I think it takes a lot of bravery to go around saying fairy tales are true. I suppose Christians are emboldened by their numbers. I was thinking that I was never bullied because of my atheism, but then I remembered that people tried when I was a teenager. Fortunately I have a white-hot core of assholish aggression in my sould that tends to dissuade such bullying efforts. Not to brag, but I can fight entire large groups of Christians and win.
worst movie ever(im not religious or gay but red state suked real bad) dont worry i got it perfectly but come on ....kevin smith can do bett. stick to comedy or something i dont know lil
"When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall. ... This is one of the rules common to the whole house." -- C.S. Lewis. Even though this analogy is mainly about Christianity and Religion, I feel it applies to everything in life. We need to learn to be Respectful and Kind to everyone.
I only found out a few years ago how big Christianity is in the US. I knew more believed in god than didn't, but never knew they classed admitting your an Atheist as "Coming Out." I live in the UK and haven't believed in God since Infant school (about 7 years old). But to us, that's normal. Only about 40% of people living in England believe in God and it's a whopping 90% in the US. In some Scandinavian counties it's as low as 15%. So now I can understand why it's scary for some Atheists.
@PowaShammy It really depends on where you live. In San Diego I've managed to meet more atheists than not actually. Though I do keep it to myself except with friends or if a person asks. It's those few times where people tell me that they feel sorry for me that make me reserved. So I wouldn't say 90% in southern California but even if it's 40% then it's a feisty bunch nonetheless.
Penn's friend, Joe, is also pal of mine. He told me the story in regards to his son, and I just wanted to cry. It amazes me how arrogant people can be! :(
A question for humanity. In a world where there's no proof of God's existence or of life after death; how will you explain to your children why you brought them into the world and why they will have to die?
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
Faith is a believe in something unproven. UNPROVEN! that means we have a hard time believing it because it has no proof and that's they way you as a religious person wants it. Forgive us for not seeing something that only you can and that's the way I look at it. I wish you'd see it that way too.
@Beatelectrico No, not at all. My point is: Faith does not require proof because once something is proven it negates the need for faith. Atheist tend to require proof while the religious don’t, in fact, most religious text demands "blind faith," which is: a belief in something despite all evidence to the contrary. We have evidence to support our claims and we make our judgments based on it.
"Atheist tend to require proof while the religious don’t"
False, both atheism and theism is based on faith alone, atheist don't have evidence god does not exist and theists don't have evidence that god exist, the only lefts to support their believes is faith.
"We have evidence to support our claims"
You are an atheists? What evidence you have god does not exist?
@Beatelectrico Its elementary my Dear Watson! If a belief does not require nor want evidence or proof, then those who do believe it should not judge those that do require evidence and proof; they should instead, understand how difficult is it to believe.
Well the total absence of any proof of God's existence could qualify as proof of his non-existence.
Also, consider the fate of every other God that man has invented throughout recorded history, ALL are eventually discarded and forgotten, ALL are eventually found to be false, or maybe they simply invent a better 'new & improved' God to take it's place
Soon Yahweh and Allah will follow Zeus and Odin into the trash bin of history,
You seem to think that not to believe in something requires faith, this is a common obfuscation used by theists.
As Jesus himself said to Thomas (who doubted that he had risen) "Oh yea of LITTLE FAITH" - meaning that Thomas had NO FAITH and so required PROOF.
The theists of today like to conflate the two differing meanings of 'Faith' and using that kind of argument you could say that Thomas had 'faith that Jesus had NOT risen' instead of the correct 'Thomas had no faith.'
Atheism isn't and has never been the assertion of gods' nonexistence.
It is lack of conviction in the claims of the religious that such a being(s) indeed does exist.
By your logic, the fact that you don't believe in the following must mean that you are vigorously stating that Santa/Unicorns/All the gods you don't believe in/Invisible brain-humping space aliens don't exist, despite your utter lack of evidence to the contrary, as you can't prove a negative.
"Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god" wikipedia.
All dictionaries definitions of atheism has always been "belief gods does not exist" or "disbelief in gods" both are assertion of gods nonexistence.
There is only one definition of atheisms, either you stick to it, or yu are not an atheist.
"lack of conviction in the claims of the religious..."
18th century, boyo. More up to date dictionaries tend to differentiate between the active and the passive denotation to the word "unbelief/nonbelief", the latter of which simply means lack of belief.
Whether or not the larger theist community has accepted the fact or not, the vast majority of atheists are not actively disbelieving in any one thing, stridently claiming "I am certain this does not exist or even cannot exist".
"More up to date dictionaries tend to differentiate between the active and the passive"
Which dictionary?
"the latter of which simply means lack of belief."
Still, lack of belief is not atheism.
Atheism is the active disbelieve in god, of you don't actively disbelieve in god, then they are not atheists. And they are doing wrong in calling themselves atheists.
I use the dictionary definition, that is the correct definition for atheism, my problem is the people who pulls a definition out of their ass and claim to be the real definition of atheism.
PS: You didn't answer my question: which dictionaries differentiate between the active and the passive atheism? Probably there is no dictionary doing that and you know it.
@Beatelectrico do you eat old paint chips? you can't prove the non-existance of something but you can site lack of evidence as a basis for non belief. If no-one had ever told me about God I'd still there'd be no reason to use a word to describe my non-belief. Show me some evidence or all your arguments have no basis in fact or reason.
I claim that is not good to chose to believe some thing does not exist based on a lack of evidence. Many theories we have now used to be hypothesis (had no evidence to support them, till technology advanced and evidence was found) many species of animals where "myths" till evidence was found those species did exist.
Absent of evidence is not evidence of absent.
Is more reasonable to be open minded that Gods may exist or may not exist, than just chose atheism "Gods don't exist"
@Beatelectrico Atheism is simply not believing that gods exists. It's not a positive claim of knowing gods do not exist. many atheists acknowledge the fact that there might be a god or gods, we just simply do not believe they do since the probability is very small, and that there is no evidence.
Some atheists claim to know (gnostic atheists) while others claim to not know (agnostic atheists)
I just find irrational to disbelieve in something just because of the lack of evidence.
Absent of evidence is not evidence of absent, god could perfectly exist and atheists could perfectly be wrong. Much more logical to not be an atheists and not be a theists and just remain as a pure agnostic. :D
@Beatelectrico I think it's more illogical to believe in something without any good reason to,without any evidence. I might go ahead and believe in Santa, or unicorns. no evidence,but who cares, it's better than being an atheist about them right? smh
You don't need faith to not believe in something that has no evidence. You need faith to believe in something that has no evidence. Please don't be a brain dead fucking moron.
Yeah true. And if you think about it almost everything is Subjective. Almost nothing is objective. We shouldn't argue btw, we won't go anywhere. And I don't really want to talk about this subject too much. Because we both know that both sides of us want change in the end.
(continued) it's their Constitutional Right to not believe in God. It's hypocritical for a Christian to bully and judge anybody in the first place, the Bible says "to love thy neighbor", if these Christians that bully, believe in the Bible to be the word of God, why don't they follow what they believe to be the word of God? To many Christians are just arrogant.
@michaelgrella Great comment. I used to be the kind of Christian you are (now I'm an atheist), and it's just a shame that not all believers have attitudes like yours.
It's a shame that often people say "be respectful of other people's beliefs" to atheists, when too often are some believers (of whatever religion) are not respectful of atheists' choices.
@michaelgrella Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. If someone doesn't believe what you do or don't, Accept the fact that what they believe is different from what you do/don't.. but please, FFS, don't be a self-righteous douchebag and tell people they're going to hell because they're different than you. Christianity teaches temperance, but so few followers actually follow through with it.
It's wrong to bully anybody for anything at anytime. I don't understand why people would hate others for what they believe or not believe. I am a Christian and I have strong faith in what I believe in, but I don't look down on people that are Atheist. I have friends that are Atheist, I love them to death, I definitely don't look down on them,
Here in Sweden, pretty much everyone you meet is an atheist. Some are agnostic and a few might believe in some sort of higher power (not to the point that they deny evolution or something like that). Even our "rednecks" are atheists. They're all like: "What the fuck is a jebus?"
I haven't been bullied yet, but that's only because I haven't said that I'm an atheist out in public yet. Just to friends and family. Bullying is not right. Religious bullies, based on what I've read and seen, are worse. Mire atheists should come out of the closet so they can take comfort in that they're not alone. There are millions upon millions if atheists in America.
i think the bible wasn't necessarily meant for people to worship to much but to learn basic lessons that make you a better person so i guess you could say im christian
Living in Britain, I sometimes forget how absolutely powerful the Church in America is (Yes, it has a certain amount of power over here too, but it's nothing like the mad grip that Christianity seems to have over in the States.) Over here, NO ONE cares if you're an atheist, and it just seems really strange and actually a bit shocking to me that people are bullied for this sort of thing. (No one should be bullied for anything, of course, but REALLY? For being an atheist???)
Ya I'm the only athirst at my school too my friend was one too but he moved I jus don't talk about religion at school and when people do I jus stay quiet because I know there are annoying ignorant people that will do this too me it annoys me that people do this
@beatelectrico unless you are an agnostic theist, you are an atheist. Atheism answers the question "Do you believe in god/s?" in the negative. Agnosticism answers "Do you KNOW if there is a god/s?" All agnostics who do not know if there is a god are atheist by definition.
@lacocacolaman : Earth to dumbass, it is in fact religion that does that to people. Being yourself is nothing to be bullied for. You would be/are a worthless parent if you make them conform to such idiocy.
What a worthless parent. Why would the Mom make the daughter stand out in a school. Now I hate bullying but for the parent to turn her daughter into a martyr at school is just plain stupid. Kids ALWAYS pick on the kid that's different and kids are cruel when it comes to mob mentality, it's not Christianity that does this.
Idiot parent for purposely making her daughter stand out.
Well, atheism is illogical so I can see why some people get piss at them, same reason some people get piss at theists.
That is why being an agnostic is the best, you take no side and you can just look at the theists and atheists fighting and killing each other about their faith based beliefs.
@Beatelectrico yes i know you meant it figuratively, but why not act instead of just being a bystander and either help to resolve this issue OR choose a side but keep it to yourself because in the world we live in is a misunderstanding one.
I don't think the issue can be resolved, theists and atheists will hold on their believes like if their life depended on it. I have try to convert them to agnosticism but I only succeed with atheists (which is not much of a win anyways as atheist are not as harmful as theists) so is kinda of a pointless battle to try to stop the fight.
@Beatelectrico You're speaking as if you can't be a Theist-Agnostic or Atheist-Agnostic. In fact most people understand that you can't know for sure whether a God exists or not and are therefore Agnostic. Some would consider Atheism to be neutral claiming it is the lack of belief in a God, not the belief that there is no God. And saying "Atheists are not as harmful as Theists" is a ridiculous generalisation(Analogous to: Rich=Evil), as some of the worst people I know are Atheists or Theists.
Just look it up in a dictionary, atheism is the belief that there is no god.
If atheism definition where "lack of belief" then rocks, babies, agnostics and animals would also be atheists.
That is why "lack of belief" is never used in dictionaries as a definition of atheism, because is not the real definition and doesn't describe well what an atheists is. :)
Agnostics is based on knowledge, atheism is based on faith, agnostics that are atheist can't logically exist for that reason.
@Beatelectrico If you understand what Agnosticism is, then you know it is possible for someone to be both Agnostic and anything else. Agnosticism is a term coined by a man named Thomas Henry Huxley. He explains that Agnosticism is simply the idea that nothing is absolute, that you can't know whether something exists or not. Atheism, even if it is referred to as the belief that God is not real, can coincide with Agnostic ideals. "I don't know if God is real, but I don't believe he is." Get it?
@Beatelectrico It seems you're trying to state your opinion as something provable. And I never said that lack of evidence means something is false. Are you against people choosing to believe something(or choosing not to believe something)?
Being an agnostic, you should understand that nothing is absolute. You choose to believe the things you perceive and accept them as [your] reality. I consider it hypocritical to think less of someone for doing something you do every second of your life.
I know that people who believe in stuff out of faith only causes trouble to other people.
I'm not talking about absolutes, I'm talking about having at least some evidence before choosing to belief in something.
I believe in objective evidence which is outside me and is independent of my reality, the moon is round and spins around the planet, that is objective and supported by evidence, I don't believe that out of faith.
Yes, evidence that you must choose whether to believe or not. You perceive this "evidence" and you choose to believe what you saw happened. Other people might not choose to believe what they see sometimes.
Nothing you can perceive is outside of your reality. Everything you have ever thought or perceived has become a part of your reality. Anything you haven't is not. Everything comprehensible to you is a part of your individual reality no one elses
You are talking bullshit, objective evidence is objective, doesn't matter what, that is why is called objective evidence, it does not depend from what a person thinks, it is outside a person brain.
@Beatelectrico It could seem that way from your perspective couldn't it? You choose to believe that. That is your opinion.
From my perspective, our consciousness creates the universe around us. It causes each of our realities to manifest as individual containers of perceptions and memories.
Would you consider science "objective?" Even though scientific principles such as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Einstein's Theory of Simultaneity tell us that reality is based on perspective.
@Beatelectrico I could persuade you with "evidence" that appeals to you, but I don't think the way you do. I don't know what would convince you so I explained it the way I understood it.
Ofc atheist are bulied i live in 93% Chatlic country. U dont know how is in my country, Churches everywhere, Romanchatolic Church in all party of bureaucracy. Bishop in politics in news on radio on television, magazines, but noody wants to hit me cuz i am big. We have religious education in school. But our president is atheist, but he had to say he is agnostic, and second they.
I am a Catholic, I could care less what you believe in. Yet it is still quite a shocker when someone tells you they don't believe in God. But you shouldn't bash their beliefs, some Thiests are fine while some would just say to you
God isn't real
When you just say "Oh my god" or something like that. It's quite annoying when some athiests do that, but...Leave them alone everyone is different.
When I was in high school I wrote poetry and I was a fairly good looking guy. I told the head cheerleader I liked her and wrote her some poems. She loved them, she started flirting with me. A few days later she found out I was an atheist. From then on she hated me, cursed me every time I tried to talk to her and often looked like she wanted to spit on me. I got similar treatment from a few others in school. Religion just teaches you to be arrogant and bigoted.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
@Mogley52 How is that even relevant? The reason we don't believe Christianity is because it sounds bad? That's a pretty offensive thing to imply, and way off target. Second, the King James bible is pretty clear on hell. Of course, you'd be right to show how much the meaning of the "bible" was changed throughout history. Problem is, if God won't ensure the most popular translation of the bible ever is correct, why the hell would you think the he would ensure the originals are correct?
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
@Mogley52 1.Einstein was a pantheist; he defined God as natural laws such as gravity, mainly because he would have faced discrimination otherwise. He didn't believe in an intelligent creator, and he certainly wasn't a "creationist". Pantheists consider evolution to be God. 2.You committed the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Just because Einstein believed something, that doesn't make it true. 3.Even if there was a creator, that means absolutely nothing for your position.
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
HUMAN-CHIMP DNA MYTH: The actual similarity is between 70-87% not 99.8% as commonly believed. The original research stating 99.8% similarity was based on ignoring contradicting evidence. Read the article, "Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth--New Research Data" at the Institute for Creation Research Site. The similarities are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes, rather than chance. Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY LOGIC is similar to seeing an earthquake churn-up a few well-formed rocks and concluding from this that earthquakes, if given enough time, can construct a building. Macro-evolutionists take the little things here and there produced by chance and extrapolate it into something extraordinary and then call it science. Notice, all evolutionists begin with a complete species. They don't begin their theory with partially-evolved species, with partially-evolved tissues and organs.
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. For every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing extinction, not upward evolution. Most variations are from new combinations of already existing genes, not mutations.
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
HOW DOES DNA MAKE A BODY? When you divide a cake the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food we received in the womb to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read my article: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
I was openly atheist in a UK school about 5-10 years ago now... I was called a satanic freak and physically assaulted by groups of people. It's not just the US. Also, still an atheist.
I was an open atheist in school in a small town and no one ever talked about it. I assumed most people my age and younger were atheists too or just didn't care. But most of them did seem to hate gays. This was in the early to mid 90's. I wonder if bigotries just go in & out of fashion.
thx 4 the video pen.hope some christians are watching and understanding that religion doesn't create only fluffy feelings and rainbows,but promotes hate as well. HATE that would NOT be justified or sustained without it
The word hero is really overused. Penn Jillette is awesome but he is not a hero. Also, I thought the Cincinatti area is fairly liberal minded and loving of all people. I didn't realized parts of that area were so close minded.
that poor family they should move to canada we are very understanding here well we try anyways. i dont think im a true atheist cause i believe there is a prime creator of our universe but i dont believe in religion so i guess im kind of an atheist? i dont know but to me it does not matter just treat everyone equal and love each other and try to be understanding of our differences and beliefs. i guess im just as crazy as the religious nuts i believe in aliens and sasquatch so... lol
I live in Chile, which is very religious and easy as hell for me too! I mean, sure people debate a lot with me, try to convert me, call me an asshole and close minded (standard shit). But nobody threatens me at all. I've never felt I've been in danger or ostracized at all. My christian friends are still my friends. They tell me I'm wrong, but that's nothing. Cases like these just break my heart...
I think it takes a lot of bravery to go around saying fairy tales are true. I suppose Christians are emboldened by their numbers. I was thinking that I was never bullied because of my atheism, but then I remembered that people tried when I was a teenager. Fortunately I have a white-hot core of assholish aggression in my sould that tends to dissuade such bullying efforts. Not to brag, but I can fight entire large groups of Christians and win.
Snakepliskinist 2 days ago
From Cincinnati and Atheist. You're not alone!
Benable7 2 weeks ago
RIP Christopher Hitchens. You were a wonderful man.
kittencat22 2 weeks ago
Us atheists need to stop being condemmed to hell and threatened
111theflash 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
zEropoint68 3 weeks ago
if anyone bullied me for being an athiest......id remind them that i wont be punished after i die if i beat he shit out of them :P
ussopking 4 weeks ago
worst movie ever(im not religious or gay but red state suked real bad) dont worry i got it perfectly but come on ....kevin smith can do bett. stick to comedy or something i dont know lil
ThePhil909 4 weeks ago in playlist Season 2
i was sad wen i found out Penn Says was gone. but im glad to find this new show :D
tyrantenvoy 1 month ago
This was great :)
TenaciousSkaven 1 month ago
"When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall. ... This is one of the rules common to the whole house." -- C.S. Lewis. Even though this analogy is mainly about Christianity and Religion, I feel it applies to everything in life. We need to learn to be Respectful and Kind to everyone.
Danae0115 1 month ago
I had no idea it was this bad, holy shit
DeoMachina 1 month ago
I only found out a few years ago how big Christianity is in the US. I knew more believed in god than didn't, but never knew they classed admitting your an Atheist as "Coming Out." I live in the UK and haven't believed in God since Infant school (about 7 years old). But to us, that's normal. Only about 40% of people living in England believe in God and it's a whopping 90% in the US. In some Scandinavian counties it's as low as 15%. So now I can understand why it's scary for some Atheists.
PowaShammy 1 month ago
@PowaShammy It really depends on where you live. In San Diego I've managed to meet more atheists than not actually. Though I do keep it to myself except with friends or if a person asks. It's those few times where people tell me that they feel sorry for me that make me reserved. So I wouldn't say 90% in southern California but even if it's 40% then it's a feisty bunch nonetheless.
Lazl0r 1 month ago
Penn's friend, Joe, is also pal of mine. He told me the story in regards to his son, and I just wanted to cry. It amazes me how arrogant people can be! :(
KaylaMarieAbbott 1 month ago
better to have to find this now than be surprised by it later - its cool enjoy the life you think you are living too*
acent2112 1 month ago
enjoy the moment it is awesome seeing this today
acent2112 1 month ago
wish i could stand there and talk too drumming monster to magician
acent2112 1 month ago
Comment removed
acent2112 1 month ago
this video is so sad :(
toSTONEiGO 1 month ago
Well atheism is not believing in any deity, regardless of evidence. Agnosticism is thinking a deity may exist, but no one knows for sure.
abaddon1112 1 month ago
more pennpoint!!!!!!!
MrROTD 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A question for humanity. In a world where there's no proof of God's existence or of life after death; how will you explain to your children why you brought them into the world and why they will have to die?
QuestionForHumanity 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
GET READY FOR THE GREAT WARNING NOW!!!
thewarningsecondcoming . com
JezusSlave 2 months ago
Faith is a believe in something unproven. UNPROVEN! that means we have a hard time believing it because it has no proof and that's they way you as a religious person wants it. Forgive us for not seeing something that only you can and that's the way I look at it. I wish you'd see it that way too.
unholyghost34 2 months ago
@unholyghost34
In other words, you have faith god does not exist.
Beatelectrico 2 months ago
@Beatelectrico No, not at all. My point is: Faith does not require proof because once something is proven it negates the need for faith. Atheist tend to require proof while the religious don’t, in fact, most religious text demands "blind faith," which is: a belief in something despite all evidence to the contrary. We have evidence to support our claims and we make our judgments based on it.
unholyghost34 2 months ago
@unholyghost34
"My point is: Faith does not require proof"
Really Sherlock?
"Atheist tend to require proof while the religious don’t"
False, both atheism and theism is based on faith alone, atheist don't have evidence god does not exist and theists don't have evidence that god exist, the only lefts to support their believes is faith.
"We have evidence to support our claims"
You are an atheists? What evidence you have god does not exist?
Beatelectrico 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Beatelectrico Its elementary my Dear Watson! If a belief does not require nor want evidence or proof, then those who do believe it should not judge those that do require evidence and proof; they should instead, understand how difficult is it to believe.
unholyghost34 2 months ago
@Beatelectrico
"What evidence you have god does not exist?"
Well the total absence of any proof of God's existence could qualify as proof of his non-existence.
Also, consider the fate of every other God that man has invented throughout recorded history, ALL are eventually discarded and forgotten, ALL are eventually found to be false, or maybe they simply invent a better 'new & improved' God to take it's place
Soon Yahweh and Allah will follow Zeus and Odin into the trash bin of history,
AsDeadAsDillinger 2 months ago
@AsDeadAsDillinger
In science, the absence of evidence is not considered evidence that something is true or false.
Proving that some god are false, doesn't mean all of them are false.
Or if some Gods are forgotten by mankind, it doesn't mean they did not existed.
The truth is, neither theists nor atheists have evidence to support their believes.
Which is why I advice people to become agnostic, we don't go around believing in stuff out of faith. :)
Beatelectrico 2 months ago
@Beatelectrico
You seem to think that not to believe in something requires faith, this is a common obfuscation used by theists.
As Jesus himself said to Thomas (who doubted that he had risen) "Oh yea of LITTLE FAITH" - meaning that Thomas had NO FAITH and so required PROOF.
The theists of today like to conflate the two differing meanings of 'Faith' and using that kind of argument you could say that Thomas had 'faith that Jesus had NOT risen' instead of the correct 'Thomas had no faith.'
AsDeadAsDillinger 2 months ago
@AsDeadAsDillinger
I know that you can not believe in something out of faith or out of evidence.
My argument is that theists and atheists base their belief in faith as the don't have evidence to support their belief.
It doesn't matter if theists use the same argument, this is an objective secular argument that remains true regardless of who is using it.
Beatelectrico 2 months ago
@Beatelectrico
Atheism isn't and has never been the assertion of gods' nonexistence.
It is lack of conviction in the claims of the religious that such a being(s) indeed does exist.
By your logic, the fact that you don't believe in the following must mean that you are vigorously stating that Santa/Unicorns/All the gods you don't believe in/Invisible brain-humping space aliens don't exist, despite your utter lack of evidence to the contrary, as you can't prove a negative.
ogith 1 month ago
@ogith
"Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god" wikipedia.
All dictionaries definitions of atheism has always been "belief gods does not exist" or "disbelief in gods" both are assertion of gods nonexistence.
There is only one definition of atheisms, either you stick to it, or yu are not an atheist.
"lack of conviction in the claims of the religious..."
That would not be atheism.
Beatelectrico 1 month ago
@Beatelectrico
18th century, boyo. More up to date dictionaries tend to differentiate between the active and the passive denotation to the word "unbelief/nonbelief", the latter of which simply means lack of belief.
Whether or not the larger theist community has accepted the fact or not, the vast majority of atheists are not actively disbelieving in any one thing, stridently claiming "I am certain this does not exist or even cannot exist".
ogith 1 month ago
@ogith
"More up to date dictionaries tend to differentiate between the active and the passive"
Which dictionary?
"the latter of which simply means lack of belief."
Still, lack of belief is not atheism.
Atheism is the active disbelieve in god, of you don't actively disbelieve in god, then they are not atheists. And they are doing wrong in calling themselves atheists.
Beatelectrico 1 month ago
@Beatelectrico
Whatever, pick a more pertinent and fitting nomenclature for the matter then if that is the main point of contention for you.
ogith 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ogith
I use the dictionary definition, that is the correct definition for atheism, my problem is the people who pulls a definition out of their ass and claim to be the real definition of atheism.
PS: You didn't answer my question: which dictionaries differentiate between the active and the passive atheism? Probably there is no dictionary doing that and you know it.
Beatelectrico 1 month ago
@Beatelectrico do you eat old paint chips? you can't prove the non-existance of something but you can site lack of evidence as a basis for non belief. If no-one had ever told me about God I'd still there'd be no reason to use a word to describe my non-belief. Show me some evidence or all your arguments have no basis in fact or reason.
MrROTD 1 month ago
@MrROTD
I claim that is not good to chose to believe some thing does not exist based on a lack of evidence. Many theories we have now used to be hypothesis (had no evidence to support them, till technology advanced and evidence was found) many species of animals where "myths" till evidence was found those species did exist.
Absent of evidence is not evidence of absent.
Is more reasonable to be open minded that Gods may exist or may not exist, than just chose atheism "Gods don't exist"
Beatelectrico 1 month ago
@Beatelectrico Atheism is simply not believing that gods exists. It's not a positive claim of knowing gods do not exist. many atheists acknowledge the fact that there might be a god or gods, we just simply do not believe they do since the probability is very small, and that there is no evidence.
molyvenson 1 month ago
@molyvenson
Some atheists claim to know (gnostic atheists) while others claim to not know (agnostic atheists)
I just find irrational to disbelieve in something just because of the lack of evidence.
Absent of evidence is not evidence of absent, god could perfectly exist and atheists could perfectly be wrong. Much more logical to not be an atheists and not be a theists and just remain as a pure agnostic. :D
Beatelectrico 1 month ago
@Beatelectrico I think it's more illogical to believe in something without any good reason to,without any evidence. I might go ahead and believe in Santa, or unicorns. no evidence,but who cares, it's better than being an atheist about them right? smh
molyvenson 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@molyvenson
"I think it's more illogical to believe in something without any good reason to,without any evidence"
I totally agree, which is why I don't believe in arguments made by theist or atheists because none of them have evidence to support their arguments.
"I might go ahead and believe in Santa, or unicorns. no evidence,but who cares"
Huh? And not you contradicted yourself, wth??
Beatelectrico 1 month ago
@Beatelectrico
Pure agnosticism is kinda stupid. You would have to apply that to every single thing in life. Santa, Satan, God, Jesus, Krishna, Zhor, Zeus, etc.
There is a possibility of a god existing or anything existing such as the flying spaghetti monster, the celestial teapot, etc.
There is a possibility that aliens created it.
But we know that none of this is true. There is no evidence of a god.
There is a possibility but there is no probability of it existing.
soadpwnsyou 4 weeks ago
@soadpwnsyou
Well if you find it stupid is not my problem.
"But we know that none of this is true"
How you know that is not true? What evidence you have to say is not true?
"There is no evidence of a god"
Exactly, and without evidence, how you can claim god does not exist?
"There is a possibility but there is no probability of it existing."
As you said, there is a possibility, why there is that possibility, because you are guessing that god doesn't exist.
Beatelectrico 3 weeks ago
@Beatelectrico
God has as much possibility as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I don't believe in either.
soadpwnsyou 3 weeks ago
@soadpwnsyou
You didn't answer my questions. I don't mind if you don't believe in god or FSM, as long as you know that you don't believe in them out of faith. :)
Beatelectrico 3 weeks ago
@Beatelectrico
You don't need faith to not believe in something that has no evidence. You need faith to believe in something that has no evidence. Please don't be a brain dead fucking moron.
soadpwnsyou 3 weeks ago
@soadpwnsyou
"You don't need faith to not believe in something that has no evidence."
Then what do you need to not believe in something that has no evidence?
Beatelectrico 3 weeks ago
@Beatelectrico
Common sense.
Do I need faith to know that harry potter isn't real...no I don't. You are a mother fucking retarded dumbass that is beyond stupidity.
soadpwnsyou 3 weeks ago
@soadpwnsyou
Common sense, something you don't have.
Beatelectrico 3 weeks ago
@Beatelectrico
Common sense is something you don't understand.
soadpwnsyou 3 weeks ago
@soadpwnsyou
I'm being sarcastic... You can't just use common sense to decide if something is true or false... Common sense is 100% subjective.
Beatelectrico 3 weeks ago
@Beatelectrico
Yeah true. And if you think about it almost everything is Subjective. Almost nothing is objective. We shouldn't argue btw, we won't go anywhere. And I don't really want to talk about this subject too much. Because we both know that both sides of us want change in the end.
soadpwnsyou 3 weeks ago
@molyvenson Actually, having belief that any deity exists is Agnosticism.
abaddon1112 1 month ago
@abaddon1112 What? please tell me you're trolling. lol
molyvenson 1 month ago
Comment removed
unholyghost34 2 months ago
I could never live in a country where being atheist is dangerous. Well done guys!
albula642 2 months ago
(continued) it's their Constitutional Right to not believe in God. It's hypocritical for a Christian to bully and judge anybody in the first place, the Bible says "to love thy neighbor", if these Christians that bully, believe in the Bible to be the word of God, why don't they follow what they believe to be the word of God? To many Christians are just arrogant.
michaelgrella 2 months ago 8
@michaelgrella Great comment. I used to be the kind of Christian you are (now I'm an atheist), and it's just a shame that not all believers have attitudes like yours.
It's a shame that often people say "be respectful of other people's beliefs" to atheists, when too often are some believers (of whatever religion) are not respectful of atheists' choices.
Maddolis 2 months ago
@michaelgrella Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. If someone doesn't believe what you do or don't, Accept the fact that what they believe is different from what you do/don't.. but please, FFS, don't be a self-righteous douchebag and tell people they're going to hell because they're different than you. Christianity teaches temperance, but so few followers actually follow through with it.
abaddon1112 1 month ago
@michaelgrella Bible also says that rebellious children should killed. Do you follow the word of God in that?
Apiaanilol 4 weeks ago
@Apiaanilol No, matter a fact, I'm an Atheist now.
michaelgrella 3 weeks ago
It's wrong to bully anybody for anything at anytime. I don't understand why people would hate others for what they believe or not believe. I am a Christian and I have strong faith in what I believe in, but I don't look down on people that are Atheist. I have friends that are Atheist, I love them to death, I definitely don't look down on them,
michaelgrella 2 months ago 6
Why doesn't that family MOVE??? Their kid is being bullied and the mom pushed to tears too. I would move to a better community.
TheSnowyice 2 months ago
I'm amazed at how atheism is regarded in America.
Here in Sweden, pretty much everyone you meet is an atheist. Some are agnostic and a few might believe in some sort of higher power (not to the point that they deny evolution or something like that). Even our "rednecks" are atheists. They're all like: "What the fuck is a jebus?"
Anyway, keep on fighting, American atheists.
TroloIol 2 months ago in playlist Season 2
Sorry for the incorrect spelling. Autocorrect is a pain. :)
CoreyfromEarth 3 months ago
I haven't been bullied yet, but that's only because I haven't said that I'm an atheist out in public yet. Just to friends and family. Bullying is not right. Religious bullies, based on what I've read and seen, are worse. Mire atheists should come out of the closet so they can take comfort in that they're not alone. There are millions upon millions if atheists in America.
CoreyfromEarth 3 months ago
Penn, you're wonderful. The family you describe is wonderful. Thank you.
gravecactus 3 months ago in playlist Season 2
i think the bible wasn't necessarily meant for people to worship to much but to learn basic lessons that make you a better person so i guess you could say im christian
vongobleonpz 3 months ago
Living in Britain, I sometimes forget how absolutely powerful the Church in America is (Yes, it has a certain amount of power over here too, but it's nothing like the mad grip that Christianity seems to have over in the States.) Over here, NO ONE cares if you're an atheist, and it just seems really strange and actually a bit shocking to me that people are bullied for this sort of thing. (No one should be bullied for anything, of course, but REALLY? For being an atheist???)
PassTheMarmalade1957 3 months ago
I wish he would just talk to one camera; the constant turning is annoying.....
nouseforaname667 3 months ago
Sorry about the grammar I'm on a phone
kenny964 3 months ago
Ya I'm the only athirst at my school too my friend was one too but he moved I jus don't talk about religion at school and when people do I jus stay quiet because I know there are annoying ignorant people that will do this too me it annoys me that people do this
kenny964 3 months ago
I wonder If it's Cincinnati ?
MrOakgarden 3 months ago
Massive gulf of difference between the top two comments
CaptainOvious123 3 months ago
Islam Miracle Fail
watch?v=ojhp7UMiC7k
KenMacMillan 4 months ago
Penn talks alot about the christianity, but does he ever talk about other religions? Like islam or buddhism?
Azdroc96 4 months ago
@Azdroc96 Yes. Though not as much which is understandable considering that he is in America.
evejunkie1942 4 months ago
@beatelectrico unless you are an agnostic theist, you are an atheist. Atheism answers the question "Do you believe in god/s?" in the negative. Agnosticism answers "Do you KNOW if there is a god/s?" All agnostics who do not know if there is a god are atheist by definition.
djfusilier 4 months ago
@lacocacolaman : Earth to dumbass, it is in fact religion that does that to people. Being yourself is nothing to be bullied for. You would be/are a worthless parent if you make them conform to such idiocy.
djfusilier 4 months ago 9
What a worthless parent. Why would the Mom make the daughter stand out in a school. Now I hate bullying but for the parent to turn her daughter into a martyr at school is just plain stupid. Kids ALWAYS pick on the kid that's different and kids are cruel when it comes to mob mentality, it's not Christianity that does this.
Idiot parent for purposely making her daughter stand out.
Lacocacolaman 4 months ago
Well, atheism is illogical so I can see why some people get piss at them, same reason some people get piss at theists.
That is why being an agnostic is the best, you take no side and you can just look at the theists and atheists fighting and killing each other about their faith based beliefs.
Beatelectrico 4 months ago
@Beatelectrico its best to watch people kill each other?
Fishfan10 3 months ago
@Fishfan10
They are fighting a pointless war, is better to be neutral and watch them kill each other, no reason to be another victim of their silly war.
PS: when I said "kill" I mean it in figurative speak.
Beatelectrico 3 months ago
@Beatelectrico yes i know you meant it figuratively, but why not act instead of just being a bystander and either help to resolve this issue OR choose a side but keep it to yourself because in the world we live in is a misunderstanding one.
Fishfan10 3 months ago
@Fishfan10
I'm choosing a side, the neutral side.
I don't think the issue can be resolved, theists and atheists will hold on their believes like if their life depended on it. I have try to convert them to agnosticism but I only succeed with atheists (which is not much of a win anyways as atheist are not as harmful as theists) so is kinda of a pointless battle to try to stop the fight.
Beatelectrico 3 months ago
@Beatelectrico You're speaking as if you can't be a Theist-Agnostic or Atheist-Agnostic. In fact most people understand that you can't know for sure whether a God exists or not and are therefore Agnostic. Some would consider Atheism to be neutral claiming it is the lack of belief in a God, not the belief that there is no God. And saying "Atheists are not as harmful as Theists" is a ridiculous generalisation(Analogous to: Rich=Evil), as some of the worst people I know are Atheists or Theists.
Shlongess 3 months ago
@Shlongess
Just look it up in a dictionary, atheism is the belief that there is no god.
If atheism definition where "lack of belief" then rocks, babies, agnostics and animals would also be atheists.
That is why "lack of belief" is never used in dictionaries as a definition of atheism, because is not the real definition and doesn't describe well what an atheists is. :)
Agnostics is based on knowledge, atheism is based on faith, agnostics that are atheist can't logically exist for that reason.
Beatelectrico 3 months ago
@Beatelectrico If you understand what Agnosticism is, then you know it is possible for someone to be both Agnostic and anything else. Agnosticism is a term coined by a man named Thomas Henry Huxley. He explains that Agnosticism is simply the idea that nothing is absolute, that you can't know whether something exists or not. Atheism, even if it is referred to as the belief that God is not real, can coincide with Agnostic ideals. "I don't know if God is real, but I don't believe he is." Get it?
Shlongess 3 months ago
Comment removed
Beatelectrico 3 months ago
Comment removed
Beatelectrico 3 months ago
@Shlongess
"I don't know if God is real, but I don't believe he is." Get it?"
Yes I get it, but that is still illogical, lack of evidence is not evidence that something is false.
That "agnostic atheist" is holding on his beliefs out of faith.
Beatelectrico 3 months ago
@Beatelectrico It seems you're trying to state your opinion as something provable. And I never said that lack of evidence means something is false. Are you against people choosing to believe something(or choosing not to believe something)?
Being an agnostic, you should understand that nothing is absolute. You choose to believe the things you perceive and accept them as [your] reality. I consider it hypocritical to think less of someone for doing something you do every second of your life.
Shlongess 3 months ago
@Shlongess
I know that people who believe in stuff out of faith only causes trouble to other people.
I'm not talking about absolutes, I'm talking about having at least some evidence before choosing to belief in something.
I believe in objective evidence which is outside me and is independent of my reality, the moon is round and spins around the planet, that is objective and supported by evidence, I don't believe that out of faith.
Beatelectrico 3 months ago
@Beatelectrico That is completely your opinion.
Yes, evidence that you must choose whether to believe or not. You perceive this "evidence" and you choose to believe what you saw happened. Other people might not choose to believe what they see sometimes.
Nothing you can perceive is outside of your reality. Everything you have ever thought or perceived has become a part of your reality. Anything you haven't is not. Everything comprehensible to you is a part of your individual reality no one elses
Shlongess 3 months ago
@Shlongess
So, it is my subjective opinion that objective evidence is objective?
Beatelectrico 2 months ago
@Beatelectrico Now you're getting it. (And it is also my subjective opinion that everything is subjective)
I suggest you look at these: essjaydoubleyou.blogspot.com/2010/07/all-perception-is-gamble.html
/watch?v=w2xzIgdD_XA
/watch?v=GuOplymDx4I&feature=related
/watch?v=w2xzIgdD_XA
Shlongess 2 months ago
@Shlongess
You are talking bullshit, objective evidence is objective, doesn't matter what, that is why is called objective evidence, it does not depend from what a person thinks, it is outside a person brain.
Beatelectrico 2 months ago
@Beatelectrico It could seem that way from your perspective couldn't it? You choose to believe that. That is your opinion.
From my perspective, our consciousness creates the universe around us. It causes each of our realities to manifest as individual containers of perceptions and memories.
Would you consider science "objective?" Even though scientific principles such as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Einstein's Theory of Simultaneity tell us that reality is based on perspective.
Shlongess 2 months ago
@Shlongess
The universe exist if you are there and if you are not there.
We know the planted and prehistoric animals existed before humans existed.
Your mind does not create the universe, the universe exists and your mind perceives it through our senses.
Science is objective, is based on evidence and not on what you can invent in your mind.
Beatelectrico 2 months ago
@Beatelectrico All I could possibly do is try to persuade you. But I don't have the patience anymore.
Shlongess 2 months ago
@Shlongess
More BS you got no evidence to convince me of your arguments.
Beatelectrico 2 months ago
@Beatelectrico I could persuade you with "evidence" that appeals to you, but I don't think the way you do. I don't know what would convince you so I explained it the way I understood it.
Shlongess 2 months ago
@Shlongess
Evidence would do the trick.
Beatelectrico 2 months ago
@Beatelectrico These are big picture ideas, philosophies. Fuck it.
Are you familiar with Quantum Mechanics and Relativity? The Uncertainty Principle, Simultaneity, wave functions, Bosons, Fermions, etc?
Shlongess 2 months ago
Comment removed
Beatelectrico 4 months ago
I feel so lucky to live in Canada. atheists by far outnumber christians at my school.
DSakaiOnRye 4 months ago
Ofc atheist are bulied i live in 93% Chatlic country. U dont know how is in my country, Churches everywhere, Romanchatolic Church in all party of bureaucracy. Bishop in politics in news on radio on television, magazines, but noody wants to hit me cuz i am big. We have religious education in school. But our president is atheist, but he had to say he is agnostic, and second they.
crowowteam 4 months ago
I am a Catholic, I could care less what you believe in. Yet it is still quite a shocker when someone tells you they don't believe in God. But you shouldn't bash their beliefs, some Thiests are fine while some would just say to you
God isn't real
When you just say "Oh my god" or something like that. It's quite annoying when some athiests do that, but...Leave them alone everyone is different.
Maplepaw1 4 months ago
@Maplepaw1 Using gods name in vain is ingrained into all of us.
Even Christians.
jonu67 4 months ago in playlist More videos from pennpoint
@Maplepaw1
"oh my god" is something we're raised with.
You can even identify a nationality or culture by just listening to screams of PAIN because we're raised with it.
Hjernespreng 4 months ago
@Maplepaw1 When you say "bless you" when someone sneezes does ANYONE still believe snezing is the release of demons?
NO its a fucking word, half of the shit we grow up with has lost it's meaning over time but remains in our vocabulary.
Quit being a cunt.
FuturePants 4 months ago
I am reading this right now... fabulous.
amyleoness 4 months ago
When I was in high school I wrote poetry and I was a fairly good looking guy. I told the head cheerleader I liked her and wrote her some poems. She loved them, she started flirting with me. A few days later she found out I was an atheist. From then on she hated me, cursed me every time I tried to talk to her and often looked like she wanted to spit on me. I got similar treatment from a few others in school. Religion just teaches you to be arrogant and bigoted.
endthedisease 4 months ago 32
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 4 months ago
@Mogley52 How is that even relevant? The reason we don't believe Christianity is because it sounds bad? That's a pretty offensive thing to imply, and way off target. Second, the King James bible is pretty clear on hell. Of course, you'd be right to show how much the meaning of the "bible" was changed throughout history. Problem is, if God won't ensure the most popular translation of the bible ever is correct, why the hell would you think the he would ensure the originals are correct?
PaleBlueVoice 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 4 months ago
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 4 months ago
@Mogley52 1.Einstein was a pantheist; he defined God as natural laws such as gravity, mainly because he would have faced discrimination otherwise. He didn't believe in an intelligent creator, and he certainly wasn't a "creationist". Pantheists consider evolution to be God. 2.You committed the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Just because Einstein believed something, that doesn't make it true. 3.Even if there was a creator, that means absolutely nothing for your position.
PaleBlueVoice 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 4 months ago
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 4 months ago
HUMAN-CHIMP DNA MYTH: The actual similarity is between 70-87% not 99.8% as commonly believed. The original research stating 99.8% similarity was based on ignoring contradicting evidence. Read the article, "Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth--New Research Data" at the Institute for Creation Research Site. The similarities are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes, rather than chance. Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY LOGIC is similar to seeing an earthquake churn-up a few well-formed rocks and concluding from this that earthquakes, if given enough time, can construct a building. Macro-evolutionists take the little things here and there produced by chance and extrapolate it into something extraordinary and then call it science. Notice, all evolutionists begin with a complete species. They don't begin their theory with partially-evolved species, with partially-evolved tissues and organs.
Mogley52 4 months ago
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. For every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing extinction, not upward evolution. Most variations are from new combinations of already existing genes, not mutations.
Mogley52 4 months ago
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
Mogley52 4 months ago
HOW DOES DNA MAKE A BODY? When you divide a cake the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food we received in the womb to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read my article: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
@Mogley52 this is a video about intolerence and bigotry, why are you spamming it with irrelevant nonsense?
t00117598 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mogley52 this is a video about intolerance and bigotry, why are you spamming it with irrelevant nonsense?
t00117598 4 months ago
Comment removed
Mogley52 4 months ago
Comment removed
Mogley52 4 months ago
The bookstore is called Joseph Beth Booksellers.
TheChemicalWire 4 months ago
Warm fuzzies!
ThorGoLucky 4 months ago
I was openly atheist in a UK school about 5-10 years ago now... I was called a satanic freak and physically assaulted by groups of people. It's not just the US. Also, still an atheist.
anonihamster 4 months ago
I was an open atheist in school in a small town and no one ever talked about it. I assumed most people my age and younger were atheists too or just didn't care. But most of them did seem to hate gays. This was in the early to mid 90's. I wonder if bigotries just go in & out of fashion.
icopaseticMHF 4 months ago
where i live you would be bullied for being a part of a religion it just must be how the USA is different to Australia same with circumcision as well
why you be doing that america
joshuahardy95 4 months ago
thx 4 the video pen.hope some christians are watching and understanding that religion doesn't create only fluffy feelings and rainbows,but promotes hate as well. HATE that would NOT be justified or sustained without it
Samura1gamer 4 months ago
The word hero is really overused. Penn Jillette is awesome but he is not a hero. Also, I thought the Cincinatti area is fairly liberal minded and loving of all people. I didn't realized parts of that area were so close minded.
MusicJew158 4 months ago
Penn looks like the Undertaker
thexland1 4 months ago 14
@thexland1 I'd pay to see him tombstone a christian. like, alot.
ThriceDog 4 months ago
@thexland1 Maybe he IS the Undertaker :|
Terminator6385 4 months ago
that poor family they should move to canada we are very understanding here well we try anyways. i dont think im a true atheist cause i believe there is a prime creator of our universe but i dont believe in religion so i guess im kind of an atheist? i dont know but to me it does not matter just treat everyone equal and love each other and try to be understanding of our differences and beliefs. i guess im just as crazy as the religious nuts i believe in aliens and sasquatch so... lol
THESLICKNESSEDM 4 months ago
I live in Chile, which is very religious and easy as hell for me too! I mean, sure people debate a lot with me, try to convert me, call me an asshole and close minded (standard shit). But nobody threatens me at all. I've never felt I've been in danger or ostracized at all. My christian friends are still my friends. They tell me I'm wrong, but that's nothing. Cases like these just break my heart...
bernytheman 4 months ago
Different is scary for some people. Luckily in Scandinavia, we don't really have that problem. Being an atheist is like saying you're going to pee.
RoseWasCute 4 months ago