The difference in different religions were not God given but it so happened that the teachings of charity and patience is not liked by those who are in POWER so they try to change God's teachings to suit themselves.
When enough corruption has already occured in religious scripture, God sent another messenger with renewed teachings of forgotten or manipulated scripture.
Whenever a new messenger arrives to its' people some accept his teaching and some stick to the old revelations even if they do not teach the truth any more. This is because of our EGO and pride that we take in our heritage.
It is the PRIDE which is the cause of every fight NOT THE RELIGIONS. It is this pride that makes people hide the bad deeds of their clergy.
That's why Prophet said clearly that his rule will be the same for every human being whether upper class or lower
Whether a humanlike fossil is named as one species or another can turn on matters as small as half a mm in the diameter of a tooth, or slight differences in the shape of the thighbone.
..These arguments about scientific names often mean very little. WHETHER A HUMANLIKE FOSSIL IS NAMED AS ONE SPECIES OR ANOTHER CAN TURN ON MATTER AS SMALL AS HALF AMILLIMETER IN THE DIAMETER OF A TOOTH OR SLIGHT DIFFERENCE IN THE SHAPE OF THE THIGHBONE(Emphasis MINE).
And the names of ancestral human fossils can't be taken too seriously.Like theology, paleontology is a field in which the students far outnumber the objects of study. There are lively—and sometimes acrimonious—debates about whether a given fossil is really something new, or merely a variant of an already named species.These arguments about scientific names often mean very little. Whether a humanlike fossil is named as one species or another can turn on matters as small as half a millimeter CONT
According to theory of Evolution,one would expect the cytochrome C of a bacterium to be closer to the cytochrome C of a tuna (fish)than a horse (mammal). Furthermore, the horse should have the same mutations as the tuna, plus a few more. This is not what the molecular data shows.
The cytochrome C in bacteria is 64% different from horses and pigeons,65% different from tuna and silkmoths,66% different from wheat, and 69% different from yeast.Yet Atheists boast that every science proves evolution
He has problems with priests who commit atrocities on their own followers and then escape punishment.
What do you have to say about that
Please watch the video before commenting and tell him that original teachings of Jesus , peace be upon him do not favour one human above another on the basis of their worldly authority.
Prophet Muhammad. peace be upon him said that if his daughter Fatima will steal, he will cut his hands off !
As an atheist living and working in DC, I can say with a high degree of confidence that this rally will be just as pointless as every other one of the hundreds of rallies and conferences in the District every year. Rallies are for groups who don't have any idea how to go about actually having an impact on policy. Unless you can get 50,000+ people out here, this will be nothing more than a waste of a huge amount of the movement's time and money.
@sonykroket I'm afraid that Sony is a coward, so please don't listen to this fear-driven idiot. Sony's sole purpose for amusement is uploading videos that show an object that has recently been in Sony's butt. This is the sad jock that Sony and the other idiots of his retard pack find humorous. So when you're watching Sony and his copters, the inside joke is the every one of those copters have tickled Sony's exit ramp. Sony is a copter slut.
@sonykroket That is very insensitive of you. Do I ask you how many times you couldn't resist your pasted out mammy's snapper? For fuck sake, asshole. The women brought you into this world, to which you show your gratitude by fucking the portal from which you came. Can I borrow your green copter?
Atm the jews are saying all "the correct words and attack the ppl they should attack". Next they get all the positions in atheism movement they want, cause in this twisted world, the general public seem to "admire" those frauds. I know, me rising the brow... anti-semite, nazi, conspiracy theorist ETC. Just like the ppl who didnt buy the biblical bullshit and the priests spreading it Not im being attacked by "the rational ppl" and i supposed to be the "reject not worthy of a god". Sure fine by me
I feel sad by hearing the attempts of reason and in the same time, these guys are protecting their preferred myths.
@AronRa was kinda last hope for me, but it seems that he swallowed the sinker too. I made my mark here and who knows mayb some atheists doesnt take the jewish stand as granted. Now it seems that they get every position and message through without any investigation, sound familiar? Yes thats how they brought the bible and christianity, now they bring "atheism" and here we go again.
This movement is already compromised, the jewish influence is strong already and i know hoe much shame it brings to @AronRa@DPRjones@TF@RichardDawkins and many others who buy their bullshit. Now that the jews are claimed the position as president in atheism movement there isnt anything different coming what came before. All the same cons are working now under the "atheism banner". The shame is so great, that even speaking about it will cause you just attack at me, instead of looking in to it.
Indeed a made up artifact cannot be disproven. But most of what they said to be true, has been shown to be bullshit. Most natural disasters was god back in the day.
i know it's irrelevant... but your dog is so awesomely cute
and as a reply to the ass at 3.27 i never talk about god or creationism, but i can understand why would people in the USA, who are surrounded by crazy creationists would occupy their mind with the issues these lunatics try to shove into their heads! i live in Israel, craziest country in the world. their are Christians, Jews Muslims here, and surprisingly they are not as crazy ,dumb and missionary as the born again american kind.
Religion cannot be killed by anything because every human has ingrained inclination to worship its creator :God.
Internet will make people understand that God sent religion to every Nation and tribes to inform them that there will be a day called the Day of Judgement when they will all gather to be judged by God
I agree that there is something evolutional that makes people gullible for supernatural: gods, witches, demons, vampires, spiderman... No, wait, spiderman is real.
There is NO Spiderman? Are you trying to insult me?
Enough joking. I don't know if you are familiar with other religions than yours, but there are people (about 2/3 of human population) who don't share your viewpoint about god.
I think you are right to say that we know little about spirits. Also, we know very little about orcs, fairies, zombies, smurfs, and Spirit of Saint Louis.
I agree that with total gross of $519,843,345 Judgement day is no joke.
There doesn't need to be. We don't believe your magical bullshit, even if the scientific method was never discovered. Why do you morons always wrongly assume people are atheists because of science? Your bullshit isn't worth believing if we didn't know anything!
Believing that the life originated without someone planning and then kept on developing till a person like you came up who can create computer, is like believing in Magic
Believing that a robertsonian translocation that gives rise to malformed babies will give rise to humans from apes is believing in Magic, not science !
Believing that the life originated without someone planning and then kept on developing till a person like you came up who can create computer, is like believing in Magic
Believing that a robertsonian translocation that gives rise to malformed babies will give rise to humans from apes is believing in Magic, not science !
When Universe originated, there should have been a chaos if it was not supervised by God and similarly the life too cannot originate from the chaos of ancient earth environments !
"When Universe originated, there should have been a chaos if it was not supervised by God"
You don't know that, you are just making shit up.
"similarly the life too cannot originate from the chaos of ancient earth environments"
Again, more made up shit. You don't know what the conditions were. So dump evidence in favor of a desert God that created the universe and life from a series of magic spells? If not magic, what other mechanism do you suppose?
I've read Jerry's book. You thinking it's untrue only means that you either have very poor reading comprehension, or you know nothing at all about evolution. Take your pick, i don't care which....
"The claim that Australopithecus and Homo habilis walked upright was disproved by inner ear analyses carried out by Fred Spoor"
False. Spoor did not disprove that H. habilis walked upright. He suggested, based on the inner ear analyses, that H. habilis probably did not walk upright *habitually*. He later qualified that there is no simple relationship between inner ear structure and quadruped/biped status.
besides, even if A. afarensis and H. habilis stood on their heads for most of their lives, they would *still* be morphological intermediates between more hassle apes and modern humans.
No. We're not talking races. We're talking species. I accept that there may be slightly different norms between various ethnic groups. But the differences between H. habilis, H. erectus and H. sapiens are completely outside any reasonable curve. They are separate species.
There is a possibility that H. erectus overlapped in time with anatomically modern
humans (H. sapiens) in Southeast Asia.
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neanderthal man) and Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) also clearly co-existed. This indicates the invalidity of the claim that one is the ancestor of the other.
Australopithecus cannot be counted an ancestor of man.Australopithecus and Homo (human) species do not appear on the same branch according to the latest findings after examination of St W573
Doesn't matter. It's still morphologically intermediate between basal and more derived clades, and still roughly morphologically intermediate between basal apes and modern human apes.
Don't pretend you're as dumb a hick as Hovind. You know perfectly well that I'm talking nested hierarchies here, and intermediaries between basal and derived clades in those hierarchies.
@MrGralgrathor Theory of Evolution predicts nothing, not even a nested hierarchy. Rather, the theory adapts to data: If evolved traits were lost and replaced at a high rate, then a nested pattern would not result. Descendants could bear little resemblance to their ancestors with no pattern of nested similarities linking them
Homo habilis, was also an ape species just like all the other australopithecines.It had a small cranial capacity, as well as long arms and short legs,Homo habilis specimen, Stw 53, was studied and it was found out that Stw 53 relied less on bipedal behavior than the australopithecines.This meant that the H. habilis specimen was even more ape-like than the Australopithecus species.
No I know it fully well that humans are much much different than apes.We may resemble them phenotypically and so we share our genomic characteristics too with them but our purpose are different on earth than them
We are created social beings who have been given an authority over rest of the created beings and we will be raised up to give an account of our deeds to God while apes do not have any such intellectual burden /freedom.
Again, even if this is true, it changes nothing about the fact that it is anatomically, morphologically intermediate between basal apes and modern human apes.
So there is no intermediate between apes and humans and evolutionists know it fully well.
So do you know what they do ??
Whenever they come across a new skull/skeleton, they make a propaganda of being an intermediate but when it is proven as a pure ape or pure human, no media roaring takes place so common man stays confused that there are many proven intermediates between humans and apes
Kid, it is an objectively verifiable *fact* that these remains are morphologically intermediate between basal and derived clades. It's simply a matter of comparing morphological features, something any trained zoologist or palaeontologist can do. Only deeply religious biblical literalists would deny the reality of this.
I think someone needs to send that preacher Greta Christina's video "Why are you Atheists So Angry?" from Skepticon. She sums up why many of us are angry better than most of us can articulate.
@doniecurry Christianity is a belief system. That means there are required beliefs and prohibited beliefs. You are literally not free to think otherwise. You are promised unimaginable rewards if you believe what you're told, and you're threatened with a fate worse than death if you dare to question that. How could you consider that free thought?
@AronRa You seem to view free thought as something that's contingent upon reaching an ambiguous conclusion, such as atheism. The fact that a Christian has reached a particular conclusion does not mean that they didn't employ free thought to reach said conclusion. Christians believe Christianity to be true. Some of them by virtue of extensive study, some of them by sheepish following. To imply that atheism has cornered the market on free thought is fallacious, though.
Forgive me if I don't understand you, but you didn't explain how a Christian could have free thought in principle. You just said it was the case that Christians do. I would like you to back that comment up :).
@truckcompany You seem to be under the impression that one's mind must be completely open about everything for their entire life. What I said was Christians can arrive at their beliefs via free thought. Are you asserting that they should not be firm in their beliefs. Do you view ambiguity as some kind of free thinking attribute? Not sure I follow you.
@bahdahdoop You're right in a sense, but when a person reaches a conclusion that here is a god and it's the christian one, then it is when free thought ends. It's like a switch because once you start sincerely believing in some god you stop questioning him because that's against the rules.
@wHisperis001 Well, yes, of course it is. If you're of the opinion that an almighty, benevolent god exists, and that everything he did was manifestly holy by virtue of his power, why would you question his actions? That would be tantamount to trying to re-define the god you chose to believe in.
@bahdahdoop Let's say some person through his own thinking comes to the conclusion that the christian god exists, now he is a believer, but when all the atrocities of the bible is put in front of him he wiggles and evades the questions, because his preconcieved conclusion cannot be reasoned anymore. Believers fail to see the horrible writings in their supposed holy books, it's no secret that atheists know the bible better than most christians who never read the thing
According to christianity, you get sent to hell if you don't believe in it. Thoughtcrime is also considered to do the same to you, the celestial dictator is always watching.
Where exactly does that leave room for freethought?
And don't give me BS about moderates or true-christians, it's all nonsense based on the same fairytale
@sonykroket You're missing the point. Christians can arrive at the belief that Christianity is true via free thought. Millions have already. Once they come to that conclusion, then yes, they must abide by their belief system. The fact that your thought process is absent any deity doesn't make you any more of a free-thinker than a religious person. It just means your respective opinions differ. To say that your opinions are the product of free thought while their's are not, however, is fallacious
"Christians can arrive at the belief that Christianity is true via free thought. Millions have already."
This is a fallacious statement. The vast majority of religious people are religious due to some form of indoctrination, peer pressure, or traumatic event, none of which involve total free thought. It's also true that the vast majority of Christians (probably other religions as well) are largely unaware of all the contents of their religious texts.
It should also be noted that the phrase "Christianity is true" is an extremely ambiguous statement. There are tens of thousands of denominations that all have differing beliefs and they continue to splinter. So who's actually right? And about what? Can you demonstrate this? I was a devout Christian for 21 years of my life, and I still have trouble actually defining the word accurately.
It's actually extremely likely that none of them are right, which is a conclusion drawn by Voltaire about 250 years ago in his rebuttal to Pascal's Wager.
I'm a deist myself...I have faith, but I don't claim to KNOW anything about the supernatural.
@bahdahdoop Obviously your assessment of me does not seem to be correct. Neither do I see how it is possible that an unindoctrinated adult secularist could ever arrive at the conclusion that Christianity is correct. How could that happen? But regardless, that doesn't change the fact that Christianity is a belief system which prohibits free inquiry on pain of eternal damnation, and offers salvation solely as a consequence of belief alone. So it is not free thought by definition.
@AronRa You're simply incorrect in your assertion that Christianity is antithetical to free thought. You're merely assuming that someone who adheres to the tenets of Christianity is not doing so as a free thinker. Again, that's fallacious. Free thought does not demand that you never reach a final conclusion on life's big questions. Obviously you hold a different world view than Christians, but that doesn't make you any more of a free thinker. No offense but that's a rather arrogant.
@bahdahdoop Regardless whether this sounds arrogant to you or not, I am still correct about Christianity being a belief system with required beliefs and prohibitive beliefs. Thus it cannot possibly be considered free thought. Also this isn't a 'world view' issue, at least not for me, since I am not bound and restricted by the auto-deceptive nature of faith. I am free to go wherever the evidence leads without any fear of damnation for questioning any authority.
@AronRa You're still missing the point. Christianity is a conclusion to questions such as the meaning of life and what came before the universe. No Christian is being forced to accept Jesus. Yes, I realize that Christianity teaches penalities for not doing so, but that doesn't negate the fact that all people, religious or not, have free will. They don't have to believe in Hell anymore than you do. One can arrive at Christianity via free thought, and they can also leave by it.
"Christianity is a conclusion to questions such as the meaning of life and what came before the universe."
But if someone were never exposed to Christianity, how could they ever come to its same conclusions? They couldn't, which is why my speculation is far more accurate than yours. Given a person in a bubble free from exposure to all religions, what conclusion would they draw?
@bahdahdoop No Christian is being forced? except children who have only been brought up to believe in the bible and then live with the fear of hell if they even consider turning against it.
Stop missing the whole point of whats being said You get into heaven through faith in Jesus Christ thats the only way Faith is the opposite of free thinking
@ronocko Give me a break dude. I was raised as a Baptist in the bible belt. I abandoned it as a teenager and became an atheist. Several years later I became a deist due to scientific findings of a finite universe. I agree that parents shouldn't force their beliefs on their children.And I am getting the point of what's being said. Again, the tenets of CHristianity are a conclusion to be reached. You're just making the fallacious assumption that this conlclusion can't be reached via free thought.
@bahdahdoop Yes, Christians are forced to accept Jesus. You are bribed to accept and will be punished if you do not. Either way, that counts as being forced. Once again, freethought is defined as being free of the influence of religious dogma. By definition, Christianity cannot be free thought. How do you not get this? Why would you even want to pretend that it is free thought?
@AronRa Who in the world came up with that definition? That's the most biased and fallacious thing I've ever heard. But sure, if that's your definition of free thought, then you're absolutely correct. It seems you moved the goalposts before the game even began. In any event, I'm honored you took the time to speak with me. I'm a big fan of your videos.
" It seems you moved the goalposts before the game even began."
And whose fault is that? Why is it Aron's fault that you never bothered to pay attention to his working definition of free thought? He never changed it. How is it biased? Is there another kind of dogma in existence?
@TheZooCrew Perhaps it's because I respected his intellect enough to assume he would define free thought as being free from all bias, not just religious. It seems that he, and many of his borderline creepy sheeple seem to think that anti-religious bias can't exist. That would, however explain most of their fallacious thinking.
@TheZooCrew Again, you're just spewing out another fallacious statement that has no bearing on the point I'm trying to make. If anti-religious bias is, indeed, born of religious bias, it still doesn't negate the fact that both have adverse effects on a person's ability to give objective analysis. You seem like an intelligent person and I don't want to be disrespectful, but I'd rather not continue wasting my time explaining elementary logical fallacies. I have several discussions going on at once
" it still doesn't negate the fact that both have adverse effects on a person's ability to give objective analysis. "
You're missing the point. If you have a bubble free of religious dogma, then you don't need to also include anti-religious dogma because it already doesn't exist either. To include it would create a redundancy in the definition.
What point ARE you trying to make? I asked how a person in a bubble could ever come to the same conclusions as Christianity and you haven't even come close to addressing that.
@AronRa When you have to post the same thing 10 times and every time get the same reply back, It's probably the point we all realize that this was never intended to be a discussion just him telling you his own point of view and if you don't like it tough.
@bahdahdoop The problem with your proposition is that your religion is internally inconsistent. That’s not opinion, its fact (supported, in part, by the reality of its fracturing of the centuries). This being the case no one can ever, under any circumstances, arrive at it freely. One may accept it for one reason but as it misrepresents itself both within the bible and through its many agents, it cannot honestly and accurately be said to be wholly and freely accepted by anyone.
@bahdahdoop If a christian really was permissive to free thought this is what would happen, 1) scientific, logical, and even theological scholars have found the bible to have countless errors in it, so the circular reasoning that the bible is true because it says it's true is not reliable, 2) if some of the bible is false how will I know what is true? I'll have to treat it like all other ancient religious texts and that makes me very skeptical about Jesus's miracles. 3) Now a deist.
Taking one's beliefs and precepts from ancient texts that are contrary to what the natural world tells us about itself, merely because one was told these things by a figure of authority during one's formative childhood, is the very opposite of free thought.
Indeed, Christianity itself makes a virtue of non-thinking, for 'faith' is nothing more than obedience without question. Any belief system which relies upon faith is inherently contradictory to free thought.
@AronRa The problem, as I see it, is that even if one is not specifically indoctrinated into Christianity, there are other very similar and often complimentary forms of indoctrination taking place in the US. Patriotism, for example, requires exactly the same sort of compartmentalized thinking and willful ignorance of events and issues as does religion. With these sorts of barriers to critical thinking already in place, layering yet another false paradigm over top hardly seems a difficult task.
@bahdahdoop I think the fundamental point here is that a free thinker would never claim to have reached a *final* conclusion about such things. Remaining "free thinking" requires that one be allowed to reevaluate their beliefs at any time. Your beliefs must all be held contingently.
This is not the same as saying people can't reach conclusions. It's simply that all conclusions are tentative and must be subject to reexamination and revision based on continued experience.
@DoubtIsAVirtue Why must all conclusions be tentative? Why does free thought require ultimate uncertainty? On what basis do you assert that the changing of one's views is inherent in continued experience? Furthermore, you seem to be operating on the assumption that religious people don't reexamine or question their views. Perhaps some don't, but that in no way makes religious thought antithetical to free thought.
@bahdahdoop To the extent that Christians prohibits themselves from doing this, they cannot be considered free thinkers. And since such prohibitions are central to Christian dogma, a true Christian "free thinker" is at most a brief and unstable position, for the ability to re-examine ones beliefs means rejecting, revising or reaffirming them.
@bahdahdoop If a "Christian free thinker" finds, upon further reflection, that their beliefs are lacking, they will cease to be a Christian, or at the very least become agnostic about their beliefs. If they do otherwise, they'll find themselves once again mired in the dogmas that de-incentivise critical thought, and thus cease to be a free thinker.
@doniecurry for myself my doubts stem from the limits they place upon the range of possibilities to those considered congruent with biblical text or interpretation when considering new information & by default comparing it to what they consider truth from an uncontestable vantage point regardless of whatever evidence is presented to the contrary. Not my idea of an open mind tbh.
@magicalhearingman "Such a slave of mainstream anti-theism, unfortunate. P.S It's Anti-theist not atheist"
Peculiar, to label a minority movement as "mainstream." Either way, would constituents of the racial equality movement closest to Martin Luther King, Jr. be "slaves of mainstream anti-slavery" by your standard? It seems as though no one can take initiative or mobilize on issues they're passionate about without someone undermining their convictions by labeling them one way or the other.
@magicalhearingman No, it's Atheist- but some are anti-theist's as well :P Just depends on the person. Kind of like being a Christian- some also believe in the Trinity (Catholics)- but just because some do, it doesn't make all Christians Catholics.
@alwayshuntress An anti-theist is someone who actively opposes religion. I can honestly say from personal experience that the MAJORITY of "atheists" are in fact anti-theists. Doesn't make you look very intelligent when you don't even know what position you are occupying, but hey what do you expect from people who believe that science explains everything.
@magicalhearingman LOL your statement said that it was 'anti theist not atheist'. Mine simply pointed out that you could be Atheist and not anti-theist. You could also be both- you on the other hand seem to be a close-minded arrogant dimwit with delusions of superiority and intellect. Sad really.
@magicalhearingman What amazes me is the depth of your self-delusion. You keep making assumptions and blanket statements. It's unfortunate you don't bother with silly little things like facts- of course the positive side of that for me is none of your so-called 'facts' have any impact at all on my day- except to prompt and laugh and shake of my head. Go play with the other kiddies dear, and stop attempting to take on the adults.
@Pomaori Can I suggest you actually look up the golden rule... and then make a sensible comment... rather than making an absurd, and comical one based on a rather humorous misunderstanding of it.
It almost like the guy who told me that " einstein said matter can't be destroyed.... "
or the other notable one that "money is the root of all evil"
Wish i was going.
HWCWTD 3 days ago
Wow, there are more idiotic religious trolls than usual here today
JoeLaTurkeyIII 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The difference in different religions were not God given but it so happened that the teachings of charity and patience is not liked by those who are in POWER so they try to change God's teachings to suit themselves.
When enough corruption has already occured in religious scripture, God sent another messenger with renewed teachings of forgotten or manipulated scripture.
CONTD
farzanatasneem 5 days ago 2
CONTD
Whenever a new messenger arrives to its' people some accept his teaching and some stick to the old revelations even if they do not teach the truth any more. This is because of our EGO and pride that we take in our heritage.
It is the PRIDE which is the cause of every fight NOT THE RELIGIONS. It is this pride that makes people hide the bad deeds of their clergy.
That's why Prophet said clearly that his rule will be the same for every human being whether upper class or lower
farzanatasneem 5 days ago
Whether a humanlike fossil is named as one species or another can turn on matters as small as half a mm in the diameter of a tooth, or slight differences in the shape of the thighbone.
..These arguments about scientific names often mean very little. WHETHER A HUMANLIKE FOSSIL IS NAMED AS ONE SPECIES OR ANOTHER CAN TURN ON MATTER AS SMALL AS HALF AMILLIMETER IN THE DIAMETER OF A TOOTH OR SLIGHT DIFFERENCE IN THE SHAPE OF THE THIGHBONE(Emphasis MINE).
Coyne, Why Evolution is True, 2009, page 197
farzanatasneem 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And the names of ancestral human fossils can't be taken too seriously.Like theology, paleontology is a field in which the students far outnumber the objects of study. There are lively—and sometimes acrimonious—debates about whether a given fossil is really something new, or merely a variant of an already named species.These arguments about scientific names often mean very little. Whether a humanlike fossil is named as one species or another can turn on matters as small as half a millimeter CONT
farzanatasneem 5 days ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
According to theory of Evolution,one would expect the cytochrome C of a bacterium to be closer to the cytochrome C of a tuna (fish)than a horse (mammal). Furthermore, the horse should have the same mutations as the tuna, plus a few more. This is not what the molecular data shows.
The cytochrome C in bacteria is 64% different from horses and pigeons,65% different from tuna and silkmoths,66% different from wheat, and 69% different from yeast.Yet Atheists boast that every science proves evolution
farzanatasneem 5 days ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
One needs to believe in God and his power if robertsonian translocation caused apes to become humans
farzanatasneem 5 days ago
I guess there is scientific basis for supernatural. Look up for oxymoron on wikipedia.
ivorjutt 5 days ago
@ivorjutt
Yes you should look up
farzanatasneem 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Prophet Muhammad. peace be upon him said that if his daughter Fatima will steal, he will cut her hands off !
No religious clergy in Islam
farzanatasneem 5 days ago
Comment removed
farzanatasneem 5 days ago
You Suck.! You're going to Hell.! God is Real.! Fuck Atheism.
GodsNation90 5 days ago
@GodsNation90
I can see that you are a true Christian. Jesus must be proud of you.
ivorjutt 5 days ago
@GodsNation90
He has no problem with God.
He has problems with priests who commit atrocities on their own followers and then escape punishment.
What do you have to say about that
Please watch the video before commenting and tell him that original teachings of Jesus , peace be upon him do not favour one human above another on the basis of their worldly authority.
Prophet Muhammad. peace be upon him said that if his daughter Fatima will steal, he will cut his hands off !
farzanatasneem 5 days ago
That preacher looks like Curly of the three stooges but Curly was likable. That man sounds like a loud mouthed obnoxious prick!
nontheistdavid 6 days ago
As an atheist living and working in DC, I can say with a high degree of confidence that this rally will be just as pointless as every other one of the hundreds of rallies and conferences in the District every year. Rallies are for groups who don't have any idea how to go about actually having an impact on policy. Unless you can get 50,000+ people out here, this will be nothing more than a waste of a huge amount of the movement's time and money.
CognitiveImbias 1 week ago
@CognitiveImbias
Im affraid you might be right
sonykroket 6 days ago
@sonykroket I'm afraid that Sony is a coward, so please don't listen to this fear-driven idiot. Sony's sole purpose for amusement is uploading videos that show an object that has recently been in Sony's butt. This is the sad jock that Sony and the other idiots of his retard pack find humorous. So when you're watching Sony and his copters, the inside joke is the every one of those copters have tickled Sony's exit ramp. Sony is a copter slut.
RankestRodney 6 days ago
@RankestRodney
You still haven't told how many priests you had to blow, altarboy
sonykroket 5 days ago
@sonykroket That is very insensitive of you. Do I ask you how many times you couldn't resist your pasted out mammy's snapper? For fuck sake, asshole. The women brought you into this world, to which you show your gratitude by fucking the portal from which you came. Can I borrow your green copter?
RankestRodney 5 days ago
@RankestRodney
LOL Thats the only thing you can come up with?
You still haven't told how many clergy you had to *ahem* serve
sonykroket 4 days ago
Good words AronRa!
bunsinspace 1 week ago
3:30 I hate god in the same way that I hate Skeletor or Cobra Commander. Largely as a cartoon villain.
bitterlilraccoon 1 week ago
Did anyone ever tell you your facial hair looks awesome? And Chinese lookin'?
1AndrewTheWolf 1 week ago
Atm the jews are saying all "the correct words and attack the ppl they should attack". Next they get all the positions in atheism movement they want, cause in this twisted world, the general public seem to "admire" those frauds. I know, me rising the brow... anti-semite, nazi, conspiracy theorist ETC. Just like the ppl who didnt buy the biblical bullshit and the priests spreading it Not im being attacked by "the rational ppl" and i supposed to be the "reject not worthy of a god". Sure fine by me
preetor1 1 week ago
I feel sad by hearing the attempts of reason and in the same time, these guys are protecting their preferred myths.
@AronRa was kinda last hope for me, but it seems that he swallowed the sinker too. I made my mark here and who knows mayb some atheists doesnt take the jewish stand as granted. Now it seems that they get every position and message through without any investigation, sound familiar? Yes thats how they brought the bible and christianity, now they bring "atheism" and here we go again.
preetor1 1 week ago
This movement is already compromised, the jewish influence is strong already and i know hoe much shame it brings to @AronRa @DPRjones @TF @RichardDawkins and many others who buy their bullshit. Now that the jews are claimed the position as president in atheism movement there isnt anything different coming what came before. All the same cons are working now under the "atheism banner". The shame is so great, that even speaking about it will cause you just attack at me, instead of looking in to it.
preetor1 1 week ago
It's not god we hate it's his fucking fan club!
jemorrismmorris 1 week ago
Is that an Australian Cattle Dog AronRa?
jemorrismmorris 1 week ago
"Gotta have a zombie plan"
Hirnlego999 1 week ago
DAMN, I wish I had the money to fly to Washington.
z3kRL 1 week ago
Cute Amazon parrot.
TurboChevelle 1 week ago
Outstanding video, as always, but I think your bird wants some attention. LOL. I love birds.
santora1957 1 week ago
Praise Be to Santa..
AntonyThorburn 1 week ago
Holy shit........Somebody help......I'm being swarmed by atheists.....
bahdahdoop 1 week ago
@bahdahdoop
You realize why you're being "swarmed," right? And it's not just by "atheists."
Making repeatedly fallacious statements and refusing to actually answer questions will cause people to get a bit irritated. Just so you know.
TheZooCrew 1 week ago
Indeed a made up artifact cannot be disproven. But most of what they said to be true, has been shown to be bullshit. Most natural disasters was god back in the day.
krapptacular 1 week ago
Absolutely!!!
ferkinskin 1 week ago
AronRa for president!!!
Trinitics 1 week ago
i know it's irrelevant... but your dog is so awesomely cute
and as a reply to the ass at 3.27 i never talk about god or creationism, but i can understand why would people in the USA, who are surrounded by crazy creationists would occupy their mind with the issues these lunatics try to shove into their heads! i live in Israel, craziest country in the world. their are Christians, Jews Muslims here, and surprisingly they are not as crazy ,dumb and missionary as the born again american kind.
MartianSanta 1 week ago
Internet is killing religion!
ivorjutt 1 week ago 34
@ivorjutt Good, 'cos it needs to be put out of it's misery.......
carpy1970 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ivorjutt Have you seen Thunderf00t's video "Internet: where religions come to die"?
saguhh00 1 week ago
@ivorjutt i wish it would hurry up! lol
Darwinstrue 1 week ago
@ivorjutt
Religion cannot be killed by anything because every human has ingrained inclination to worship its creator :God.
Internet will make people understand that God sent religion to every Nation and tribes to inform them that there will be a day called the Day of Judgement when they will all gather to be judged by God
farzanatasneem 6 days ago 2
@farzanatasneem
I agree that there is something evolutional that makes people gullible for supernatural: gods, witches, demons, vampires, spiderman... No, wait, spiderman is real.
As for the Judgment day, I saw it. Liked CG.
ivorjutt 5 days ago
@ivorjutt
There are no gods, there is God , there are no spidermans and vampires.
Humans have been given very little knowledge about spirits so we can never reconfirm existence of demons.
Judgement day is no joke !
farzanatasneem 5 days ago
@farzanatasneem
There is NO Spiderman? Are you trying to insult me?
Enough joking. I don't know if you are familiar with other religions than yours, but there are people (about 2/3 of human population) who don't share your viewpoint about god.
I think you are right to say that we know little about spirits. Also, we know very little about orcs, fairies, zombies, smurfs, and Spirit of Saint Louis.
I agree that with total gross of $519,843,345 Judgement day is no joke.
ivorjutt 5 days ago
@ivorjutt
I am really sorry if you got insulted but truth does not depend upon democracy i.e the number of voters do not make something true.
You are in a mood of making fun of every serious talk so let us stop here and when you are there for serious discussions we will talk.
farzanatasneem 5 days ago
@farzanatasneem
I'm sorry. It's your right to believe anything you want.
ivorjutt 5 days ago
@ivorjutt
There is no scientific basis for Atheism .
So those who disbelieve in God are the most unreasonable people .
Rally of reason should be the name given to the rally of followers of one true God who sent his message to every nation
farzanatasneem 5 days ago
@farzanatasneem
"There is no scientific basis for Atheism"
There doesn't need to be. We don't believe your magical bullshit, even if the scientific method was never discovered. Why do you morons always wrongly assume people are atheists because of science? Your bullshit isn't worth believing if we didn't know anything!
rareblackatheist 3 days ago
@rareblackatheist
/watch?v=HA9yfiCtpS8
Qurán gives different experience to Atheists, if they are sincere
peace4universe 3 days ago
@peace4universe
No thanks, the quran is trash as well.
rareblackatheist 3 days ago
@rareblackatheist
Because you did not read
It is Atheism which is trash
peace4universe 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@peace4universe
"It is Atheism which is trash"
Is that supposed to insult me in to being a Muslim or something? It didn't work.
Yes, not believing in magic is trash. lol whatever you say
rareblackatheist 2 days ago
@rareblackatheist
Believing that the life originated without someone planning and then kept on developing till a person like you came up who can create computer, is like believing in Magic
Believing that a robertsonian translocation that gives rise to malformed babies will give rise to humans from apes is believing in Magic, not science !
farzanatasneem 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rareblackatheist
Believing that the life originated without someone planning and then kept on developing till a person like you came up who can create computer, is like believing in Magic
Believing that a robertsonian translocation that gives rise to malformed babies will give rise to humans from apes is believing in Magic, not science !
farzanatasneem 3 days ago
@rareblackatheist
When Universe originated, there should have been a chaos if it was not supervised by God and similarly the life too cannot originate from the chaos of ancient earth environments !
farzanatasneem 3 days ago
@farzanatasneem
"When Universe originated, there should have been a chaos if it was not supervised by God"
You don't know that, you are just making shit up.
"similarly the life too cannot originate from the chaos of ancient earth environments"
Again, more made up shit. You don't know what the conditions were. So dump evidence in favor of a desert God that created the universe and life from a series of magic spells? If not magic, what other mechanism do you suppose?
rareblackatheist 3 days ago
@rareblackatheist
Do you know other words beyond shit and trash ??
peace4universe 3 days ago
@peace4universe
Not if the only words you can read are trash and shit, because is said alot more than that.
rareblackatheist 2 days ago
@rareblackatheist
I have written many comments about (lack of )scientific basis of Atheism , please read them and reply about them.
Palenteology is a branch of conjectures specially when evolution is concerned.
Read my comments from the book of Coyne, "Why evolution is true" which prove that evolution is untrue
farzanatasneem 3 days ago
@farzanatasneem
I've read Jerry's book. You thinking it's untrue only means that you either have very poor reading comprehension, or you know nothing at all about evolution. Take your pick, i don't care which....
rareblackatheist 3 days ago
@rareblackatheist
Read the quotes
Are they misquotes ?
Isn't that true about naming of human fossils?
If you have some counter argument then give.
The fact is that you are brainwashed into Atheism so while you read the arguments against Atheism you still feel it says Atheism is true
peace4universe 3 days ago
@peace4universe
Why don't you give me a better alternative explanation of human evolution? Explain homo erectus
homo habilis
astralopithicus aricanus
australopithicus afrensis
Without magic or evolution.
rareblackatheist 2 days ago
@rareblackatheist
Homo Habilis was an ape
Australopithecus was also an ape
Homo erectus were human species
peace4universe 2 days ago
@rareblackatheist
The claim that Australopithecus and Homo habilis walked upright was
disproved by inner ear analyses carried out by Fred Spoor. He and his team
compared the centers of balances in the inner ears, and showed that both
moved in a similar way to apes of our own time.
peace4universe 2 days ago
@peace4universe
"The claim that Australopithecus and Homo habilis walked upright was disproved by inner ear analyses carried out by Fred Spoor"
False. Spoor did not disprove that H. habilis walked upright. He suggested, based on the inner ear analyses, that H. habilis probably did not walk upright *habitually*. He later qualified that there is no simple relationship between inner ear structure and quadruped/biped status.
MrGralgrathor 2 days ago
@peace4universe
besides, even if A. afarensis and H. habilis stood on their heads for most of their lives, they would *still* be morphological intermediates between more hassle apes and modern humans.
XGralgrathor 2 days ago
@XGralgrathor s/hassle/basal/
MrGralgrathor 2 days ago
@rareblackatheist
The primary reason for evolutionists' defining Homo erectus as "primitive",
is the cranial capacity of its skull (900-1,100 cc), which is smaller than
the average modern man, and its thick eyebrow projections. However,
there are many people living today in the world who have the same cranial
capacity as Homo erectus (pygmies, for instance) and other races have
protruding eyebrows (Native Australians, for instance).
peace4universe 2 days ago
@peace4universe
"there are many people living today in the world who have the same cranial capacity as Homo erectus (pygmies, for instance)"
False. Pygmy average is about 1300cc. The largest H. erectus skulls are about 1100cc, and average lower than that.
"other races have protruding eyebrows (Native Australians, for instance)."
But not to the extent that some more primitive human species had them.
XGralgrathor 2 days ago
@XGralgrathor
Read:
Morton's Ranking of Races by Cranial Capacity
Unconscious manipulation of data may be a scientific norm
.
Stephen Jay Gould
peace4universe 2 days ago
@peace4universe
No. We're not talking races. We're talking species. I accept that there may be slightly different norms between various ethnic groups. But the differences between H. habilis, H. erectus and H. sapiens are completely outside any reasonable curve. They are separate species.
XGralgrathor 2 days ago
@XGralgrathor
There is a possibility that H. erectus overlapped in time with anatomically modern
humans (H. sapiens) in Southeast Asia.
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neanderthal man) and Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) also clearly co-existed. This indicates the invalidity of the claim that one is the ancestor of the other.
peace4universe 2 days ago
@peace4universe
"possibility that H. erectus overlapped in time with anatomically modern humans"
Yes, there is. So?
"also clearly co-existed"
Yes, they are. But what's that got to do with anything? I didn't mention Neanderthals as transitional forms, did I?
MrGralgrathor 1 day ago
@XGralgrathor
Australopithecus cannot be counted an ancestor of man.Australopithecus and Homo (human) species do not appear on the same branch according to the latest findings after examination of St W573
peace4universe 2 days ago
@peace4universe
"do not appear on the same branch"
Doesn't matter. It's still morphologically intermediate between basal and more derived clades, and still roughly morphologically intermediate between basal apes and modern human apes.
XGralgrathor 1 day ago
@XGralgrathor
Morphological resemblance does not mean one is derived from the other or one is the ancestor of the other or one had common ancestor.
peace4universe 1 day ago
@peace4universe
"Morphological resemblance"
Don't pretend you're as dumb a hick as Hovind. You know perfectly well that I'm talking nested hierarchies here, and intermediaries between basal and derived clades in those hierarchies.
MrGralgrathor 1 day ago
@MrGralgrathor Theory of Evolution predicts nothing, not even a nested hierarchy. Rather, the theory adapts to data: If evolved traits were lost and replaced at a high rate, then a nested pattern would not result. Descendants could bear little resemblance to their ancestors with no pattern of nested similarities linking them
peace4universe 1 day ago
@XGralgrathor
Homo habilis, was also an ape species just like all the other australopithecines.It had a small cranial capacity, as well as long arms and short legs,Homo habilis specimen, Stw 53, was studied and it was found out that Stw 53 relied less on bipedal behavior than the australopithecines.This meant that the H. habilis specimen was even more ape-like than the Australopithecus species.
peace4universe 2 days ago
@peace4universe
"was also an ape species just like all the other australopithecines"
And chimpanzees, and humans. You forget that humans are apes too.
XGralgrathor 1 day ago
@XGralgrathor
No I know it fully well that humans are much much different than apes.We may resemble them phenotypically and so we share our genomic characteristics too with them but our purpose are different on earth than them
We are created social beings who have been given an authority over rest of the created beings and we will be raised up to give an account of our deeds to God while apes do not have any such intellectual burden /freedom.
peace4universe 1 day ago
@peace4universe
"much much different than apes"
We're different from the *other* apes, yes. But not as much as you'd apparently like to think (for reasons unfathomable to any normal human).
XGralgrathor 1 day ago
@peace4universe
"bipedal behavior"
Again, even if this is true, it changes nothing about the fact that it is anatomically, morphologically intermediate between basal apes and modern human apes.
MrGralgrathor 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrGralgrathor
Homo Habilis was an ape
Australopithecus was also an ape
Homo erectus were human species
So there is no intermediate between apes and humans and evolutionists know it fully well.
So do you know what they do ??
Whenever they come across a new skull/skeleton, they make a propaganda of being an intermediate but when it is proven as a pure ape or pure human, no media roaring takes place so common man stays confused that there are many proven intermediates between humans and apes
peace4universe 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@peace4universe
"Homo Habilis was an ape"
That's right. And it's morphologically intermediate between more basal apes and the more derived modern human apes.
MrGralgrathor 1 day ago
@peace4universe
"no intermediate between apes and humans"
Humans are apes. There are intermediates between *basal* apes and modern humans: H. habilis and H. erectus, for instance.
MrGralgrathor 1 day ago
@peace4universe
"propaganda of being an intermediate"
Kid, it is an objectively verifiable *fact* that these remains are morphologically intermediate between basal and derived clades. It's simply a matter of comparing morphological features, something any trained zoologist or palaeontologist can do. Only deeply religious biblical literalists would deny the reality of this.
MrGralgrathor 1 day ago
@peace4universe
"The primary reason"
Includes pelvic attitude and hallux abduction angle as well as cranial features.
XGralgrathor 2 days ago
Fucking J.G.Wentworth commercials ruined Network for me forever :(
V0nAnglesmith 1 week ago
Is Rally Reason going to be aired live on C-Span? I been trying to find that out for a while now, no one seems to answer or know... lol
ViperRob42 1 week ago
I think someone needs to send that preacher Greta Christina's video "Why are you Atheists So Angry?" from Skepticon. She sums up why many of us are angry better than most of us can articulate.
finderfinder100 1 week ago
So very happy happy to hear that you will be at the upcoming global atheist convention in my home town of melbourne-will you be speaking?
dancingnancy09 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I wonder if Libertarian atheists and humanist Constitutionalists are welcome at this Reason Rally?
FaganRoberts 1 week ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why Do Atheists Think that Christians are not free think individuals
doniecurry 1 week ago
@doniecurry Christianity is a belief system. That means there are required beliefs and prohibited beliefs. You are literally not free to think otherwise. You are promised unimaginable rewards if you believe what you're told, and you're threatened with a fate worse than death if you dare to question that. How could you consider that free thought?
AronRa 1 week ago 76
@AronRa Sounds like statism.
MrGreeneggsnham 1 week ago
@AronRa You seem to view free thought as something that's contingent upon reaching an ambiguous conclusion, such as atheism. The fact that a Christian has reached a particular conclusion does not mean that they didn't employ free thought to reach said conclusion. Christians believe Christianity to be true. Some of them by virtue of extensive study, some of them by sheepish following. To imply that atheism has cornered the market on free thought is fallacious, though.
bahdahdoop 1 week ago
@bahdahdoop
Forgive me if I don't understand you, but you didn't explain how a Christian could have free thought in principle. You just said it was the case that Christians do. I would like you to back that comment up :).
truckcompany 1 week ago
@truckcompany You seem to be under the impression that one's mind must be completely open about everything for their entire life. What I said was Christians can arrive at their beliefs via free thought. Are you asserting that they should not be firm in their beliefs. Do you view ambiguity as some kind of free thinking attribute? Not sure I follow you.
bahdahdoop 1 week ago
@bahdahdoop You're right in a sense, but when a person reaches a conclusion that here is a god and it's the christian one, then it is when free thought ends. It's like a switch because once you start sincerely believing in some god you stop questioning him because that's against the rules.
wHisperis001 1 week ago
@wHisperis001 Well, yes, of course it is. If you're of the opinion that an almighty, benevolent god exists, and that everything he did was manifestly holy by virtue of his power, why would you question his actions? That would be tantamount to trying to re-define the god you chose to believe in.
bahdahdoop 1 week ago
@bahdahdoop Let's say some person through his own thinking comes to the conclusion that the christian god exists, now he is a believer, but when all the atrocities of the bible is put in front of him he wiggles and evades the questions, because his preconcieved conclusion cannot be reasoned anymore. Believers fail to see the horrible writings in their supposed holy books, it's no secret that atheists know the bible better than most christians who never read the thing
wHisperis001 1 week ago 3
@bahdahdoop
According to christianity, you get sent to hell if you don't believe in it. Thoughtcrime is also considered to do the same to you, the celestial dictator is always watching.
Where exactly does that leave room for freethought?
And don't give me BS about moderates or true-christians, it's all nonsense based on the same fairytale
sonykroket 1 week ago
@sonykroket You're missing the point. Christians can arrive at the belief that Christianity is true via free thought. Millions have already. Once they come to that conclusion, then yes, they must abide by their belief system. The fact that your thought process is absent any deity doesn't make you any more of a free-thinker than a religious person. It just means your respective opinions differ. To say that your opinions are the product of free thought while their's are not, however, is fallacious
bahdahdoop 1 week ago
@bahdahdoop
"Christians can arrive at the belief that Christianity is true via free thought. Millions have already."
This is a fallacious statement. The vast majority of religious people are religious due to some form of indoctrination, peer pressure, or traumatic event, none of which involve total free thought. It's also true that the vast majority of Christians (probably other religions as well) are largely unaware of all the contents of their religious texts.
TheZooCrew 1 week ago
@TheZooCrew How is your speculation about how Christians arrive at their beliefs any less fallacious than mine?
bahdahdoop 1 week ago
@bahdahdoop
It should also be noted that the phrase "Christianity is true" is an extremely ambiguous statement. There are tens of thousands of denominations that all have differing beliefs and they continue to splinter. So who's actually right? And about what? Can you demonstrate this? I was a devout Christian for 21 years of my life, and I still have trouble actually defining the word accurately.
TheZooCrew 1 week ago
@TheZooCrew Maybe none of them are right. That's the main reason I'm a deist. Either way, it's irrelevant to the conversation.
bahdahdoop 1 week ago
@bahdahdoop
It's actually extremely likely that none of them are right, which is a conclusion drawn by Voltaire about 250 years ago in his rebuttal to Pascal's Wager.
I'm a deist myself...I have faith, but I don't claim to KNOW anything about the supernatural.
TheZooCrew 1 week ago
@bahdahdoop
Im not missing any point. Religion is a crock of shit and the cause of most wars and suffering
And yes, we are way more freethinking than the superstitious tribe is
You can talk all you want but it doesnt mean youre not wrong
sonykroket 1 week ago
@bahdahdoop Obviously your assessment of me does not seem to be correct. Neither do I see how it is possible that an unindoctrinated adult secularist could ever arrive at the conclusion that Christianity is correct. How could that happen? But regardless, that doesn't change the fact that Christianity is a belief system which prohibits free inquiry on pain of eternal damnation, and offers salvation solely as a consequence of belief alone. So it is not free thought by definition.
AronRa 1 week ago 6
@AronRa You're simply incorrect in your assertion that Christianity is antithetical to free thought. You're merely assuming that someone who adheres to the tenets of Christianity is not doing so as a free thinker. Again, that's fallacious. Free thought does not demand that you never reach a final conclusion on life's big questions. Obviously you hold a different world view than Christians, but that doesn't make you any more of a free thinker. No offense but that's a rather arrogant.
bahdahdoop 1 week ago
@bahdahdoop Regardless whether this sounds arrogant to you or not, I am still correct about Christianity being a belief system with required beliefs and prohibitive beliefs. Thus it cannot possibly be considered free thought. Also this isn't a 'world view' issue, at least not for me, since I am not bound and restricted by the auto-deceptive nature of faith. I am free to go wherever the evidence leads without any fear of damnation for questioning any authority.
AronRa 1 week ago 13
@AronRa You're still missing the point. Christianity is a conclusion to questions such as the meaning of life and what came before the universe. No Christian is being forced to accept Jesus. Yes, I realize that Christianity teaches penalities for not doing so, but that doesn't negate the fact that all people, religious or not, have free will. They don't have to believe in Hell anymore than you do. One can arrive at Christianity via free thought, and they can also leave by it.
bahdahdoop 1 week ago
@bahdahdoop
"Christianity is a conclusion to questions such as the meaning of life and what came before the universe."
But if someone were never exposed to Christianity, how could they ever come to its same conclusions? They couldn't, which is why my speculation is far more accurate than yours. Given a person in a bubble free from exposure to all religions, what conclusion would they draw?
TheZooCrew 1 week ago
@bahdahdoop No Christian is being forced? except children who have only been brought up to believe in the bible and then live with the fear of hell if they even consider turning against it.
Stop missing the whole point of whats being said You get into heaven through faith in Jesus Christ thats the only way Faith is the opposite of free thinking
ronocko 1 week ago
@ronocko Give me a break dude. I was raised as a Baptist in the bible belt. I abandoned it as a teenager and became an atheist. Several years later I became a deist due to scientific findings of a finite universe. I agree that parents shouldn't force their beliefs on their children.And I am getting the point of what's being said. Again, the tenets of CHristianity are a conclusion to be reached. You're just making the fallacious assumption that this conlclusion can't be reached via free thought.
bahdahdoop 1 week ago
@bahdahdoop
"Several years later I became a deist due to scientific findings of a finite universe."
That's utterly ridiculous and mildly inaccurate, but okay.
"You're just making the fallacious assumption that this conlclusion can't be reached via free thought."
I just explained why this is. Tell me, how could a rational person in the aforementioned bubble EVER reach the same conclusion as Christianity?
TheZooCrew 1 week ago
@bahdahdoop Yes, Christians are forced to accept Jesus. You are bribed to accept and will be punished if you do not. Either way, that counts as being forced. Once again, freethought is defined as being free of the influence of religious dogma. By definition, Christianity cannot be free thought. How do you not get this? Why would you even want to pretend that it is free thought?
AronRa 1 week ago
@AronRa Who in the world came up with that definition? That's the most biased and fallacious thing I've ever heard. But sure, if that's your definition of free thought, then you're absolutely correct. It seems you moved the goalposts before the game even began. In any event, I'm honored you took the time to speak with me. I'm a big fan of your videos.
bahdahdoop 1 week ago
@bahdahdoop
" It seems you moved the goalposts before the game even began."
And whose fault is that? Why is it Aron's fault that you never bothered to pay attention to his working definition of free thought? He never changed it. How is it biased? Is there another kind of dogma in existence?
TheZooCrew 1 week ago
@TheZooCrew Perhaps it's because I respected his intellect enough to assume he would define free thought as being free from all bias, not just religious. It seems that he, and many of his borderline creepy sheeple seem to think that anti-religious bias can't exist. That would, however explain most of their fallacious thinking.
bahdahdoop 1 week ago
@bahdahdoop
"seem to think that anti-religious bias can't exist"
If religious bias didn't exist, then anti-religious bias wouldn't, either. They are not independent. How is this not obvious?
TheZooCrew 1 week ago
@TheZooCrew Again, you're just spewing out another fallacious statement that has no bearing on the point I'm trying to make. If anti-religious bias is, indeed, born of religious bias, it still doesn't negate the fact that both have adverse effects on a person's ability to give objective analysis. You seem like an intelligent person and I don't want to be disrespectful, but I'd rather not continue wasting my time explaining elementary logical fallacies. I have several discussions going on at once
bahdahdoop 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bahdahdoop
" it still doesn't negate the fact that both have adverse effects on a person's ability to give objective analysis. "
You're missing the point. If you have a bubble free of religious dogma, then you don't need to also include anti-religious dogma because it already doesn't exist either. To include it would create a redundancy in the definition.
TheZooCrew 1 week ago
@bahdahdoop
What point ARE you trying to make? I asked how a person in a bubble could ever come to the same conclusions as Christianity and you haven't even come close to addressing that.
TheZooCrew 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bahdahdoop Anti-religious bias is the byproduct of attempted coercion by numerous religious groups and individuals. It's well deserved indignation.
You know the old saying, "Don't start none, won't be none?"
Well, religion started a long time ago and won't stop. You don't get to blame the victims this time, because we're educated and we're pissed.
Down with all superstition. May it be banished from humanity forever.
sillygames 1 week ago
@bahdahdoop You mean a truth bias, yes I agree that people have a tendancy to look down at complete bullshit.
rustedromeo 1 week ago
@AronRa When you have to post the same thing 10 times and every time get the same reply back, It's probably the point we all realize that this was never intended to be a discussion just him telling you his own point of view and if you don't like it tough.
ronocko 1 week ago
@AronRa As I recently heard someone brilliantly put it, Christians are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.
styot 6 days ago
@bahdahdoop The problem with your proposition is that your religion is internally inconsistent. That’s not opinion, its fact (supported, in part, by the reality of its fracturing of the centuries). This being the case no one can ever, under any circumstances, arrive at it freely. One may accept it for one reason but as it misrepresents itself both within the bible and through its many agents, it cannot honestly and accurately be said to be wholly and freely accepted by anyone.
JoeNietzsche 1 week ago
@bahdahdoop If a christian really was permissive to free thought this is what would happen, 1) scientific, logical, and even theological scholars have found the bible to have countless errors in it, so the circular reasoning that the bible is true because it says it's true is not reliable, 2) if some of the bible is false how will I know what is true? I'll have to treat it like all other ancient religious texts and that makes me very skeptical about Jesus's miracles. 3) Now a deist.
Uhlbelk 1 week ago
@bahdahdoop
Taking one's beliefs and precepts from ancient texts that are contrary to what the natural world tells us about itself, merely because one was told these things by a figure of authority during one's formative childhood, is the very opposite of free thought.
Indeed, Christianity itself makes a virtue of non-thinking, for 'faith' is nothing more than obedience without question. Any belief system which relies upon faith is inherently contradictory to free thought.
Lodatzor 1 week ago
@AronRa The problem, as I see it, is that even if one is not specifically indoctrinated into Christianity, there are other very similar and often complimentary forms of indoctrination taking place in the US. Patriotism, for example, requires exactly the same sort of compartmentalized thinking and willful ignorance of events and issues as does religion. With these sorts of barriers to critical thinking already in place, layering yet another false paradigm over top hardly seems a difficult task.
JoeNietzsche 1 week ago
@AronRa In short, what I’m saying is that their thinking is probably already broken.
JoeNietzsche 1 week ago
@bahdahdoop I think the fundamental point here is that a free thinker would never claim to have reached a *final* conclusion about such things. Remaining "free thinking" requires that one be allowed to reevaluate their beliefs at any time. Your beliefs must all be held contingently.
This is not the same as saying people can't reach conclusions. It's simply that all conclusions are tentative and must be subject to reexamination and revision based on continued experience.
DoubtIsAVirtue 6 days ago
@DoubtIsAVirtue Why must all conclusions be tentative? Why does free thought require ultimate uncertainty? On what basis do you assert that the changing of one's views is inherent in continued experience? Furthermore, you seem to be operating on the assumption that religious people don't reexamine or question their views. Perhaps some don't, but that in no way makes religious thought antithetical to free thought.
bahdahdoop 6 days ago
@bahdahdoop To the extent that Christians prohibits themselves from doing this, they cannot be considered free thinkers. And since such prohibitions are central to Christian dogma, a true Christian "free thinker" is at most a brief and unstable position, for the ability to re-examine ones beliefs means rejecting, revising or reaffirming them.
DoubtIsAVirtue 6 days ago
@bahdahdoop If a "Christian free thinker" finds, upon further reflection, that their beliefs are lacking, they will cease to be a Christian, or at the very least become agnostic about their beliefs. If they do otherwise, they'll find themselves once again mired in the dogmas that de-incentivise critical thought, and thus cease to be a free thinker.
DoubtIsAVirtue 6 days ago
@doniecurry
What would convince you that Christianity is wrong?
rkyeun 1 week ago
@doniecurry for myself my doubts stem from the limits they place upon the range of possibilities to those considered congruent with biblical text or interpretation when considering new information & by default comparing it to what they consider truth from an uncontestable vantage point regardless of whatever evidence is presented to the contrary. Not my idea of an open mind tbh.
JimBCameron 1 week ago
You're so incredibly boring
shinesthrudarain 2 weeks ago
lol the fat shouting guy's funneh
Brushles83 2 weeks ago
Wow! I owned an Orange Winged Parrot and a German Shorthaired dog at the same time too!
mondocollecto 3 weeks ago
So wish I could be there good wishes from UK
souly351 3 weeks ago
Such a slave of mainstream anti-theism, unfortunate. P.S It's Anti-theist not atheist
magicalhearingman 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@magicalhearingman "Such a slave of mainstream anti-theism, unfortunate. P.S It's Anti-theist not atheist"
Peculiar, to label a minority movement as "mainstream." Either way, would constituents of the racial equality movement closest to Martin Luther King, Jr. be "slaves of mainstream anti-slavery" by your standard? It seems as though no one can take initiative or mobilize on issues they're passionate about without someone undermining their convictions by labeling them one way or the other.
themediocrenontheist 1 month ago in playlist Liked videos
@magicalhearingman No, it's Atheist- but some are anti-theist's as well :P Just depends on the person. Kind of like being a Christian- some also believe in the Trinity (Catholics)- but just because some do, it doesn't make all Christians Catholics.
alwayshuntress 3 weeks ago
@alwayshuntress An anti-theist is someone who actively opposes religion. I can honestly say from personal experience that the MAJORITY of "atheists" are in fact anti-theists. Doesn't make you look very intelligent when you don't even know what position you are occupying, but hey what do you expect from people who believe that science explains everything.
magicalhearingman 2 weeks ago
@magicalhearingman LOL your statement said that it was 'anti theist not atheist'. Mine simply pointed out that you could be Atheist and not anti-theist. You could also be both- you on the other hand seem to be a close-minded arrogant dimwit with delusions of superiority and intellect. Sad really.
alwayshuntress 2 weeks ago
@alwayshuntress This guy calling himself an atheist is an anti-theist. It's unfortunate you let facts ruin your day.
magicalhearingman 2 weeks ago
@magicalhearingman What amazes me is the depth of your self-delusion. You keep making assumptions and blanket statements. It's unfortunate you don't bother with silly little things like facts- of course the positive side of that for me is none of your so-called 'facts' have any impact at all on my day- except to prompt and laugh and shake of my head. Go play with the other kiddies dear, and stop attempting to take on the adults.
alwayshuntress 2 weeks ago
@magicalhearingman yeah, and religions like Christianity are totally cool with everything while they get more power.
georgek19 1 week ago
@Pomaori Can I suggest you actually look up the golden rule... and then make a sensible comment... rather than making an absurd, and comical one based on a rather humorous misunderstanding of it.
It almost like the guy who told me that " einstein said matter can't be destroyed.... "
or the other notable one that "money is the root of all evil"
All misunderstandings of the actual point.
MumblingMickey 1 month ago
@Pomaori First that is NOT the golden rule... so its not then a surprise you got that 'dictating' bit wrong.
But since not only humans obey it, you are arguing against something that is observed in the world as a demonstrable fact...
Good Look with that.
MumblingMickey 1 month ago
Yep, no freedom of speed, eh christians? So, uh, what are you doing on that pulpit, speaking freely?
Fuck, people like him make me angry with their self-righteousness and ignorance...
WirlWind494 1 month ago
You know, if you were red, had horns and a pitch-fork, you'd be a spitting image for the average mental image of satan.
Fucking awesome, rock on :)
WirlWind494 1 month ago