Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
most atheist are "agnostic weak atheist". which means you dont believe in god based on the evidence or lack of i guess, for a gods existence. but if someone were to present overwhelming and sufficient evidence for the existence of a god you would be willing to believing. which is almost certainly not going to happen.
@TheInfamousG23 "we use common sense and knowledge that God created ..you fat shit come on man"
Well, slimy turd, simply saying that "God created common sense and knowledge" does not make it true. You do in fact have zero evidence for that claim, but in addition, Penn's point is that the bible clearly offers the believers magic powers in Mark 11:23 and other places. Most Christians don't trust this though, because it doesn't work. Instead they have made up excuses.
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
That was kind of a silly argument at the end. There's a point in there, but he emphasized it to a ridiculous degree, I think it kind of made atheists look narrow minded and stupid. Christians just say we have free will. Maybe narrow it down to saying why would you go to the doctor if you already prayed. But that's even stupid too because Christians don't expect God to answer all prayers.
@mrpayne123 "But that's even stupid too because Christians don't expect God to answer all prayers."
But such people are not Christians. The bible is clear that god will answer the prayers of true believers, even to the point of moving mountains at their bidding. Mark 11:23
I prefer athiest to agnostic because I very much deny on all accounts that anything resembling the god of christianity, islam, and judaism exists. But I very much like his point about most religious people secretly being athiests: so true and hilarious.
I know people that believe in God, but they don't know why. They were told to do so and they don't question it. It gives them a sense of comfort and it's what they chose to do. It makes them uncomfortable to think otherwise and they don't want to hear an argument from anyone against their belief, no matter how logical the argument could be. I don't judge people on whether or not they believe in God , but most religious people more often than not will refuse someone who does not believe in God.
I'm an Agnostic Atheist myself but I have to say this. God tells people to never test him so the argument about stopping at red lights can be easily argued against. If a Christian is truly devote he wouldn't make rash decisions hoping god would sort out the details.
Gee, let's see. Ayn Rand vs Jesus Christ: An intelligent, solidly consistent women with a totally logical philosophy or a "a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree".... Hmmm... Give me a moment to ponder this...
That is not my understanding. Agnosticism is knowledge claim: Can we know that "x" is knowable? If yes, then gnostic, else, agnostic. If someone said "I believe (at least one) god exists" is a true statement, then theist. If someone said "I believe that no gods exist" is a true statement, then atheist. If someone does not affirm either statement as true, guess what? They are also an atheist.
So sad that even after so much persecution based on differences people still think it's ok to persecute atheists. Atheism is just open-mindedness and common sense. Live and let live.
He is right that agnoticism is not believing that there is a God. But Atheism is the belief that there is no God. So they are clearly different. I don't see the point he is trying to make....
@MisterDataJack Agnoticism is the absense of a belief in whether there is a God or that no God exists, therefore staying in the state of doubt. Atheism asserts that there is no God leaving the state of doubt and into the fixation of belief.
@savageravageunicorn There I don't agree with Penn. Most of us don't feel that's the case as someone could believe in a god existing, but have no actual knowledge of it (aka faith).
Most agree that agnosticism can be applied to both theism and atheism.
@lehman Yeah. i think one could make the case that atheism and theism try to go outside of the bounds of knowledge and agnoticism trys to uphold those boundaries.
@lehman If you have no knowledge of your god...then how are you talking about your belief in a god? It would be the epitome of abstract thought if you said that you had no knowledge of your gods attributes despite your knowledge of his/her/it's existence but to say that you have a belief in a god that you have no knowledge of...is plain contradiction. Agnosticism is a dissociation from acceptance of your "PERSONAL" lack of constitution to admit your lack of "KNOWLEDGE" of any deities.
@lehman Most of the world consists of infants who can't accept death. There may be something far superior than anything in any of the religions when we die. But the religious can't think for themselves. All they know is oppression and slavery.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
@Mogley52 One, why do you think atheists believe that the universe is eternal ? I've never met an atheists that said that. You are also substituting the SUPERNATURAL with the UNKNOWN ."We don't know how the universe was formed so there has to be a supernatural." That is a edict out of the Bronze age that so far has shown proof. Pedal your creation hack science some where else please.
@Mogley52 Einstein did not confirm that. Just because you don't know, doesn't make it supernatural. What makes you think there was nothing before the universe? Supernatural can't be proven because it doesn't exist -- that's why it's "supernatural". How the universe began, the earth was formed and how humans got here -- all have literally nothing to do with Atheism. Get the fuck out, read a book and free yourself you impossibly dim tosser.
@Mogley52 When you make statements like "science points to a supernatural intelligence..." you should provide evidence of your claims. Simply saying things does not make them true.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe works don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or a cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
@Mogley52 Actually the odds are 100%, since it happened. Your argument is based in a misrepresentation of statistical method for use in an epistemological argument.
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
@Mogley52 You dont' have any new information, just a spinning of old information to fit your claims. That isn't scientific at all, it is being evasive and untruthful. If it were science it would have become fact by now
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
What utter Bullshit. If we obey stop signs were Atheists, because we dont trust God to save us?? When Satan told Jesus to throw himself off the mountain so the Angels could save him, Jesus said do not test the Lord. Jillette thinks he knows all things, so it seems he thinks he is a God himself.
Theists are funny. They've been lied to all their lives, and find comfort in those lies. Often when presented with evidence that their God couldn't exist in this universe, they panic. Agnostics are like the French in wartime, as they straddle the fence then surrender when pulled into a debate on the existence (or lack there of) of a God/gods. But all told, even as an atheist, I know that there are things we can't simply explain away with science, yet. Studies disprove studies everyday.
I like Penn, I really do but he is a little confused here. If the theist says "I believe god exists" they would be agnostics. To say you believe something means you “don’t know”. If you know something is true you have no use for belief. The theist, atheist and agnostic have nothing to do with belief. They are based on knowledge. The knowledge from religious training, the knowledge that the religious training is false or not enough knowledge. All three are mutually exclusive.
Nope, but why would the scribblers who cobbled together the Bible mean lunar years while the Bible simply talk about "years"? Nowhere in the Bible does it say, "Oh, by the way, we're talking about lunar years." Were they, like you, trying to deceive the gullible? Please prove to me, and anyone to anyone else who reads this, that the Bible means lunar years. Please provide positive, irrefutable, rock solid proof of your claim.
According to my KJV bible, it clearly says that Methusaleh was 969 years old, Noah was 800 and Sarah, at 500 was still having babies. Nowhere does the bible say anything about lunar cycles. Life was short and nasty, with famine, disease, warfare, poor nutrition, &c ensuring that people did not get old. The average human of 2000 years ago reached a life span of 30-40 years, so Sarah's fertility is an impossibility,
Where is your PROOF? Just because a lot of people believe a lie doesn't make it a truth. Where is the irrefutable proof of your assertion? BTW, evolutionists don't have a problem with transitional species because science has overwhelming evidence of its veracity. I am not a scientist so I am uanble to further argue this point with you nor am I able to argue about the ancient Hebrews usual lunar cycles because I don't know.
Unicorns existed but you still have to find the fossils to prove it? Wow, I'm glad that you're not on a jury! Regarding your lunar/solar years, where in the Bible does it say this? It seems to me that you're making stuff up. How did Noah manage to find Australia's Giant Gippsland Earthworm which lives hidden deep underground? Or birds of prey which live only high up on rock ledges? Or unwilling animals and the utterly ferocious wolverines? Or bacteria and whales?
The word "atheist" does not answer the theological question: the proper word in this context is "anti-theist." Or, you do not believe in a *specific* kind of God.
The Bible is a compilation of stories, legends and mythology of ancients who incorporated into it all thier superstition, fears, anxiety, anger and violence. Even a cursory glance will show you that it is filled with absurdity such as a talking snake, unicorns exist, the world is flat, round, square, on posts and has windows, a 500 year old woman still having babies and an 800 year old peasant farmer, Noah, building an ocean going vessel. It's an embarrassment.
Sorry Penn, agnostic is also a stand alone position on the question of whether or not God exists. There are a lot of people who self label as "agnostic" because they understand this and don't buy into you pedantic bullshit definitions for "agnostic" and "atheist". Atheist is someone who "denies God exists", "agnostic" takes no position. If this wasn't true, you and the atheist community wouldn't be whining and crying about how badly the words are misunderstood. Fuck you.
No, the grand tale of the opalescent dogshit fairy was also written as fact. Not as an item of control and oppression that is the bible. You can't prove it wasn't, how else does dog shit not spontaneously combust? The opalescent dogshit fairy is why. Were you around when the first dog took a shit? No, you weren't. But the opalescent dogshit fairy was, and it prevented that dog from getting a nasty burn.
Religious belief is by definition illogical, get over yourself.
I know the opalescent dogshit fairy exists because I'm a believer of the opalescent dogshit fairy. See? I've just defeated the nonbelievers of the opalescent dogshit fairy's logic.
Non believers of the opalescent dogshit fairy have no argument. It is a non argument.
The opalescent dogshit fairy is our dogs fecal savior and exists. Period.
There is no argument.
See what I did there? Look past your brainwashing and try to think about that for a moment.
I like Penn, but I disagree with him here. I don't know any theists who think their god is supposed to always protect them. If anything, they admit their god WON'T always intervene, so wearing a seatbelt makes sense to them. You can still believe in a god while doing Penn's so-called "atheist" actions.
@SubconsciousGatherer Well the bible says that god will protect you no matter what (I don't remember the page its on sadly) and by not believing that he will you are disobeying him... It dosent make you an Atheist, it just put you on the bad side of the hate full, bigoted christian god.
So not being an idiot is the same as being an atheist? Believing in God does not mean ignoring the laws of physics or common sense. What a complete crap argument.
So are atheist really "anti religion" or are you so called self proclaimed atheist just anti christian? im asking because ive noticed that alot of atheist when they attack religions in public they rarely criticize or mock islam as harshly as they do christianity, i havn't yet seen a atheist publicly mock and ridicule islam, i think its because atheist are scared to, so you attack a group that probally isnt going to fight back.
@ResistIslamToday Then you haven't listened to many atheists. Islam is just as absurd and nonsensical as Christianity, which is as absurd and nonsensical as Scientology. I will defend people's right to believe in mythology if they choose, as you have the right to devoutly believe in faeries or an intelligent teapot in space, but that doesn't make it any more plausible. Allah, Jehovah, and Xenu are fabrications of the human psyche, reinforced by our standard approach to social groupings.
@mikepictor Well i don't consider myself a christian, i do have beliefs but i dont consider myself a christian, im just saying that i personally havnt seen atheist hold a public conferance and attack islam as directly as they do christianity on a regular basis at their forums,that would get way more press coverage than just attacking christianity over and over and over again.
@ResistIslamToday I'm assuming you're from the USA...? About 85% of the US' citizens are christian, so atheïst people bump into more christians because there's a much higher percentage of christianity present (compared to islam and/or other religions in the US).
@ResistIslamToday Thats because Islam isnt big in the west. When they get more followers here will smack them down as hard as we do your lot. Atheism is growing and the time of religion is over. This world is ours.
@ResistIslamToday Well its as simple as that then. Your either with the delusional thieving Christians and their Jew dog freinds who are setting you against the racially inferior Islamic nations, or your with us. Choose carefully because going against us means going inside an oven with your entire fucking family. 14:88 BLOOD AND HONOUR! CHRISTIANS ARE THE FOOTSOLDIERS OF THE JEW!
Agnosticism does not entail atheism. I can believe in something without knowing it to be true. For example, I believe that my car is parked outside my house, though I can't see it from here ergo I do not _know_ it is there.
1. There is such a thing as an agnostic christian. Just because you don't know something for sure doesn't mean you don't believe in it. I don't know if my grandmother is alive currently, but I believe it anyways.
We can't know the answers to many of our beliefs (example 'if I do good things then good things will happen to me) but believe them anyways.
@DrLight2 There are Christians who participate in church because of their family but have not come to grips with it being actually true. That's a Christian agnostic. On the other hand, you have people saying they are not true Christians. I do good things without expecting a reward. I just do good things because I want to be an example to my children and they in turn, can be examples for their children's children.
Atheism requires no faith. It is a conclusion based on the fact that there is zero evidence to support the claims made by organized religions. If that evidence were to change, I might reconsider. That is not faith, that is living in a real world. There is nothing wrong with persuing the extraordinary, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...
I ♥ Penn Jillette! He's the voice of reason, common sense, & logic in this crazy, f'ed up world of Sarah Palins, Michele Bachmanns, & Christine O'Donnells. We need more people like him to balance out all the crazy, religious nuts.
I think a lot of christians argue with atheist because deep down they doubt their own god. By arguing they are trying to reinforce their belief system. If you can get someone else to buy into the BS then you feel better that you brought the BS too. I think most are doing a form of Pascal's Wager. Sin your ass off then feel guilty and beg Jesus to forgive you and gain free pass just in case there is a hell. If there is a god I think he can spot the hypocrites
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas of the Institute for Creation Research. Thomas refutes every argument for a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed in design or useless
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Human sexuality isn't just for reproduction. There are reasons the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches, in heaven, we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Bible says we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be great spiritual joy and pleasures in heaven.
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
@afar1 Do you even have an inkling how inane it is to call an atheist a god-hater? Do you have feelings of hate towards things you don't even believe exist? If so you must have quite a bit of misplaced anger in your life...
@afar1 Atheism isn't a claim, it's a refusal to follow someone else's claims. It's a refusal to believe someone else's bullshit... namely those from organized religions.
I don't have to prove anything, the burden of proof is with the person making the claims. If you claim there is a God, it's not my job to prove it's wrong. It's your job to prove it's right. No one has yet, so good luck with that.
@Boomx2Brian Can I get a citation for that because I'm smater than you are. Or are you going to continue to fart out of your mouth the remainder of your posts.
@transtlantic I've given you the scientific evidence that your God cannot be refuted. So where is your evidence that atheism is accurate and correct? No. 18
@afar1 - for the last time, you cannot prove non-existance. That means the burden of proof lies with those who claim God exists... which to this point has NOT been proven.
You have provided ZERO evidence to back your claim. Until you do that, atheists are not obligated to care nor even consider your story until you do so. It's not our job to satisfy your crazy claims... it's your job to prove them to us cause you are the one making wild claims about supernatural beings.
@Peter24601 So where is your evidence that your religion is accurate and correct? Test time for you as well...50 attheists in a room...50 say its impossible for a God to exist and 50 say it is possible. Which 50 are correct?
@afar1 - also, atheism is not a religion... it is a refusal to follow religion. You can't call Atheism a religion because that would be like saying refusing to collect stamps is a hobby. That kind of logic is flawed and doesn't work that way.
@Peter24601 A religion doesn’t have to posit a god who must be identified or worshiped. Some religions are polytheistic (Hinduism, Mormonism), some monotheistic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), some non-theistic (Buddhism). I’d say the new atheists and their religion are “anti-theistic.” But their atheism is religious nonetheless. they have a world view, orthodoxy,apostasy, prophets (Dawkins) messiah (Darwin) and faith.
@afar1 - Atheism is not a religion because it doesn't make any claims, it simply refuses to believe the claims made by organized religions. You can try to pin it as one if it makes you feel better but that doesn't change the fact that there is ZERO evidence to support the existance of a higher being.
Atheists do not have to present evidence... we are denying a claim, not making one. That means the person making the claim (EI YOU) are required to present evidence. So where is it?
@Peter24601 A religion doesn’t have to posit a god who must be identified or worshiped. Some religions are polytheistic (Hinduism, Mormonism), some monotheistic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), some non-theistic (Buddhism). I’d say the new atheists and their religion are “anti-theistic.” But their atheism is religious nonetheless. they have a world view, orthodoxy,apostasy, prophets (Dawkins) messiah (Darwin) and faith.
@afar1 atheism is not a religion just like theism is not a religion. Even if you were using the definition of religion that means "a group of people having a particular set of beliefs and practices" atheism still doesn't fall under that category. It is not a worldview but a response to a claim; that claim being that a god exists.
@2008jazzii Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief. A better way to determine whether a worldview is a religion is to look for certain characteristics that religions have in common. The seven dimensions proposed by Smart (Anthropologists) are narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material.ATheism fits the criteria well.
@afar1 "atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of god" No it's not. It's a lack of belief like I stated before. I do not believe there is no god, but until evidence is found for the claim that there is one I will continue to disbelieve that claim. Atheism also doesn't fit Smart's seven dimensions of religion at all. Atheist do not worship, pray, or have regular gatherings (ritual), don't become emotional from their nonbelief in a god (exeriential), cont...
@afar1 Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief.Atheists make such claims so Atheism can avoid the ideological hang-ups people have about religion. It also creates a false dichotomy between science (which they claim must be naturalistic and secular) and religion.Atheists are metaphysical naturalists.
Too much Penn, not enough Carolla....FUCK PENN
Pencilnuts108 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
tigersforchrist 5 days ago
Huxley was Darwin's bulldog
Epircus 3 weeks ago
This was both funny and logical :P
gumbykase 1 month ago
most atheist are "agnostic weak atheist". which means you dont believe in god based on the evidence or lack of i guess, for a gods existence. but if someone were to present overwhelming and sufficient evidence for the existence of a god you would be willing to believing. which is almost certainly not going to happen.
kiddhitta 1 month ago
we use common sense and knowledge that God created ..you fat shit come on man
TheInfamousG23 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheInfamousG23 "we use common sense and knowledge that God created ..you fat shit come on man"
Well, slimy turd, simply saying that "God created common sense and knowledge" does not make it true. You do in fact have zero evidence for that claim, but in addition, Penn's point is that the bible clearly offers the believers magic powers in Mark 11:23 and other places. Most Christians don't trust this though, because it doesn't work. Instead they have made up excuses.
Gnomefro 1 week ago
Penn fail. Agnostic is a hypocrite
TurkiyeCumhurbaskani 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
Watch:
" youtube.com/watch?v=YZPmTH6sloo"
"youtube.com/watch?v=lutJYDxP6ys"
"youtube.com/watch?v=R9ike7PKd8U"
Regards.
TrumpetCallofGodLT 1 month ago
That was kind of a silly argument at the end. There's a point in there, but he emphasized it to a ridiculous degree, I think it kind of made atheists look narrow minded and stupid. Christians just say we have free will. Maybe narrow it down to saying why would you go to the doctor if you already prayed. But that's even stupid too because Christians don't expect God to answer all prayers.
mrpayne123 2 months ago
@mrpayne123 "But that's even stupid too because Christians don't expect God to answer all prayers."
But such people are not Christians. The bible is clear that god will answer the prayers of true believers, even to the point of moving mountains at their bidding. Mark 11:23
Gnomefro 1 week ago
I prefer athiest to agnostic because I very much deny on all accounts that anything resembling the god of christianity, islam, and judaism exists. But I very much like his point about most religious people secretly being athiests: so true and hilarious.
JadedFyre 2 months ago
I know people that believe in God, but they don't know why. They were told to do so and they don't question it. It gives them a sense of comfort and it's what they chose to do. It makes them uncomfortable to think otherwise and they don't want to hear an argument from anyone against their belief, no matter how logical the argument could be. I don't judge people on whether or not they believe in God , but most religious people more often than not will refuse someone who does not believe in God.
besicmusik 2 months ago
great picture
Dpesh7 2 months ago
I agree. Flawed argument on Penn's part.
Jaasau 2 months ago
I'm an Agnostic Atheist myself but I have to say this. God tells people to never test him so the argument about stopping at red lights can be easily argued against. If a Christian is truly devote he wouldn't make rash decisions hoping god would sort out the details.
Metalcupcakes 3 months ago
@Metalcupcakes - the bible says not to test god, it also says anything you ask for in prayer you will get.
Gordonisgreat 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Our brains are finite. We can only fill them with so much information. But the laws of logic don't lie.
Luigi84289 3 months ago
Gee, let's see. Ayn Rand vs Jesus Christ: An intelligent, solidly consistent women with a totally logical philosophy or a "a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree".... Hmmm... Give me a moment to ponder this...
megarob59 4 months ago
That is not my understanding. Agnosticism is knowledge claim: Can we know that "x" is knowable? If yes, then gnostic, else, agnostic. If someone said "I believe (at least one) god exists" is a true statement, then theist. If someone said "I believe that no gods exist" is a true statement, then atheist. If someone does not affirm either statement as true, guess what? They are also an atheist.
Voidsworn 4 months ago
So sad that even after so much persecution based on differences people still think it's ok to persecute atheists. Atheism is just open-mindedness and common sense. Live and let live.
Ozzyman200 4 months ago
He is right that agnoticism is not believing that there is a God. But Atheism is the belief that there is no God. So they are clearly different. I don't see the point he is trying to make....
savageravageunicorn 4 months ago
Nsavageravageunicorn No, atheism is not a "belief". It is the refusal to accept as true a claim that has no evidence.
Atheism has othing to do whatsoever with belief.
MisterDataJack 4 months ago
@MisterDataJack Agnoticism is the absense of a belief in whether there is a God or that no God exists, therefore staying in the state of doubt. Atheism asserts that there is no God leaving the state of doubt and into the fixation of belief.
savageravageunicorn 4 months ago
@savageravageunicorn did you listen to the video? agnosticism deals with *knowledge* of god's existence.
lehman 4 months ago
@lehman ok fine. how does that get us to the conclusion that agnostics are atheists?
savageravageunicorn 4 months ago
@savageravageunicorn There I don't agree with Penn. Most of us don't feel that's the case as someone could believe in a god existing, but have no actual knowledge of it (aka faith).
Most agree that agnosticism can be applied to both theism and atheism.
lehman 4 months ago
@lehman Yeah. i think one could make the case that atheism and theism try to go outside of the bounds of knowledge and agnoticism trys to uphold those boundaries.
savageravageunicorn 4 months ago
@lehman If you have no knowledge of your god...then how are you talking about your belief in a god? It would be the epitome of abstract thought if you said that you had no knowledge of your gods attributes despite your knowledge of his/her/it's existence but to say that you have a belief in a god that you have no knowledge of...is plain contradiction. Agnosticism is a dissociation from acceptance of your "PERSONAL" lack of constitution to admit your lack of "KNOWLEDGE" of any deities.
Mikedogg13666 4 months ago
@Mikedogg13666 It's not really a contradiction. Most of the world seem to do fine at believing in a god that they don't know for sure if it exists.
lehman 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lehman Most of the world consists of infants who can't accept death. There may be something far superior than anything in any of the religions when we die. But the religious can't think for themselves. All they know is oppression and slavery.
Luigi84289 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mikedogg13666 You also cannot love something you have no knowledge of. That is a giant delusion.
Luigi84289 3 months ago
oh my god lol this is so funny :D
Logixmaster 4 months ago
Mogley52, shut the fuck up.
ozsasin 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 4 months ago
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 4 months ago
@Mogley52 One, why do you think atheists believe that the universe is eternal ? I've never met an atheists that said that. You are also substituting the SUPERNATURAL with the UNKNOWN ."We don't know how the universe was formed so there has to be a supernatural." That is a edict out of the Bronze age that so far has shown proof. Pedal your creation hack science some where else please.
flubno 4 months ago
@Mogley52 Einstein did not confirm that. Just because you don't know, doesn't make it supernatural. What makes you think there was nothing before the universe? Supernatural can't be proven because it doesn't exist -- that's why it's "supernatural". How the universe began, the earth was formed and how humans got here -- all have literally nothing to do with Atheism. Get the fuck out, read a book and free yourself you impossibly dim tosser.
Llynok 4 months ago
YMogley52 Your inability to understand "natural laws" does not in any way support the existence of supernatural entities.
MisterDataJack 4 months ago
@Mogley52 When you make statements like "science points to a supernatural intelligence..." you should provide evidence of your claims. Simply saying things does not make them true.
halonone 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe works don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or a cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
@Mogley52 Actually the odds are 100%, since it happened. Your argument is based in a misrepresentation of statistical method for use in an epistemological argument.
HighPriestofLemuria 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 4 months ago
@Mogley52 You dont' have any new information, just a spinning of old information to fit your claims. That isn't scientific at all, it is being evasive and untruthful. If it were science it would have become fact by now
ilikelazers 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
What utter Bullshit. If we obey stop signs were Atheists, because we dont trust God to save us?? When Satan told Jesus to throw himself off the mountain so the Angels could save him, Jesus said do not test the Lord. Jillette thinks he knows all things, so it seems he thinks he is a God himself.
Neodoxian 4 months ago
@UnbiasedIntellectual Dude, not even the Hebrews actually follow their moon-based calender. They only use it for religious ceremonies, that's it!
fsffsa5325324 4 months ago
Theists are funny. They've been lied to all their lives, and find comfort in those lies. Often when presented with evidence that their God couldn't exist in this universe, they panic. Agnostics are like the French in wartime, as they straddle the fence then surrender when pulled into a debate on the existence (or lack there of) of a God/gods. But all told, even as an atheist, I know that there are things we can't simply explain away with science, yet. Studies disprove studies everyday.
anozymous1 4 months ago
I like Penn, I really do but he is a little confused here. If the theist says "I believe god exists" they would be agnostics. To say you believe something means you “don’t know”. If you know something is true you have no use for belief. The theist, atheist and agnostic have nothing to do with belief. They are based on knowledge. The knowledge from religious training, the knowledge that the religious training is false or not enough knowledge. All three are mutually exclusive.
residentatheist 5 months ago
Jillette FTW!
MauroNoMeOlvides 5 months ago
You, MOTHERFUCKER, are an Atheist! lol
boxingaddict25 5 months ago
"you mother fucker are an atheist" cracks me up.
RossT551 5 months ago
Go to wordoffakes or MrBiblefacts
MrBiblefacts 5 months ago
@UnbiasedIntellectual
Nope, but why would the scribblers who cobbled together the Bible mean lunar years while the Bible simply talk about "years"? Nowhere in the Bible does it say, "Oh, by the way, we're talking about lunar years." Were they, like you, trying to deceive the gullible? Please prove to me, and anyone to anyone else who reads this, that the Bible means lunar years. Please provide positive, irrefutable, rock solid proof of your claim.
brokenscimitar 5 months ago
@UnbiasedIntellectual
According to my KJV bible, it clearly says that Methusaleh was 969 years old, Noah was 800 and Sarah, at 500 was still having babies. Nowhere does the bible say anything about lunar cycles. Life was short and nasty, with famine, disease, warfare, poor nutrition, &c ensuring that people did not get old. The average human of 2000 years ago reached a life span of 30-40 years, so Sarah's fertility is an impossibility,
brokenscimitar 5 months ago
@UnbiasedIntellectual
Where is your PROOF? Just because a lot of people believe a lie doesn't make it a truth. Where is the irrefutable proof of your assertion? BTW, evolutionists don't have a problem with transitional species because science has overwhelming evidence of its veracity. I am not a scientist so I am uanble to further argue this point with you nor am I able to argue about the ancient Hebrews usual lunar cycles because I don't know.
brokenscimitar 5 months ago
Love this :)
angelofdarkness07 5 months ago
@UnbiasedIntellectual
Unicorns existed but you still have to find the fossils to prove it? Wow, I'm glad that you're not on a jury! Regarding your lunar/solar years, where in the Bible does it say this? It seems to me that you're making stuff up. How did Noah manage to find Australia's Giant Gippsland Earthworm which lives hidden deep underground? Or birds of prey which live only high up on rock ledges? Or unwilling animals and the utterly ferocious wolverines? Or bacteria and whales?
brokenscimitar 5 months ago
The word "atheist" does not answer the theological question: the proper word in this context is "anti-theist." Or, you do not believe in a *specific* kind of God.
SatanicFilmHouse 5 months ago
@UnbiasedIntellectual
The Bible is a compilation of stories, legends and mythology of ancients who incorporated into it all thier superstition, fears, anxiety, anger and violence. Even a cursory glance will show you that it is filled with absurdity such as a talking snake, unicorns exist, the world is flat, round, square, on posts and has windows, a 500 year old woman still having babies and an 800 year old peasant farmer, Noah, building an ocean going vessel. It's an embarrassment.
brokenscimitar 5 months ago
Sorry Penn, agnostic is also a stand alone position on the question of whether or not God exists. There are a lot of people who self label as "agnostic" because they understand this and don't buy into you pedantic bullshit definitions for "agnostic" and "atheist". Atheist is someone who "denies God exists", "agnostic" takes no position. If this wasn't true, you and the atheist community wouldn't be whining and crying about how badly the words are misunderstood. Fuck you.
owheydusoapsk 5 months ago
No, the grand tale of the opalescent dogshit fairy was also written as fact. Not as an item of control and oppression that is the bible. You can't prove it wasn't, how else does dog shit not spontaneously combust? The opalescent dogshit fairy is why. Were you around when the first dog took a shit? No, you weren't. But the opalescent dogshit fairy was, and it prevented that dog from getting a nasty burn.
Religious belief is by definition illogical, get over yourself.
iwasapenny 5 months ago 6
@UnbiasedIntellectual
I know the opalescent dogshit fairy exists because I'm a believer of the opalescent dogshit fairy. See? I've just defeated the nonbelievers of the opalescent dogshit fairy's logic.
Non believers of the opalescent dogshit fairy have no argument. It is a non argument.
The opalescent dogshit fairy is our dogs fecal savior and exists. Period.
There is no argument.
See what I did there? Look past your brainwashing and try to think about that for a moment.
iwasapenny 5 months ago 3
@UnbiasedIntellectual
"Unicorns exist because I really, really want them to. PERIOD."
See how batshit crazy your claims are, wingnut?
StaceyC123 5 months ago 23
Theist/Atheist deals with whether you believe in god(s). Gnostic/Agnostic deals with what you know (or claim to know).
A GNOSTIC THEIST believes in god(s) and claims to know for sure.
An AGNOSTIC THEIST believes in god(s) but does not claim to know for sure.
A GNOSTIC ATHEIST does not believe in god(s) and claims to know for sure.
An AGNOSTIC ATHEIST does not believe in god(s) and does not claim to know for sure.
I hope this helps.
Savipalooza 5 months ago 2
@Savipalooza
JEW
TheMrgoku1985 5 months ago
@TheMrgoku1985
wat?
Savipalooza 5 months ago
@Savipalooza <-jew
TheMrgoku1985 5 months ago
@TheMrgoku1985
I'm an agnostic atheist, not a Jew. What message are you trying to convey by calling me a Jew?
Savipalooza 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Savipalooza
Because you are one.
TheMrgoku1985 5 months ago
Penn's rant at the end was amazing.
Phoboskomboa 5 months ago 2
The Big Bang occurred when God exploded.
brokenscimitar 5 months ago 22
@brokenscimitar Sexually?
afroschlan 5 months ago
@brokenscimitar
I thought the big bang was caused by a blast of wind from Howard Stern's asshole.
Savipalooza 5 months ago
@brokenscimitar and a christian would say let there be light ...BANG!! there was light big bang
stompySharpNpointy 5 months ago
Long after he is dead people are going to call this man a hero for speaking out and spreading logic during the early times of this movement!
pastexit 5 months ago
"YOU MOTHA FUKA ARE AN ATHEIST!" I just loled in my pants.
SturFriedBrains 5 months ago 2
If you've ever stopped at a red light, you were being polite and taking turns.
axelasdf 5 months ago
"if you have ever stopped at a red light, you are an athiest" Lol, win
Moppy1988 5 months ago
Why couldn't there be a laissez-faire god, Penn?
messakg123 5 months ago
I like Penn, but I disagree with him here. I don't know any theists who think their god is supposed to always protect them. If anything, they admit their god WON'T always intervene, so wearing a seatbelt makes sense to them. You can still believe in a god while doing Penn's so-called "atheist" actions.
SubconsciousGatherer 5 months ago
@SubconsciousGatherer Well the bible says that god will protect you no matter what (I don't remember the page its on sadly) and by not believing that he will you are disobeying him... It dosent make you an Atheist, it just put you on the bad side of the hate full, bigoted christian god.
SturFriedBrains 5 months ago
So not being an idiot is the same as being an atheist? Believing in God does not mean ignoring the laws of physics or common sense. What a complete crap argument.
TruthWatch 5 months ago
the last bit of this rant makes absolutely no sense. it's not sacrilegious to obey just laws that promote the common good. it's just smart.
chrisisuber 5 months ago
So are atheist really "anti religion" or are you so called self proclaimed atheist just anti christian? im asking because ive noticed that alot of atheist when they attack religions in public they rarely criticize or mock islam as harshly as they do christianity, i havn't yet seen a atheist publicly mock and ridicule islam, i think its because atheist are scared to, so you attack a group that probally isnt going to fight back.
ResistIslamToday 5 months ago
@ResistIslamToday Then you haven't listened to many atheists. Islam is just as absurd and nonsensical as Christianity, which is as absurd and nonsensical as Scientology. I will defend people's right to believe in mythology if they choose, as you have the right to devoutly believe in faeries or an intelligent teapot in space, but that doesn't make it any more plausible. Allah, Jehovah, and Xenu are fabrications of the human psyche, reinforced by our standard approach to social groupings.
mikepictor 5 months ago
@mikepictor Well i don't consider myself a christian, i do have beliefs but i dont consider myself a christian, im just saying that i personally havnt seen atheist hold a public conferance and attack islam as directly as they do christianity on a regular basis at their forums,that would get way more press coverage than just attacking christianity over and over and over again.
ResistIslamToday 5 months ago
@ResistIslamToday I'm assuming you're from the USA...? About 85% of the US' citizens are christian, so atheïst people bump into more christians because there's a much higher percentage of christianity present (compared to islam and/or other religions in the US).
PinkPsych00 5 months ago
@PinkPsych00 well you are right there are alot of christians here probally more like 50% though
ResistIslamToday 5 months ago
@ResistIslamToday Thats because Islam isnt big in the west. When they get more followers here will smack them down as hard as we do your lot. Atheism is growing and the time of religion is over. This world is ours.
grimblebrumble17889 5 months ago
@grimblebrumble17889 well im not a christian, but i do support them as much as i can
ResistIslamToday 5 months ago
@ResistIslamToday Well its as simple as that then. Your either with the delusional thieving Christians and their Jew dog freinds who are setting you against the racially inferior Islamic nations, or your with us. Choose carefully because going against us means going inside an oven with your entire fucking family. 14:88 BLOOD AND HONOUR! CHRISTIANS ARE THE FOOTSOLDIERS OF THE JEW!
grimblebrumble17889 5 months ago
What a great ending! Haha love it
thinkboutit 5 months ago
Agnosticism does not entail atheism. I can believe in something without knowing it to be true. For example, I believe that my car is parked outside my house, though I can't see it from here ergo I do not _know_ it is there.
jaxolodilnik 5 months ago
loved 2:50 till the end lol true
3TREY87 5 months ago
Funny guy, but some minor complaints.
1. There is such a thing as an agnostic christian. Just because you don't know something for sure doesn't mean you don't believe in it. I don't know if my grandmother is alive currently, but I believe it anyways.
We can't know the answers to many of our beliefs (example 'if I do good things then good things will happen to me) but believe them anyways.
DrLight2 6 months ago
@DrLight2 There are Christians who participate in church because of their family but have not come to grips with it being actually true. That's a Christian agnostic. On the other hand, you have people saying they are not true Christians. I do good things without expecting a reward. I just do good things because I want to be an example to my children and they in turn, can be examples for their children's children.
truvelocity 6 months ago
Thanks for the vid and the educational info for those still confused bout the whole atheist/agnostic question lol
ViperRob42 6 months ago
Atheism requires no faith. It is a conclusion based on the fact that there is zero evidence to support the claims made by organized religions. If that evidence were to change, I might reconsider. That is not faith, that is living in a real world. There is nothing wrong with persuing the extraordinary, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...
Peter24601 6 months ago
I ♥ Penn Jillette! He's the voice of reason, common sense, & logic in this crazy, f'ed up world of Sarah Palins, Michele Bachmanns, & Christine O'Donnells. We need more people like him to balance out all the crazy, religious nuts.
BrianJayDesign 6 months ago
Hey guys I'm about to create a religion devoted to Santa. Who's comin along. We already have many books on our god found at your local library
achung2526 6 months ago
@achung2526
Fuck Santa, i'm making a religion dedicated to Penn Jilette
imr22 6 months ago
this seems a lot more logical than what Christians advocates say.
"Who creates the air you're breathing? Who created the food you're eating?"
Like are you fcking serious? Shits gone overboard.
achung2526 6 months ago
I think a lot of christians argue with atheist because deep down they doubt their own god. By arguing they are trying to reinforce their belief system. If you can get someone else to buy into the BS then you feel better that you brought the BS too. I think most are doing a form of Pascal's Wager. Sin your ass off then feel guilty and beg Jesus to forgive you and gain free pass just in case there is a hell. If there is a god I think he can spot the hypocrites
Xatasha6611 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas of the Institute for Creation Research. Thomas refutes every argument for a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed in design or useless
Mogley52 6 months ago
Comment removed
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Human sexuality isn't just for reproduction. There are reasons the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches, in heaven, we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Bible says we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be great spiritual joy and pleasures in heaven.
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
@Mogley52
It's called zoology.
axelasdf 5 months ago
Comment removed
Mogley52 6 months ago
Comment removed
Mogley52 6 months ago
Comment removed
Mogley52 6 months ago
Atheists have the highest rate of suicide accoring to studies conducted by the American Psychiatric Association. That makes atheism a mental disease.
afar1 6 months ago
@afar1 shut up and let the atheists live peace
JaideepSB 6 months ago
@JaideepSB Hey fundie do you post that chickenscratch all over religious forums like your fellow God-Haters?
afar1 6 months ago
@afar1 Do you even have an inkling how inane it is to call an atheist a god-hater? Do you have feelings of hate towards things you don't even believe exist? If so you must have quite a bit of misplaced anger in your life...
Tangent360 6 months ago
@Tangent360 Practical atheists are as rare as bigfoot and not to be found trolling in Youtube. You are a God-Hater. Class dismissed.
afar1 6 months ago
@afar1 Kind of hard to hate something that doesn't exist.
It's like saying I hate Santa Claus. Doesn't matter because there is no one's feelings to hurt. The fat fucker doesn't exist!
Ditto for God.
Peter24601 6 months ago
@Peter24601 LMAO!!! You fundies sure do have santa syndrome. Wheres your evidence that atheism is accurate and correct then.
afar1 6 months ago
@afar1 Atheism isn't a claim, it's a refusal to follow someone else's claims. It's a refusal to believe someone else's bullshit... namely those from organized religions.
I don't have to prove anything, the burden of proof is with the person making the claims. If you claim there is a God, it's not my job to prove it's wrong. It's your job to prove it's right. No one has yet, so good luck with that.
Peter24601 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@afar1 So wheres your evidence that atheism is accurate and correct then.
afar1 6 months ago
@afar1 Theists have lower IQs than atheists. That makes religion a form of retardation.
Boomx2Brian 6 months ago
@Boomx2Brian Can I get a citation for that because I'm smater than you are. Or are you going to continue to fart out of your mouth the remainder of your posts.
afar1 6 months ago
@afar1
"because i'm smater than you are"... lol..."smater"... HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
hey, you retard: where's the evidence for your god? inside a unicorn's arse? LOLOLOL
transtlantic 6 months ago
@transtlantic Man you fundies sure do have santa/unicorn/teapot syndrome.
So wherees the evidence that atheism is a religion of accuracy and correctness or are you still going to fart out of your mouth all day?
afar1 6 months ago
@afar1
Where's the evidence for gods?
why would i believe in what doesn't have evidence for?
don't tell me... you think homeoquackery works, right? no evidence needed!? LOLOL
theists only have faith (trust in what doesn't have evidence for).... LOLOLOL
transtlantic 6 months ago
@transtlantic But where is your evidence that athsism is accurate and correct.Ive asked you7 times thus far.
afar1 6 months ago
@afar1
no evidence for gods, therefore atheism is 100% accurate and correct. 7th time you failed to prove me wrong.
transtlantic 6 months ago 2
@transtlantic Here it is again--Teleology, mathematics, Biology, Cosmology, mathematics, and probability.
I am still not seeing your evidence that atheism is accurate and correct.Cmon,,,, youre an evolutionist so I know you can fake it. :-)
afar1 6 months ago
@afar1
Teloelogy is a philosophical position. Much like Satanism.
Biology? shows no evidence for god.
Cosmology shows no observation of a god. every single observation with no evidence for a god.
Probability (mathematics) show that God is as likely as Thor or Flying magical pigs. LOL
you have no evidence. you are JUST full of shit.
"Biology"...lolol... where's the evidence for god? inside a unicorns arse? LOL
transtlantic 6 months ago
@transtlantic I've given you the scientific evidence that your God cannot be refuted. So where is your evidence that atheism is accurate and correct? No. 18
afar1 6 months ago
@afar1 - for the last time, you cannot prove non-existance. That means the burden of proof lies with those who claim God exists... which to this point has NOT been proven.
You have provided ZERO evidence to back your claim. Until you do that, atheists are not obligated to care nor even consider your story until you do so. It's not our job to satisfy your crazy claims... it's your job to prove them to us cause you are the one making wild claims about supernatural beings.
Peter24601 6 months ago
@Peter24601 So where is your evidence that your religion is accurate and correct? Test time for you as well...50 attheists in a room...50 say its impossible for a God to exist and 50 say it is possible. Which 50 are correct?
afar1 6 months ago
@afar1 all of them... lol
EreinionGilgalad 6 months ago
@EreinionGilgalad It's like taking candy from a baby :=)
afar1 6 months ago
@EreinionGilgalad So what is your answer, which 50 would be correct out of the one-hundred.
afar1 6 months ago
@afar1 - If 50 say God is impossible and another 50 say it is possible... wouldn't that be 100 atheists?
Skipped school the day they taught addition?
Peter24601 6 months ago
@afar1 - also, atheism is not a religion... it is a refusal to follow religion. You can't call Atheism a religion because that would be like saying refusing to collect stamps is a hobby. That kind of logic is flawed and doesn't work that way.
Peter24601 6 months ago
@Peter24601 A religion doesn’t have to posit a god who must be identified or worshiped. Some religions are polytheistic (Hinduism, Mormonism), some monotheistic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), some non-theistic (Buddhism). I’d say the new atheists and their religion are “anti-theistic.” But their atheism is religious nonetheless. they have a world view, orthodoxy,apostasy, prophets (Dawkins) messiah (Darwin) and faith.
afar1 6 months ago
@afar1 - Atheism is not a religion because it doesn't make any claims, it simply refuses to believe the claims made by organized religions. You can try to pin it as one if it makes you feel better but that doesn't change the fact that there is ZERO evidence to support the existance of a higher being.
Atheists do not have to present evidence... we are denying a claim, not making one. That means the person making the claim (EI YOU) are required to present evidence. So where is it?
Peter24601 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Peter24601 A religion doesn’t have to posit a god who must be identified or worshiped. Some religions are polytheistic (Hinduism, Mormonism), some monotheistic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), some non-theistic (Buddhism). I’d say the new atheists and their religion are “anti-theistic.” But their atheism is religious nonetheless. they have a world view, orthodoxy,apostasy, prophets (Dawkins) messiah (Darwin) and faith.
afar1 6 months ago
@afar1 atheism is not a religion just like theism is not a religion. Even if you were using the definition of religion that means "a group of people having a particular set of beliefs and practices" atheism still doesn't fall under that category. It is not a worldview but a response to a claim; that claim being that a god exists.
2008jazzii 6 months ago
@2008jazzii Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief. A better way to determine whether a worldview is a religion is to look for certain characteristics that religions have in common. The seven dimensions proposed by Smart (Anthropologists) are narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material.ATheism fits the criteria well.
afar1 6 months ago
@afar1 "atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of god" No it's not. It's a lack of belief like I stated before. I do not believe there is no god, but until evidence is found for the claim that there is one I will continue to disbelieve that claim. Atheism also doesn't fit Smart's seven dimensions of religion at all. Atheist do not worship, pray, or have regular gatherings (ritual), don't become emotional from their nonbelief in a god (exeriential), cont...
2008jazzii 6 months ago
@afar1 Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief.Atheists make such claims so Atheism can avoid the ideological hang-ups people have about religion. It also creates a false dichotomy between science (which they claim must be naturalistic and secular) and religion.Atheists are metaphysical naturalists.
afar1 6 months ago