@Albert10110 So I suppose u say that it's alright for atheists to mention militant Christianity or Militant Islam while it is completely okay for them to completely ignore the crimes of atheist tyrants who killed more people in a year and nearly caused a nuclear war.
@Albert10110 Interesting, so what about the abortion clinic bombings or 9/11 u seem to be shoving in religion's face? Aren't they also irrelevant to God's existence? And if "militant atheism" is illegitimate, how do u explain the 100,000 priests, nuns and rabbis shot by Joseph Stalin when he took power, or the hundreds of Catholics killed and imprisoned by Mao Zhe Tung, and perhaps the tortured missionaries and buddhists under Pol Pot? How does that not prove Militant atheism?
I love the very idea of this. The image of a guy with a machine gun in one hand, and a clove cigarette in the other, lol. I love the fact that Christians have been slaughtering people for 2000 years, but call Atheists militant. Still... The pen is mightier than the sword, or so it's said. Hell, Christians in certain areas are just as barbaric now. Look at the Witch killings in Africa. The peaceful Christians are just an excuse to hold in front of real examples. 'Not our church! We're nice!' lol
Funny to see the christians here flipping out. Speaking =/= militancy. If any of you christians actually have an argument for the existence of your god, then simply present it
@FongLin100 And every excuse for an argument for the existence of any gods falls flat on it's face. I have seen numerous philosophical arguments, all of which are invalid, erroneous or unsound. Likewise with any arguments based on any other area of expertise falls flat. I have found tons and every single one fails. If you have a particular argument you think does the job, present it and I will be more than happy to show you where it fails. Here or...facebook.com/groups/2372835473
@travlr3000x Give me one example of those arguments that "fall flat". My face book account is down and I can't get it back so give me another link. Why don't you go to a more hard hitting apologetic website like "creation ministries international", or "truefreethinker"? Or better yet why not send them an email to the authors themselves and let's see how their arguments really fail.
@FongLin100 Any fb page will do. I can recommend about ten others, but if you have a problem stating your case in neutral territory where we both know we won't be censored or hacked well that's your loss. I've seen all your arguments and you have nothing to offer. You seem to think otherwise but if you don't want to present your case, no one's forcing you
@travlr3000x Oh please, like I had have nothing better to do with my life than engage in endless debates that lead nowhere. You clearly asked for theists to present an argument regarding the existence of God, I'm simply pointing out where to look, then you start making excuses. If you want someone to argue with, you can email the authors themselves. If you don't want to check out some of the examples of sources I've listed on this issue, that's not my problem.
@FongLin100 And I merely pointed out if all you theists wanna sit here and whine that only demonstrates you have no argument. If you have an argument, present it. Otherwise just stfu
@travlr3000x Who's whining? I am simply a messenger sending you a source to look for arguments, so why not actually go to some of the listed sources instead of making more excuses?
@FongLin100 All the theists in this thread are whining. I've seen and studied all the arguments for the existence of a god and they all fail. Maybe one day you'll make it to college and study those arguments too. Probly not, but who knows? Now stop making excuses for your lack of an argument and present one already or stfu fucktard ;p
@travlr3000x Wow, my feelings are so hurt right now. Again, why not email the authors some of the research you have done in choosing your beliefs and let us see how things go in the future alright. And I am telling you that I have done research as well in choosing my beliefs, and there are points I know of to defend the existence of god. But I've grown a little tired in debating atheists, so why don't you go to the areas I have researched back when I was a little bit more vulnerable till now.
@FongLin100 Hey, here's an idea. Why don't you whine and bitch about atheists posting vids some more and then troll the fuck out of this one particular vid. Then when an atheist calls you out for being the whiny little fucktard you are, make excuses and use red herrings, that way you are sure to never say anything of substance.Total FAIL kid, but hey if you were "vulnerable" and needed an imaginary friend I can understand. Some of us are just more stable than others.
@travlr3000x Am I supposed to be crying right now? Calling the intelligent designer an "imaginary friend" while believing an even more absurd belief that nothing created everything out of nothing. This rhetoric of yours impacts me just as effectively as how one would call Columbus an idiot for not believing the Earth was flat.
You still refuse to debate actual apologists on the issue of God. Why not actually give THEM not me a message on the issue of God and let's see who really fails.
@FongLin100 LMFAO, nice straw man fucktard. Never said everything came from nothing dumbass. And you still refuse to actually make any argument. Troll on fucktard
@travlr3000x You're calling ME a troll? LOL You're the one who's making the pathetic insults. I never intended to argue with you in the first place, I simply told you where to look for arguments for God. I also mentioned that if you wanted to debate someone, do it with an actual apologist instead of targeting normal, indifferent low levels like me. Or are you just afraid?
@FongLin100 LMFAO, that explains so much. JP Holding has been an internet troll for years, so has shock. When you only get your information from people who censor everything they disagree with, you're bound to get a handful of crap. If you actually wanna try out a place where the comments aren't erased...
facebook(dot)com/groups/188892007836675
facebook(com)com/groups/158789617465171/
I understand if ya wanna stick with the censorship sites though. Best of luck to ya kid
@HunterGuilherme Yes, yes. Bring up Mao and Stalin. These are fine examples. Now let me bring up the Crusades, Hitler, the Witch trials all over the world (even today in some parts)... Need I go on?
@HunterGuilherme Atheism, though present in those cases, does not add to the argument. These people were politically militant, not Atheistically or Religiously. Both very powerful psychopaths were trying to raise or keep their power. It was politics. Unlike Hitler who mostly killed Jews, the Crusades which killed... every non Christian they could find... and the Witch Trials that went after Pagans. One religion after another.
@HunterGuilherme Bull. Mao and Stalin were killing for political power, not to change people's religions or wipe a religion out. The Crusades were about Christianity being the only faith on the planet, whether by submission or death to non believers. They killed in the name of god. Hitler too, killed in the name of god. The Witch Trials were about Christians killing Pagans... in the name of god. The difference is blatant.
Don't get me wrong, I'm just saying that for whatever thing religious people did, non-religious did the same, also you can't blame a group so big for what some people did.
@HunterGuilherme Yes you can. Having beliefs makes you prone to act according to them. Not having beliefs allows you to act according to morals you create for yourself. Remember that most religion, Christianity specifically. has softened over the years. Due to the secular world's influence, most sects of Christianity have ignored more and more of the bible, considering the bad ideas to be metaphor. Atheists have no such doctrine, leaving them to make their own morals.
@mcmit2008 actually it really means strong hostilities towards religion. There are actually some pretty impressive communist propaganda posters that depict that.
The guy hasn't checked in his account for a month at least, with the dozens of comments flooding in, why would he waste his time on a dishonest prick like you? Now when I think of it, why did I waste my time on you? Banning bibles and Christmas, LOL, what other propaganda did you gobble, like a tubby devouring burgers? Oh beware the atheist, we're gonna kidnap your babies and eat them! And whilst we're at it, we'll be sending blank pieces of paper to people everywhere! Muahahahaha!
@TurboDally That simply sounds like a typical cut and run tactic an atheist would make if they know they can't win an argument. "Let's see... I can't prevail in a factual argument, so I think I'll just slander the guy, and make blind assertions, then I'll just say I wasted my time to look like I've won!"
So you're saying Atheist billboards, literature, and distortions of Bible verses aren't propaganda? I suggest you take into account the old Biblical saying of the beam in thine own eye.
@TurboDally "what other propaganda did you gobble, like a tubby devouring burgers?"
I had family members who've grown up in communist countries during the Cold War, all of them were victims of starvation, and many of them even had to spend time in labor camps. That's not propaganda, that's experience. More than enough to make them convert as well.
@TurboDally Oh great, using simple parodies of atheists and claiming them to be propaganda. Like you've never done the same, then after that you're going to say we're the bad guys despite that it was you morons who started this whole thing in the first place. What's the next thing you're going to do after you get to make your own laws? Sew yellow crosses on us to mark us by our identities? I can see Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao Zhe Tung found that redundant.
@TurboDally All that bullshit you give me hoping to start an argument and you just simply cut and run like Richard Dawkins. Sad enough to not deserve pity.
@TurboDally And one final thing. Having a different world view from yours doesn't make someone dishonest. What makes someone dishonest is going about slandering other individuals and making straw man fallacies, then to cut a run from the argument claiming that it wasn't worth his time despite that it was him making the poorly made points in the first place.
Okay the term "militant" does not always have to refer to weapons and war. It can also mean being aggressive to a certain service or cause. Campaigns against religious holidays and rights such as the war on Christmas, the banning of Bible reading in certain parts of the US by the American Atheists are such examples to deserve the title of MILITANT.
"Campaigns against religious holidays and rights such as the war on Christmas...banning of Bible reading in certain parts of the US by the American Atheists"
Did you feel it inconvenient to leave out a few details? They're not trying to ban Christmas or the bible, they're trying to ban people from forcing children to read it, etc. They do not wish for government to interfere with religion, or religion to interfere with government.
@TurboDally "They're not trying to ban Christmas or the bible, they're trying to ban people from forcing children to read it, etc. They do not wish for government to interfere with religion, or religion to interfere with government."
So what's up with the Billboards then? And what about that little "atheist victory" of yours of the government banning Christmas decor that involve the virgin mary and baby Jesus? If atheists just want to do something simple why must they insult us in the process?
Atheists when arguing with Christians or Muslims have every right to shove the Crusades, the inquisitions, 9/11, abortion clinic bombings, jihad, etc. While they have every right to ignore the crimes of secular tyrants who have killed far more people in a week, and nearly caused a nuclear war.
They don't ignore it. They still see it as wrong, whereas people nowadays still try to use religion to justify such actions. For example, we'd see invading countries and raping of women as wrong, but if Moses did it commanded by god- hey it's okay! You say secular tyrants- I say the prefix is unnecesary. For example, science is SECULAR, so if a scientist does something bad, that means anything of secular nature is evil? Or perhaps secular or not, bad is bad?
@TurboDally I don't know where you even read that, but if you actually read the Bible the laws apply to a prophet as it would to any other person. Take David for example when he cheated with Bathseba, was it okay for him to commit adultery? No, God later punished him by causing him to suffer from a dis functional family. Anyone can say that they're doing something in the name of God it's in the Bible itself you know. However, when their works contradict with the laws it means that their lying.
"We'd see invading countries and raping of women as wrong"
I challenge you right now to find one verse in the Bible that commanded rape because I have read the Bible since I was five and I have never in my life found one verse that says that.
And I suggest you find out the reasons why God told Moses to invade those countries in the first place because those societies practiced even more wrong things like prostitution, human sacrifice, etc. Thus God used the Jews to punish them.
@TurboDally Then again it wouldn't be that bad if you taken in to account the concept of survival of the fittest. They did after all lack the proper superiority to survive in this cruel world, I guess it would only be natural that they would be wiped out.
here i thought sam harris was a neuroscience major. apparently he wasn't smart enough to improve the status of people suffering from spinal disease and problems so he turned into a author and started telling his flock what was ethical and what wasn't! so now atheists are getting their ethics from a neuroscientist!.......*snicker*
'sciences greatest achievement would be to prove there is no Creator'.
steven weinberg
'babies with disabilities should be eradicated'! peter singer, ethicist???
If you are going to show the clinic bombing, and the 9/11 attacks, you should also show a video of Stalins starvation of millions of people, more deaths than any violent religious action committed over the past 2000 years.
@Enayze that is such an empty statement. Stalin may have been an Atheist but he didn't commit any atrocities in the name of No God. Those two incidents were blatantly religiously motivated. It would be the same concept as me saying all Catholics are serial killers because most serial killers are religious. And quite frankly just because there was a horrible person in history who happened to be an Atheist in no way confirms the existence of some intangible sky daddy
@fiend1669 The fact that he considered no god and felt that he was his own moral absolute allowed him to commit all those atrocities. So no it is not an empty statement. Lets just say if it came down to war or leadership I MUCH RATHER have a Christian as my opponent or leader than an atheist. And this is void of of any religious prejudice that i might have on my part. Stalin, and Mao, the two atheists of the 20th century were the most brutal murderers the world has ever seen.
@Enayze Mao and Stalin aside. Lets take into consideration the myriad of people that will justify horrible and inhumane acts using the bible as there justification. I guarantee you that most people who: discriminate against homosexuals and subjugate women would have no basis for theses actions if they didn't have religion. Also have you taken into consideration the holy crusades and the amount of people supposedly killed in the name of a supposed God in the pages of his "perfect" book
@fiend1669 That myriad of people you are referring too is very minimal, or in other words almost non existent when it comes to Christianity. Why dont you mention the Red Cross, in numerous homeless shelters, and charities that are primarily started and ran by Christians? As for the Crusades, they were not Holy and were carried out by the Church for political and not religious reasons. The people fighting in the crusades 98% of them were illiterate and went to do so for money.
@Enayze I apologize. I was in no way trying to place every Christian in that boat. I just have a hard time respecting any religion that ( at least used to) justifys those kind of actions. The fact that a person believes in a God isn't a problem with me. In fact most of my friends and family are religious and they are good people, but you can't deny that most social intolerance, even in our day and age is justified by fundamentalist religion
What about those abortion clinic bombings and 911 you continue to shove in religion's face. Aren't they also irrelevant to the argument of God's existence?
What I don't get is why the creationists are so against evolution? Do you believe that it is impossible for a couple of little microscopic cells could not ever become a complex being such as yourself?
ok man, Look, if you can't understand the difference between a valid hypothesis based on measurable, observable evidence, and saying 'god wanted Venus to spin that way' then you need to go back to grade school, if you're not already still there. I knew in like the 4th grade that we were mammals just like every other mammal on earth. Take a look at the fucking moon man. See all those crators? They must be there cause god wanted them placed just like that. Go back to school.
@roont I'm not doubting the existence of asteroids, just the way astronomers use them as tools. Oh before I forget, in my last set of postings, I failed to mention how the moon came into being, are you ready for this, The Giant Impact Hypothesis. Yes the Asteroid God makes yet another appearance. There's actually a 4 minute video on YT based on this theory entitled "The Formation of the Moon". The whole thing's absurd of course.
@roont According to Old Testament geneologies, the earth is approximately 6,500 years old. It is interesting to note, in the first chapter of the book of Genesis, God refutes both the theory of evolution and the idea of these long ages for the earth and universe. God obviously knew prior to the beginning of time, that there would be "wise men" in the last days incredulous of these claims, so he completely destroys those arguments, before the first man was even around to express doubts.
"Science uses the asteroid god to escape"..."Science has attempted to blur the distinction between"
Says the guy who's probably reading this on a flat panel display, on his portable computer, through designer glasses, in his manufactured clothes, in his heated house or apartment, while sipping on a cafe late made from imported beans. Hope the irony's not lost on you, buddy. Prejudize a scientist or a theory, but if you want to attack science, do it from a cave while eating locusts.
@roont No difference between macro and micro evolution? Science has attempted to blur the distinction between the two in order to deflect attention away from the fossil record. No one disputes micro-evolution (yes including christians) which are changes within a species. Macro-evolution, or changing from one species into an entirely new species has no basis in science, hence the proliferation of frauds.
@roont There lies the fatal flaw with these asteroid hypotheses, astronomers use these cosmic collisions as a sort of a magic wand to explain away anything that threatens their models. In the past few years, 9 planets in other solar systems have been discovered that revolve around their host stars in a counter direction. So what are the chances that the asteroid god will eventually be invoked to come to the rescue, I'd estimate the odds are virtually 100%.
@roont All these fossilized men were frauds precisely because the atheist\evolutionists didn't have the evidence to support their theory, so they were forced to manufacture it. The fossil record is such a huge embarrassment to evolutionists, because the theory of evolution was formulated prior to the advancement of modern paleontology, so they've been reduced to trying to insert a square peg into a round hole. BTW, germ mutations represent losses of genetic material not additions to it.
@roont Pi is an infinite number, so even science has only been able to calculate its decimal point out only so far. The Bible is not a math or science text book, yet when it touches upon these principles it does so accurately. The Bible also routinely rounds numbers off as well, like we do today. You requested a citation for my biblical prophecy claims, Youtube forbids posting non Youtube links, so just google reasons dot org fulfilled prophecy.
@Skepticktok Atheism has become so convoluted that you may not even be aware that you atheists have your very own " god of the gaps". It's called the asteroid god. Whenever astronomers and cosmologists encounter an unexpected problem that if left unresolved could, potentially overturn their delicately constructed models of the universe, they turn to the asteroid god to save them.
@Skepticktok Mercury dimensions don't allow an iron core, an asteroid impact reduced its size. Uranus' unusual tilt, an asteroid knocked it over. Venus' counterintuitive rotation, a collision with an asteroid changed its direction. The thin Martian atmosphere, and asteroid altered it. The missing planet between Mars and Jupiter, an asteroid demolished it. Dinosaur extinction on earth, an asteroid negatively impacted the weather. Science uses the asteroid god to escape any difficult situation.
"Dino extinction on earth, asteroid impacted the weather." The astroid is not "of the gaps" for the very simple reasons that 1) we know that astroids exists. 2) we know they occasionally collide with other celestial bodies and 3) there is evidence (the crator in mexico) which we can study, and measure, which points towards this being what happened. Is it final say that an astroid was what killed the dinosaurs? No. There are many thoeries, astroid is just the most likely.
The astroid is just the PLAUSABLE explination. So if Venus' rotation is different from the rest of the planets, whats more likely? God specifically wanted it to spin the other way? Or like a game of cosmic billiards, long ago, Venus collided with another large body in space which knocked it from its original rotation to what it is now?
Since god was not all caring enough to put live on Venus, then why the bloody hell would he even care which way it spins? That seems to me to be very UNintellegent design.
@roont If macro-evolution is a proven fact, then why have there been so many frauds connected to so called "missing links". The Piltdown Man, Java Man, Nebraska Man, and the Peking Man, were all verified as frauds. In China back in 1999 some guy glued bird feathers to a dinosaur and fooled paleontologist for over a year. The theory of evolution is a 19th century theory, that was decimated by 20th century science.
"The Piltdown Man, Java Man, Nebraska Man, and the Peking Man, were all verified as frauds. In China back in 1999 some guy glued bird feathers to a dinosaur and fooled paleontologist for over a year"
Well, I think you just answered your own question. Why so many frauds? Because it sells. Gullable people fall for it and pay money for it. I know there are many hoaxes. That does not discount the actual fossil evidence that has been varified.
I know you like to throw around the term "macro vs micro -evolution" but what does that mean really? Arguments I've heard are that okay fine, maybe germs etc can mutute as we clearly see from they're adaption to our medicines, but MACRO? "Large like the eye can see? That can't evolve!" Think about that for a second. We are MADE of microorganisms. blood cells, brain cells, there are trillions of parasites living off you right now. How can the micro change, but not the macro?
There is absolutely no difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution. Anyone who knows anything about evolution at all, you will find, never use these terms. It's only the people who critisize it because it goes against thier outdated book who use these terms. As I said, we are made of microorganisms. To say they evolve, but we don't is like saying you can change the shapes of the bricks, but the overall structure remains the same. It's nonsense.
@roont The Bible has historical evidence (accounts and narratives corroborated from extrabiblical sources), archaeological evidence (over 25,000 relics, artifacts, and structures discovered) and prophetic evidence (there are over 2,000 biblical prophecies of which approximately 83% have already been fulfilled with the remainder to come to pass in the future). No other religion in the world can make such a claim.
@roont Ancient hebrew didn't have numbers so they assigned numerical values to letters, and the letters in question have values kof = 100, vav = 6, and hei = 5. So KVH = 100 + 6 + 5 = 111, and KV = 100 + 6 = 106. The ratio of KVH to KV is 111/106, which when multiplied by the value of 3 that was implied by 1 Kings 7:23, gives 3.141509 (rounded), which is again pretty close to pi. Another thing pi only can only be applied if you have a perfect circle.
Again, "pretty close ot pi"? Don't you think the all knowing creator of the entire universe would not have the exact number? Why would he make it "pretty close to" in his book? That does not sound all knowing to me.
The Bible accurately describes scientific principles in biology, geology, paleontology, hydrology, meteorology, physics, anthropology etc. In addition the Bible has strong historical, archaeological, manuscript, and prophetic evidence to support its claims of being the word of God. If the Bible were a fairytale it could be discredited on page one with the creation narrative. The fossil record overwhelmingly supports the Bible's version of creation and refutes evolution.
"The fossil record overwhelmingly supports the Bible's version of creation and refutes evolution."
No, it doesn't. Please understand that the atheists have heard all of the creation arguments before. And none of them are valid. Evolution is not a theory. It's as an established fact as much as water is H20. If creation is the right answer why would the pope announce that god was responsible for the big bang?
@roont yes it does. The fossil record does support creation. The problem is that some people take, for example, like 5 fossils explaining evolution while 115 tell another different story. National Geographic in 2k4 talked about fossils as "evidence" of evolution. And that evolution is a fact, that's effing bull. The pillars of evolution are in question. There are scientists trying to find an explanation for the tree of life.
So fossills support creation? Can you provide some citation for that? FYI I won't accept Ken Scam Kams Answers in Genesis. Can you name me some of those fossils? Australopithecus afarensis? Paranthropus boisei?
You seem to be a little confused. Evolution EXPLAINS the tree of life. Perfectly. Not only with fossils but genetics.
@roont For your info, i'm not affiliated to AIG. I believe in creation, yes but i'm open to the idea of an old-earth. David M. Raup, paleontologist observed in 1979: "Instead of finding with the gradual development of life, what really comtemporary geologist with darwin found-and modern geologists as well-is a record mostly irregular: species appear in a sequence very abruptly, show little or no change during their existance in the record and suddenly they dissapear"
@roont Evolution might explain the tree of life but Eric bapteste(scientist that doesnt support Genesis) said in 2k9 in the magazine New scientist: "We dont have evidence that the tree of life is a reality"
About your fossils, yeah I heard of them, both of them are apes, what's your point in bringing them into discussion?
@HEC01 Yes! Of course they are over long periods of time. You do understand evolution works over MILLIONS and BILLIONS of years? Most people simply can't comprehend these amounts of time. Like the Cambrian Explosion. I hear people say oh it was over a short period of time. Yes, and by "short" the scientists mean 10 millions years, as apposed to a 100 million. Modern humans have been around much much less then 1 million. And I'd still like an example of a fossil that supports creation.
@HEC01 When you say "one type of life becoming another" this is a misunderstanding. You will never see a cat give birth to a dog. Or an ape give birth to a human. Doesn't work like that. I'll give an example. Any whale skeleton you look at today, they have vestigial leg bones. This would show that whales, and dolphins and other sea dwelling mammals once did walk on dry land. Environment forced them back into the sea, where the legs became useless, but the genes for making them are still there
@HEC01 "In particular the really insanely stupid comment by Eric Bapteste of Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris that "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality" is so far from the mark that it makes no sense unless you suppose in his mind the evolution of genes and the evolution of species are supposed to be identical" - Steven Schafersman, Ph.D.
@HEC01 Yes. There is much supporting evidence. The fact that all DNA uses the same element building blocks(carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorus) Also the genetics. I admit I am not a biologist, but have looked into this in some detail. We can look at our genes and compare them with the genes of other animals. We have around 98% of the EXACT same genes as bonobos and chimps. We also share an amazingly large amount of genes with mice, fish, chickens and fruitflies.
Atheism is the schizophrenic ideology. They attack for instance christianity as being a fable, but will then turn around and adopt its scientific principles. It's uncanny. The concept that the universe had a beginning and is expanding, there are an innumerable number of stars, pathogens can cause illness, and that spontaneous generation is impossible, are all ideas that were doubted and even scoffed at by secular science prior to being accepted as fact.
"They attack for instance christianity as being a fable, but will then turn around and adopt its scientific principles"
Yes, that's because science is derived from an interrogation of nature. It's a study of the universe we live in. Why you wouldn't want to know more about it is beyond me. I, at least, attach christianity because it IS a fable. Have you even read the bible? (a lot of atheists have)
Well first of all atheism is not an idealogy, it's simply a lack of belief in the claims of theism.
As I said in one of my videos that your commented on, just because we don't have all the answers doesn't mean we have to fill in the gap with a deity. That is just the god of the gaps argument repackaged.
Who scoffed at the idea of the universe having a begining?
militant athiesm is when athiest use violence to get rid of religion such as state athiesm in the communist countries that violently kill religious countries
Militant essentially means 'to be open to using violence to achieve an end'. It's childish to call anyone who is simply standing up for their equal rights "militant."
There are no militant atheists, when was the last time they flew a plain into a building, waged aggressive war or sacked Jerusalem in the name of "non belief". We leave that too the holy. Good vid.
There's a point you can hit with many people, that will make them mentally disengage from your conversation. Once you hit this point they've made up their mind and they're done listening. It'd be amazing if the human race could get past that.
@sns0926 What day? Please, can you be more specific? The Nordics have the Ragnarök, is this day that you was talking about? each religion has one Judgment Day; but no one of them have evidences, proofs, equations; grow up dude, we are in the 21st century and not in the Middle Age.
@VyckRo You are an American aren't you? Militant atheism is not the same as the atheism of state communism. It is a bit like confusing Quakerism with Roman Catholicism.
State Communism was very like religion. You have a focus of worship, dogma and the witch hunts of heretics. It is no accident that Stalin trained at a seminary to be a priest. Miltant atheism appeals to reason and evidence. So please don't confuse the two.
Middle Ages was an extraordinary period for progress! the renaissance and enlightenment were possible, only because of the long tradition of Middle Ages.
Just call any theist who makes the same type of claims a militant christian, or a militant muslim. People I have debated hate this, but when you point out that they call people militant atheists based on the same criteria, it can make them admit the deception, or at least look dumb.
Personally, I don't have a problem with the term militant. It does not necessarily imply violence, it can just mean being confrontational. It also has particular theological meaning in Catholicism. They use to speak of the church militant and by that they meant a struggle against sin.
Atheism is militant in the sense of confronting the weaknesses of faith based belief. The weapons are reason , not violence. It is also a struggle especially for those atheists living in the USA.
There are three models of Government competing for world domination:
(1) Communist / atheist: where government officials decide and dole out your temporal rights if any
(2) Sharia Law: where the Qu'ron governs
(3) Judeo-Christian model, where God grants our rights & liberties and THEREFORE they are unalienable, power resides in we the people, we are sovereign and the government is our servant.
i jus wanna know who wrote the bible then? did one man write the bible? did a group of dudes come together and say to themselves...lets write a fucking epic, right now! i wanna know...
Bravo Ablert10110! There is so much harm made by religions in the world so it is important that atheists and healthy mental people protect us from sick deluded religious people. Yes these people are sick and we must do what we can to give them back their mental health.
Hi there Al. What is your opinion on Celestial Teapot Agnostics? Don't you think that claiming that there is no probability whatsoever that we were created by a conscious being is a little short-sighted? I am myself a celestial teapot agnostic and a former atheist. I despise organised religion and believe that it only causes
@Badgerinthenight cntd. problems, truth is always far better than comfort. I am very into astrophysics, quantum mechanics & the like, so appreciate the complexity of our Universe (as much as one can!) I also appreciate that humanity is still uncovering what seems to be still only the basics of that complexity and as much as we now know, we still have a long way to go in terms of understanding
cntd. our existence. I like to imagine it to an extreme level in order to appreciate it's significance better..(..what if we're just someone's science project..? Our Universe within another universe, next to another universe wrapped in another universe and so on...for all we know, our entire existence (w/relative time) could be one blip in a whole massive universe way beyond our own and we could be that mini universe created in some lab. I know its extreme but I think it makes the point well..:D
People are scared of that which they do not relate or know. Which leads them to attach Nazism with Atheism, "Drinking the Kool-aid" with theism, or AIDS/HIV to homosexuality. It's a world filled with confusion and hatred.
Recognize that your a sinner...Believe in your heart God raised Jesus Christ form the dead, confess him as Lord, ask him to wash you in his blood and make you his child, read and obey the Gospel, it has the power to save your soul.
Unfortuately, dawkins and hitchens have several times made precisely the case that this atheist actually refutes: that religions are dangerous. I think that violence is built into human nature and that focusing on religion is sort of silly. I certainly don't consider Dawkins or Hitchens to be any worse than say Pat Robertson. They are polemics, pure and simple. The logic you use is good, but your fellow atheists rarely use it.
I don't mean to insult anyone's religion. I'm just stating facts. I mean, in modern times if you heard some guy with a beard who wore loin cloths lead a group of people and claimed to be the son of "God", you would call him an asshole and somewhere some fundamental Baptist would shoot an RPG at his house, killing everyone inside in the name of "God". You probably doubt that he's the son of God, but this is no different than what happened 2010 years ago.
@Albert10110 So I suppose u say that it's alright for atheists to mention militant Christianity or Militant Islam while it is completely okay for them to completely ignore the crimes of atheist tyrants who killed more people in a year and nearly caused a nuclear war.
Makes perfect sense at ur level perhaps.
FongLin100 1 week ago
@Albert10110 Interesting, so what about the abortion clinic bombings or 9/11 u seem to be shoving in religion's face? Aren't they also irrelevant to God's existence? And if "militant atheism" is illegitimate, how do u explain the 100,000 priests, nuns and rabbis shot by Joseph Stalin when he took power, or the hundreds of Catholics killed and imprisoned by Mao Zhe Tung, and perhaps the tortured missionaries and buddhists under Pol Pot? How does that not prove Militant atheism?
FongLin100 2 weeks ago
I love the very idea of this. The image of a guy with a machine gun in one hand, and a clove cigarette in the other, lol. I love the fact that Christians have been slaughtering people for 2000 years, but call Atheists militant. Still... The pen is mightier than the sword, or so it's said. Hell, Christians in certain areas are just as barbaric now. Look at the Witch killings in Africa. The peaceful Christians are just an excuse to hold in front of real examples. 'Not our church! We're nice!' lol
skywize 1 month ago
Funny to see the christians here flipping out. Speaking =/= militancy. If any of you christians actually have an argument for the existence of your god, then simply present it
travlr3000x 6 months ago
@travlr3000x Why don't you go to an apologetic website and you will find tons out there, or better yet go to a book store like chapters.
FongLin100 6 months ago
@FongLin100 And every excuse for an argument for the existence of any gods falls flat on it's face. I have seen numerous philosophical arguments, all of which are invalid, erroneous or unsound. Likewise with any arguments based on any other area of expertise falls flat. I have found tons and every single one fails. If you have a particular argument you think does the job, present it and I will be more than happy to show you where it fails. Here or...facebook.com/groups/2372835473
travlr3000x 6 months ago
@travlr3000x Give me one example of those arguments that "fall flat". My face book account is down and I can't get it back so give me another link. Why don't you go to a more hard hitting apologetic website like "creation ministries international", or "truefreethinker"? Or better yet why not send them an email to the authors themselves and let's see how their arguments really fail.
FongLin100 6 months ago
@FongLin100 The bible proves the bible true is the usual argument and it falls flat. You can create a fb account if you want. I'll be waiting
travlr3000x 6 months ago
@travlr3000x What's so important about one fb page? It's not like it's the only thing Christians have to offer.
FongLin100 6 months ago
@FongLin100 Any fb page will do. I can recommend about ten others, but if you have a problem stating your case in neutral territory where we both know we won't be censored or hacked well that's your loss. I've seen all your arguments and you have nothing to offer. You seem to think otherwise but if you don't want to present your case, no one's forcing you
travlr3000x 6 months ago
@travlr3000x Oh please, like I had have nothing better to do with my life than engage in endless debates that lead nowhere. You clearly asked for theists to present an argument regarding the existence of God, I'm simply pointing out where to look, then you start making excuses. If you want someone to argue with, you can email the authors themselves. If you don't want to check out some of the examples of sources I've listed on this issue, that's not my problem.
FongLin100 6 months ago
@FongLin100 And I merely pointed out if all you theists wanna sit here and whine that only demonstrates you have no argument. If you have an argument, present it. Otherwise just stfu
travlr3000x 6 months ago
@travlr3000x Who's whining? I am simply a messenger sending you a source to look for arguments, so why not actually go to some of the listed sources instead of making more excuses?
FongLin100 6 months ago
@FongLin100 All the theists in this thread are whining. I've seen and studied all the arguments for the existence of a god and they all fail. Maybe one day you'll make it to college and study those arguments too. Probly not, but who knows? Now stop making excuses for your lack of an argument and present one already or stfu fucktard ;p
travlr3000x 6 months ago
@travlr3000x Wow, my feelings are so hurt right now. Again, why not email the authors some of the research you have done in choosing your beliefs and let us see how things go in the future alright. And I am telling you that I have done research as well in choosing my beliefs, and there are points I know of to defend the existence of god. But I've grown a little tired in debating atheists, so why don't you go to the areas I have researched back when I was a little bit more vulnerable till now.
FongLin100 6 months ago
@FongLin100 Hey, here's an idea. Why don't you whine and bitch about atheists posting vids some more and then troll the fuck out of this one particular vid. Then when an atheist calls you out for being the whiny little fucktard you are, make excuses and use red herrings, that way you are sure to never say anything of substance.Total FAIL kid, but hey if you were "vulnerable" and needed an imaginary friend I can understand. Some of us are just more stable than others.
travlr3000x 6 months ago
@travlr3000x Am I supposed to be crying right now? Calling the intelligent designer an "imaginary friend" while believing an even more absurd belief that nothing created everything out of nothing. This rhetoric of yours impacts me just as effectively as how one would call Columbus an idiot for not believing the Earth was flat.
You still refuse to debate actual apologists on the issue of God. Why not actually give THEM not me a message on the issue of God and let's see who really fails.
FongLin100 6 months ago
@FongLin100 LMFAO, nice straw man fucktard. Never said everything came from nothing dumbass. And you still refuse to actually make any argument. Troll on fucktard
travlr3000x 6 months ago
@travlr3000x You're calling ME a troll? LOL You're the one who's making the pathetic insults. I never intended to argue with you in the first place, I simply told you where to look for arguments for God. I also mentioned that if you wanted to debate someone, do it with an actual apologist instead of targeting normal, indifferent low levels like me. Or are you just afraid?
FongLin100 6 months ago
@travlr3000x Second, your crappy insults don't offend me, I would rather pity you.
FongLin100 6 months ago
@FongLin100 Yes I do pity you, when you or anyone else visiting here is ready for a good dose of reality...
rationalwiki(dot)org/wiki/Failed_biblical_prophecies
fsmitha(dot)com/h1/religion-flood.htm
youtube(dot)com/user/heterodoxism2#g/c/A1ECB3B8FAF4FB99
pbs(dot)org/wgbh/nova/bible/
wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Kuntillet_Ajrud
bibleinterp(dot)com/articles/MSmith_BiblicalMonotheism.htm
jewishvirtuallibrary(dot)org/jsource/Judaism/premo.html
travlr3000x 6 months ago
@travlr3000x Good for you mate, now it's time for me to present my own arsenal.
Creation(dot)com
truefreethinker(dot)com
tektonics(dot)org
youtube(dot)com/user/shockofgod
youtube(dot)com/user/escapingplatoscave
FongLin100 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FongLin100 LMFAO, that explains so much. JP Holding has been an internet troll for years, so has shock. When you only get your information from people who censor everything they disagree with, you're bound to get a handful of crap. If you actually wanna try out a place where the comments aren't erased...
facebook(dot)com/groups/188892007836675
facebook(com)com/groups/158789617465171/
I understand if ya wanna stick with the censorship sites though. Best of luck to ya kid
travlr3000x 6 months ago
@FongLin100
shockofgod?
LOL.....oh you're only 16.
saintpine 4 months ago
@saintpine There are people who go to university at a lesser age, so much for equality.
FongLin100 4 months ago
@saintpine Anyone can take this guy, even a priest would be entirely redundant.
FongLin100 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FongLin100 "Anyone can take this guy, even a priest would be entirely redundant."
There are many good theists on the web, I simply cannot believe that theists would follow such a dishonest asshole.
saintpine 4 months ago
Please, any Christian who has a recording camera in their house please respond to this crap. (Cause I don't have one right now)
FongLin100 6 months ago
Yes, let's forget Mao and Stalin's "militant atheism".
But I know that trying to reason with atheists is a waste of time, even dogs are more rational.
HunterGuilherme 6 months ago
@HunterGuilherme Yes, yes. Bring up Mao and Stalin. These are fine examples. Now let me bring up the Crusades, Hitler, the Witch trials all over the world (even today in some parts)... Need I go on?
skywize 1 month ago
@skywize As Mao and Stalin killed more than all of those, pretty much.
HunterGuilherme 1 month ago
@HunterGuilherme Atheism, though present in those cases, does not add to the argument. These people were politically militant, not Atheistically or Religiously. Both very powerful psychopaths were trying to raise or keep their power. It was politics. Unlike Hitler who mostly killed Jews, the Crusades which killed... every non Christian they could find... and the Witch Trials that went after Pagans. One religion after another.
skywize 1 month ago
@skywize
Politically militant? Like Hitler and whoever was in charge of the crusades?
I'm sorry, but you're just contradicting yourself.
HunterGuilherme 1 month ago
@HunterGuilherme Bull. Mao and Stalin were killing for political power, not to change people's religions or wipe a religion out. The Crusades were about Christianity being the only faith on the planet, whether by submission or death to non believers. They killed in the name of god. Hitler too, killed in the name of god. The Witch Trials were about Christians killing Pagans... in the name of god. The difference is blatant.
skywize 1 month ago
@skywize
Mao and Stalin promoved the persecution of christians, muslims and jews, so there's no difference.
HunterGuilherme 1 month ago
@HunterGuilherme Ok then, you are correct.
skywize 1 month ago
@skywize
Don't get me wrong, I'm just saying that for whatever thing religious people did, non-religious did the same, also you can't blame a group so big for what some people did.
HunterGuilherme 1 month ago
@HunterGuilherme Yes you can. Having beliefs makes you prone to act according to them. Not having beliefs allows you to act according to morals you create for yourself. Remember that most religion, Christianity specifically. has softened over the years. Due to the secular world's influence, most sects of Christianity have ignored more and more of the bible, considering the bad ideas to be metaphor. Atheists have no such doctrine, leaving them to make their own morals.
skywize 1 month ago
militant Atheists is defined as anyone (including atheists) that refuse to give deference to Christian church representatives
mcmit2008 7 months ago
@mcmit2008 actually it really means strong hostilities towards religion. There are actually some pretty impressive communist propaganda posters that depict that.
FongLin100 7 months ago
Smoke DMT. Atheists and Religious people will all be converted.
Edubbplate 7 months ago 2
Nothing to say now huh? Beotch
FongLin100 7 months ago
@FongLin100
The guy hasn't checked in his account for a month at least, with the dozens of comments flooding in, why would he waste his time on a dishonest prick like you? Now when I think of it, why did I waste my time on you? Banning bibles and Christmas, LOL, what other propaganda did you gobble, like a tubby devouring burgers? Oh beware the atheist, we're gonna kidnap your babies and eat them! And whilst we're at it, we'll be sending blank pieces of paper to people everywhere! Muahahahaha!
TurboDally 7 months ago
@TurboDally That simply sounds like a typical cut and run tactic an atheist would make if they know they can't win an argument. "Let's see... I can't prevail in a factual argument, so I think I'll just slander the guy, and make blind assertions, then I'll just say I wasted my time to look like I've won!"
So you're saying Atheist billboards, literature, and distortions of Bible verses aren't propaganda? I suggest you take into account the old Biblical saying of the beam in thine own eye.
FongLin100 7 months ago
@TurboDally "what other propaganda did you gobble, like a tubby devouring burgers?"
I had family members who've grown up in communist countries during the Cold War, all of them were victims of starvation, and many of them even had to spend time in labor camps. That's not propaganda, that's experience. More than enough to make them convert as well.
FongLin100 7 months ago
@TurboDally Oh great, using simple parodies of atheists and claiming them to be propaganda. Like you've never done the same, then after that you're going to say we're the bad guys despite that it was you morons who started this whole thing in the first place. What's the next thing you're going to do after you get to make your own laws? Sew yellow crosses on us to mark us by our identities? I can see Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao Zhe Tung found that redundant.
FongLin100 7 months ago
@TurboDally All that bullshit you give me hoping to start an argument and you just simply cut and run like Richard Dawkins. Sad enough to not deserve pity.
FongLin100 6 months ago
@TurboDally And one final thing. Having a different world view from yours doesn't make someone dishonest. What makes someone dishonest is going about slandering other individuals and making straw man fallacies, then to cut a run from the argument claiming that it wasn't worth his time despite that it was him making the poorly made points in the first place.
FongLin100 3 days ago
I forgot to mention that Dawkins even supports the humanist organizations launching these campaigns.
FongLin100 7 months ago
Okay the term "militant" does not always have to refer to weapons and war. It can also mean being aggressive to a certain service or cause. Campaigns against religious holidays and rights such as the war on Christmas, the banning of Bible reading in certain parts of the US by the American Atheists are such examples to deserve the title of MILITANT.
FongLin100 7 months ago
@FongLin100
"Campaigns against religious holidays and rights such as the war on Christmas...banning of Bible reading in certain parts of the US by the American Atheists"
Did you feel it inconvenient to leave out a few details? They're not trying to ban Christmas or the bible, they're trying to ban people from forcing children to read it, etc. They do not wish for government to interfere with religion, or religion to interfere with government.
TurboDally 7 months ago
@TurboDally "They're not trying to ban Christmas or the bible, they're trying to ban people from forcing children to read it, etc. They do not wish for government to interfere with religion, or religion to interfere with government."
So what's up with the Billboards then? And what about that little "atheist victory" of yours of the government banning Christmas decor that involve the virgin mary and baby Jesus? If atheists just want to do something simple why must they insult us in the process?
FongLin100 7 months ago
Message of the video:
Atheists when arguing with Christians or Muslims have every right to shove the Crusades, the inquisitions, 9/11, abortion clinic bombings, jihad, etc. While they have every right to ignore the crimes of secular tyrants who have killed far more people in a week, and nearly caused a nuclear war.
Makes perfect sense.
FongLin100 7 months ago
@FongLin100
They don't ignore it. They still see it as wrong, whereas people nowadays still try to use religion to justify such actions. For example, we'd see invading countries and raping of women as wrong, but if Moses did it commanded by god- hey it's okay! You say secular tyrants- I say the prefix is unnecesary. For example, science is SECULAR, so if a scientist does something bad, that means anything of secular nature is evil? Or perhaps secular or not, bad is bad?
TurboDally 7 months ago
@TurboDally I don't know where you even read that, but if you actually read the Bible the laws apply to a prophet as it would to any other person. Take David for example when he cheated with Bathseba, was it okay for him to commit adultery? No, God later punished him by causing him to suffer from a dis functional family. Anyone can say that they're doing something in the name of God it's in the Bible itself you know. However, when their works contradict with the laws it means that their lying.
FongLin100 7 months ago
@TurboDally "Science is SECULAR"
Maybe when you can prove that something can come from nothing.
Science can also have a dark side too you know, just look at the experiments done in Nazi Germany on Jewish test subjects.
FongLin100 7 months ago
@TurboDally
"We'd see invading countries and raping of women as wrong"
I challenge you right now to find one verse in the Bible that commanded rape because I have read the Bible since I was five and I have never in my life found one verse that says that.
And I suggest you find out the reasons why God told Moses to invade those countries in the first place because those societies practiced even more wrong things like prostitution, human sacrifice, etc. Thus God used the Jews to punish them.
FongLin100 7 months ago
@TurboDally Then again it wouldn't be that bad if you taken in to account the concept of survival of the fittest. They did after all lack the proper superiority to survive in this cruel world, I guess it would only be natural that they would be wiped out.
FongLin100 7 months ago
militant atheism:
Bill Maher: makes a mockery of Christianity, in particular, whenever he chooses!
ever hear his talk about the Pope? he CAN'T be playin' with all 52 cards!
Maher to a Christian man in "religulous" documentary (if that's what it was...tsk)
"so you believe you'll go to a better place when you die"?
"yes i do", replied the Christian.
"then why don't you kill yourself"? replied Maher.
insolent, militant, ignorant, crude, abrasive, or just plain STUPID!
All would apply!
graysonTW 9 months ago
here i thought sam harris was a neuroscience major. apparently he wasn't smart enough to improve the status of people suffering from spinal disease and problems so he turned into a author and started telling his flock what was ethical and what wasn't! so now atheists are getting their ethics from a neuroscientist!.......*snicker*
'sciences greatest achievement would be to prove there is no Creator'.
steven weinberg
'babies with disabilities should be eradicated'! peter singer, ethicist???
graysonTW 9 months ago
If you are going to show the clinic bombing, and the 9/11 attacks, you should also show a video of Stalins starvation of millions of people, more deaths than any violent religious action committed over the past 2000 years.
Enayze 9 months ago
@Enayze that is such an empty statement. Stalin may have been an Atheist but he didn't commit any atrocities in the name of No God. Those two incidents were blatantly religiously motivated. It would be the same concept as me saying all Catholics are serial killers because most serial killers are religious. And quite frankly just because there was a horrible person in history who happened to be an Atheist in no way confirms the existence of some intangible sky daddy
fiend1669 9 months ago
@fiend1669 The fact that he considered no god and felt that he was his own moral absolute allowed him to commit all those atrocities. So no it is not an empty statement. Lets just say if it came down to war or leadership I MUCH RATHER have a Christian as my opponent or leader than an atheist. And this is void of of any religious prejudice that i might have on my part. Stalin, and Mao, the two atheists of the 20th century were the most brutal murderers the world has ever seen.
Enayze 9 months ago
@Enayze Mao and Stalin aside. Lets take into consideration the myriad of people that will justify horrible and inhumane acts using the bible as there justification. I guarantee you that most people who: discriminate against homosexuals and subjugate women would have no basis for theses actions if they didn't have religion. Also have you taken into consideration the holy crusades and the amount of people supposedly killed in the name of a supposed God in the pages of his "perfect" book
fiend1669 9 months ago
@fiend1669 That myriad of people you are referring too is very minimal, or in other words almost non existent when it comes to Christianity. Why dont you mention the Red Cross, in numerous homeless shelters, and charities that are primarily started and ran by Christians? As for the Crusades, they were not Holy and were carried out by the Church for political and not religious reasons. The people fighting in the crusades 98% of them were illiterate and went to do so for money.
Enayze 9 months ago
@Enayze I apologize. I was in no way trying to place every Christian in that boat. I just have a hard time respecting any religion that ( at least used to) justifys those kind of actions. The fact that a person believes in a God isn't a problem with me. In fact most of my friends and family are religious and they are good people, but you can't deny that most social intolerance, even in our day and age is justified by fundamentalist religion
fiend1669 9 months ago
What about those abortion clinic bombings and 911 you continue to shove in religion's face. Aren't they also irrelevant to the argument of God's existence?
FongLin100 10 months ago
"The Giant Impact Hypothesis. Yes the Asteroid God makes yet another appearance."
lol. I'm starting to think that you are totally POE. You really had me going there though man. good job.
roont 1 year ago
What I don't get is why the creationists are so against evolution? Do you believe that it is impossible for a couple of little microscopic cells could not ever become a complex being such as yourself?
roont 1 year ago
@roont The funny thing is that we are made of tiny microscopic cells. Obviously showing that this is possible.
DeathsWill228 11 months ago
ok man, Look, if you can't understand the difference between a valid hypothesis based on measurable, observable evidence, and saying 'god wanted Venus to spin that way' then you need to go back to grade school, if you're not already still there. I knew in like the 4th grade that we were mammals just like every other mammal on earth. Take a look at the fucking moon man. See all those crators? They must be there cause god wanted them placed just like that. Go back to school.
roont 1 year ago
@roont I'm not doubting the existence of asteroids, just the way astronomers use them as tools. Oh before I forget, in my last set of postings, I failed to mention how the moon came into being, are you ready for this, The Giant Impact Hypothesis. Yes the Asteroid God makes yet another appearance. There's actually a 4 minute video on YT based on this theory entitled "The Formation of the Moon". The whole thing's absurd of course.
theabiotictheory 1 year ago
@roont According to Old Testament geneologies, the earth is approximately 6,500 years old. It is interesting to note, in the first chapter of the book of Genesis, God refutes both the theory of evolution and the idea of these long ages for the earth and universe. God obviously knew prior to the beginning of time, that there would be "wise men" in the last days incredulous of these claims, so he completely destroys those arguments, before the first man was even around to express doubts.
theabiotictheory 1 year ago
"Science uses the asteroid god to escape"..."Science has attempted to blur the distinction between"
Says the guy who's probably reading this on a flat panel display, on his portable computer, through designer glasses, in his manufactured clothes, in his heated house or apartment, while sipping on a cafe late made from imported beans. Hope the irony's not lost on you, buddy. Prejudize a scientist or a theory, but if you want to attack science, do it from a cave while eating locusts.
roont 1 year ago
Hmm.. Well can I ask a few questions just to clarify things?
What is your view on the age of the planet earth? This can help me determine and understand your view on evolution.
Do you at least accept that astroids exist? Or are they just another "Darwinist" plot conjured up to defraud the bible?
roont 1 year ago
@roont No difference between macro and micro evolution? Science has attempted to blur the distinction between the two in order to deflect attention away from the fossil record. No one disputes micro-evolution (yes including christians) which are changes within a species. Macro-evolution, or changing from one species into an entirely new species has no basis in science, hence the proliferation of frauds.
theabiotictheory 1 year ago
@roont There lies the fatal flaw with these asteroid hypotheses, astronomers use these cosmic collisions as a sort of a magic wand to explain away anything that threatens their models. In the past few years, 9 planets in other solar systems have been discovered that revolve around their host stars in a counter direction. So what are the chances that the asteroid god will eventually be invoked to come to the rescue, I'd estimate the odds are virtually 100%.
theabiotictheory 1 year ago
@roont All these fossilized men were frauds precisely because the atheist\evolutionists didn't have the evidence to support their theory, so they were forced to manufacture it. The fossil record is such a huge embarrassment to evolutionists, because the theory of evolution was formulated prior to the advancement of modern paleontology, so they've been reduced to trying to insert a square peg into a round hole. BTW, germ mutations represent losses of genetic material not additions to it.
theabiotictheory 1 year ago
@roont Pi is an infinite number, so even science has only been able to calculate its decimal point out only so far. The Bible is not a math or science text book, yet when it touches upon these principles it does so accurately. The Bible also routinely rounds numbers off as well, like we do today. You requested a citation for my biblical prophecy claims, Youtube forbids posting non Youtube links, so just google reasons dot org fulfilled prophecy.
theabiotictheory 1 year ago
@Skepticktok Atheism has become so convoluted that you may not even be aware that you atheists have your very own " god of the gaps". It's called the asteroid god. Whenever astronomers and cosmologists encounter an unexpected problem that if left unresolved could, potentially overturn their delicately constructed models of the universe, they turn to the asteroid god to save them.
theabiotictheory 1 year ago
@Skepticktok Mercury dimensions don't allow an iron core, an asteroid impact reduced its size. Uranus' unusual tilt, an asteroid knocked it over. Venus' counterintuitive rotation, a collision with an asteroid changed its direction. The thin Martian atmosphere, and asteroid altered it. The missing planet between Mars and Jupiter, an asteroid demolished it. Dinosaur extinction on earth, an asteroid negatively impacted the weather. Science uses the asteroid god to escape any difficult situation.
theabiotictheory 1 year ago
@theabiotictheory
"Dino extinction on earth, asteroid impacted the weather." The astroid is not "of the gaps" for the very simple reasons that 1) we know that astroids exists. 2) we know they occasionally collide with other celestial bodies and 3) there is evidence (the crator in mexico) which we can study, and measure, which points towards this being what happened. Is it final say that an astroid was what killed the dinosaurs? No. There are many thoeries, astroid is just the most likely.
roont 1 year ago
@theabiotictheory
The astroid is just the PLAUSABLE explination. So if Venus' rotation is different from the rest of the planets, whats more likely? God specifically wanted it to spin the other way? Or like a game of cosmic billiards, long ago, Venus collided with another large body in space which knocked it from its original rotation to what it is now?
roont 1 year ago
@theabiotictheory
Since god was not all caring enough to put live on Venus, then why the bloody hell would he even care which way it spins? That seems to me to be very UNintellegent design.
roont 1 year ago
@roont If macro-evolution is a proven fact, then why have there been so many frauds connected to so called "missing links". The Piltdown Man, Java Man, Nebraska Man, and the Peking Man, were all verified as frauds. In China back in 1999 some guy glued bird feathers to a dinosaur and fooled paleontologist for over a year. The theory of evolution is a 19th century theory, that was decimated by 20th century science.
theabiotictheory 1 year ago
@theabiotictheory
"The Piltdown Man, Java Man, Nebraska Man, and the Peking Man, were all verified as frauds. In China back in 1999 some guy glued bird feathers to a dinosaur and fooled paleontologist for over a year"
Well, I think you just answered your own question. Why so many frauds? Because it sells. Gullable people fall for it and pay money for it. I know there are many hoaxes. That does not discount the actual fossil evidence that has been varified.
roont 1 year ago
@theabiotictheory
I know you like to throw around the term "macro vs micro -evolution" but what does that mean really? Arguments I've heard are that okay fine, maybe germs etc can mutute as we clearly see from they're adaption to our medicines, but MACRO? "Large like the eye can see? That can't evolve!" Think about that for a second. We are MADE of microorganisms. blood cells, brain cells, there are trillions of parasites living off you right now. How can the micro change, but not the macro?
roont 1 year ago
@theabiotictheory
There is absolutely no difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution. Anyone who knows anything about evolution at all, you will find, never use these terms. It's only the people who critisize it because it goes against thier outdated book who use these terms. As I said, we are made of microorganisms. To say they evolve, but we don't is like saying you can change the shapes of the bricks, but the overall structure remains the same. It's nonsense.
roont 1 year ago
@roont The Bible has historical evidence (accounts and narratives corroborated from extrabiblical sources), archaeological evidence (over 25,000 relics, artifacts, and structures discovered) and prophetic evidence (there are over 2,000 biblical prophecies of which approximately 83% have already been fulfilled with the remainder to come to pass in the future). No other religion in the world can make such a claim.
theabiotictheory 1 year ago
@theabiotictheory
"(there are over 2,000 biblical prophecies of which approximately 83% have already been fulfilled with the remainder to come to pass in the future)."
Citation needed.
"No other religion in the world can make such a claim."
Neither can christianity.
roont 1 year ago
@roont Ancient hebrew didn't have numbers so they assigned numerical values to letters, and the letters in question have values kof = 100, vav = 6, and hei = 5. So KVH = 100 + 6 + 5 = 111, and KV = 100 + 6 = 106. The ratio of KVH to KV is 111/106, which when multiplied by the value of 3 that was implied by 1 Kings 7:23, gives 3.141509 (rounded), which is again pretty close to pi. Another thing pi only can only be applied if you have a perfect circle.
theabiotictheory 1 year ago
@theabiotictheory
"which is again pretty close to pi."
Again, "pretty close ot pi"? Don't you think the all knowing creator of the entire universe would not have the exact number? Why would he make it "pretty close to" in his book? That does not sound all knowing to me.
roont 1 year ago
very cool video bro. I agree. Militant is shooting a governor in the back because he blasphemed against allah.
roont 1 year ago
The Bible accurately describes scientific principles in biology, geology, paleontology, hydrology, meteorology, physics, anthropology etc. In addition the Bible has strong historical, archaeological, manuscript, and prophetic evidence to support its claims of being the word of God. If the Bible were a fairytale it could be discredited on page one with the creation narrative. The fossil record overwhelmingly supports the Bible's version of creation and refutes evolution.
theabiotictheory 1 year ago
@theabiotictheory
"The Bible accurately describes scientific principles in biology, geology, paleontology, hydrology, meteorology, physics, anthropology etc"
lol. no it doesn't. it says that pi is 3.
roont 1 year ago
@theabiotictheory
"The fossil record overwhelmingly supports the Bible's version of creation and refutes evolution."
No, it doesn't. Please understand that the atheists have heard all of the creation arguments before. And none of them are valid. Evolution is not a theory. It's as an established fact as much as water is H20. If creation is the right answer why would the pope announce that god was responsible for the big bang?
roont 1 year ago
@roont yes it does. The fossil record does support creation. The problem is that some people take, for example, like 5 fossils explaining evolution while 115 tell another different story. National Geographic in 2k4 talked about fossils as "evidence" of evolution. And that evolution is a fact, that's effing bull. The pillars of evolution are in question. There are scientists trying to find an explanation for the tree of life.
HEC01 9 months ago
@HEC01 LOL!
So fossills support creation? Can you provide some citation for that? FYI I won't accept Ken Scam Kams Answers in Genesis. Can you name me some of those fossils? Australopithecus afarensis? Paranthropus boisei?
You seem to be a little confused. Evolution EXPLAINS the tree of life. Perfectly. Not only with fossils but genetics.
roont 9 months ago
@roont For your info, i'm not affiliated to AIG. I believe in creation, yes but i'm open to the idea of an old-earth. David M. Raup, paleontologist observed in 1979: "Instead of finding with the gradual development of life, what really comtemporary geologist with darwin found-and modern geologists as well-is a record mostly irregular: species appear in a sequence very abruptly, show little or no change during their existance in the record and suddenly they dissapear"
HEC01 9 months ago
@roont Evolution might explain the tree of life but Eric bapteste(scientist that doesnt support Genesis) said in 2k9 in the magazine New scientist: "We dont have evidence that the tree of life is a reality"
About your fossils, yeah I heard of them, both of them are apes, what's your point in bringing them into discussion?
HEC01 9 months ago
@HEC01 You said there were fossils that support creation. I asked which ones, and gave some examples.
roont 9 months ago
@roont The inmense majority of fossils show stability during longs periods of times. They do not show one type of life become another one.
HEC01 9 months ago
@HEC01 Yes! Of course they are over long periods of time. You do understand evolution works over MILLIONS and BILLIONS of years? Most people simply can't comprehend these amounts of time. Like the Cambrian Explosion. I hear people say oh it was over a short period of time. Yes, and by "short" the scientists mean 10 millions years, as apposed to a 100 million. Modern humans have been around much much less then 1 million. And I'd still like an example of a fossil that supports creation.
roont 9 months ago
@HEC01 When you say "one type of life becoming another" this is a misunderstanding. You will never see a cat give birth to a dog. Or an ape give birth to a human. Doesn't work like that. I'll give an example. Any whale skeleton you look at today, they have vestigial leg bones. This would show that whales, and dolphins and other sea dwelling mammals once did walk on dry land. Environment forced them back into the sea, where the legs became useless, but the genes for making them are still there
roont 9 months ago
@HEC01 "In particular the really insanely stupid comment by Eric Bapteste of Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris that "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality" is so far from the mark that it makes no sense unless you suppose in his mind the evolution of genes and the evolution of species are supposed to be identical" - Steven Schafersman, Ph.D.
Texas Citizens for Science
roont 9 months ago
@roont Well, do you have evidence that the tree of life proposed by Darwin is indeed a fact? That all life came from one root?
HEC01 9 months ago
@HEC01 Yes. There is much supporting evidence. The fact that all DNA uses the same element building blocks(carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorus) Also the genetics. I admit I am not a biologist, but have looked into this in some detail. We can look at our genes and compare them with the genes of other animals. We have around 98% of the EXACT same genes as bonobos and chimps. We also share an amazingly large amount of genes with mice, fish, chickens and fruitflies.
roont 9 months ago
Atheism is the schizophrenic ideology. They attack for instance christianity as being a fable, but will then turn around and adopt its scientific principles. It's uncanny. The concept that the universe had a beginning and is expanding, there are an innumerable number of stars, pathogens can cause illness, and that spontaneous generation is impossible, are all ideas that were doubted and even scoffed at by secular science prior to being accepted as fact.
theabiotictheory 1 year ago
@theabiotictheory
"They attack for instance christianity as being a fable, but will then turn around and adopt its scientific principles"
Yes, that's because science is derived from an interrogation of nature. It's a study of the universe we live in. Why you wouldn't want to know more about it is beyond me. I, at least, attach christianity because it IS a fable. Have you even read the bible? (a lot of atheists have)
roont 1 year ago
@theabiotictheory
Well first of all atheism is not an idealogy, it's simply a lack of belief in the claims of theism.
As I said in one of my videos that your commented on, just because we don't have all the answers doesn't mean we have to fill in the gap with a deity. That is just the god of the gaps argument repackaged.
Who scoffed at the idea of the universe having a begining?
Skepticktok 1 year ago
Lol! Well done!
julzabro 1 year ago
Well expressed, and you centred around an important and often missed issue. Nice one.
Marcus21999 1 year ago
@Marcus21999
TOWLIBAN32123 1 year ago
This is a good video. Very articulate!
Skepticktok 1 year ago
militant athiesm is when athiest use violence to get rid of religion such as state athiesm in the communist countries that violently kill religious countries
extremeeXrement1 1 year ago
If outspoken atheists are "militant atheists", then all evangelical Christians are "militant Christians".
gupsphoo 1 year ago
A militant Atheist is simply any Atheist that wants to remove Religion completely from society.
Most Atheists get this definition wrong
Sneezlebob 1 year ago
@Sneezlebob
Regardless of how you might like to abuse it, the word "militant" means either supporting or using actual violence.
Isn't lying a sin, liar?
bowlsallbroken 1 year ago
@bowlsallbroken How am I a liar? Are you stupid?
Sneezlebob 1 year ago
@Sneezlebob
I just explained how. The entirety of your comment I replied to is a bald-faced lie.
The need people like you have to smear people like me with a word that you know doesn't fit is intentional dishonesty.
bowlsallbroken 1 year ago
@bowlsallbroken You didn't explain how I'm a liar. You asked a question and then called me a liar.
If you want to live in your fantasy world though, who am I stop you.
Sneezlebob 1 year ago
Militant essentially means 'to be open to using violence to achieve an end'. It's childish to call anyone who is simply standing up for their equal rights "militant."
captwasabi 1 year ago
@captwasabi Didn't you know that Richard Dawkins secretly operates a worldwide terrorist network? It's called Athe-Qaeda.
SpellboundSolution 1 year ago
Jonathan Coulton FTW.
theclinger 1 year ago
Onward Atheists! xD
YetAnthony 1 year ago
rather a militant atheist than a moderate islamist!
halflifeproductionz 1 year ago 2
There are no militant atheists, when was the last time they flew a plain into a building, waged aggressive war or sacked Jerusalem in the name of "non belief". We leave that too the holy. Good vid.
LouisPlume 1 year ago
There's a point you can hit with many people, that will make them mentally disengage from your conversation. Once you hit this point they've made up their mind and they're done listening. It'd be amazing if the human race could get past that.
justicetrooper 1 year ago
<3.
LifeIsMichelle 1 year ago
all i have to say is that when the day comes, you will be on your knees begging and then it'll be too late!
sns0926 1 year ago
@sns0926 What day? Please, can you be more specific? The Nordics have the Ragnarök, is this day that you was talking about? each religion has one Judgment Day; but no one of them have evidences, proofs, equations; grow up dude, we are in the 21st century and not in the Middle Age.
Maidhros 1 year ago
@Maidhros
Tuesday the 32nd of February. When that day comes we shall all beg for mercy... or for someone to come and fix our calendars anyway.
athywren 1 year ago
Comment removed
Ihatemelee 1 year ago
@Ihatemelee hitler was christian. take it or leave. go read a book.
MultiAyuda 1 year ago
@Ihatemelee
A Catholic. Never excommunicated btw, weird isn't it?
athywren 1 year ago
militant - vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause
I'd say the definition fits here.
FluffyFeralMarmot 1 year ago
@FluffyFeralMarmot you mean atheists expressing opinion? that's agressive? smart. thumbs up.
MultiAyuda 1 year ago
Whatever your mind wants to or not to recognize.
there is something like "Militant Atheists"
and there is a dark history of atheism whit,Church transformed into"temples of rations"
Priests tortured to aceepte atheism.
Temples and churches destroyed, blood, blood atheism, atheism!
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo You are an American aren't you? Militant atheism is not the same as the atheism of state communism. It is a bit like confusing Quakerism with Roman Catholicism.
State Communism was very like religion. You have a focus of worship, dogma and the witch hunts of heretics. It is no accident that Stalin trained at a seminary to be a priest. Miltant atheism appeals to reason and evidence. So please don't confuse the two.
zearro53 1 year ago
@VyckRo
Are you sure you are not confused with tchristians? Check Middle Ages in Europe.
MultiAyuda 1 year ago
@MultiAyuda
Middle Ages was an extraordinary period for progress! the renaissance and enlightenment were possible, only because of the long tradition of Middle Ages.
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo
Check up on some history my friend.
1) The Renaissance is after the Middle Ages.
2)The mIddle Ages were the opposite of the Renaissance. All the scientific discoveries, was forgotten.
3)The Renaissance is based on Roman and Greek ways of thinking. I am seriously disappointed with your knowledge of history.
MultiAyuda 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MultiAyuda
No I am disappointed with your knowledge of history!
1. Bravo
2.The mIddle Ages was not opposite to anything, the long tradition of Middle Ages, was the path that led to Renaissance.
3. "The Renaissance is based on Roman and Greek ways of thinking"
be blessed the Byzantine Empire, and Catholic monasteries
VyckRo 1 year ago
Great video
elfarawla 1 year ago
its those darn militant theists trying to give everyone a bad name.
commerceskate 1 year ago
Just call any theist who makes the same type of claims a militant christian, or a militant muslim. People I have debated hate this, but when you point out that they call people militant atheists based on the same criteria, it can make them admit the deception, or at least look dumb.
A5Hellcat 1 year ago
Militant atheists stole my dog!!!! I mean god!!!
matchu4444 1 year ago
Personally, I don't have a problem with the term militant. It does not necessarily imply violence, it can just mean being confrontational. It also has particular theological meaning in Catholicism. They use to speak of the church militant and by that they meant a struggle against sin.
Atheism is militant in the sense of confronting the weaknesses of faith based belief. The weapons are reason , not violence. It is also a struggle especially for those atheists living in the USA.
zearro53 1 year ago
@zearro53 but thats not what people HEAR
grendelee 1 year ago
I Like the TERM!
I see it as Intellectual Militancy.
MILITANCY in the Terms of Discipline to Reject Superstition at any cost.
we Have to Speak out or the Corporate ChurchState will Ruin Reality.
have NONE of you Ever Read Phillip K Dick???
Good Job Al!
J.
joshuaPaskowitz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There are three models of Government competing for world domination:
(1) Communist / atheist: where government officials decide and dole out your temporal rights if any
(2) Sharia Law: where the Qu'ron governs
(3) Judeo-Christian model, where God grants our rights & liberties and THEREFORE they are unalienable, power resides in we the people, we are sovereign and the government is our servant.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i jus wanna know who wrote the bible then? did one man write the bible? did a group of dudes come together and say to themselves...lets write a fucking epic, right now! i wanna know...
syrensounds 1 year ago
C&C Generals :D
cr4yv3n 1 year ago
Uh - this is Propaganda and Militant feminism hasn't blown up buildings either.
and there is militant atheist propaganda advocating violence on the internet.
Evangelical and Militant Atheism has been around since Bertrand Russell.
No one likes being preached at - just because the God squad preaching is disliked doesn't mean the lack of god squad isn't welcomed either.
It's still the same pulpit envy that is causing the rest of us to bleed out the ears.
Its nothing new.
AfterFauve001 1 year ago
i"m very proud of you young man. i agree 100%
whittlejc 1 year ago 4
Dude! I highly enjoyed this vid, and feel that you have accurately gone over the points very well!
ReverendPopeFoxyFox 1 year ago 4
Bravo Ablert10110! There is so much harm made by religions in the world so it is important that atheists and healthy mental people protect us from sick deluded religious people. Yes these people are sick and we must do what we can to give them back their mental health.
tubetib 1 year ago
Hi there Al. What is your opinion on Celestial Teapot Agnostics? Don't you think that claiming that there is no probability whatsoever that we were created by a conscious being is a little short-sighted? I am myself a celestial teapot agnostic and a former atheist. I despise organised religion and believe that it only causes
Badgerinthenight 1 year ago
@Badgerinthenight cntd. problems, truth is always far better than comfort. I am very into astrophysics, quantum mechanics & the like, so appreciate the complexity of our Universe (as much as one can!) I also appreciate that humanity is still uncovering what seems to be still only the basics of that complexity and as much as we now know, we still have a long way to go in terms of understanding
Badgerinthenight 1 year ago
cntd. our existence. I like to imagine it to an extreme level in order to appreciate it's significance better..(..what if we're just someone's science project..? Our Universe within another universe, next to another universe wrapped in another universe and so on...for all we know, our entire existence (w/relative time) could be one blip in a whole massive universe way beyond our own and we could be that mini universe created in some lab. I know its extreme but I think it makes the point well..:D
Badgerinthenight 1 year ago
Just because reality is brutal and hurts sometimes doesn't make us militant
deusphuk 1 year ago 2
People are scared of that which they do not relate or know. Which leads them to attach Nazism with Atheism, "Drinking the Kool-aid" with theism, or AIDS/HIV to homosexuality. It's a world filled with confusion and hatred.
Chibithy 1 year ago
Recognize that your a sinner...Believe in your heart God raised Jesus Christ form the dead, confess him as Lord, ask him to wash you in his blood and make you his child, read and obey the Gospel, it has the power to save your soul.
HedeenJeff 1 year ago
@HedeenJeff I don't want to bathe in anyone's blood thank you. It all seems unnecessary.
loneknight100 1 year ago
Unfortuately, dawkins and hitchens have several times made precisely the case that this atheist actually refutes: that religions are dangerous. I think that violence is built into human nature and that focusing on religion is sort of silly. I certainly don't consider Dawkins or Hitchens to be any worse than say Pat Robertson. They are polemics, pure and simple. The logic you use is good, but your fellow atheists rarely use it.
michaelsmith2911 1 year ago
@michaelsmith2911 Just because violence is built into us doesn't mean we should embrace all the things which encourage it.
SaraCufer 1 year ago
Very true. The most active part we are in is preserving freedom in this country.
abdishtar 1 year ago
1:54 best lol
Patrick1176 1 year ago
I don't mean to insult anyone's religion. I'm just stating facts. I mean, in modern times if you heard some guy with a beard who wore loin cloths lead a group of people and claimed to be the son of "God", you would call him an asshole and somewhere some fundamental Baptist would shoot an RPG at his house, killing everyone inside in the name of "God". You probably doubt that he's the son of God, but this is no different than what happened 2010 years ago.
blainethebassist 1 year ago