natalis).
True Christianity = Messianic Judaism, 1st-3rd century Christians, Nazarene.
False Christianity = probably all "Christian" religions.
"LORD" - the name of Bhaal/Baal (LORD), a corrupt collective translation by Roman/Catholic officials of Hebrew terms.
exposingthemachine 8 months ago
Send me a personal message if you have something real to say, not some hate speech.
cc3814 2 years ago
dntmsswthme66166 is a Hitler lover.
all his videos are about how much he hates jews and how much he loves Nazis
BorgHub 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Jews like sam harris are nothing but a thick band of thieves, plagiarizers, and liars who have a special genious for getting gullible dumb-massess to fall for their repetitive lies and brainwashing tactics such as judaism, atheism, communism, talmudism, israelitism, holohaux lies, etc. FIRE UP THE OVENS MY FRIENDS, I'll throw that dirty kike sam harris and christopher hitchens in and then we;ll watch them scream for their "yahweh."""
dntmsswthme66166 2 years ago
I'll use a Hitchens phrase to respond to you, It's too bad there is not a hell for you to go to.
cc3814 2 years ago
i dont need to quote anyone else, especially a jew, because I am a real free thinker. Unlike you, I dont allow jews like hitchens and harris to do my thinking for me......
dntmsswthme66166 2 years ago
You are not a free thinker for so many reasons, you are a anti-semantic thinker. No actually intelligent person who is a free thinker would say the things you are saying. Obviously you won't agree because you come off quite ignorant but I think anyone else who reads what you've said will know who is right here. I could have said it in more own words but I decided not use the words of someone you were hating on. Sorry to tell you this but you're 99.9% the same has Harris and Hitchens or anyone.
cc3814 2 years ago
oh, ok, i get it...i make fun of the jewish religion and im an anti-semite and ignorant, while the jews hitchens and harris make fun of religion, they are free thinkers and full of reason....lol, whatever,,,maybe you should invest in some of bernie madoffs ponzi schemes....
dntmsswthme66166 2 years ago
Well, you hate jews, that makes you an anti-semite. Further advancing my statement that you are ignorant if you couldn't understand that. They don't make fun of religion, they are criticizing it on the flaws within it. They don't just put out blank assertions, they give the reasons they make the arguments against religion. All you have done is say something along the lines of , oh they are jews so they are evil and tricking us. Anti-semantic ideology has been indubitably refuted.
cc3814 2 years ago 2
Marlon Brando once said about the jews in hollywood "we have seen the Nigger and Greaseball, we've seen the Chink, we've seen the slit-eyed dangerous Jap, we have seen the wily Filipino, we've seen everything but we never saw the Kike. Because they knew perfectly well, that that is where you draw the wagons around." Bottom line, every sacred cow is fair game for jews, except their own religoin. accusations of antisemitism are nothing more than a ploy to shut people who are telling the truth
dntmsswthme66166 2 years ago
Obviously you're beyond reasoning with or having a intelligent discussion with for that matter. I don't get you get off saying that Hitchens and Harris don't criticize Judaism, they have whole chapters in their books about the old testament. Neither of them practice Jewish practices either. Antisemitism is hostility towards Jewish people, you certainly sound hostile towards Jewish people to me, therefore you are a anti-semantic, period! Send me a personal message if you really having something.
cc3814 2 years ago
Comment removed
dntmsswthme66166 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
exactly~jews like hitchens &harris have written chapters criticising the "old testament," but they NEVER, ever, have criticised the Talmud. The same talmud that calls for the cheating and robbing of gentiles, the same Talmud that calls for the sexual exploitation of gentiles (no wonder jews control hollywood and pornography). To me, antisemitism is nothing more than someone who refuses to conceed that jews are the greatest people that ever existed, so yes, im an antisemite and proud~
dntmsswthme66166 2 years ago
Testing: my comments are not being posted.
blaziermissy 2 years ago
"Pixie dust? There's no mention of any MAGIC Pixie Dust."
I'm not surprised that you can't recognize a metaphor when you see one. Of course there is no mention of Magic Pixie Dust. If there were, the lie of macro evolution would be self-evident.
SH1PIT 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"It's like santa clause. YOU must reduce your mentality to a child to believe it."
You're right about this much. Children are more intelligent than most adults. Before we brainwash them they are able to see life for what it is - created. A scientist, on the other hand, looks at life and religiously concludes that it must be the result of a random chaotic processes. Rather than allowing the evidence to point to the obvious, scientists will go out of their way to avoid the God Hypothesis.
SH1PIT 2 years ago
If you think scientist go out of their way you're been misinformed. Science don't avoid the God hypothesis, it's just that:
a: there's not one shred of evidence and b: every academic area shows the same: no evidence.
Gods are basically a primitive way of how we use to explain things we knew nothing about......and out of fear of the unknown.
Some smart man once said: Fear is the mother of all religions. I think it was Democritus.
blaziermissy 2 years ago
"Science don't avoid the God hypothesis, it's just that:
a: there's not one shred of evidence and b: every academic area shows the same: no evidence."
Intelligent Design doesn't avoid the "Common Decent" hypothesis, it's just that:
a. There's not one shred of evidence and
b. every academic area shows the same: no evidence.
SH1PIT 2 years ago
lol....are you serious? Go to my page and watch the highlighted video.
If that's not your "cup of tea" watch a video showing the FOSSILS of our past.
sigh....you can't be serious
blaziermissy 2 years ago 2
Speaking of children....if you ask a child who has not been exposed to religion if he/she believes in a god, you will almost always get the answer, no.
So you're right about that: "Before we brainwash them they are able see life for what it is-
The trouble you're having with it is that some religiot has convinced you of some half truths about abiogenesis.
There are some great sites to learn the "correct" aspects of abiogenesis, and evolution for that matter.
blaziermissy 2 years ago 2
Not true, Sh1PIT. If you don't introduce children to the concept of a god they don't believe in one, although about half of 4 year olds have an imaginary friend. I guess some just never let go of the concept:)
blaziermissy 2 years ago 2
lol....what a tard. Thumb down for testing to see why my comments arent showing up when I click on "post comment."
Cerebral inneficency
blaziermissy 2 years ago
Religion never claimed to be science, so to call it failed sciences is blatantly ignorant of the facts. I guess for all your Darwinist out there, ignorance is bliss!
SH1PIT 2 years ago
I don't recall ever saying that religion was science... I'll look back through whatever I wrote but I can't imagine myself saying something so wrong. It most certainly is not science but I WILL repeat a Hitchens line which is, "Religion is our first and worst attempt at philosophy, meteorology, biology, etc..."
lschorle537 2 years ago
"It most certainly is not science but I WILL repeat a Hitchens line which is, "Religion is our first and worst attempt at philosophy, meteorology, biology, etc...""
Is Hitchens an authority on religion? No, his not. Therefore, his assertions against religion are demonstrative of his own ignorance. Unfortunately, those who parrot is assertions are even more ignorant than he.
SH1PIT 2 years ago
ah
lets not think it possible for a human to contradict themselves
how very very impossible
ohwhatacereal 2 years ago
Religion/Church/Christianity was THE "all knowing" authority in early history. Why do you think people were burned at the stake if they presented facts to the contrary?
That being said, religion has ALWAYS claimed to know ALL about the world and its origin.
Galileo's discovery was so profound that Christians REFUSED to look threw the telescope, claiming it to be Satan's work.
Anything that puts religion in its primitive light always has the anti-christ or Satan excuse. silly stuff
blaziermissy 2 years ago
It does when it claimed to know the origins of life and states impossible claimed such as the flood.
And we're not Darwinist. We're smart. Wish I could say the same for you.
cooperaerosmith 2 years ago
All I have to say is prove your imagined god is real you ignorant people of blind faith. God never existed because their is no such thing outside of the imagination. Religion is a sham that is depriving this world of forward progress. Keep your faith to yourself if you have to have it because you're so weak. Don't harass me with your ideas of a "god" unless you can prove beyond a doubt that one ever existed...impossible retards.
robinjhowe 2 years ago
lol......this mimics something I would post. I know EXACTLY how you feel.
This whole contagion of religion would be funny if the results werent so profoundly devastastating to THE ENTIRE GOD DAMNED PLANET.
blaziermissy 2 years ago
I'm a recently de-converted Christian who has always had doubts about it but who finally took the "leap of faith" (pardon the pun) and told family and friend of my deconversion. It's been a little rough and I'm looking for a support group. Will you be my friend? ;-) Of course, it doesn't hurt that you are as cute as a button! ;-P
lschorle537 2 years ago
"Galileo's discovery was so profound that Christians REFUSED to look threw the telescope, claiming it to be Satan's work"
Your knowledge of history is pathetically inaccurate. I'm sure that this like all of your assertions are based on something you heard from someone who heard it from someone else. Try reading a book for yourself and stop parroting what everyone else has already been parrotting. It's getting old.
SH1PIT 2 years ago
Well by all means, scholarly one, DO TELL us YOUR version of Galileo's experience with his fellow Christian friends upon his discovery.
Have you new letters and writings to share?
blaziermissy 2 years ago
"That's a blatant LIE and you know it."
If I knew it to be a lie, I wouldn't point it out as fact. Unlike you, I do favor the truth.
SH1PIT 2 years ago
"Any claims of "MAGIC" and the miraculous (virgin births, resurrections, etc.) ALL come from religion."
At least the religious are honest enough to admit the need for the miraculous to account for the first life. Macro evolutionists hypocritically presuppose miracles by holding to the belief that life come from non-life and the information comes from non-information. They hypocritically hold to this miraculous presupposition while scorning the religious for believing miracles are possible
SH1PIT 2 years ago
blazingmissy, you're a stripper! I knew it! You're real name is LoQuayshus! I already saw your tits! Their cute little, little, little titties and they SUCK! You need big tits if you want the big bucks, bitch.
That Tippy Hedron had some nice tits.
malithe00 2 years ago
I don't know what your motive is for this slander but I'm not a stripper you prick, and I don't find this funny if this is another one of your jokes.
I'm in my mid 40's. I don't think I'd be sliding around a pole for attention. I have a brain. So do you. NOW use it, and stop this b.s. of slander all over the net. or I'm going to report you.
blaziermissy 2 years ago
What I'm talking about is your comment stating that Sam Harris is annoying.
blaziermissy 2 years ago
I'll tell you what's annoying. When good people refuse to let go of tradition and allows our world to be ran by ruthless elites who find your traditional thinking to be a VERY USEFUL TOOL for exploitation.
blaziermissy 2 years ago
Sam Harris' ignorance certaintly does explain his religion.
SH1PIT 2 years ago
PLEASE allow common sense to guide your thinking. Listen to this man, there's not ONE thing he's deceiving you about.
Can you say the same about our govt and it's advocation of the dominant philosphy of Christianity?
Allow your logic to work...your filtering out of such logic is dut to the fact that it conflicts with info the media, govt. and religion has fed into our brain.
blaziermissy 2 years ago
"PLEASE allow common sense to guide your thinking. Listen to this man, there's not ONE thing he's deceiving you about."
Common sense is in the forefront of my mind. His entire argument against God is to attack every man made religion in the world, when religions and the existence of God are entirely seperate arguments. I have yet to hear Sam Harris give one good reason why anyone should believe there is no God.
SH1PIT 2 years ago
Religions and the existence of God are ENTIRELY SEPARATE ARGUMENTS?
lol. LOL....
are you serious?
blaziermissy 2 years ago
Serious as a heart attack. Logic and inductive reasoning inevitably leads to
the conclusion that a conscience mind is responsible for the universe
and life. Religions are simply man's attempt to try to understand the
will and nature of that mind. I'm surprised that a "Youtube scholar"
such as yourself wouldn't know this distinction.
SH1PIT 2 years ago
Religions are PRIMITIVE attempts...outdated modes based on Fear of not knowing.
Let's move on.
blaziermissy 2 years ago
"Religions are PRIMITIVE attempts...outdated modes based on Fear of not knowing."
I'm not defending religions. Stay on point.
SH1PIT 2 years ago
"Can you say the same about our govt and it's advocation of the dominant philosphy of Christianity?"
Religion and the existence of God are completely different arguments. You can't say God does not exist because the Catholic Church did this and that. His arguments are examples of the argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy.
SH1PIT 2 years ago
I don't say god doesn't exist b/c the Catholic church did this or protestants did that.
I simply say that the existance of a god is highly unlikely based on ALL academic areas of knowledge and like tooth fairies and leprchauns, there's no proof.
blaziermissy 2 years ago
"I simply say that the existance of a god is highly unlikely based on ALL academic areas of knowledge and like tooth fairies and leprchauns, there's no proof. "
Based on ALL academic areas of knowlege, God is the most probabl hypothesis with chemical evolution and abiogenesis being the most improbable. Just like fairies and leprechauns, there's not evidence for macro evolution.
SH1PIT 2 years ago
First off, the reason it seems highly improbable to you is b/c you've been ill taught. I suggest you go to reputable sites and learn evolution 101 to dispel the myths concerning evolution that you may have been subjected to.
blaziermissy 2 years ago
First off, I was an Atheist for 20 years. My Atheism was based on my trust and belief of all the bullshit written in your science books. It wasn't until I dared question your holy science books, that I realized how full of shit they all are. I'm well versed in Evolutionary THEORY and it is nothing more than Neo-Darwinian propaganda used to blind naive morons from seeing the truth. I suggest you stop using oxymorons such as "reputable sites" in the same sentence. It makes you look stupid.
SH1PIT 2 years ago
Yeah no kidding same with atomic THEORY, Germ THEORY, Cell THEORY, the THEORY of Gravity... All a whole bunch of propaganda, who on earth would want to use one of these THEORIES to help people?
Shmeurung9 2 years ago
blaziermissy, consider that If God concept has validity, then it is infinity and perfection.
If God is infinite then everything must be made of God; or God would not be infinite.
If everything is made of God, then how can any part be unworthy?
Open your eyes, atheism and reason point to a truth.
'I am the logic.'
Forgive Everything, love Everything, it is all made of God.
We are in the garden if we would only love.
No part is unworthy.
Religion divides the indivisible, it is nonsense and pride.
marsCubed 2 years ago
First of all, even if the God concept had validity, the concept itself does not factually imply or lead to automatic infinity and perfection.
You're logic is flawed.
It's like saying God is real b/c I say so.
It's illogical.
blaziermissy 2 years ago
Everything which exists exists, it comes to the same definition as God.
It is all made of the same stuff whatever one calls it, one substance, if it is infinite then it is necessarily perfect and can have had no cause.
It is certainly Very Very big indeed, perhaps even infinite; branes colliding in unknowable dimensions like a sea who's ripples are universes coming into being.
Space and time are properties of it also.
It exists.
knowledge is knowing it better.
but religion is just cultural pride
marsCubed 2 years ago
You're logic is flawed.
It's like saying Evolution is true b/c I say so.
It's illogical.
SH1PIT 2 years ago
I didn't mention evolution, you did. But since you did I'll add to your comment.
Evolution is true because it has verifiable evidence to back it up, and it has stood the test of the scientific method for 150 years without being unproven by many scientists.
Thus your accusation of putting words in my mouth :"It's like saying evolution is true b/c I say so." is silly. Replace the word evolution with god and you have your flawed thinking, not mine.
blaziermissy 2 years ago
"Evolution is true because it has verifiable evidence to back it up"
I have yet to see or hear of any evidence that isn't tainted by your religious presuppostions. There is no evidence that points to macroevolution, there is only a biased interpretation of fossil evidence.
SH1PIT 2 years ago
What?
FockerTheLopper 2 years ago
fruit flys
supr4 2 years ago
Fruit flies prove adapatation within species, or microevolution, which nobody is denying to be true.
SH1PIT 2 years ago
If anyone has any questions as to the validity of the Theory of Evolution. You only need to google the words "nylon eating bacteria". This is a current event proving the idea of evolution. Some Flavobacterium were found in a waste pond at a plastics plant that had evolved new enzymes to break down the nylon waste products. Nylon is a new man made construct that was invented in 1935 and the bacteria were discovered in 1974. Proof positive that evolution is no theory.
lschorle537 2 years ago
Interesting. I'll look into that. But, flavobacterium adapting to to their environment to break down nylon waste products is an example of microevolution, not macro. An example of macroevolution, which is what we are arguing about here, would be the flavobacterium evolving into a new species that is not a flavobacterium. Since nobody is disagreeing that species can adapt to their environments and learn to break down new materials or grow different types of beaks, your argument is invalid.
SH1PIT 2 years ago
The truth is that genetics are proving it true. You may be right about the micro/macro distinction but there is no bias in the fossil records. There are a multitude of branches of the tree that are sparsely filled in but then there are others that are so full of proof you'd really have a hard time denying it unless your own bias showed thru. Look up Kenneth Miller's 2 hour video somebody posted and learn a little something if you really doubt it.
lschorle537 2 years ago
The other apes have 48 chromosomes while we humans have 46... Religious people point to this discrepancy as proof positive that we aren't part of that branch. This is false! Genetics shows that chromosome 2 in humans is a merged chromosome because each chromosome has telomeres at the end of each chromosome. Chromosome 2 in humans has 4 telomeres in it and 2 centromeres... Watch Ken Miller's 2 hour lecture here on youtube.
lschorle537 2 years ago
I apologize for mentioning the fusion of the chromosomes. I didn't see this post:)
blaziermissy 2 years ago
If you're talking to me, no offense taken.
lschorle537 2 years ago
"That being said, religion has ALWAYS claimed to know ALL about the world and its origin. "
Science always claims to know ALL about the world and it's origin. Religion for the modern era. In 100 years it will be replaced by something else.
SH1PIT 2 years ago
Science doesn't make THE CLAIM to know EVERYTHING, retard. Only an arrogant, mindless retard would. What science has given us and discovered has CREDIBILITY, because it can be tested.
Religious dogma claims to know life's origin and mindless minions will kill to protect this ignorance and keep it at the forefront.
Grow up. There's no Santa Clause.
blaziermissy 2 years ago
"mindless minions will kill to protect this ignorance and keep it at the forefront."
You mean mindless minions like those who killed millions of Jews in the name Evolutionism? I have no doubt that a mindless minion like yourself would have done quite well in Hitler's army.
"Grow up. There's no Santa Clause. "
At least we agree on something. Grow up, there is no magic pixie dust that causes non-living chemicals to turn into living chemicals.
SH1PIT 2 years ago
Pixie dust? There's no mention of any MAGIC Pixie Dust.
Any claims of "MAGIC" and the miraculous (virgin births, resurrections, etc.) ALL come from religion. It's like santa clause. YOU must reduce your mentality to a childs to believe it.
blaziermissy 2 years ago
"ONLY religion CLAIMS to know it ALL, backed up by NOTHING."
Religion doesn't claim to know it all, people do. Religion is a man-made system of beliefs and practices. Christianity and Judaism are religions based on documented historical events as well as archeological facts. Although, neither Christianity nor Judaism are based on scientific facts, they are backed up by scientific facts. The only people who deny this are scientists who hold to their unsubstantiated, biased presuppositions.
SH1PIT 2 years ago
Christianity claims to know the origin of the universe and the order of humanality (Man first, then women, which I highly doubt, based on parthenogenesis)
Both religions are based on events surrounding the era, like the Forrest Gump movie, mixed with some true world events and some unsubstantiated.
blaziermissy 2 years ago
That's a blatant LIE and you know it. ONLY religion CLAIMS to know it ALL, backed up by NOTHING.
blaziermissy 2 years ago
and enough micro evolutions (given enough time, ie millions of years) turns into a macro
lschorle537 2 years ago
There are a few links to Ken's lecture... One of them is 4 minutes and 23 seconds long... This is the relevant part describing the chromosome distinction I mentioned previously.
lschorle537 2 years ago
"The other apes have 48 chromosomes while we humans have 46"
Or, it proves that someone monkey's with the chromosomes to create humans. I can play semantic games too. Those aliens have been abducting us for thousands of years.
"Religious people point to this discrepancy as proof positive that we aren't part of that branch"
Religious Darwinist point to this discrepancy as proof positive that we are part of that branch.
"This is false! "
Does a hypothesis make something true?
SH1PIT 2 years ago
I'll say it again... I guess what they say is true... You can't argue with a child.
lschorle537 2 years ago
You can't argue with a religious Darwinist who is intolerant of those who dare question his worldview. Pull your head out of your ass and read a book.
SH1PIT 2 years ago
LMAO!!
Believing what Darwin postulated, and which has been vindicated with abounding evidence doesn't make one religious about it... It just means that I'm smart enough to see what's staring me in the face as evidence that is true. I have 2 uncles that are doctors, as is my father (he was 1 of 8 kids), and they all know it to be true. Do you REALLY think that our schools would teach Darwinism as long as they have if it wasn't true? Can you point me in the direction of the Darwinian church?
lschorle537 2 years ago
"Do you REALLY think that our schools would teach Darwinism as long as they have if it wasn't true?"
Yes
SH1PIT 2 years ago
Pssst. The chromesomes "FUSED" together.
blaziermissy 2 years ago
yeah, after re-reading I saw that and realized my mistake. people still get the point but I also get that some others will see that and say what a dumbarse, and then not listen. oh well.
lschorle537 2 years ago
"there are others that are so full of proof you'd really have a hard time denying it unless your own bias showed thru."
Perhaps it's your own bias that prevents you from denying it.
"Look up Kenneth Miller's 2 hour video somebody posted and learn a little something if you really doubt it."
I've seen it and it still doesn't prove that one species and evolve into another. All it proves is that someone can draw pretty pictures to present an idea.
SH1PIT 2 years ago
I guess what they say is true... You can't argue with an child, and thats exactly what your arguments sound like.
lschorle537 2 years ago
"The truth is that genetics are proving it true."
The only thing genetics has proven is that a species can adapt, which is nothing new.
"there is no bias in the fossil records."
I agree, there is no bias in the fossil record; the bias doesn't show up until a biased scientist or science book author inserts it into our science books. Furthermore, what do you mean the by the "fossil record". Are you referring to the artist renderings in museums and science books? A picture is not a fossil.
SH1PIT 2 years ago
"Allow your logic to work...your filtering out of such logic is due to the fact that it conflicts with info the media, govt. and religion has fed into our brain."
My logic is the sharpest it's ever been. Perhaps it is you who is filtering out logic in order to accept a conclusion you want to except and not because it is actually a logical conclusion. Neither the media, government nor religions have any influence on the logical conclusion of the existence of a deity.
SH1PIT 2 years ago
media, government AND religions are the VERY entities that FOSTER religious belief. Be honest with yourself.
LOGIC? Sharpest it's ever been?
hardly....
blaziermissy 2 years ago
"media, government AND religions are the VERY entities that FOSTER
religious belief."
I'm not in any disagreement with you on this. The secular religion of
darwinism dominates the ignorant populus via the media.
"LOGIC? Sharpest it's ever been?"
If you see some flaw in my logic, please demonstrate it so I may be
steered away from my wicked ways and steered towards the salvation you
have clearly aquired with your vast wisdom.
LOGIC? Sharpest it's ever been?
hardly....
SH1PIT 2 years ago
Darwinism isn't a religion, nor does it dominate the masses via the media. You know that christianity is the dominant philosophy in our culture in the U.S.
I'm not claiming to be all wise....I know that being realistic and rational concerning our world will be our salvation, otherwise we're going to destroy ourselves....and we're doing a good job of it now.
It's time to move to a resource based society, where all human beings benefit.
blaziermissy 2 years ago
"I know that being realistic and rational concerning our world will be our salvation, otherwise we're going to destroy ourselves...."
Being realistic and rational about the world has nothing to do with God or religion.
"It's time to move to a resource based society, where all human beings benefit."
Until another dictator, like Hitler, comes into power and decides that black or brown people aren't human and decides to exterminate them to support his "survival of the fittest" worldview
SH1PIT 2 years ago
why is he annoying?
rjrjrj333 2 years ago 3
If there is a creator he'd be rather silly. The entire universe is a shitty hostile place to live. Life on earth is based on stealing ressources from one another. To me this looks more like a coincidence than a "creation". The so-called "intelligent" design is completely unintelligent and botchy. Anyone who thinks that nature is perfect is an ignorant and most likely a religious person. Natural products are crap. And if you don't believe it have a look at your teeth when you're 60 years old.
WolYou 2 years ago
wow wow wow
why are you taking such a negative approach to this god is dead. we should instead celebrate that we now know to enjoy the human experience
rjrjrj333 2 years ago
Agreed. And speaking of our teeth, the fact that there is not enough room in our mouth for wisdom teeth should be seen as evidence of no perfect designer, but indicative of natural causes. In time, evolution may provide us with a remedy, such as:
1) no wisdom teeth or
2) more jaw space.
Other examples of non perfect design: joints, retina, appendix, sinus space, etc.
It's time for us to think like educated adults and let go of our primitive, anthropomorphic past in regard to nature.
blaziermissy 2 years ago
Religion is programming... and sometimes braindamage.
DoctorE0 3 years ago 2
No religion is a safety blanket for those that cannot except that u cannot know or understand everything
rjrjrj333 2 years ago
The science of human behavior is so important. Human behavior is still so misunderstood. Behavior is the result of an evolutionary history, environmental history, and the current situation. If one has more positive consequences that go along with religious experience they are more likely to be a believer and vice versa. Things are a little more complicated, but that is the framework. Read About Behaviorism by B.F. Skinner if you want to find out how and why religion perpetuates ignorance.
i2v2s 3 years ago
"The Real World" not everyone wants to live by the world's standards.
peanutplays 3 years ago
Those STANDARDS are set by us and what we're WILLING to tolerate by elites and special interests who control the outcomes.
It's up to us to educate ourselves. When the majority is well educated and isn't gullible, ONLY then can we change this world for the better.
JOIN those who are trying to change it.
blaziermissy 2 years ago
A classmate in high school (next to a hospital) had seizures. My teachers took the bible and exorcised her. Although I wasn't yet an atheist at that time, I did have a compulsion to protest. I did not.
onotheo 3 years ago