I wouldn't mined a discussion over creationism in my science class but I do have a probablem with it being taught as a science in public science class. (I don't care if some one teaches it in a privet schools or colleges) Science is a way of expaining something using facts, evidence and observations. And the fact is that an overwhelming amount of evidence is in the support of evolution.
Both theists and atheists have been guilty of great evil when they became powerholders so the democidal atrocities of history were not caused by religious ideologies nor the absence of such (atheism) but had more to do with the megalomania of social powerholders. I suspect that the more militant theists and atheists of today have similar aspirations to power. These aspirations to power is the corrupting force of such individuals.
@dbwheeldon To say that both are guilty does not negate the responsibility at least one side has to God's commands. If you are positing a world of objective moral absolutes then what are your examples of death and privation promulgated by a theistic worldview in the last century? If one has megalomania in an amoral godless construct then one is free to do all things. Atheism is at root amoral and not immoral under a godless pitiless universe. What morals are you using to make your judgments?
@rusty2029 how have you arrived at the conclusion that atheists are amoral? 'God' is not the only nor the most rational basis for ethical theory. "godless" does not=amoral. My argument clearly identified the lust for power as the chief cause of the aforementioned evils. It appears that you attempted to raise distractions by the addition of irrelevant info. such as the hypothetical 'commands of god'. My argument was clear, you hoped to dispose of it by tossing some red herrings at it.
@dbwheeldon I did not say that atheists are amoral. I am saying that atheism is an amoral worldview. These are not distractions but critical to the issue. Atheists have a God given moral compass and that has not been negated by any ethical theory that I am aware of. Objective moral absolutes mean an origin that is outside of this universe or any attempt by naturalism/materialism. Lust for Power is a sinful activity under Christian teaching. Are you morally accountable beyond death?
@rusty2029 atheism in and of itself, does not promulgate a prescribed ethical theory of it's own; as any atheist can be a hedonist or an ascetic and still be an atheist in either case. The 'moral compass' you reference is not some mystical inner guide of some kind but points to the moral values one holds and the moral choices based on those values. "objective moral absolutes"=an origin outside the universe? Your thoughts are too incoherent and vague for a productive debate. Best wishes Rusty.
Respond to this video... Calling atheism a religion would entitle atheists to certain legal rights that we do not currently enjoy. Atheism does not fall under the legal guidelines to be considered a religion, and become a 501 C3 church, but some of us atheist want to be a legal religion, so we can get tax breaks. We hope that you can convince your legislators to except us as a religion. I will archive your proof that we are a religion, so it can help our cause.
@steelbrushtattoo You need to check infidels dot org and the Richard Dawkins foundation as well as other atheist 501 c3's
Not all atheists are evangelical or very dogmatic about their world view yet I see the most religious and evangelical atheists here on youtube.
Remember that the guilty dog barks the loudest so thus the most religious of atheists are going to attack you and say it is NOT a religion,. While the more non-religious atheists do not bother to respond.
Evolution is not a problem with atheist, we don't care where or how it all started. Your god killed everyone on the earth so the bible says. I would love to eliminate all Christians, and all their bibles. Shooting all religious people would be fine, where do I sign up.
@steelbrushtattoo You can sign up with the Liberal Elites and get a copy of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicles Opening page - Dedication
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.” --see you have good company in your slaugter
And for all the Christians with low IQ's out there who think that atheism is a religion, pick up a dictionary. Read the definition of what a religion is, and you will see that your make believe idea is wrong. I understand your argument, but it does not hold water. So, if you think atheism is a religion you have not been to college.
@steelbrushtattoo "The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion." You don't need a law degree to know that one of the dogmas and creeds of the religious atheist is to profess that it is not a religion.
watch?v=V_f_iCLVEwg
But it must also be a religious reaction of some atheists to insult others intelligence.
@rusty2029 It doesn't insult me as an atheist if you call me a religious. I don't believe in Santa, does that make me religious. You look and sound like a hillbilly, and I really don't like chatting to dumb hillbillies.
Atheist really don't care how the world was created, and I don't care where my computer was made, but it works. We are fighting two religious wars right now. I believe Theism should be wiped out, for the good of humanity. Wonder if Christians wanted to bring back slavery, think about that...
@steelbrushtattoo Given that you don't care much about things such as origins you should not care about Christians who have as a principle commandment to love you as we love God. It would seem to me that atheism is proving harmful if you should have such a demonstrably fallacious view of Christianity. This is why it is prophesied that Christians will suffer death and privation for there love of the true God and Creator of the complexity you enjoy all around you.
@rusty2029 Atheist and Christians have abused people, but the bible is a guide book on slavery, rape, murder, animal sacrifice etc. There is nothing that I took out of context. Read what the bible says about midgets(small people)and people who cut hair. People will have to rid the world of religion, but I don't see that happening. Religious people love war, we are fighting two wars now in the name of Allah and Jesus. Religious people are not going to stop until they to kill us all.
@steelbrushtattoo The Bible is a guide book on relationships and how God wants a relationship with His creation. Please read the entire bible and tell me where there is any warrant to murder. I don't love war and I presume you don't either. But war happens when relationships break down. I believe in relationships first before religion. But we could study the bible together and I will show you where it is all about relationships and how God is infinite in His grace.
@rusty2029 I don't want a relationship with a make believe god that killed millions of people. If you were a Jew in the old testament, you could own another Jew for seven years, then you could let them go. If you were a Jew, you could own a gentile, and hand him down from generation to generation. A Jew could kill a gentile as long as he didn't die on the first day, but if the gentile died on the second or third day it was OK because they were property. I hate your god, and his values.
@steelbrushtattoo You must not have studied the Bible for you are again repeating a common dogma of some atheists. I understand you are invested in your court protected belief system that is your religious liberty after all. But are you free enough to seek truth or do you want to keep close minded blinders on?
Oh... and anymore personal insults and you will be banned consider this your first and final notice.
@rusty2029 I've studied slavery, in the bible. I know that you believe in slavery was good in the bible. I don't mind insulting people who believe that toucher, rape, and slavery are good. Remember you are the one who would of owed slaves, and I would have not. So, when it comes down to morals, I'm way ahead of you, and your fake god. Just because I don't believe in Santa Clause doesn't make the non belief in Santa a religion.
@steelbrushtattoo I submit that you have not studied enough, not to mention the history of the abolitionist movement (a Christian movement) Show me NEW Testament chapter and verse where you get your information from. We get our individual rights to liberty from the founding fathers belief in a sovereign God so I would say that your strawman about belief or warrant for torture and rape are not founded in the common understanding of Christian ethics. I don't know where you get your ideas from??
@rusty2029 However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
@steelbrushtattoo You do know that I am a Christian?? If you want to understand the bible fully you MUST understand context and that it is to be understood in it's totality.
Cherry picking from the old testament is a common enough tactic of the religious anti-theist.
Respond to this video... When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
@steelbrushtattoo And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him. (Ephesians 6:9)
We are to love others and in context this is Paul's words to those who still had servants so as to treat then as you would want to be treated.
Respond to this video... Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
Respond to this video... The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)
@steelbrushtattoo Do you work at a job? Do you have duties to perform and policy to follow? You could understand this verse well enough if you did not have your heart hardened against God.
Respond to this video... 4) Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
@steelbrushtattoo And yet you think to give bible verses that do not make your case, are not being used in proper context and understanding, while the greatest commandment of all is LOVE. I have tired of your trolling so you are banned and have deleted some of the posts as you are not open to a reasonable or rational dialog. I pray that you find healing for your troubled soul and that the love of God soften your heart of stone so that you find the peace that passes understanding.
"The book is not closed on evolution"? No, but it is pretty full and extremely well written. Once again, there is a complete lack of understanding here of what science even is. The theory of evolution is not perfect and questions still exist, however evolution itself is an observed and observable FACT! Get over it and stop believing in fairy tales. I had an imaginary friend too I just outgrew him.
@MrMZaccone I understand that you must defend your religion of evolution even if ID and others efforts have falsified it. If you trust and have faith in the strawman of imaginary friends then you close off your thinking and can't properly acknowledge how we come to have knowledge of things yet we all have more learning to do and more can be revealed. You are not a free thinker if you close yourself into the box of scientisim and materialism/naturalism. Think of the metaphysical claims you make
@rusty2029 Evolution is not a religion and unlike a religious belief is based on evidence. ANY resort to non-material explanations is BY FAR more closed minded than a material or natural viewpoint. This is demonstrable. As far as I know I've made ZERO metaphysical claims. Perhaps you'd like to demonstrate otherwise without the use of run-on sentences this time.
@MrMZaccone Evolution is a religion as it is how the atheist can think they have any ground to stand on. Prove materialism? How do you explain things like the universe coming from nothing? And we certainly know that this universe had a beginning so you can't get out of having to make some metaphysical claims. It is the Atheists who are the MOST closed minded when they put their faith in the free lunch that represents a mindless determinism causing the material world from nothing.
@rusty2029 Evolution is both an extremely well grounded and very complete theory and an observed and observable fact. The ground the atheist stands on is the default position in the argument. You claim your imaginary friend runs the universe? Show me evidence. Can't? ... Oops! The supernatural (god) viewpoint is inherently MORE closed-minded as it necessitates the cessation of inquiry. Something from nothing? Explain your god, because that's what you contend for him. Occam's Razor, Duh!
What's being referred to here is Lysenkoism. This was the perversion of science for the purposes of supporting the dogmatic notions of the government. Dogmatism of course is the problem here not atheism. The deaths under Stalin, Mao, etc. had nothing to do with atheism but were rather the result of dogmatic belief just as those under religious rule. Faith based religions are of course INHERENTLY dogmatic and it is here that the argument fails miserably.
@MrMZaccone The dogmatism I am talking about is materialism/naturalism it's not important what flavor the godless religion of evolution takes. Communism simply demanded a belief that there is no God so it could impose its methodology upon the masses. When you can present a material proof for your atheism that is backed up by what you feel is evidence then show me. Otherwise atheism is a closed minded focus on how they need no evidence for their view .
@rusty2029 As opposed to a material proof of your god? Don't make me laugh. My position is that there is no evidence for god. Until there is, discussing his likelihood is a waste of time. There is also no evidence for the efficacy of communism. Same problem. Once again your belief in "god" is more closed minded because it necessitates the cessation of inquiry. I'll gladly discuss god as long as we don't talk about evidence, because there isn't any.
but if u somehow want others to believe what u believe which to me is a private matter, then atleast know what u are talking about. a scientific theory is not just a theory or random explanation, hundred years of testing is not allways enough and scientist are still eagerly trying to refute both big bang and evolution theory, and these guys are not christians, just scientists .
@gix500 I agree that there are worldviews in collision and yet I respect those who defend their worldview and understand that all sides that are rational have what they consider to be clues and evidence for their respective sides. One side can try to plead the other has no evidence or that their side presents the stronger case but BOTH need to have a burden to prove if what ever side is to be considered rational.
@rusty2029 "Consider to be clues and evidence" ... Like what? Saying the universe was once contained in a single virtual point source is supportable by evidence. Saying your imaginary friend did it is fantastical bullshit and a clear violation of parsimony. Elimination of superstition is a prerequisite for learning more. Get over it.
nah i dont have to prove atheism since i dont deny gods existence, i actually have a "door open" for a creator, but not the ones described in holy books by men, i think its pretty obvious that these stories have been created by not allknowing men and is not the words of gods.
why would i waste my time trying to prove something to u that nobody can prove or disprove, do u think i can fly outside the universe to another dimension and take pictures.and u dont have to prove ur own belief its private
@gix500 Given that my beliefs are about the salvation of everybody and eternal life with a Father who loves us I would say that if that is private then it would be a great evil to keep it private considering the eternal consequences. Given that the Bible is the inspired word of God and part of a wealth of evidence for God's interactions with His creation I also feel that you are using a method to judge that is counter to how the Bible survives an amazing amount of attack yet is not refuted
@rusty2029 Look, I could totally dismiss your views and scoff. And you can scoff at me and make all sorts of attacks on evolution. But what's the point of trying to do discourse and convince other people if you aren't willing to entertain their ideas. I'm more than willing to look at thoughtful arguments against evolution so long as there is a respect to at least understand what evolution says and why people find it convincing. If you think it's a conspiracy or we just want it to be true, sorry.
@RuinSonic Granted you could... I think natural selection is self evident and there are other aspects that I may not object to other then in how these complexities and interdependent systems are to come together as if chaos is the magic. ID is not about any specified God but for some specified complex things there needs to have been an intelligent cause but that does not end the search there, as more study could always find an unguided mechanism. Total emergent mechanisms are unlikely.
@rusty2029 Why you so caught up with God being the ultimate tinkerer or designer? Obviously you were born by your parents and your physical body came about by natural processes in the womb. Why come back and say everything designed must have directly been created verses indirectly? Also, how does your inability to imagine how evolution could happen make it unlikely or how does that tell us that common descent is false?
@rusty2029 I don't believe in the father, and if there is one, then he would be the god of carnage. Let's look at the death tole. It is said he wiped out the earth, then he killed millions of people. He should be considered a mass murderer on a scale that can't even measured, but he loves you. Not only does he kill, but he burns people in hell for trillions and trillions of years. If that is the bad side of your god, then he can fuck himself. Oh, FUCK THE HOLY SPIRIT too.
im from an allmost completely atheistic and agnostic country called denmark, about 80-90% dont believe in a religion, churches are empty here, our government is right wing but not religous, we have freedom of speech even if its about religious figures and we make a big deal out of it. one of the lowest murder rates in the world, peaceful country, no opression. u live in the past my friends, get those old pictures out and get some new into ur head. travel the world
@rusty2029 not all the ethics comes from religion, and thou shall not kill doesent prevent people from comitting murder just as 80 years in jail doesent either. and in earlier times, freedom of speech wasent very popular with the church, and many ppl had no rights. who gave them these rights were not the christians in form of a church but the politicians, i think everyone knows that. and i think u know that moral comes from personal exp. , society, and simply wanting peace
@gix500 You are avoiding the cultural heritage of Denmark and other Christian influenced nations that keep those values even if they turn away from God. Consider a godless worldview of evolution and naturalism thus you have an amoral construct that somehow designed our moral compass or otherwise we should all be more sociopathic if atheism is true. Heuristic, pattern recognition, meatpuppets don't have free will so all is instinct and dog eat dog... cont.
@gix500 Yes there where bad actions done in the name of Christianity and if you understood the biblical truths of love in the face of any and all hatred then you would know that not all have been keeping to the Biblical commandments to Love God and Love Others as much as we Love God and ourselves. You have a burden to prove that atheism is a benefit like the utopian efforts of Communism that required atheism as part of the ideology. Historical data points to the positive influence of Christ.
Fourth, I personally am interested in how intellegent design can pass as a scientific hypothesis and potentially a theory. However, I find the claims pretty weak for it being scientific. For instance I could say alchemy is falsifiable if i define alchemy in a way that it produces certain results we see in chemistry. But only this definition of alchemy could be falsified not any alchemy. Same with ID. Say we falsified specified complexity does that mean an intellegent designer doesn't exist? no.
@RuinSonic This is what also makes it hard to call it predictable as well. If your basing your idea on what is already observed and you simply say that we will only find more complex irreducibly complex systems you aren't really making a prediction, your just extrapolating what you expect to find based on what you've already found. Also you can't falsify irreducible complexity since there always could be another irreducibly complex system. I could go on if you'd like.
@RuinSonic Ultimately ID is the weaker of a sorties of arguments and clues for God but it is a science and uses the proper scientific methods for its theory. There has been no scientific proof that ID can't be a science. Understand the Münchhausen Trilemma and Poppers falsification is only about verisimilitude but ID does falsify evolution or you are claiming that evolution can't be falsified.
@rusty2029 ID is weak. Here's the argument in a nutshell. Look at design and order and see how we always associate it with a designer. Biological machines have order and complexity and information. Therefore God did it.
Guess what it is science, but it is poor science. But we don't consider it science because when we talk about science we talk about strong science. In fact astrology could qualify as science in the loose way ID does.
@RuinSonic Evolution wins only those interested or predisposed to the ideology oh and those who submit to peer pressure. The church of Darwin is a scientism religion that has a host of defenders that do a good job. There are also defenders of ID that make the point that it is science and is NOT about Goddidit. Be clear we could find a planet terraform device on the moon and this would not be the Christian God but proof and evidence of ID none the less.
@rusty2029 ID uses an overextended metaphor and has no candidate for explanation that is deduced from nature. Every explanation science comes up with that isn't observable is deduced from what is. If we were to deduce a god using science he would be physical and imperfect and that would be extending the scope of science as it is. Science is about deducing things from the patterns of nature not removing yourself from the patterns to come up with some far removed explanation.
Third, Sam harris is talking about some nationalist totalitarian government as analogous to religion. Not many atheists today want that. In fact most want freedom from and of religion, freedom of speech. Stalin's idea was not to give liberty and freedom. He wanted religion erradicated because it got in the way of his 'sovereign' authority. If God contradicts what stalin wants than god is treason.
@RuinSonic Again the totalitarian Atheist has no God or world view that will hold that person accountable for their actions. Or rather the Government is the god and highest authority. It matters little if some atheists want liberty and freedom their world is an amoral construct of chaotic chance and emergence. When you turn away from God and make atheistic authority a higher power the glue of society breaks down to a pitiless indifferent amoral inference to the godless worldview...
@rusty2029 "make atheistic authority a higher power..."
You need to watch what free thinkers are saying instead of listening to apologists and preachers tell you what atheists are saying. I don't care what dictator who claimed to be an atheist says. What most of us atheists want here on you tube is freedom from indoctrination and promote critical thinking which is lacking and causing much evil in the world. We don't want indoctrinated atheism. We figure out what is best for us.
@rusty2029 Some people may have virtue ethics or utilitarianism or some are collectivists or nihilists. But let's just take the nihilist for example. Under his view there is still reason to look out for others for criminal justice to better oneself and society. Aren't those some major things your looking for in a moral theory? If morality isn't there to serve people then what is the point of calling something moral?
Ok, first off I disagree with both sides who use the bad actions of a religious person to say the religion is bad. I only agree with them if the religion was the cause of that action for instance if the bible's teachings helped stop the end of slavery.
Second. Atheism is not a system of beliefs but a label that excludes some religious beliefs. Nobody kills in the name of "theism" as well as atheism so if your going to talk about stalin you got to address his ideology.
@RuinSonic I acknowledge that there have been some bad actions associated with some Christians who are not following the orthodox understanding of the faith. But atheism is amoral so you have no moral base upon which to make any moral request. In atheism all things are permitted. And secular humanism is a religion of moral relativism. Atheism was a fundamental part of Communist Ideology and Stalin came to atheism in seminary so knew enough of what he wanted to kill...
@rusty2029 I don't care if you want to reject an atheists claim on objective morality. Because in reality it doesn't matter what you call it. Having moral rules based on what is good for humans may not be agreed upon but we can have a high level of agreement and it is an objective question what is the best for us as individuals and as a whole. Your morality you merely define as objective and it's purpose, if not for human good, means nothing since god is already perfect.
@user11235813213455 "Judge Jones even says, "I thought that if other school boards and other boards of education could read it, they would possibly be more enlightened." In doing so, he directly admitted the activist nature of his ruling, validating our criticisms of the ruling." from evolution news dot org. You will be able to catch up on the latest if you can put aside your incredulity and seek truth by a rightful consideration of what the website has to say.
@user11235813213455 Try to understand that I know a little about religion and even some who have as a basic premise of their religion that it is not a religion yet there strong need to assert their worldview shows us all as having the parts that God designed in us. One of those parts that has been twisted in a fallen world is the need to seek God who we owe our existence to. Where is the scientific proof that ID can not use scientific methods and be a science that explores complexity.
No one is censoring your religion by keeping Intelligent Design out of the science classroom. In fact from where I'm standing it seems that Intelligent Design proponents are trying to push their religion on others using the public school system. Intelligent Design barley constitutes a hypothesis and the theory of evolution is a solid scientific theory with a lot of evidence supporting it. Intelligent Design and the Teleological arguments belong in philosophy and theology classrooms.
@user11235813213455 If you can't acknowledge the problems with Darwinian Evolution then you are censoring. Evolution is more about philosophy and inductive reasoning then you seem to understand. And your ignorance about ID is manifest or you would know that it is science and has no need to claim who the designer was but only that it could not have been anything else. Evolution has been falsified and ID is the reason for why it needs a new paradigm. Mathematics can't even back it up.
@rusty2029 I would love to see any information disproving evolution. I would also like to see any evidence for ID other than the tired old argument "life is too complex to have happened by chance". I would love to see a method in which you could even verify ID. I would also like to point out that we have an entire fossil record and the field of genetics that back up evolution.
@user11235813213455 There is a wealth of evidence for ID posted on a host of websites and published materials. If you want to plead ignorance regarding this evidence then you are trying to suppress this. Again you can't seem to acknowledge the lack of mathematical formulation proving evolution or that it is possible to falsify evolution if you deny ID is a valid science. I guess you cling to the tautology of evolution from what you have expressed and that is really anti-science.
@rusty2029 I am open to anyone who can genuinely falsify evolution. If you have some source that I have not seen, please let me see it. There has been an entire scientific community trying to falsify or verify evolution for over a century. That is scientific. Mathematics alone cannot prove or disprove evolution any more than it could prove or disprove the atomic theory, germ theory or the theory of gravity. Science depends on observation. ID is not remotely scientific as it cannot be verified.
@user11235813213455 There has more accurately been a community of scientist that wish to promote an ideology and religion I call the church of Darwin. ID finds specified complexity that requires all the parts to be there and for NO other explanation or emergent process to be found. The ideological effort to exclude ID is proof that evolution can not be allowed to be falsified otherwise there would not be all the fear-mongering about it. You have established your faith, fear, and ideology.
@rusty2029 There is no such thing as your "church of Darwin". The theory of evolution is a fact that does not promote an ideology. Science welcomes any legitimate attempt to falsify it and has for the last century and a half. The arguments of irreducible complexity would falsify evolution if they worked. That thing you were mentioning in your video about the argument involving bacterial flagellum refuted irreducible complexity. This is why the supreme court kept ID out of the science classroom.
@user11235813213455 I understand the dogma that there is no church is what you need to state. Scientism insists on castrating science in order to make it into what it is. This is done by observing the considerations necessarily taken in judging truth claims about physical phenomena, and superimposing them upon all truth claims about reality. The flagellum has not been refuted and you haven't kept up on the latest. You do have a strong faith in an activist and bias judge to keep the ideology
@rusty2029 I'm not entirely sure what your reading but it has been refuted back in 2005 in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case. In response to your claims that I am somehow a ideologue, I really think you should look up a term called projection. It is a defense mechanism first proposed by Sigmund Freud. I think you might find it relevant.
@user11235813213455 I do find it relevant when a bias and activist judge shows his ideological bias as are you. But Freud is nothing more then special pleading in regard to the validity of ID and current science on the flagellum or the limitations of natural selection. Have you read the current data and scientific effort to show how there is no natural way for the occurrence of this fine tuned machine. I was once an atheist so I know the ropes of the presuppositions that you dare not question
@rusty2029 The Freud comment was not directed at ID it was directed at you. Apparently I'm not reading the same stuff you are. I see no reason why we should be considered machines rather than walking, sentient chemical reactions. I also find your last couple of sentences funny. I was once a Christian once and I became an atheist through questioning my beliefs. The ONLY presupposition I dare not question is that I exist. Just out of curiosity are you saying John E. Jones was an activist judge?
@user11235813213455 I know where the Freud comment was directed and yet it can still be turned around and directed at you just as validly when you cant recognize what is valid science using appropriate methods. I was talking of the flagellum as a machine but naturalism is just as refuted by more then the quantum actions of a sodium channel some think is the brain. --is that I exist. and I would ad that God is responsible for that existence as well as the existence of anything at all. Cont...
@rusty2029 I can prove my existence, congnito ergo sum. This is where I begin to disagree with Des Carte. My existence does not prove the existence of a deity. Thank you for the link, I'll be sure to read through what I can on this website. I admit I'm not entirely objective but you do know that the link you provided is stamped by the discovery institute. They do have an agenda. As I read through these articles, I will be doing so with a grain of salt. I would encourage you to do the same.
@user11235813213455 "Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine~snip be sure to check what is ID button
@rusty2029 It has been observed that intelligent agents create CSI. No one is arguing that life is complex. ID as a hypothesis would state that intelligent agents and only intelligent agents can create CSI. How is this testable? Without the ability verify a hypothesis how can one reach the conclusion of ID scientifically?
@user11235813213455 How would SETI test its hypothesis? We can test what is complex to the point of deifying any natural explanation. We can test signals for marks of intelligent origins. ID is about information and how CSI does not come undirected and the law of conservation is an issue and indicator of the probabilistic chances of chaos making order. Natural selection is being found to be limited and Darwinian evolution is being falsified as evident in the academic suppression of ID
@rusty2029: "Natural selection is being found to be limited and Darwinian evolution is being falsified as evident in the academic suppression of ID"
BS. The so-called "suppression" of ID is not due to ideology, ID is simply rejected as a testable mechanism and thus useless to science. Neither does recognition of the fact that ID is not science falsify Darwinism; that's not how falsification works. Incidentally, natural selection has NOT been found to be "limited".
I am atheist. I don't want to wipe out religion, nor does any atheist that I know. Atheism and science are NOT THE SAME thing, and should not be lumped together as though they are. Science is just science. That it doesn't concern itself with religion specifically within certain fields of study has NOTHINg to do with atheism. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods. You are mischaracterizing atheists and atheism by connecting it to Russia and China as you have in your video.
@TheBissco You claim there is no true atheist all you like but the requirement to join the communist party was clearly that you had to publicly avow you are atheist. Oh and science or rather scientism is strongly associated with atheism and how atheists use the tool of science to make assertions and metaphysical claims. The law of the excluded middle means that atheism is not a lack or a zero as it is a belief that there are no gods or deity of any kind.
@TheDeanoWeano The Soviet Union and China have built up more atheists then any other movement. Do you spread the love of atheism? If you have not hardened your heart then the love of Jesus is waiting for you if you but reach out in the proper way. Otherwise you can do what atheists seem to do best and that is to tear down as they have nothing to build.
@rusty2029 Judge not lest ye be judged my friend. Atheism spreads nothing but the ability to think rationally. We do not believe in an inactive god because he gives no reason to believe. Disease,starvation,natural disasters.....and God's divine plan ....is to....remain.....invisible. If you have not hardened your heart to rational thought and are able to think for yourself.....then we welcome another free thinker. Otherwise you can do what theists do and spread gullibility based on fairy tales.
@TheDeanoWeano --Atheism spreads nothing but the ability to think rationally. Means the same as atheism only tears down and takes away all value. Only God will judge the disposition of your soul. Yet I can judge that you can only devalue as you have no rational arguments that present evidence for God's absence. Your divine plan is to hide from God's loving effort to give you a path to salvation. Scripture says that once you are open then the Holy Spirit will act to give you the vision needed
@rusty2029 I can't prove pixies don't exist either. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim (you). Continue to judge me friend...you have no idea what I contribute (judgmental Christian...typical). Do not think you are wise enough to judge...you are not even wise enough stop wasting the only thing you can be truly certain of...this life at this time. Be content in your delusion I wish you happiness...just remember..1 pair of hands at work will do more than 1,000 clasped in prayer.
@TheDeanoWeano I judge you by your words... as you seem to do to me. And you do not have a rational position if you have no means to point to what you believe is the truth, thus you have a burden as well and can't shift it all on me as you have chosen to confront me and not the other way around. You did respond to this video and yet you feel no need to have a rational set of clues for what you think is the truth... interesting Claim =Atheism spreads nothing but the ability to think rationally.
@rusty2029 My truth is simply this...we love because we are loving beings. We care because we are caring beings. We give because we are giving beings. We do not need a "God" to show us right from wrong. You are correct, I commented on your video and I must commend you for at least allowing comments. The Christian "believe in the bronze age fairy tale" mentality is so antiquated (ridiculous) that most of you do not and cannot defend your position. At least you try. You fail..but at least you try.
People are scared of atheists because our worldview threatens to take away their comfort and their coping mechanism for dealing with life's difficulties. Your thoughts are muddled and nonsensical. Intelligent Design doesn't belong in science classes, very simply, because it isn't science.
@Anonoo We both know that the effort to falsify neo-darwinism can not be allowed as the dogma that ID is not a science continues but I am well aware of the dogma and know how this battle will continue. You can't take away my comfort in that I have a personal relationship with God and in love would like to share that with those who do not harden their heart against God. The village atheist can try their best to tear down but you can't touch what God has raised up.
@rusty2029 I'm not interested in taking away your comfort. Your comfort is why you can't accept Darwinism. It threatens to take away your comfort. That was my point, and you pretty much proved it. My heart isn't hardened against anything in particular, really. I just think too darn much to accept supernatural, unproven beliefs in exchange for the comfort they offer.
@Anonoo Understand that there is no science based proof that ID is not a science other then the bald atheist assertion. The comfort provided of not having to stand and give account of one's actions is reason why the Darwin hypothesis is at the center of most atheists belief systems. ID stands to falsify parts of the evolutionists hegemony and thus is attacked. How exactly do you think the supernatural is unproven? How is naturalism proven in all respects? You have your comfort but it is false.
@rusty2029 My worldview offers no real comfort, actually. This isn't the first time I've been told by a haughty, judgmental Christian that my worldview is about avoiding accountability. In reality, sir, your worldview is the irresponsible one, holding to the idea that someone paid for your sins, and that you can be forgiven by someone other than those you harmed. ID discredits itself well enough on it's own. I've no need to attack it.
It's not an atheist exclusivnism, it's a scientific one. If evolution is true or not doesn't disprove god, so it shouldn't worry theist. Communism wasn't a destruction of religion. Was it anti-religious? Yes, but what makes communism communism is it's principles of a government controlled economy and other policies. It's not something built around atheism, but instead government. Atheism is to communism and religion is to capitalism.
This can be flipped around to say that the advantage in debate and lack of requirement for positive assertion is inherent in a null hypothesis such as atheism, and that you are clinging to a belief that we are not what we say we are to deny us this advantage rather than addressing it directly. The world I posit is this one. It is the one we are both dealing with, regardless of whether or not a higher power exists in it. If action implies a god, then the action of a god implies another god.
I certainly did not obfuscate the nature of atheism. Rather I illustrate in the simplest possible terms how what you say is related is not related, and what you say we have we cannot sustain. It is clear however, that you are assuming the attempts of atheists to define themselves to be dishonest. That prejudice is something I cannot correct with an argument. Your prejudice seems to have guided your video as well. You are familiar with Pat Condel. What separates your methods from his?
@bobosmitherson Pat Condel's polemical style may be a good tactic for the theist as well. For the youtube atheist its self evident how they wish to define atheism so as to not have any epistemic burden on their side. This wish for a non-belief is a belief that they will cling to dogmatically so that there side has advantage in debate and no intellectual requirement to have an objective truth position or need validations for atheism. cont...
@bobosmitherson Again I maintain that we BOTH have a belief and activators or validations for said position. We can both maintain that we have things on our side that counts as evidence or even an absence of evidence being evidence of absence. Take for instance the idea that most everybody believes in a Higher Power of some kind. Posit what a possible world would look like without any god or ultimate end to all regress. The fact that we are moral agents speak to a Higher Power as active agent.
Atheism does not require Marxism, Marxism does not require mass murder, and mass murder does not require any ideology given how prevalent it is in human history across the board.
Atheism has no "crucial components." We do not have consensus on our personal opinions. We do not have leaders in an official capacity. We are separate people with only one simple disbelief necessarily in common.
@bobosmitherson Your simple obfuscation does not mean that atheists necessarily permit Marxism though atheism was required to be a party member. You can hide crucial components with your repeated repetition of your tautological axiom that atheism is a meaningless vacuum of no dogmas (a dogma) and no consensus (somewhat true but misleading) and no codified rules or rigid structure. I do understand how you have falsified atheism as anything worthy or intellectually justified. I get it.
Marxist legacy is not "atheist" legacy. In order for it to be atheist legacy, atheism has to demand positive action (ie ascribing to Marxism) which it doesn't.
@DaveDoggOwns The fact that you have taken the positive action of trying to defend your worldview speaks to the ideas I was talking of. Given that one had to be an atheist as requirement for communist party membership does tend to refute the apologists of atheism tactic of saying there is no such thing as an atheist legacy. How you view the world and the context that you are placed in does tend to show demands of positive action such as the hate speech of Pat Condell and others.
Hitler made his soldiers wear "In God We Trust" on their belts. What? Does this mean theists are Nazi's? No of course not.You know that. We don't use Hitler as evidence that theism promotes mass murder so why can't you do the same for us regarding Stalin and Mao? If Hitler isn't evidence that theism promotes mass murder than Stalin and Mao is not evidence that atheism promotes mass murder. Got it?
And no, the mere fact that I'm talking to you doesn't mean atheism demands positive action.
Atheism demands only negative action: a disbelief in God. That's it. It doesn't say you must be an anti-theist like Pat Condell, or a Marxist, or anything. If someone like Pat Condell saids he is an atheist, it's not atheism is the ONLY thing he ascribes to.
just so you know, ( as a person that has lived in the ussr i can tell you this) there were VERY, VERY many religious people in the union. HUGE LOADS of them.
@alarlol Atheism can be a religion if you consider hatred of religion as a critical component. Dogmas such as atheism requires no belief or makes no metaphysical claims do give illustration to these first principals demanded for a proper youtube atheist. Remember that huge loads of ad-populum does seem to work for atheists who need to hide their dogmas and presuppositions behind some kind of non-stamp-collecting cloud of obfuscations.
The problem with Soviet Russia is that they never had a bill of rights. The system allowed itself to be dominated by psycopathic power mongers (which happens also in religious countries). There are no laws banning religion in the US nor are there laws condoning it. You should not teach a religious view in school in any subject including physics, biology, chemisrty, math, etc., unless empirical evidence supports its inclusion. Religion is a personal choice and a guranteed right of the individual.
So your saying if your an atheist you support China and the USSR or at least their view. NO WE DON'T!!.. you got us all wrong. We don't want Religious nuts shoving religious fairy tales in our throats. We want religion out of our lives. Religion has killed, KILLED more people than any disease ever has. ALL you god freaks want us to think your so holy so you can molest our kids and steal from us. NO WAY!! that is why we are atheists and drink occasionally unlike you!!
The Soviets and Chinese are not, nor have ever been "atheistic" in any sense any more than the US or Japan. The Soviet Union even has the same protection of religion (and seperation of Church and State) as the US constitution. As far as "Science Minded Soviets", politics made that a joke long before Lysenko made it a mockery in the rest of the world. Might want to do some more homework on these issues. In the Soviet Union, only Stalin hated religion. (part 1 of 2)
(part 2 of 2) and it was Stalin who commited the purges because the Russian Orthodox Church defied him regarding the obvious wealth they held. Stalin, by the way, was headed for the monastic life and would have served *in* the church, but was rejected.
putting the whole god argument aside, what the USSR did was not right but atheism was only part or not even a reason for all the killing. And that was just one instance when atheists are the killing force. The majority of the time the killing was by Christians or by people not associated with religion at all. So please stop stereotyping all atheists!
Atheism didn't create those problems. Atheism begins, and ends with the answer to one question. Do you believe in god. That's it. It doesn't teach you to be liberal, conservative, a socialist, or capitalist. It has no inherent political views, or dogma.
The tone and thoughts in this video are fairly well organized.
I appreciate that even tho the premise that there should be intelligent design in science class is way off base. As intelligent design isn't science it isn't peer reviewed, it isn't accepted scientific theory.
The equivalent to placing two pages of non-science in a science textbook is the equivalent to placing two pages of cooking recipes into the bible. They are completely unrelated and shouldn't be in the same place.
Again the argument that true science is sacred and must not face any criticism or effort to debate and question such precious dogmas of evolution. You enter a form of religion by way of backing into religion in a way you are blind to. The religion of evolutionary truth is a fine exclusive dogma. Preaching that ID is not science is a clear indication of this defense of sacred dogma. Yet scientists who point out the flaws in natural selections ability to make new unique features get persecuted.
um no nothing of the sort I would welcome intelligent design as a theory if it actually answered anything at all or had evidence to back it. As it is ID only says "this is irreducibly complex it must be designed" how does that help us figure out anything? Also which scientists are you referring to getting persecuted for presenting evidence to falsify evolution I would like to see the articles.
I have added some new links to the wealth of links I have provided in the sidebar just click (more info)
David Berlinski and William Dembski are just two of the scientists I am thinking of. But there are more.
Consider this quote: "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on BOTH SIDES of each question." -Charles Darwin
Berlinski isn't a scientist but a mathematician he is a science critic. Dembski is another mathematician and a theologian. both of which are employed by the discovery institute which is hardly an indicator in their favor as neither have put forth any papers for review, or for that matter has the discovery institute at all. If they are certain of their convictions they should be clamoring for their information to be reviewed the fact that they aren't speaks volumes.
USA is "atheist" (secular) also, just like the Soviet Union, due to separation of church and state.
Is the USA also evil? FYI, states aren't "good" or "evil"; they may harbor evil ppl, or evil leaders, but entire countries aren't evil.
And still, you have zero evidence that any god exists... It's better to just face the truth, and move on from there, rather than persist in a delusional, god-based worldview.
You fail to understand that as a Christian I have had God personally interact with me in such a way that God gives us all evidence that convicts us of this truth. I was once an atheist so I understand the delusions. Recently I was hit by a car and suffered a head injury that should have killed me. The Neurosurgeons are amazed. So your a priori supposition that there is zero evidence is something you can not prove. I live as standing evidence of God and His love.
My thought here is rather simple... if god was actually personally involved in your life and loved you wouldn't he have made the car miss you?
Also while god was saving you through miraculous brain surgery done by a doctor who had honed his skills through out his life. There were people starving who were praying to god who died anyways. What makes your personal relationship worth more than their lives?
Thank the doctors as much as you can, rather than the god who didn't make the car miss.
How is it that you know so much about God that you think God should behave in a way you seem to demand? My study of the Bible does not sync with your view in the least.
It's like you expect God to be some kind of Orwellian controller and big brother....
Also don't presume that God treats all in the same manner. God's chosen people the descendants of Abraham are an excellent example. The Jews where chosen yet needed bondage so as to learn...
Using your accident as proof of gods personal intervention in your existence and as an example of your personal relationship with said god doesn't fallow from Veritas48's argument
There is nothing to support god was involved at all in your accident or your recovery if you use Veritas48's video to deal with the problem of of evil. Which makes your position an argument from ignorance Ie I don't know why I survived must be god.
You are making the claim that god personally intervened to save you
--if god was actually personally involved in your life and loved you wouldn't he have made the car miss you?
And you say the video does not follow? Do you profess to know God? Can you see clearly what the Apostle Paul could only view through the glass darkly?
The moment I was hit an ambulance just happens to be driving by. A large artery between the hemispheres was bleeding. The skilled neurosurgeons had to work for hours. The doctors did not hold out much hope. Cont...
The video doesn't fallow as it doesn't address the problem of evil actually, an all knowing, all powerful, all benevolent god would never have created a universe where you could have gotten hit by a car.
Actually my claim is that it is impossible to know the mind of a god period, we're not a god so we can't know it. You claiming to know he cares personally about you is without evidence and is sheer egotism.
My claim is that God has communicated sufficiently so that you can open a channel and start a relationship with Him. My evidence is the empirical experience of millions of Christians. My evidence even reaches out to those who seek other gods as God has put within you the desire that can be diverted by Satan. God has been effecting the lives of millions of believers and there is a direct cause and effect proposition that should stand as evidence. Yet you would make the bald assertion of none...
God has not communicated at all from what I've experienced, man has though. The only experience I've had of God is through man and I've tried a couple of times and put effort into communicating with God without any succesful attempt. On that I can give you no more than my word.
I have seen no direct cause of Gods supposed existence, I have seen many futile claims though.
--Oh, and you cannot have faith in a lack of something (atheism). Atheism is not a religion.
I have proof provided in the links in the sidebar that would say that your religious claim above is up for debate. You can make all the bald assertions you like in your faith based belief system. I was once an atheist myself so I do understand your efforts. Spin it any way you like in your deep faith in yourself.
Atheism is a return to the heliocentric view of self as center of the universe...
I could provide links that would say that the claims you just made are up for debate. Providing links simply gets you nowhere.
Christianity is by definition a faith-based belief system, atheism is not a belief system at all and if you're referring to science that is not based on faith, it is by definition based on observal evidence backing up its claims.
I'm not making bald assertions, I'm being rational. Once again you should learn to tell the difference.
Atheism is a return to the heliocentric view of self as center of the universe..
wtf? your saying we are self centered because we don't believe in god? What are you smoking? How does that make sense to you? Wait are you mentally handicapped? If you are Im sorry.
To be a philosopher you have to think in steps not GIANT leaps.
No your claim is that god personally intervened to save you and that you know the mind of god in this instance. Which is both arrogant and cruel as it says god didn´t care to save those others who were praying. Iń 20 years when there are more Muslims than Christians will you convert to Islam as the evidence supports Allah? I suspect not. Satan can divert people from god doesn´t that make god less than all powerful? Please explain how this makes sense at all with the claims you have made.
As for the situation of your accident. It doesn't matter what they are. You have no idea why you survived and rather than accepting that you can't know you say yahweh must have done it. It could have just as well be aliens or vishnu based on the evidence presented. It doesn't provide evidence to any particular god even if something supernatural occurred and was observed. You just had bad odds and you beat them, which is good for you it doesn't prove anything regarding a supernatural entity.
..and this is why you cannot argue with creationists. They can always hide within their bubble in which you can make all claims with no evidence.
A personal experience of yours which may and probably is one of your own delusions is not in any way evidence for anything.
And if you survived that head injury then it "should" not have killed you as it didn't, but it probably COULD have if reality had differed just a bit. An unlikely ocurrence is not an impossible ocurrence. Know the difference.
...and to turn it round upon you I ask how do you make the bald assertion that there is no evidence? Is your delusion that of great faith in atheism? The main artery between the upper hemispheres of the brain was split open. My survival odds where in the less then 25% range. I SHOULD have died but we can both, special plead confirmation bias. You sir are making claims without evidence. But I have more to back up my claims like the evidential experience of 2k years of Christians and God.
Also I hope you know the issue of cause and effect. God communicates with mankind and the effect is Christianity. God causes a universe that can support life and the earth is the effect. Yes... The skilled Doctors effected my survival from a deadly condition. ALSO an ambulance happened to be passing by. The effect of prayer on my behalf is not lost on the empirical group who experience my condition at my Church. The empirical experience of cause and effect is not beyond the grasp of some..
Mankind needs comfort and whatnot and/or tools to manipulate and control the rest of their species - religion is created. No?
Considering the short span of which we have lived in this universe and the amount of time where pretty much no life has existed (as far as we know) you can deduct that God certainly was slow in creating a universe that can support it. And no, I do not believe it being 6000 years old and that it was made in 6 days.
If your survival odds were 25% or even 10% there was a chance of survival, and you survived. It is undoubtfully remarkable for you to survive but nonetheless far from an impossibility as I've already stated.
If you on the other hand survived with survivals odds of 0% then I'd be truly astonished - if that happened then I'd understand why anyone would claim it to be a miracle.
None of what you mentioned is something that could be considered as evidence.
there's a quote by sam harris (not sure of the exact wording.) but he says something along the lines that the problems with fascist dictatorships and communism in general, wasn't their godlessness, but their obvious similarities to religion. all the various dogmas, worship of dear leader, ect.
THIS DUMBASS! Christianity is the group that doesn't what intelligence because intelligent people have been pointing out holes in religious beliefs since the beginning of religion.
He did what he had to do to stay alive or not get arrested just like countless Germans. And his initial research was rockets to reach space not weapons, he was recruited and had to obey.
It's not my fold that the pedophile priest in your church loved you more then the other boys...
Calling me gay does not change the fact you need mystical creatures , to get through your miserable life.Keep reading old scriptures and try to live in fish like Jonah did.
This has been flagged as spam show
If you can't prove it, you must remove it!
ame6603 4 months ago
I wouldn't mined a discussion over creationism in my science class but I do have a probablem with it being taught as a science in public science class. (I don't care if some one teaches it in a privet schools or colleges) Science is a way of expaining something using facts, evidence and observations. And the fact is that an overwhelming amount of evidence is in the support of evolution.
TheCoxy88 4 months ago
Both theists and atheists have been guilty of great evil when they became powerholders so the democidal atrocities of history were not caused by religious ideologies nor the absence of such (atheism) but had more to do with the megalomania of social powerholders. I suspect that the more militant theists and atheists of today have similar aspirations to power. These aspirations to power is the corrupting force of such individuals.
dbwheeldon 5 months ago
@dbwheeldon To say that both are guilty does not negate the responsibility at least one side has to God's commands. If you are positing a world of objective moral absolutes then what are your examples of death and privation promulgated by a theistic worldview in the last century? If one has megalomania in an amoral godless construct then one is free to do all things. Atheism is at root amoral and not immoral under a godless pitiless universe. What morals are you using to make your judgments?
rusty2029 5 months ago
@rusty2029 how have you arrived at the conclusion that atheists are amoral? 'God' is not the only nor the most rational basis for ethical theory. "godless" does not=amoral. My argument clearly identified the lust for power as the chief cause of the aforementioned evils. It appears that you attempted to raise distractions by the addition of irrelevant info. such as the hypothetical 'commands of god'. My argument was clear, you hoped to dispose of it by tossing some red herrings at it.
dbwheeldon 3 months ago
@dbwheeldon I did not say that atheists are amoral. I am saying that atheism is an amoral worldview. These are not distractions but critical to the issue. Atheists have a God given moral compass and that has not been negated by any ethical theory that I am aware of. Objective moral absolutes mean an origin that is outside of this universe or any attempt by naturalism/materialism. Lust for Power is a sinful activity under Christian teaching. Are you morally accountable beyond death?
rusty2029 3 months ago
@rusty2029 atheism in and of itself, does not promulgate a prescribed ethical theory of it's own; as any atheist can be a hedonist or an ascetic and still be an atheist in either case. The 'moral compass' you reference is not some mystical inner guide of some kind but points to the moral values one holds and the moral choices based on those values. "objective moral absolutes"=an origin outside the universe? Your thoughts are too incoherent and vague for a productive debate. Best wishes Rusty.
dbwheeldon 3 months ago
Respond to this video... Calling atheism a religion would entitle atheists to certain legal rights that we do not currently enjoy. Atheism does not fall under the legal guidelines to be considered a religion, and become a 501 C3 church, but some of us atheist want to be a legal religion, so we can get tax breaks. We hope that you can convince your legislators to except us as a religion. I will archive your proof that we are a religion, so it can help our cause.
steelbrushtattoo 11 months ago
@steelbrushtattoo You need to check infidels dot org and the Richard Dawkins foundation as well as other atheist 501 c3's
Not all atheists are evangelical or very dogmatic about their world view yet I see the most religious and evangelical atheists here on youtube.
Remember that the guilty dog barks the loudest so thus the most religious of atheists are going to attack you and say it is NOT a religion,. While the more non-religious atheists do not bother to respond.
rusty2029 11 months ago
Evolution is not a problem with atheist, we don't care where or how it all started. Your god killed everyone on the earth so the bible says. I would love to eliminate all Christians, and all their bibles. Shooting all religious people would be fine, where do I sign up.
steelbrushtattoo 11 months ago
@steelbrushtattoo You can sign up with the Liberal Elites and get a copy of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicles Opening page - Dedication
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.” --see you have good company in your slaugter
rusty2029 11 months ago
And for all the Christians with low IQ's out there who think that atheism is a religion, pick up a dictionary. Read the definition of what a religion is, and you will see that your make believe idea is wrong. I understand your argument, but it does not hold water. So, if you think atheism is a religion you have not been to college.
steelbrushtattoo 11 months ago
@steelbrushtattoo "The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion." You don't need a law degree to know that one of the dogmas and creeds of the religious atheist is to profess that it is not a religion.
watch?v=V_f_iCLVEwg
But it must also be a religious reaction of some atheists to insult others intelligence.
rusty2029 11 months ago
@rusty2029 It doesn't insult me as an atheist if you call me a religious. I don't believe in Santa, does that make me religious. You look and sound like a hillbilly, and I really don't like chatting to dumb hillbillies.
steelbrushtattoo 11 months ago
@steelbrushtattoo Then you can stop...
rusty2029 11 months ago
Atheist really don't care how the world was created, and I don't care where my computer was made, but it works. We are fighting two religious wars right now. I believe Theism should be wiped out, for the good of humanity. Wonder if Christians wanted to bring back slavery, think about that...
steelbrushtattoo 11 months ago
@steelbrushtattoo Given that you don't care much about things such as origins you should not care about Christians who have as a principle commandment to love you as we love God. It would seem to me that atheism is proving harmful if you should have such a demonstrably fallacious view of Christianity. This is why it is prophesied that Christians will suffer death and privation for there love of the true God and Creator of the complexity you enjoy all around you.
rusty2029 11 months ago
@rusty2029 Atheist and Christians have abused people, but the bible is a guide book on slavery, rape, murder, animal sacrifice etc. There is nothing that I took out of context. Read what the bible says about midgets(small people)and people who cut hair. People will have to rid the world of religion, but I don't see that happening. Religious people love war, we are fighting two wars now in the name of Allah and Jesus. Religious people are not going to stop until they to kill us all.
steelbrushtattoo 11 months ago
@steelbrushtattoo The Bible is a guide book on relationships and how God wants a relationship with His creation. Please read the entire bible and tell me where there is any warrant to murder. I don't love war and I presume you don't either. But war happens when relationships break down. I believe in relationships first before religion. But we could study the bible together and I will show you where it is all about relationships and how God is infinite in His grace.
rusty2029 11 months ago
@rusty2029 I don't want a relationship with a make believe god that killed millions of people. If you were a Jew in the old testament, you could own another Jew for seven years, then you could let them go. If you were a Jew, you could own a gentile, and hand him down from generation to generation. A Jew could kill a gentile as long as he didn't die on the first day, but if the gentile died on the second or third day it was OK because they were property. I hate your god, and his values.
steelbrushtattoo 11 months ago
@steelbrushtattoo You must not have studied the Bible for you are again repeating a common dogma of some atheists. I understand you are invested in your court protected belief system that is your religious liberty after all. But are you free enough to seek truth or do you want to keep close minded blinders on?
Oh... and anymore personal insults and you will be banned consider this your first and final notice.
rusty2029 11 months ago
@rusty2029 I've studied slavery, in the bible. I know that you believe in slavery was good in the bible. I don't mind insulting people who believe that toucher, rape, and slavery are good. Remember you are the one who would of owed slaves, and I would have not. So, when it comes down to morals, I'm way ahead of you, and your fake god. Just because I don't believe in Santa Clause doesn't make the non belief in Santa a religion.
steelbrushtattoo 11 months ago
@steelbrushtattoo I submit that you have not studied enough, not to mention the history of the abolitionist movement (a Christian movement) Show me NEW Testament chapter and verse where you get your information from. We get our individual rights to liberty from the founding fathers belief in a sovereign God so I would say that your strawman about belief or warrant for torture and rape are not founded in the common understanding of Christian ethics. I don't know where you get your ideas from??
rusty2029 11 months ago
@rusty2029 However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
steelbrushtattoo 11 months ago
@steelbrushtattoo You do know that I am a Christian?? If you want to understand the bible fully you MUST understand context and that it is to be understood in it's totality.
Cherry picking from the old testament is a common enough tactic of the religious anti-theist.
rusty2029 11 months ago
Respond to this video... When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
steelbrushtattoo 11 months ago
@steelbrushtattoo Put it in CONTEXT and show how that applies today?
rusty2029 11 months ago
@rusty2029 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
steelbrushtattoo 11 months ago
@steelbrushtattoo And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him. (Ephesians 6:9)
We are to love others and in context this is Paul's words to those who still had servants so as to treat then as you would want to be treated.
rusty2029 11 months ago
Respond to this video... Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
steelbrushtattoo 11 months ago
Respond to this video... The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)
steelbrushtattoo 11 months ago
@steelbrushtattoo Do you work at a job? Do you have duties to perform and policy to follow? You could understand this verse well enough if you did not have your heart hardened against God.
rusty2029 11 months ago
Respond to this video... 4) Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
steelbrushtattoo 11 months ago
Respond to this video... English Standard Version (©2001)
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, CASE CLOSED
steelbrushtattoo 11 months ago
@steelbrushtattoo And yet you think to give bible verses that do not make your case, are not being used in proper context and understanding, while the greatest commandment of all is LOVE. I have tired of your trolling so you are banned and have deleted some of the posts as you are not open to a reasonable or rational dialog. I pray that you find healing for your troubled soul and that the love of God soften your heart of stone so that you find the peace that passes understanding.
rusty2029 11 months ago
"The book is not closed on evolution"? No, but it is pretty full and extremely well written. Once again, there is a complete lack of understanding here of what science even is. The theory of evolution is not perfect and questions still exist, however evolution itself is an observed and observable FACT! Get over it and stop believing in fairy tales. I had an imaginary friend too I just outgrew him.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone I understand that you must defend your religion of evolution even if ID and others efforts have falsified it. If you trust and have faith in the strawman of imaginary friends then you close off your thinking and can't properly acknowledge how we come to have knowledge of things yet we all have more learning to do and more can be revealed. You are not a free thinker if you close yourself into the box of scientisim and materialism/naturalism. Think of the metaphysical claims you make
rusty2029 1 year ago
@rusty2029 Evolution is not a religion and unlike a religious belief is based on evidence. ANY resort to non-material explanations is BY FAR more closed minded than a material or natural viewpoint. This is demonstrable. As far as I know I've made ZERO metaphysical claims. Perhaps you'd like to demonstrate otherwise without the use of run-on sentences this time.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone Evolution is a religion as it is how the atheist can think they have any ground to stand on. Prove materialism? How do you explain things like the universe coming from nothing? And we certainly know that this universe had a beginning so you can't get out of having to make some metaphysical claims. It is the Atheists who are the MOST closed minded when they put their faith in the free lunch that represents a mindless determinism causing the material world from nothing.
rusty2029 11 months ago
@rusty2029 Evolution is both an extremely well grounded and very complete theory and an observed and observable fact. The ground the atheist stands on is the default position in the argument. You claim your imaginary friend runs the universe? Show me evidence. Can't? ... Oops! The supernatural (god) viewpoint is inherently MORE closed-minded as it necessitates the cessation of inquiry. Something from nothing? Explain your god, because that's what you contend for him. Occam's Razor, Duh!
MrMZaccone 11 months ago
What's being referred to here is Lysenkoism. This was the perversion of science for the purposes of supporting the dogmatic notions of the government. Dogmatism of course is the problem here not atheism. The deaths under Stalin, Mao, etc. had nothing to do with atheism but were rather the result of dogmatic belief just as those under religious rule. Faith based religions are of course INHERENTLY dogmatic and it is here that the argument fails miserably.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone The dogmatism I am talking about is materialism/naturalism it's not important what flavor the godless religion of evolution takes. Communism simply demanded a belief that there is no God so it could impose its methodology upon the masses. When you can present a material proof for your atheism that is backed up by what you feel is evidence then show me. Otherwise atheism is a closed minded focus on how they need no evidence for their view .
rusty2029 11 months ago
@rusty2029 As opposed to a material proof of your god? Don't make me laugh. My position is that there is no evidence for god. Until there is, discussing his likelihood is a waste of time. There is also no evidence for the efficacy of communism. Same problem. Once again your belief in "god" is more closed minded because it necessitates the cessation of inquiry. I'll gladly discuss god as long as we don't talk about evidence, because there isn't any.
MrMZaccone 11 months ago
but if u somehow want others to believe what u believe which to me is a private matter, then atleast know what u are talking about. a scientific theory is not just a theory or random explanation, hundred years of testing is not allways enough and scientist are still eagerly trying to refute both big bang and evolution theory, and these guys are not christians, just scientists .
gix500 1 year ago
@gix500 I agree that there are worldviews in collision and yet I respect those who defend their worldview and understand that all sides that are rational have what they consider to be clues and evidence for their respective sides. One side can try to plead the other has no evidence or that their side presents the stronger case but BOTH need to have a burden to prove if what ever side is to be considered rational.
rusty2029 1 year ago
@rusty2029 "Consider to be clues and evidence" ... Like what? Saying the universe was once contained in a single virtual point source is supportable by evidence. Saying your imaginary friend did it is fantastical bullshit and a clear violation of parsimony. Elimination of superstition is a prerequisite for learning more. Get over it.
MrMZaccone 11 months ago
nah i dont have to prove atheism since i dont deny gods existence, i actually have a "door open" for a creator, but not the ones described in holy books by men, i think its pretty obvious that these stories have been created by not allknowing men and is not the words of gods.
why would i waste my time trying to prove something to u that nobody can prove or disprove, do u think i can fly outside the universe to another dimension and take pictures.and u dont have to prove ur own belief its private
gix500 1 year ago
@gix500 Given that my beliefs are about the salvation of everybody and eternal life with a Father who loves us I would say that if that is private then it would be a great evil to keep it private considering the eternal consequences. Given that the Bible is the inspired word of God and part of a wealth of evidence for God's interactions with His creation I also feel that you are using a method to judge that is counter to how the Bible survives an amazing amount of attack yet is not refuted
rusty2029 1 year ago
@rusty2029 Look, I could totally dismiss your views and scoff. And you can scoff at me and make all sorts of attacks on evolution. But what's the point of trying to do discourse and convince other people if you aren't willing to entertain their ideas. I'm more than willing to look at thoughtful arguments against evolution so long as there is a respect to at least understand what evolution says and why people find it convincing. If you think it's a conspiracy or we just want it to be true, sorry.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic Granted you could... I think natural selection is self evident and there are other aspects that I may not object to other then in how these complexities and interdependent systems are to come together as if chaos is the magic. ID is not about any specified God but for some specified complex things there needs to have been an intelligent cause but that does not end the search there, as more study could always find an unguided mechanism. Total emergent mechanisms are unlikely.
rusty2029 1 year ago
@rusty2029 Why you so caught up with God being the ultimate tinkerer or designer? Obviously you were born by your parents and your physical body came about by natural processes in the womb. Why come back and say everything designed must have directly been created verses indirectly? Also, how does your inability to imagine how evolution could happen make it unlikely or how does that tell us that common descent is false?
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@rusty2029 I don't believe in the father, and if there is one, then he would be the god of carnage. Let's look at the death tole. It is said he wiped out the earth, then he killed millions of people. He should be considered a mass murderer on a scale that can't even measured, but he loves you. Not only does he kill, but he burns people in hell for trillions and trillions of years. If that is the bad side of your god, then he can fuck himself. Oh, FUCK THE HOLY SPIRIT too.
steelbrushtattoo 11 months ago
Russia is atheist? China is atheist-secular-human?
Retarded.
Beyond.
Belief.
rudedog46 1 year ago
im from an allmost completely atheistic and agnostic country called denmark, about 80-90% dont believe in a religion, churches are empty here, our government is right wing but not religous, we have freedom of speech even if its about religious figures and we make a big deal out of it. one of the lowest murder rates in the world, peaceful country, no opression. u live in the past my friends, get those old pictures out and get some new into ur head. travel the world
gix500 1 year ago
@gix500 Yes and do you understand the Christian ethics that are the predispositions of that culture?
Also according to your birthrate and immigration you will not stay atheistic for long.
rusty2029 1 year ago
@rusty2029 not all the ethics comes from religion, and thou shall not kill doesent prevent people from comitting murder just as 80 years in jail doesent either. and in earlier times, freedom of speech wasent very popular with the church, and many ppl had no rights. who gave them these rights were not the christians in form of a church but the politicians, i think everyone knows that. and i think u know that moral comes from personal exp. , society, and simply wanting peace
gix500 1 year ago
@gix500 You are avoiding the cultural heritage of Denmark and other Christian influenced nations that keep those values even if they turn away from God. Consider a godless worldview of evolution and naturalism thus you have an amoral construct that somehow designed our moral compass or otherwise we should all be more sociopathic if atheism is true. Heuristic, pattern recognition, meatpuppets don't have free will so all is instinct and dog eat dog... cont.
rusty2029 1 year ago
@gix500 Yes there where bad actions done in the name of Christianity and if you understood the biblical truths of love in the face of any and all hatred then you would know that not all have been keeping to the Biblical commandments to Love God and Love Others as much as we Love God and ourselves. You have a burden to prove that atheism is a benefit like the utopian efforts of Communism that required atheism as part of the ideology. Historical data points to the positive influence of Christ.
rusty2029 1 year ago
Fourth, I personally am interested in how intellegent design can pass as a scientific hypothesis and potentially a theory. However, I find the claims pretty weak for it being scientific. For instance I could say alchemy is falsifiable if i define alchemy in a way that it produces certain results we see in chemistry. But only this definition of alchemy could be falsified not any alchemy. Same with ID. Say we falsified specified complexity does that mean an intellegent designer doesn't exist? no.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic This is what also makes it hard to call it predictable as well. If your basing your idea on what is already observed and you simply say that we will only find more complex irreducibly complex systems you aren't really making a prediction, your just extrapolating what you expect to find based on what you've already found. Also you can't falsify irreducible complexity since there always could be another irreducibly complex system. I could go on if you'd like.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic Ultimately ID is the weaker of a sorties of arguments and clues for God but it is a science and uses the proper scientific methods for its theory. There has been no scientific proof that ID can't be a science. Understand the Münchhausen Trilemma and Poppers falsification is only about verisimilitude but ID does falsify evolution or you are claiming that evolution can't be falsified.
rusty2029 1 year ago
@rusty2029 ID is weak. Here's the argument in a nutshell. Look at design and order and see how we always associate it with a designer. Biological machines have order and complexity and information. Therefore God did it.
Guess what it is science, but it is poor science. But we don't consider it science because when we talk about science we talk about strong science. In fact astrology could qualify as science in the loose way ID does.
Evolution always seems to win the test of time.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic Evolution wins only those interested or predisposed to the ideology oh and those who submit to peer pressure. The church of Darwin is a scientism religion that has a host of defenders that do a good job. There are also defenders of ID that make the point that it is science and is NOT about Goddidit. Be clear we could find a planet terraform device on the moon and this would not be the Christian God but proof and evidence of ID none the less.
rusty2029 1 year ago
@rusty2029 ID uses an overextended metaphor and has no candidate for explanation that is deduced from nature. Every explanation science comes up with that isn't observable is deduced from what is. If we were to deduce a god using science he would be physical and imperfect and that would be extending the scope of science as it is. Science is about deducing things from the patterns of nature not removing yourself from the patterns to come up with some far removed explanation.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
Third, Sam harris is talking about some nationalist totalitarian government as analogous to religion. Not many atheists today want that. In fact most want freedom from and of religion, freedom of speech. Stalin's idea was not to give liberty and freedom. He wanted religion erradicated because it got in the way of his 'sovereign' authority. If God contradicts what stalin wants than god is treason.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic Again the totalitarian Atheist has no God or world view that will hold that person accountable for their actions. Or rather the Government is the god and highest authority. It matters little if some atheists want liberty and freedom their world is an amoral construct of chaotic chance and emergence. When you turn away from God and make atheistic authority a higher power the glue of society breaks down to a pitiless indifferent amoral inference to the godless worldview...
rusty2029 1 year ago
@rusty2029 "make atheistic authority a higher power..."
You need to watch what free thinkers are saying instead of listening to apologists and preachers tell you what atheists are saying. I don't care what dictator who claimed to be an atheist says. What most of us atheists want here on you tube is freedom from indoctrination and promote critical thinking which is lacking and causing much evil in the world. We don't want indoctrinated atheism. We figure out what is best for us.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@rusty2029 Some people may have virtue ethics or utilitarianism or some are collectivists or nihilists. But let's just take the nihilist for example. Under his view there is still reason to look out for others for criminal justice to better oneself and society. Aren't those some major things your looking for in a moral theory? If morality isn't there to serve people then what is the point of calling something moral?
RuinSonic 1 year ago
Ok, first off I disagree with both sides who use the bad actions of a religious person to say the religion is bad. I only agree with them if the religion was the cause of that action for instance if the bible's teachings helped stop the end of slavery.
Second. Atheism is not a system of beliefs but a label that excludes some religious beliefs. Nobody kills in the name of "theism" as well as atheism so if your going to talk about stalin you got to address his ideology.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic I acknowledge that there have been some bad actions associated with some Christians who are not following the orthodox understanding of the faith. But atheism is amoral so you have no moral base upon which to make any moral request. In atheism all things are permitted. And secular humanism is a religion of moral relativism. Atheism was a fundamental part of Communist Ideology and Stalin came to atheism in seminary so knew enough of what he wanted to kill...
rusty2029 1 year ago
@rusty2029 I don't care if you want to reject an atheists claim on objective morality. Because in reality it doesn't matter what you call it. Having moral rules based on what is good for humans may not be agreed upon but we can have a high level of agreement and it is an objective question what is the best for us as individuals and as a whole. Your morality you merely define as objective and it's purpose, if not for human good, means nothing since god is already perfect.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@user11235813213455 "Judge Jones even says, "I thought that if other school boards and other boards of education could read it, they would possibly be more enlightened." In doing so, he directly admitted the activist nature of his ruling, validating our criticisms of the ruling." from evolution news dot org. You will be able to catch up on the latest if you can put aside your incredulity and seek truth by a rightful consideration of what the website has to say.
rusty2029 1 year ago
@user11235813213455 Try to understand that I know a little about religion and even some who have as a basic premise of their religion that it is not a religion yet there strong need to assert their worldview shows us all as having the parts that God designed in us. One of those parts that has been twisted in a fallen world is the need to seek God who we owe our existence to. Where is the scientific proof that ID can not use scientific methods and be a science that explores complexity.
rusty2029 1 year ago
No one is censoring your religion by keeping Intelligent Design out of the science classroom. In fact from where I'm standing it seems that Intelligent Design proponents are trying to push their religion on others using the public school system. Intelligent Design barley constitutes a hypothesis and the theory of evolution is a solid scientific theory with a lot of evidence supporting it. Intelligent Design and the Teleological arguments belong in philosophy and theology classrooms.
user11235813213455 1 year ago
@user11235813213455 If you can't acknowledge the problems with Darwinian Evolution then you are censoring. Evolution is more about philosophy and inductive reasoning then you seem to understand. And your ignorance about ID is manifest or you would know that it is science and has no need to claim who the designer was but only that it could not have been anything else. Evolution has been falsified and ID is the reason for why it needs a new paradigm. Mathematics can't even back it up.
rusty2029 1 year ago
@rusty2029 I would love to see any information disproving evolution. I would also like to see any evidence for ID other than the tired old argument "life is too complex to have happened by chance". I would love to see a method in which you could even verify ID. I would also like to point out that we have an entire fossil record and the field of genetics that back up evolution.
user11235813213455 1 year ago
@user11235813213455 There is a wealth of evidence for ID posted on a host of websites and published materials. If you want to plead ignorance regarding this evidence then you are trying to suppress this. Again you can't seem to acknowledge the lack of mathematical formulation proving evolution or that it is possible to falsify evolution if you deny ID is a valid science. I guess you cling to the tautology of evolution from what you have expressed and that is really anti-science.
rusty2029 1 year ago
@rusty2029 I am open to anyone who can genuinely falsify evolution. If you have some source that I have not seen, please let me see it. There has been an entire scientific community trying to falsify or verify evolution for over a century. That is scientific. Mathematics alone cannot prove or disprove evolution any more than it could prove or disprove the atomic theory, germ theory or the theory of gravity. Science depends on observation. ID is not remotely scientific as it cannot be verified.
user11235813213455 1 year ago
@user11235813213455 There has more accurately been a community of scientist that wish to promote an ideology and religion I call the church of Darwin. ID finds specified complexity that requires all the parts to be there and for NO other explanation or emergent process to be found. The ideological effort to exclude ID is proof that evolution can not be allowed to be falsified otherwise there would not be all the fear-mongering about it. You have established your faith, fear, and ideology.
rusty2029 1 year ago
@rusty2029 There is no such thing as your "church of Darwin". The theory of evolution is a fact that does not promote an ideology. Science welcomes any legitimate attempt to falsify it and has for the last century and a half. The arguments of irreducible complexity would falsify evolution if they worked. That thing you were mentioning in your video about the argument involving bacterial flagellum refuted irreducible complexity. This is why the supreme court kept ID out of the science classroom.
user11235813213455 1 year ago
@user11235813213455 I understand the dogma that there is no church is what you need to state. Scientism insists on castrating science in order to make it into what it is. This is done by observing the considerations necessarily taken in judging truth claims about physical phenomena, and superimposing them upon all truth claims about reality. The flagellum has not been refuted and you haven't kept up on the latest. You do have a strong faith in an activist and bias judge to keep the ideology
rusty2029 1 year ago
@rusty2029 I'm not entirely sure what your reading but it has been refuted back in 2005 in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case. In response to your claims that I am somehow a ideologue, I really think you should look up a term called projection. It is a defense mechanism first proposed by Sigmund Freud. I think you might find it relevant.
user11235813213455 1 year ago
@user11235813213455 I do find it relevant when a bias and activist judge shows his ideological bias as are you. But Freud is nothing more then special pleading in regard to the validity of ID and current science on the flagellum or the limitations of natural selection. Have you read the current data and scientific effort to show how there is no natural way for the occurrence of this fine tuned machine. I was once an atheist so I know the ropes of the presuppositions that you dare not question
rusty2029 1 year ago
@rusty2029 The Freud comment was not directed at ID it was directed at you. Apparently I'm not reading the same stuff you are. I see no reason why we should be considered machines rather than walking, sentient chemical reactions. I also find your last couple of sentences funny. I was once a Christian once and I became an atheist through questioning my beliefs. The ONLY presupposition I dare not question is that I exist. Just out of curiosity are you saying John E. Jones was an activist judge?
user11235813213455 1 year ago
@user11235813213455 I know where the Freud comment was directed and yet it can still be turned around and directed at you just as validly when you cant recognize what is valid science using appropriate methods. I was talking of the flagellum as a machine but naturalism is just as refuted by more then the quantum actions of a sodium channel some think is the brain. --is that I exist. and I would ad that God is responsible for that existence as well as the existence of anything at all. Cont...
rusty2029 1 year ago
@rusty2029 I can prove my existence, congnito ergo sum. This is where I begin to disagree with Des Carte. My existence does not prove the existence of a deity. Thank you for the link, I'll be sure to read through what I can on this website. I admit I'm not entirely objective but you do know that the link you provided is stamped by the discovery institute. They do have an agenda. As I read through these articles, I will be doing so with a grain of salt. I would encourage you to do the same.
user11235813213455 1 year ago
@user11235813213455 "Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine~snip be sure to check what is ID button
rusty2029 1 year ago
@rusty2029 It has been observed that intelligent agents create CSI. No one is arguing that life is complex. ID as a hypothesis would state that intelligent agents and only intelligent agents can create CSI. How is this testable? Without the ability verify a hypothesis how can one reach the conclusion of ID scientifically?
user11235813213455 1 year ago
@user11235813213455 How would SETI test its hypothesis? We can test what is complex to the point of deifying any natural explanation. We can test signals for marks of intelligent origins. ID is about information and how CSI does not come undirected and the law of conservation is an issue and indicator of the probabilistic chances of chaos making order. Natural selection is being found to be limited and Darwinian evolution is being falsified as evident in the academic suppression of ID
rusty2029 1 year ago
@rusty2029: "Natural selection is being found to be limited and Darwinian evolution is being falsified as evident in the academic suppression of ID"
BS. The so-called "suppression" of ID is not due to ideology, ID is simply rejected as a testable mechanism and thus useless to science. Neither does recognition of the fact that ID is not science falsify Darwinism; that's not how falsification works. Incidentally, natural selection has NOT been found to be "limited".
LordZentei 1 year ago
I am atheist. I don't want to wipe out religion, nor does any atheist that I know. Atheism and science are NOT THE SAME thing, and should not be lumped together as though they are. Science is just science. That it doesn't concern itself with religion specifically within certain fields of study has NOTHINg to do with atheism. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods. You are mischaracterizing atheists and atheism by connecting it to Russia and China as you have in your video.
TheBissco 1 year ago
@TheBissco You claim there is no true atheist all you like but the requirement to join the communist party was clearly that you had to publicly avow you are atheist. Oh and science or rather scientism is strongly associated with atheism and how atheists use the tool of science to make assertions and metaphysical claims. The law of the excluded middle means that atheism is not a lack or a zero as it is a belief that there are no gods or deity of any kind.
rusty2029 1 year ago
Way to spread the love! I am sure that Jebus would be proud of you.
TheDeanoWeano 1 year ago
@TheDeanoWeano The Soviet Union and China have built up more atheists then any other movement. Do you spread the love of atheism? If you have not hardened your heart then the love of Jesus is waiting for you if you but reach out in the proper way. Otherwise you can do what atheists seem to do best and that is to tear down as they have nothing to build.
rusty2029 1 year ago
@rusty2029 Judge not lest ye be judged my friend. Atheism spreads nothing but the ability to think rationally. We do not believe in an inactive god because he gives no reason to believe. Disease,starvation,natural disasters.....and God's divine plan ....is to....remain.....invisible. If you have not hardened your heart to rational thought and are able to think for yourself.....then we welcome another free thinker. Otherwise you can do what theists do and spread gullibility based on fairy tales.
TheDeanoWeano 1 year ago
@TheDeanoWeano --Atheism spreads nothing but the ability to think rationally. Means the same as atheism only tears down and takes away all value. Only God will judge the disposition of your soul. Yet I can judge that you can only devalue as you have no rational arguments that present evidence for God's absence. Your divine plan is to hide from God's loving effort to give you a path to salvation. Scripture says that once you are open then the Holy Spirit will act to give you the vision needed
rusty2029 1 year ago
@rusty2029 I can't prove pixies don't exist either. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim (you). Continue to judge me friend...you have no idea what I contribute (judgmental Christian...typical). Do not think you are wise enough to judge...you are not even wise enough stop wasting the only thing you can be truly certain of...this life at this time. Be content in your delusion I wish you happiness...just remember..1 pair of hands at work will do more than 1,000 clasped in prayer.
TheDeanoWeano 1 year ago
@TheDeanoWeano I judge you by your words... as you seem to do to me. And you do not have a rational position if you have no means to point to what you believe is the truth, thus you have a burden as well and can't shift it all on me as you have chosen to confront me and not the other way around. You did respond to this video and yet you feel no need to have a rational set of clues for what you think is the truth... interesting Claim =Atheism spreads nothing but the ability to think rationally.
rusty2029 1 year ago
@rusty2029 My truth is simply this...we love because we are loving beings. We care because we are caring beings. We give because we are giving beings. We do not need a "God" to show us right from wrong. You are correct, I commented on your video and I must commend you for at least allowing comments. The Christian "believe in the bronze age fairy tale" mentality is so antiquated (ridiculous) that most of you do not and cannot defend your position. At least you try. You fail..but at least you try.
TheDeanoWeano 1 year ago
People are scared of atheists because our worldview threatens to take away their comfort and their coping mechanism for dealing with life's difficulties. Your thoughts are muddled and nonsensical. Intelligent Design doesn't belong in science classes, very simply, because it isn't science.
Anonoo 1 year ago
@Anonoo We both know that the effort to falsify neo-darwinism can not be allowed as the dogma that ID is not a science continues but I am well aware of the dogma and know how this battle will continue. You can't take away my comfort in that I have a personal relationship with God and in love would like to share that with those who do not harden their heart against God. The village atheist can try their best to tear down but you can't touch what God has raised up.
rusty2029 1 year ago
@rusty2029 I'm not interested in taking away your comfort. Your comfort is why you can't accept Darwinism. It threatens to take away your comfort. That was my point, and you pretty much proved it. My heart isn't hardened against anything in particular, really. I just think too darn much to accept supernatural, unproven beliefs in exchange for the comfort they offer.
Anonoo 1 year ago
@Anonoo Understand that there is no science based proof that ID is not a science other then the bald atheist assertion. The comfort provided of not having to stand and give account of one's actions is reason why the Darwin hypothesis is at the center of most atheists belief systems. ID stands to falsify parts of the evolutionists hegemony and thus is attacked. How exactly do you think the supernatural is unproven? How is naturalism proven in all respects? You have your comfort but it is false.
rusty2029 1 year ago
@rusty2029 My worldview offers no real comfort, actually. This isn't the first time I've been told by a haughty, judgmental Christian that my worldview is about avoiding accountability. In reality, sir, your worldview is the irresponsible one, holding to the idea that someone paid for your sins, and that you can be forgiven by someone other than those you harmed. ID discredits itself well enough on it's own. I've no need to attack it.
Ighnot 1 year ago
It's not an atheist exclusivnism, it's a scientific one. If evolution is true or not doesn't disprove god, so it shouldn't worry theist. Communism wasn't a destruction of religion. Was it anti-religious? Yes, but what makes communism communism is it's principles of a government controlled economy and other policies. It's not something built around atheism, but instead government. Atheism is to communism and religion is to capitalism.
Ebuverthebicepcurler 1 year ago
The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.
There is no speech or language
where their voice is not heard.
Their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
SpcMedia21 1 year ago
This can be flipped around to say that the advantage in debate and lack of requirement for positive assertion is inherent in a null hypothesis such as atheism, and that you are clinging to a belief that we are not what we say we are to deny us this advantage rather than addressing it directly. The world I posit is this one. It is the one we are both dealing with, regardless of whether or not a higher power exists in it. If action implies a god, then the action of a god implies another god.
bobosmitherson 1 year ago
I certainly did not obfuscate the nature of atheism. Rather I illustrate in the simplest possible terms how what you say is related is not related, and what you say we have we cannot sustain. It is clear however, that you are assuming the attempts of atheists to define themselves to be dishonest. That prejudice is something I cannot correct with an argument. Your prejudice seems to have guided your video as well. You are familiar with Pat Condel. What separates your methods from his?
bobosmitherson 1 year ago
@bobosmitherson Pat Condel's polemical style may be a good tactic for the theist as well. For the youtube atheist its self evident how they wish to define atheism so as to not have any epistemic burden on their side. This wish for a non-belief is a belief that they will cling to dogmatically so that there side has advantage in debate and no intellectual requirement to have an objective truth position or need validations for atheism. cont...
rusty2029 1 year ago
@bobosmitherson Again I maintain that we BOTH have a belief and activators or validations for said position. We can both maintain that we have things on our side that counts as evidence or even an absence of evidence being evidence of absence. Take for instance the idea that most everybody believes in a Higher Power of some kind. Posit what a possible world would look like without any god or ultimate end to all regress. The fact that we are moral agents speak to a Higher Power as active agent.
rusty2029 1 year ago
Atheism does not require Marxism, Marxism does not require mass murder, and mass murder does not require any ideology given how prevalent it is in human history across the board.
Atheism has no "crucial components." We do not have consensus on our personal opinions. We do not have leaders in an official capacity. We are separate people with only one simple disbelief necessarily in common.
bobosmitherson 1 year ago
@bobosmitherson Your simple obfuscation does not mean that atheists necessarily permit Marxism though atheism was required to be a party member. You can hide crucial components with your repeated repetition of your tautological axiom that atheism is a meaningless vacuum of no dogmas (a dogma) and no consensus (somewhat true but misleading) and no codified rules or rigid structure. I do understand how you have falsified atheism as anything worthy or intellectually justified. I get it.
rusty2029 1 year ago
Marxist legacy is not "atheist" legacy. In order for it to be atheist legacy, atheism has to demand positive action (ie ascribing to Marxism) which it doesn't.
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
@DaveDoggOwns The fact that you have taken the positive action of trying to defend your worldview speaks to the ideas I was talking of. Given that one had to be an atheist as requirement for communist party membership does tend to refute the apologists of atheism tactic of saying there is no such thing as an atheist legacy. How you view the world and the context that you are placed in does tend to show demands of positive action such as the hate speech of Pat Condell and others.
rusty2029 1 year ago
Hitler made his soldiers wear "In God We Trust" on their belts. What? Does this mean theists are Nazi's? No of course not.You know that. We don't use Hitler as evidence that theism promotes mass murder so why can't you do the same for us regarding Stalin and Mao? If Hitler isn't evidence that theism promotes mass murder than Stalin and Mao is not evidence that atheism promotes mass murder. Got it?
And no, the mere fact that I'm talking to you doesn't mean atheism demands positive action.
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
Atheism demands only negative action: a disbelief in God. That's it. It doesn't say you must be an anti-theist like Pat Condell, or a Marxist, or anything. If someone like Pat Condell saids he is an atheist, it's not atheism is the ONLY thing he ascribes to.
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
just so you know, ( as a person that has lived in the ussr i can tell you this) there were VERY, VERY many religious people in the union. HUGE LOADS of them.
alarlol 1 year ago
@alarlol Atheism can be a religion if you consider hatred of religion as a critical component. Dogmas such as atheism requires no belief or makes no metaphysical claims do give illustration to these first principals demanded for a proper youtube atheist. Remember that huge loads of ad-populum does seem to work for atheists who need to hide their dogmas and presuppositions behind some kind of non-stamp-collecting cloud of obfuscations.
rusty2029 1 year ago
@rusty2029
all that aside, the ussr had genuine religious people in it and the territry is still very relgious with the few exceptions like estonia.
alarlol 1 year ago
Oh, Mann.
Da kann man sehen was Propaganda aus einem Menschen machen kann.
Armer Irrer
AnnOnuem75 1 year ago
Stalin replaced god with himself. HE WAS GOD.Same in North Korea.KIM is god. Religion's gun to your head is the threat of going to hell .
no1saphead 1 year ago
The problem with Soviet Russia is that they never had a bill of rights. The system allowed itself to be dominated by psycopathic power mongers (which happens also in religious countries). There are no laws banning religion in the US nor are there laws condoning it. You should not teach a religious view in school in any subject including physics, biology, chemisrty, math, etc., unless empirical evidence supports its inclusion. Religion is a personal choice and a guranteed right of the individual.
CHAS1422 1 year ago
So your saying if your an atheist you support China and the USSR or at least their view. NO WE DON'T!!.. you got us all wrong. We don't want Religious nuts shoving religious fairy tales in our throats. We want religion out of our lives. Religion has killed, KILLED more people than any disease ever has. ALL you god freaks want us to think your so holy so you can molest our kids and steal from us. NO WAY!! that is why we are atheists and drink occasionally unlike you!!
fernandizo 1 year ago
The Soviets and Chinese are not, nor have ever been "atheistic" in any sense any more than the US or Japan. The Soviet Union even has the same protection of religion (and seperation of Church and State) as the US constitution. As far as "Science Minded Soviets", politics made that a joke long before Lysenko made it a mockery in the rest of the world. Might want to do some more homework on these issues. In the Soviet Union, only Stalin hated religion. (part 1 of 2)
RyuDarragh 1 year ago
(part 2 of 2) and it was Stalin who commited the purges because the Russian Orthodox Church defied him regarding the obvious wealth they held. Stalin, by the way, was headed for the monastic life and would have served *in* the church, but was rejected.
RyuDarragh 1 year ago
There's nothing wrong with two pages on intelligent design.
In a social studies class, as a social discussion or a religious studies class, but science isn't a social issue. :)
Cheebzsta 1 year ago
Why is communism not mentioned in atheistic discours? Stalin didn't act in the nam e of atheism, it was in the name of communism.
Would you say the Iraq war is a religous war because most americans are christian ? It is the same analogy.
MexxPowers 1 year ago
putting the whole god argument aside, what the USSR did was not right but atheism was only part or not even a reason for all the killing. And that was just one instance when atheists are the killing force. The majority of the time the killing was by Christians or by people not associated with religion at all. So please stop stereotyping all atheists!
nonsenseical 1 year ago
The soviet Union was like a religion. It went after the religious because religion is a way to bend people to be under your control.
Just as many religions have done in the past if you didn't put you "faith" in the soviet union then it treated you as a threat to it's power.
Religious leaders have a lot of power. The pope vs. kings. Kalifa vs. president. etc.
BDSC2 1 year ago
Atheism didn't create those problems. Atheism begins, and ends with the answer to one question. Do you believe in god. That's it. It doesn't teach you to be liberal, conservative, a socialist, or capitalist. It has no inherent political views, or dogma.
BDSC2 1 year ago 2
The tone and thoughts in this video are fairly well organized.
I appreciate that even tho the premise that there should be intelligent design in science class is way off base. As intelligent design isn't science it isn't peer reviewed, it isn't accepted scientific theory.
The equivalent to placing two pages of non-science in a science textbook is the equivalent to placing two pages of cooking recipes into the bible. They are completely unrelated and shouldn't be in the same place.
mordesmortes 2 years ago
Again the argument that true science is sacred and must not face any criticism or effort to debate and question such precious dogmas of evolution. You enter a form of religion by way of backing into religion in a way you are blind to. The religion of evolutionary truth is a fine exclusive dogma. Preaching that ID is not science is a clear indication of this defense of sacred dogma. Yet scientists who point out the flaws in natural selections ability to make new unique features get persecuted.
rusty2029 2 years ago
um no nothing of the sort I would welcome intelligent design as a theory if it actually answered anything at all or had evidence to back it. As it is ID only says "this is irreducibly complex it must be designed" how does that help us figure out anything? Also which scientists are you referring to getting persecuted for presenting evidence to falsify evolution I would like to see the articles.
mordesmortes 2 years ago
I have added some new links to the wealth of links I have provided in the sidebar just click (more info)
David Berlinski and William Dembski are just two of the scientists I am thinking of. But there are more.
Consider this quote: "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on BOTH SIDES of each question." -Charles Darwin
rusty2029 2 years ago
Berlinski isn't a scientist but a mathematician he is a science critic. Dembski is another mathematician and a theologian. both of which are employed by the discovery institute which is hardly an indicator in their favor as neither have put forth any papers for review, or for that matter has the discovery institute at all. If they are certain of their convictions they should be clamoring for their information to be reviewed the fact that they aren't speaks volumes.
mordesmortes 2 years ago
USA is "atheist" (secular) also, just like the Soviet Union, due to separation of church and state.
Is the USA also evil? FYI, states aren't "good" or "evil"; they may harbor evil ppl, or evil leaders, but entire countries aren't evil.
And still, you have zero evidence that any god exists... It's better to just face the truth, and move on from there, rather than persist in a delusional, god-based worldview.
Elvisdogg 2 years ago
You fail to understand that as a Christian I have had God personally interact with me in such a way that God gives us all evidence that convicts us of this truth. I was once an atheist so I understand the delusions. Recently I was hit by a car and suffered a head injury that should have killed me. The Neurosurgeons are amazed. So your a priori supposition that there is zero evidence is something you can not prove. I live as standing evidence of God and His love.
rusty2029 2 years ago
My thought here is rather simple... if god was actually personally involved in your life and loved you wouldn't he have made the car miss you?
Also while god was saving you through miraculous brain surgery done by a doctor who had honed his skills through out his life. There were people starving who were praying to god who died anyways. What makes your personal relationship worth more than their lives?
Thank the doctors as much as you can, rather than the god who didn't make the car miss.
mordesmortes 2 years ago
watch?v=hUUeXH-OmPI
How is it that you know so much about God that you think God should behave in a way you seem to demand? My study of the Bible does not sync with your view in the least.
It's like you expect God to be some kind of Orwellian controller and big brother....
Also don't presume that God treats all in the same manner. God's chosen people the descendants of Abraham are an excellent example. The Jews where chosen yet needed bondage so as to learn...
Watch the video...
rusty2029 2 years ago
Using your accident as proof of gods personal intervention in your existence and as an example of your personal relationship with said god doesn't fallow from Veritas48's argument
There is nothing to support god was involved at all in your accident or your recovery if you use Veritas48's video to deal with the problem of of evil. Which makes your position an argument from ignorance Ie I don't know why I survived must be god.
You are making the claim that god personally intervened to save you
mordesmortes 2 years ago
--if god was actually personally involved in your life and loved you wouldn't he have made the car miss you?
And you say the video does not follow? Do you profess to know God? Can you see clearly what the Apostle Paul could only view through the glass darkly?
The moment I was hit an ambulance just happens to be driving by. A large artery between the hemispheres was bleeding. The skilled neurosurgeons had to work for hours. The doctors did not hold out much hope. Cont...
rusty2029 2 years ago
The video doesn't fallow as it doesn't address the problem of evil actually, an all knowing, all powerful, all benevolent god would never have created a universe where you could have gotten hit by a car.
Actually my claim is that it is impossible to know the mind of a god period, we're not a god so we can't know it. You claiming to know he cares personally about you is without evidence and is sheer egotism.
mordesmortes 2 years ago
My claim is that God has communicated sufficiently so that you can open a channel and start a relationship with Him. My evidence is the empirical experience of millions of Christians. My evidence even reaches out to those who seek other gods as God has put within you the desire that can be diverted by Satan. God has been effecting the lives of millions of believers and there is a direct cause and effect proposition that should stand as evidence. Yet you would make the bald assertion of none...
rusty2029 1 year ago
God has not communicated at all from what I've experienced, man has though. The only experience I've had of God is through man and I've tried a couple of times and put effort into communicating with God without any succesful attempt. On that I can give you no more than my word.
I have seen no direct cause of Gods supposed existence, I have seen many futile claims though.
GrottoFace 1 year ago
Oh, and you cannot have faith in a lack of something (atheism). Atheism is not a religion.
GrottoFace 1 year ago
--Oh, and you cannot have faith in a lack of something (atheism). Atheism is not a religion.
I have proof provided in the links in the sidebar that would say that your religious claim above is up for debate. You can make all the bald assertions you like in your faith based belief system. I was once an atheist myself so I do understand your efforts. Spin it any way you like in your deep faith in yourself.
Atheism is a return to the heliocentric view of self as center of the universe...
rusty2029 1 year ago
I could provide links that would say that the claims you just made are up for debate. Providing links simply gets you nowhere.
Christianity is by definition a faith-based belief system, atheism is not a belief system at all and if you're referring to science that is not based on faith, it is by definition based on observal evidence backing up its claims.
I'm not making bald assertions, I'm being rational. Once again you should learn to tell the difference.
GrottoFace 1 year ago
Atheism is a return to the heliocentric view of self as center of the universe..
wtf? your saying we are self centered because we don't believe in god? What are you smoking? How does that make sense to you? Wait are you mentally handicapped? If you are Im sorry.
To be a philosopher you have to think in steps not GIANT leaps.
fernandizo 1 year ago
No your claim is that god personally intervened to save you and that you know the mind of god in this instance. Which is both arrogant and cruel as it says god didn´t care to save those others who were praying. Iń 20 years when there are more Muslims than Christians will you convert to Islam as the evidence supports Allah? I suspect not. Satan can divert people from god doesn´t that make god less than all powerful? Please explain how this makes sense at all with the claims you have made.
mordesmortes 1 year ago
As for the situation of your accident. It doesn't matter what they are. You have no idea why you survived and rather than accepting that you can't know you say yahweh must have done it. It could have just as well be aliens or vishnu based on the evidence presented. It doesn't provide evidence to any particular god even if something supernatural occurred and was observed. You just had bad odds and you beat them, which is good for you it doesn't prove anything regarding a supernatural entity.
mordesmortes 2 years ago
..and this is why you cannot argue with creationists. They can always hide within their bubble in which you can make all claims with no evidence.
A personal experience of yours which may and probably is one of your own delusions is not in any way evidence for anything.
And if you survived that head injury then it "should" not have killed you as it didn't, but it probably COULD have if reality had differed just a bit. An unlikely ocurrence is not an impossible ocurrence. Know the difference.
GrottoFace 2 years ago
...and to turn it round upon you I ask how do you make the bald assertion that there is no evidence? Is your delusion that of great faith in atheism? The main artery between the upper hemispheres of the brain was split open. My survival odds where in the less then 25% range. I SHOULD have died but we can both, special plead confirmation bias. You sir are making claims without evidence. But I have more to back up my claims like the evidential experience of 2k years of Christians and God.
rusty2029 1 year ago
Also I hope you know the issue of cause and effect. God communicates with mankind and the effect is Christianity. God causes a universe that can support life and the earth is the effect. Yes... The skilled Doctors effected my survival from a deadly condition. ALSO an ambulance happened to be passing by. The effect of prayer on my behalf is not lost on the empirical group who experience my condition at my Church. The empirical experience of cause and effect is not beyond the grasp of some..
rusty2029 1 year ago
Mankind needs comfort and whatnot and/or tools to manipulate and control the rest of their species - religion is created. No?
Considering the short span of which we have lived in this universe and the amount of time where pretty much no life has existed (as far as we know) you can deduct that God certainly was slow in creating a universe that can support it. And no, I do not believe it being 6000 years old and that it was made in 6 days.
GrottoFace 1 year ago
If your survival odds were 25% or even 10% there was a chance of survival, and you survived. It is undoubtfully remarkable for you to survive but nonetheless far from an impossibility as I've already stated.
If you on the other hand survived with survivals odds of 0% then I'd be truly astonished - if that happened then I'd understand why anyone would claim it to be a miracle.
None of what you mentioned is something that could be considered as evidence.
GrottoFace 1 year ago
there's a quote by sam harris (not sure of the exact wording.) but he says something along the lines that the problems with fascist dictatorships and communism in general, wasn't their godlessness, but their obvious similarities to religion. all the various dogmas, worship of dear leader, ect.
ChristTard666 2 years ago
oops, didn't finish the vid before i commented. apparently you've already heard the quote.
ChristTard666 2 years ago
THIS DUMBASS! Christianity is the group that doesn't what intelligence because intelligent people have been pointing out holes in religious beliefs since the beginning of religion.
waffles497 2 years ago
Von Braun was a creationist. So that typical moron "I be smarter" is not very smart. But i guess its an easy argument.
GodHatesPortugal 2 years ago
Wernher von Braun build weapons for the Nazis,later he build weapons for the Americans.
He was a "peace loving"Christian.
Any questions?
gotohellfast 2 years ago
He did what he had to do to stay alive or not get arrested just like countless Germans. And his initial research was rockets to reach space not weapons, he was recruited and had to obey.
Man, that was dumb...lol...
GodHatesPortugal 2 years ago
He build the V2 for the Germans and ballistic missiles for the Americans.
His missiles blasted a lot of people to heaven.
He switched sides to save his Christian ass and kept building bombs.
Let's call him Saint Wernher.
gotohellfast 2 years ago
You are so dumb dude...shut up faggot, you are another faggot blaming religion for the fact that nobody really likes fags.
GodHatesPortugal 2 years ago
@ GodHatesPortugal,why so angry?
It's not my fold that the pedophile priest in your church loved you more then the other boys...
Calling me gay does not change the fact you need mystical creatures , to get through your miserable life.Keep reading old scriptures and try to live in fish like Jonah did.
YOU love JESUS,Jesus is a MALE...YOU are the fag!
gotohellfast 2 years ago