They are Americas taliban....if they get even a foothold I'm scared for this country. You could see a civil war. Ironically these idiots think they are oppressed in this country when they hold all the cards to begin with.
You know, the crazy thing in our country isn't these evangelical preachers we see on television asking for your credit card number or the guy on the corner telling you the world will end and you all are sinful. It's the combination of evangelical and militant malcontents! You may not be aware of this but we have all these self appointed militia groups in our country, Timothy McVeigh wanna be hard nosers that actually think gays are the worlds worst problem. These guys have automatic weapons.....
I agree with you, BUT (yea, I know, had to be a but in there ..) - It is possible to destroy countries without guns. MANY school districts in the US are lobbying to introduce creationism in to science class. Once you let myth in to science class, and teaches children that myth is factual science, that's when you exchange the rock which US is built on with quicksand. THAT's the real threat. Theocracy leads to stagnation, persecution, exclusion, forced church-tax, etc.
@tdjdk What makes you think I don't agree with you about creationism though? I think we will win through that being taught in public schools. the public won over the texas board of education to teach it, if they can do it anyone can. There are more ways to do harm than just guns but none as harmful or fearful. I just happen to think gun control in this country needs more regulations....it's not really an opinion, since it's plainly clear we murder the most with guns. Militia groups is part of it
@tdjdk Go look at some of my rants about creationism. they lose so many rational arguments it's staggering. If you have a position of dishonesty, misinterpretation, strawman, and ignorance, you will never have an argument. Creationism is a fraud just like religion is.
2:00 - 2:16 I hope Matt is right that there will be a "snap-back", but I am also aware of a book called "They Thought They Were Free" about the Nazification of Germany. In that book, the author speaks of the little every day changes and how many were waiting for that "snap-back" moment that never came until the war started, at which point it was too late.
DOMINIONISM? sounds like as much a conspiricy as Glenn Beck creates.
First it sounds like you assume our Gov was always secular. The US Gov was developed based on Religion from the beginning. Thats why they swore people in on the Bible.
Looks to me like the Religion of Atheism is trying to surplant the existing Gov with Their Beliefs.
The difference is that a Christian Gov will allow Atheism to exist where an Atheist Gov will ban all other Religions.
The U.S. was created as a secular nation. It was not based on religion, but on Enlightenment principles and English common law, which existed before the "introduction" of christianity to England. Many of the founders were deists, not christians. If you really think the country was founded on religion, reading the U.S. Constitution will disabuse you of that notion. Atheism is not a religion, and atheists do not seek to ban religion.
@YY4Me133 sez"The U.S. was created as a secular nation. It was not based on religion"
The mistake modern secularists make is obvious. They take a twentieth century concept like "secularism" and read it back into the Constitution. They take a concept that didn't even exist in the eighteenth century and attribute it to the framers of the Constitution.
As a Belief System, Atheism is a Religion
Religious Atheism does seek to ban religions, Read Secular Magazine & see.
@Texmurphy51 Have you read the U.S. Constitution? If not, please do so. Also read the contemporaneous writings of its authors, e.g. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, and Jefferson's letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper.
Atheism is not a religion: it worships no god, has no dogma, no authorities from whom atheists take orders. Atheism is no more a religion than is theism. Both are opinions with respect to the existence of gods. Nothing more.
@Texmurphy51 Have you read the U.S. Constitution? If so, show me where it says god-belief had anything to do with the creation of the document/country. Our laws are based on English common law. I gave you references that you obviously ignored.
secular: "Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis."
I've never said all theists are religions, but those who follow a religion are. Atheism is not a religion, unless you ignore reality.
@Texmurphy51 English common law existed for about two hundred years before the "introduction" of christianity to England.
I gave you a dictionary definition of "secular." If you disagree with it, take it up with the folks who compile dictionaries.
Atheism has nothing to do with how the universe came to be. It's simply not believing in any gods. Faith has nothing to do with it. Faith is required for god belief because there's no evidence.
@Texmurphy51 To my knowledge, English common law was not based on any religion. Saying that "All our moral laws come from Religions" implies that humans didn't create religious rules/laws, but they did. So, all laws come from humans. Religions simply take credit for them.
I don't argue about how the universe did NOT come to be. I reject baseless claims about how it did.
Faith is not required for belief. Belief can be based on evidence, e.g. I believe Earth orbits our sun.
@Texmurphy51 All laws, even religious laws, are created by humans. Some may attribute their thinking/actions to some god or gods, but it all comes from human minds.
I don't know of a single person who claims to *know* what existed "before" the Big Bang, because time is thought to have started at that event. However, the Theory does explain what has been observed.
@Texmurphy51 Atheists don't claim to know there are no gods, we simply haven't seen any reason to believe there are any. I put gods on the same level as leprechauns and invisible garden faeries, and for the same reason: no evidence.
The U.S. Constitution is a secular document, not base on any religion. Many of the founders were, at most, deists. Their ideas came from the Enlightenment, not god-belief.
Of course actions can be considered "wrong" if there are no "absolutes."
The religious right certainly is a dangerous group, they are hard to contend with because they have propaganda and idiots that demand everyone be subject to a fairy tale. There are 43% of young earth creationists according to a Gallup survey in 2007 and 55% believe America is a Christian nation according to a study by The First Amendment Center. I'm not certain how much I can appreciate the US if education is being marginalized, because ignorance is a dangerous thing.
God exists, that's the accepted claim by the majority of people, you want to challenge that, bring the evidence, the burden of proof is on YOU. Some narrow minded atheist proposed the wrong notion that atheism doesn't require evidence and many gullible atheists had run to foolishly embrace it. Philosophically the burden of proof is in the argument challenging the establishment. What evidence you have that atheism is true? None, zero, nada. Open your eyes, you're being deceived by an evil cult.
@dejesusluisx your an idiot. So you are allowed to believe in something and tell us its true because more people believe in it? What is your proof of God.
@MrChaosSyndrome ""What is your proof of God"" I asked first, what evidence you have atheism is true.
I have evidence for God existence, plenty. Scientific, prophetic, visionary, and personal evidence God exists.
What evidence you have for atheism?? That some other atheist told you God doesn't exists? You don't have a book, a tradition, an argument, not even a hint of a clue that can be remotely taken as a minuscule evidence to prove your faith.
@dejesusluisx Atheism does not claim to have absolute certainty, religion does. There is plenty of proof in science textbooks. and books written by scientists. there is not a single word of proof for any idealogy of creationism. Read Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion. HE isnt an atheist bcause he just doesnt believe it, hes an atheist because he happens to be a biologist at cambridge.
@MrChaosSyndrome "There is plenty of proof in science textbooks."" I haven't seen a single shred of evidence that disprove God in any science book, and I studied those for 9 yrs in college.
""Read Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion"" What the video: "Who Designed The Designer? a response to Dawkins' The God Delusion by Dr. William Lane Craig" Here WLC sweeps the floor with Dawkins and calls him inept.
I am a biologist and I can tell you Dawkins is a fraud. I can give more details later
@dejesusluisx If you say there is a city called New York and I say I don't believe you. Then you show me overwhelming evidence that there is a city called New York I have no option but to believe you. I have not been presented with any evidence so I don't believe there are any gods. What a lot of other people believe is not evidence.
@whaddyta There's plenty of scientific evidence that favors overwhelmingly the existence of a force directing the universe than the universe coming into existence out of randomness. The Penrose calculations, Hoyle calculations, the string theory landscape model, the BB model and the definition of energy all points towards a conscious force rather than pure chance. If you're unfamiliar with them, I could explain.
@dejesusluisx All of those forces are natural and you are simply asserting that a conscious super natural being is behind them. Penrose and Hoyle have been debunked many times and there is no need for me to repeat it here. String theory landscape model is still merely a proposal and falls into the same shortcomings as Penrose and Hoyle. I am unfamiliar with the BB model.
@whaddyta Things that years ago were believed to be supernatural today are not. What today is believed to be supernatural tomorrow might not be. You are closing yourself to the possibility. Is light supernatural? No, and God is described as light. Is Love supernatural? No, and God is described as Love. Is energy supernatural?. You call it supernatural because can't be explained, at least not yet. To move atoms to resurrect a body is science at it's best. I cannot see, measure or prove love exist
@dejesusluisx Attaching attributes that we have evidence for to something we don't have evidence for is not an argument. Do horses exist? Yes. Do horns exist? Yes. Do unicorns exist? No. I am not closing myself to the possibility, I am completely open to the possibility of all things. I just require evidence before I accept anything not philosophical ramblings or debunked probability models.
@whaddyta "I am not closing myself to the possibility, I am completely open to the possibility of all things" So, if there were multiverses out there in reality, would you say is possible that God exist in one of them?
@dejesusluisx "So, if there were multiverses out there in reality, would you say is possible that God exist in one of them?" This would make Gods existence contingent on the existence of a single universe which goes against the argument that god is outside of space and time. This is a bit like asking if in an infinite number of universes is there one with a square circle. I am open to possibility but only when accompanied with evidence.
@whaddyta "This would make Gods existence contingent on the existence of a single universe which goes against the argument that god is outside of space and time" That is not a requisite for God existence, God can very well exists within our space and time, as a matter of fact He does, how else could you explain He lives inside of each of us.
So, would it be possible that God exists in a particular universe?
@whaddyta ""Penrose and Hoyle have been debunked many times"" I don't think so, give me the reference, and I'll show you were is the misunderstanding. The BB (big bang) model is the cosmological argument, it proves the universe began to exist as stated in the Bible.
@whaddyta "Okay, then it talks about a talking snake, a magic tree, etc. Getting a few things right will never make up for all the things it gets wrong" Is a metaphor. The story tries to depict that consciousness is a gift from God but we still have animal instincts that convince us not to follow it. The animals instincts are the "original sin" since they are the program we evolved with. God wants us to reject our selfish animal instincts to move to a higher consciousness plane.
@dejesusluisx "Is a metaphor." Sorry each person that uses the Bible has a completely different interpretation. My argument still stands though. The same book endorses slavery and murder. This would be much easier if you would stay on topic and provide the evidence for god before moving on to the Bible.
@whaddyta "The same book endorses slavery and murder" That was the mode of life for a lower level consciousness, the same way if we move to the next consciousness plane, we would not believe we condoned a system based on greed and materialism where 1% of the people have 80% of the wealth and allows children to die by the millions in Africa. Our system is as bad as a system based on slavery, incest, genocide, and tribalism, and yet I don't see you protesting it.
I admit that our current system has flaws, I just don't know of a better one to replace it. Our current system is flawed and so is the bible because they are human constructs and there is no evidence of divinity in either. Why would I bring up the flaws of politics in this argument. Your inability to stay on topic is becoming annoying.
@whaddyta You mentioned the Bible condoned slavery, remember? I'm just making the comparison that slavery is intolerable only to a higher consciousness the same way our system is intolerable to a higher consciousness than us. Using the Bible to defend your point is futile, you're not dealing with a fundamentalist here, so you can save it. The Bible has to be interpreted in light of who, where, why and how that particular passage was wrote. If you do that, you get the true inspiration it meant.
@whaddyta "Infidels has an article on Penrose" and? what? what does it say? "wikipedia has an article on Hoyles fallacy" anyone can write in wikipedia, the article there is based on an Ian Musgrave book. This guy's credentials are nothing, he is no one compared to Fred Hoyle, his article is like a fly wanting to bite an elephant. The article is based on five premises, which are false. So it wasn't been answered because it doesn't deserve the ink.
@dejesusluisx You asked for a link to the article not for me to paraphrase the article here which I will not do. You have a computer, google it. When given said links you merely use ad hominems rather than any sort of rebuttal. Also, saying that existence is unprobable then inserting god is not evidence. If you want to give me a link to an article I will read it but trying to argue over something so complex here is silly.
@whaddyta "You asked for a link to the article not for me to paraphrase the article here which I will not do." I looked at the site you mention and found no article what rebutted or challenged Penrose's calculation, so if you don't give me a direct link I'll call it a bluff.
The complexity is in the calculation, not in the arguments, the odds are correctly calculated by competent professionals and the interpretations are easy to grasp. The calculations say randomness is an impossibility.
@dejesusluisx Google infidel/penrose it is the first article that comes up. Have you even tried to google these arguments? The arguments against fine tuning and the anthropic principle are all over the internet.
@whaddyta "Google infidel/penrose it is the first article that comes up." Are you serious??? this is a blog!!! is this were you get your references from a blog???!!! I give you peer review references and you give me blogs??? and even worst, an ATHEIST blog!!! Do you have a clue of what a scientific article is?? A peer review publication??? Please...
No wonder you're an atheist. It takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a believer...
@dejesusluisx You didn't give me a peer reviewed reference you asked me if I heard of the penrose calculation etc. and said you could explain them to me. The improbability of an event does not constitute the insertion of a god as being the only way it could happen. Your argument is so muddled that I can only assume that is why you have an inability to stay on topic going from the bible to politics and resorting to logical fallacies along the way.
@whaddyta "You didn't give me a peer reviewed reference" Penrose calculations are peered reviewed, even Hawkins has collaborated with Penrose, so there's no possible argument against them, unless someone find specific data for specific constants proving is not possible for them to assume other values than the ones Penrose used. The problem is Penrose considered 30+ cosmological constants, so even if you can fix half, the other half still shows randomness as a statisticaly unfeasible explanation.
@dejesusluisx I made a mistake. What I should of said is that the apologetics arguments that use these calculations have been refuted. I still don't see how these prove that god exist. What is the threshold of improbability of an event occurring that would require a god? How is it possible to assert that an unlikely event would require a god?
@whaddyta "I still don't see how these prove that god exist" Theists present arguments that support the existence of God, no one can present direct evidence for God existence, because God made it to be so. Read 1Cor 1:21. If there were direct empirical evidence for God, faith would be gone and we would not be free agents. That can only happen it the final judgment, so don't bother to wait for evidence, you'll get only arguments.
@whaddyta ""What is the threshold of improbability of an event occurring that would require a god?"" The issue is whether the universe came out out of randomness of not. Statistical analysis at a 95% confidence level has to show a P value <0.05 to show a significant difference. That is 10^2 and Penrose calculations are 10^1230, Hoyle's are 10^40,000 and String theory landscape 10^520. So there is no theory, that anyone in it's right mind can say that proves we are the product of chance.
@whaddyta "How is it possible to assert that an unlikely event would require a god?" I say it's God, because I believe in God, and that explanation is the only one available when you eliminate chance, but if I didn't know that there is an explanation called God, I would be scratching my head and trying to find out how and from which source some super powerful one time energy surge had acted, to materialize an ordered universe, not to repeat that event ever again. There would be no explanation.
@dejesusluisx "I say it's God, because I believe in God, and that explanation is the only one available when you eliminate chance," nizkorDOTorg: A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning": Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false). Claim Y is false. Therefore claim X is true. For example: Either 1+1=4 or 1+1=12. It is not the case that 1+1=4. Therefore 1+1=12. Sorry, but your reasoning FAILS.
@BastEternal "Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false)" for your statement to have any chance at being remotely rational, you need to provide a third alternative. Either there was intervention in the universe or not, either the universe is random or not, there is no third option that can make the proposed two false. So, which one is that third option? If you don't have it, save your opinions until you do.
@dejesusluisx I couldn't think of an easier and more rational way to explain this than basteternal has provided. An inability to provide a correct answer does not make a wrong answer right. This is a fact not an opinion, at most you can say it is a misused fact, which I would not. If you can not provide evidence making either proposal true then there is no need to prove it false before rejecting it or suggesting there is a possible unknown answer.
@whaddyta "An inability to provide a correct answer does not make a wrong answer right" Are you assuming there's another option? are you assuming that there could be something more than intervention or randomness? if you assume that then you must have an idea of what it is, so what is it? why don't atheist save the empty rhetoric and schoolyard logic and say what is the alternative? say it in black an white, no word games, no tricks and deceptions. What is it? Give us something! Make your case!
@therealfriday13th I wish we didn't elect Christian presidents every time as well, but it seems to be unavoidable. The theocratic fascists in this country like David Allen Coe and the John Birch Socieety wield tremendous power. At best, we can hope to elect a universalist unitarian.
@IndigoVagrant Yep. Of course, it also helps to make sure that those we elect aren't science deniers (like RON PAUL, Rick Perry, Herman Cain), economic idiots (RON PAUL, Newt Gingrich), Dominionist Historical Revisionists (Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry), (among other issues) or too easily bought by them (Mitt Romney). Right now, the best choice would be Huntsman, but the fact that he doesn't deny science renders him dead in the water in the primary.
@therealfriday13th I agree that Huntsman is a good choice.. Although if the choice was between him and Obama.. I'd probably just as soon go protesting.
@jdurnal And I didn't respond. Had I done so I would have crushed your argument and left it in its own piss puddle whimpering in a corner. Then I would have gone and made a sandwich because I would have probably been hungry. Always being right makes me hungry.
@jdurnal There is just so much fuck in what you just said that it just doesn't deserve an answer. Seriously, everything you said is wrong on so many levels. Read a science text, keep trying.
@HubbellKent well why did you respond then bud.. lets define "Sci·ence/ˈsīəns/Noun
1. The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." Observation and Experiment. Sorry if i don't want to listen to a textbook that hasn't observed or experimented on how life began.. or even scratched the surface on actually creating life.
Evolutionist theory is crumbling!! How can living tissue be found in a dinosaur bone? How are there carvings and paintings of dinosaurs all over the world? Because humans coexisted with them. How can the first living cell become alive from a bunch of non living matter. It is the equivalent of smashing a bug on the ground. All of the chemical biological properties are there for life, so given enough time it can suddenly become alive again? Noo only God can create life. Keep trying guys keep tryin
@jdurnal First of all living tissue isn't located in bones especially when the organism is dead. Second ancient men didn't make painting/carvings of dinosaurs these were probably just lizards. Third dinosaurs died out 65million years ago whereas human started to 150thousand years ago but assuming that dinosaurs co-existed with humans the dinosaurs would of ate all of the humans and drove the human race to extinction because they are much faster and bigger than us.
@SubVLPer Not living tissue sorry, but tissue in general that is found indicates that the animal couldn't possibly be 70million years old. "Current theories about fossil preservation hold that organic molecules should not preserve beyond 100,000 years." Thats because of scientific studies on half life decay rates. Just saying it begs the question are they really that old.
@jdurnal Its possible for soft tissue to be preserved under certain anoxic environmental conditions but the tissue itself will cease to exist however the impressions of the tissue will remain. There have been documented cases of soft tissue impressions being preserved for thousands to millions of years but never living tissue.
It wouldnt let me send a link on here.. but google tissue found in dino. Also google carvings and paintings of dinosaurs. if you truly want to look at the other side of the issue you should. Ive lived on the side of evolutionist myself for many years, but the evidence. If you really break it down doesn't add up. Even molecular biologists that are non biased will agree that it is beyond any explanation or odds that life is here.
@jdurnal Fourth all living matter is made from non-living chemical elements what you're talking about is abiogenesis which has shown by Stanley Miller that basic chemical element can give rise to proteins and amino acids which serves as the building blocks of life. And sorry no it is not the equivalent of smashing a bug on the ground this just shows how incredibly ignorant you are. Go read a damn book...
@SubVLPer No it is the same equivalent.. when you smash a bug on the ground all of the necessary CHEMICAL NON LIVING elements are right there on the ground. So how do those elements rearrange themselves and become alive? How did the first chemical non-living elements at the beginning come together to make life?
@jdurnal My goodness! Abiogenesis explains how living molecules arose. It doesn't explain how the said molecules slowly evolved into animals. You're tying to intertwine biological evolution with chemistry. Get your facts straight! When you take hydrogen rich gases like ammonia, methane, water vapor and subject it to UV light and electricity it make will make amino acids and proteins which serves as the basis of organic molecules. This in no way is like smashing a bug on the ground.
Americans love being ruled by foreign interests. They suck the banker cocks of the Zionist Israelies, of the Swiss, and of the Japanese and Chinese. You are completely ruled by other countries, and we elect your politicians, especially the right wing Christian ones who espouse false "free market" ideas.
We also control Obama, and we have controlled every president for the last century. You are completely fucked, and when WWIII rolls around, we will use you to open new markets for the IMFbank.
Americans love being ruled by foreign interests. They suck the banker cocks of the Zionist Israelies, of the Swiss, and of the Japanese and Chinese. You are completely ruled by other countries, and we elect your politicians, especially the right wing Christian ones who espouse false "free market" ideas.
We also control Obama, and we have controlled every president for the last century. You are completely fucked, and when WWIII rolls around, we will use you to open new markets for the IMFbank.
@dvdthames693 No that would be the the person who thinks the whole universe was created with them in mind. Its just being humble to say that you occurred by an accident of birth through a continued chain reaction of births and beginnings. And in my opinion it is so much more incredible and beautiful than to say everything was just poofed into existence and planned.
@dvdthames693 who thinks they are an accident? unless of course our parents said you were an accident maybe due to laxed birth control or something. we are here because our parents had sex and became pregnant with us.. period.
@GermanChocolateCake how can any man justify any such law if it does not have a base such as god. To tell a child he shouldnt steal is in vain if you dont have a base for it. now what is your base?
@dvdthames693 My base is that I don't like suffering, I know others don't like suffering and so we get together as a group and make sure nobody steals our stuff or hurts us. If someone within the group hurts another we have rules that punish those individuals so they won't do it again. Plus I have genuine empathy for others without having to rely on an authority or reward. Thats the basis and since other animals also grasp this concept I have no idea why you would need specific godly commands.
@dvdthames693 because you dont need a fairytale to justify a moral compass. you do good for others for the gratification of doing good, and in the hopes that they or others will do good towards you. Im adult enough to not require a fairytale daddy to throw me in a pit of fire if i do bad. I dont steal because it hurts the store owner. I dont kill because i dont want to be killed. the idea that you need someone telling you that if you dont follow these rules you will be punished is childish.
Muslims pose a greater threat than Christian Reconstructionists because of sheer numbers. They have more kids, they're 10 millions times more numerous in the world, and they want to replace our constitution with sharia law. Christian Reconstructionists number no more than 20,000 and Art Robinson's homeschool curriculum is a dud. It doesn't really work too well. I don't think that's how he taught Noah Robinson, who really was an unbelievable student.
@PIlotrcm The folks in Jesus camp are dangerous, single-minded and, in my opinion, child-abusing anti-patriots. The way they raise their children is cruel and abusive. If you want to be a good parent, watch "Jesus Camp" and raise your child in the opposite way from the parents in that film. If I could take their children away - I would do it in a New York minute. We'd eliminate another generation of intolerance. They are just as much of a threat to our way of life as radical islam.
People are born very capable of EVIL and CAUSE OF SUFFERING TO OTHERS and people use religon to augment themselves to do good .... now religon can also be used to hurt people such as MUSLIMS and CHRISTIANS in the middle east but atheism is a total denial of ANY higher power so you hold yourself to NO regulation,NO um ..... law. Because you have denied any higher power how can you justify ANY LAW. THat is all i have to say thank you
@dvdthames693 Because the atheist recognizes that all laws and morals are man-made, there has never been an objective law handed down by a god of any sort.
@dvdthames693 Here's how you can justify ANY LAW without need of a higher power: "How will my actions affect others around me?" If you do something & it helps people in need, then that's classed as good, but if what you do hurts people in need, then that's classed as bad...religion paints itself as good in order to try justifying its evils, like slavery & murder...instead of picking & choosing from your holy books, try understanding how your actions will affect those around you & work from there
@mrhnm In whose eyes? I don't call sending a pack of bears to maul a bunch of children to death after they called a prophet "Baldie" a moral & just thing to do...in fact, THAT is more evil than saying "What I do can affect people around me, so I should try & avoid hurting them"
Isn't that what religion is meant to be teaching, ensuring you don't always think about yourself & that you care for the people around you? Or is that another "misinterpretation by non-believers" such as myself?
@Tarynus Altruism enslaves people to the needs of others. Helping people is okay if you want to do it, but it is not more moral than anything else.
Altruism obligates people and says that only deeds done for others are moral. And I'm sorry that's just not true. Also it creates a dichotomy because Altruistic behavior and what we need to do to survive are opposites.
Athiests aren't any better than christians. I hate to break it to you but no one has the answers. I'm in doubt that humans are intelligent enough to get down into the depths of understanding the creator of life, the universe and why we are here for that matter. Athiesm is in fact ignorant and simple just as religion is a little silly and naive. Agnosticism is the only reasonable answer for me, though christians have the potential to glow with a genuine warmth that is beautiful and old fashioned.
@B360Lightning: The two aren't exclusive. Most atheists are agnostics. Agnostics are people who admit they don't know and it's probably unknowable. Atheists simply reject the claims of theists and their religions without proper evidence.
I think you may be confusing atheists with anti-theists, who oppose religion and believe there is no god. Atheists are just asking for proof before they believe in something.
@B360Lightning So because you can't prove wether or not there is a flying teapot around Mars that dictates every part of your life, you are ignorant and silly for thinking that such a teapot does not exist? You have to be open minded to both possibilities, 'cause you couldn't possibly know!
If there's no evidence for something, there's no reason to believe it. Every time you close your eyes and no one is looking, dancing skeletons MAY appear in front of you. Right? -_-
hey all you people need guidence. I'm a Christian, and athiests like to leave out key notions. 1. Usa was founded on Christian Principles christianity founded America, dont beleive me or if you debate this please ask George Washington in a time machine, and sense u dnt have 1 look at history with eyes and not personal beleifes. Understand its christian principles that made this country 1 of the greatest in the world. Now its straying from it. Trust Jesus!
@hinc1mike G. Washington,T.Jefferson, B.Franklin,E.Allen,J.Madison & J.Monroe were all Deists having a philosophical belief widely accepted by the colonial intelligentsia @the time.The major tenets included belief in human reason 4 reliable means 2 solving social & political problems. The Supreme God of a Deists removed it's self from the universe, creating it 2 operate by natural laws.They knew not 2 let religion rule law cause theocracy has in all instances automatically violated human rights
@hinc1mike What are the "principles that made this country 1 of the greatest in the world."? How can U trust Jesus U don't even knew the guy, can't prove that he is who he said he is or even did what he did what he claims. The Bible isn't Historical Doctrine & has proven mostly incorrect. U don't trust Jesus, U trust the men who illustrated the idea of Jesus 4 U. Some1lied 2 U & U don't have the knowledge/common scene 2 find the truth. Why must your faith make you stray so far from real &reason?
@hinc1mike "Usa was founded on Christian Principles"
Constitution VS bible goes like this:
"Congress shall make no law with respect to an establishment of religion..."
VS
Exodus 22:20, Deuteronomy 13:6-10, and Mark 6:11: Kill anybody who worships differently than you (Exo), including friends and family (Deu), and just destroy the entire city if even one citizen doesn't worship like you (Mark).
As an atheist, I'm ecstatic that groups such as the WBC are out there. Little do those idiots realize that their efforts are only creating more atheists. LOL
I think he is sorely mistaken as to how much influence the dominionists actually have. I believe they have already annexed much control without our knowledge.
i still think a true atheist would leave us Christians alone, if I were an atheist, I think I would just do my thing...i dont try to change atheists minds about their ideas so I dont know why some atheist groups are concerned about us scary Christians. I came across this vid 4 example looking for Christian stuff-im not obsessed with atheists
@Conail23 We'll leave Christians alone when the fundamentalists stop knocking on our doors early in the morning to spread the "word", when they stop killing abortion doctors, stop opposing science, stop trying to rewrite history to suit their agenda, learn that our government is founded on the separation of church and state, and stop discriminating against non-Christians. Until the fundamentalists stop doing these things, we're gonna keep on fighting back. If you don't like it, too bad.
@gir908922 Love it!! Isn't it amazing, the double standard?? They can "persecute" anyone they want, using "faith" as their excuse for willful ignorance and then have the gall to kvetch when someone does it to them. It's friggin' laughable.
Re: the Texas School Board tentacle issue starting at about 3:20.
Just to let you know, the Texas School Board issue is rather significant internationally among those aware of it.
I'm an Australian living in Japan. And if the subject comes up among my expat Canadian, American, Kiwi, Oz, etc. circle of friends, everyone is aware and has an opiniion.
We generally/unanimously agree.
I'm just letting you know that lots of us are watching stuff, and are aware.
Letting yourself be brainwashed like this, is handing over control of your own life to someone else, the one thing any human should hold sacred. You are taught to let them control your mind, and therefore are no better than the terrorist fundamentalists. Well, I guess you aren't one, but "moderate" religion is nothing more than a sleeping cell of terrorists waiting for their leader to tell them to commit atrocities in the name of God. Sad, but true. Free your mind by stepping out of the box.
If you turn these tables around and assume someone is guilty until proven innocent, you should be in a mental asylum for schizofrenic paranoia. Reasonable doubt.. that is where you fail. Faith in God requires you to abandon reason and accept that wich cannot be proven. Religion has been around for thousands of years, and still hasn't even come up with one single shred of evidence to justify itself. You are enslaving yourself to those "teaching" you, believing their word instead of your reason.
@massmayhem12 "what is the proof that atheism is true and religion is false, all atheists have actually avoided answering this." The burden of proof lies on the proposer of the statement, in this case the people believing in God. The statement is that there is a God. There is no proof of God. Therefore the atheists are right until otherwise proven wrong, the same way a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.
i really want this show to answer shockofgods question, what is the proof that atheism is true and religion is false, all atheists have actually avoided answering this. now im not saying that christianity has proof because we cannot physically prove or disprove it, so i want to know what proof is there that atheism is completely right, dont say its just the lack of belief in god actually have proof and evidence that its the only way to go.
" what is the proof that atheism is true and religion is false, all atheists have actually avoided answering this."
Ever heard the words: "You can't prove a negative" before?
What are your reasons for not believing in unicorns, leprechauns and elfs? It's the same reasons why people shouldn't believe in the existence of a god/gods.
The problem is that you and SOG simply don't understand that issue at hand.
@Aaberg123 religion is not a negative and unicorns and all that shit were from groups wanting to make entertaining stories. science has proved recently that there is a creator, but its not for sure what kind of creator it is. what you dont understand is that i dont give a fuck about what you believe so you need to shut your ignorant mouth. you just avoided answering the question as well, you say god is not real then show me the physical proof, and dont come back saying you cant.
@massmayhem12 "Religion is not a negative" correct. Therefore they have to prove the existance of their God. It's EXACLY the same as the unicorn example! The statement "There are no unicorns" is exacly the same as "There is no God". Until someone proves that they do in fact exist, noone has to or can prove them wrong. Science have not EVER proven that there is a creator. I don't even know where you get this kind of bullshit and asinine statements from, even if I may suspect.
Your profile says 21, but your reasoning is like that of a 6 year old.
"and unicorns and all that shit were from groups wanting to make entertaining stories." Basically same principles for religion. Grow up.
"science has proved recently that there is a creator, but its not for sure what kind of creator it is." Creator implies intent and intellect, and neither have been show to be qualities in whatever effect that formed the universe in its present state.
@Aaberg123 idk why it says 21 cause im 18, and no the bible wasnt written to entertain, so many people dont understand it and cant connect it to life and science that they say its make believe, that includes you. honestly you people need to just shut the fuck up you all act like children arguing "Im right! no im right! no im right! mommy he keeps arguing with me saying im wrong!" honestly thats what im seeing, just shut the fuck up, if you dont have physical proof that you are right then shut up
@jymbo1969 i never said god existed, but atheists like to push that he doesnt which actually requires proof to say and atheists cannot provide a lick of proof. therefore...shut the fuck up.
@massmayhem12 Proof is only found in mathematics. There is evidence regarding the existence or nonexistence of a god. And the evidence is one sided. There is no god. People who believe in a god fly planes into buildings and blow themselves up. In America, the christian counterparts vote republiklan. It skews your entire worldview. It is dangerous, and demonstrably false. So, how about you shut the fuck up, at least until you know a bit about the topic.
@jymbo1969 actually there is no evidence of a god not existing lol its extremely impossible to ever find any evidence of a god not existing. and uhm yeah im christian and im not a republican and we arent counterparts of the fucktards who think they are doing what "allah" wants by flying planes into buildings. with t
@texmurphy51 no, atheism is non belief, not belief there is not
101Pilgrim 2 weeks ago
They are Americas taliban....if they get even a foothold I'm scared for this country. You could see a civil war. Ironically these idiots think they are oppressed in this country when they hold all the cards to begin with.
Antimidation 1 month ago
You know, the crazy thing in our country isn't these evangelical preachers we see on television asking for your credit card number or the guy on the corner telling you the world will end and you all are sinful. It's the combination of evangelical and militant malcontents! You may not be aware of this but we have all these self appointed militia groups in our country, Timothy McVeigh wanna be hard nosers that actually think gays are the worlds worst problem. These guys have automatic weapons.....
Antimidation 1 month ago
@Antimidation
I agree with you, BUT (yea, I know, had to be a but in there ..) - It is possible to destroy countries without guns. MANY school districts in the US are lobbying to introduce creationism in to science class. Once you let myth in to science class, and teaches children that myth is factual science, that's when you exchange the rock which US is built on with quicksand. THAT's the real threat. Theocracy leads to stagnation, persecution, exclusion, forced church-tax, etc.
tdjdk 1 month ago
@tdjdk What makes you think I don't agree with you about creationism though? I think we will win through that being taught in public schools. the public won over the texas board of education to teach it, if they can do it anyone can. There are more ways to do harm than just guns but none as harmful or fearful. I just happen to think gun control in this country needs more regulations....it's not really an opinion, since it's plainly clear we murder the most with guns. Militia groups is part of it
Antimidation 1 month ago
@tdjdk Go look at some of my rants about creationism. they lose so many rational arguments it's staggering. If you have a position of dishonesty, misinterpretation, strawman, and ignorance, you will never have an argument. Creationism is a fraud just like religion is.
Antimidation 1 month ago 2
2:00 - 2:16 I hope Matt is right that there will be a "snap-back", but I am also aware of a book called "They Thought They Were Free" about the Nazification of Germany. In that book, the author speaks of the little every day changes and how many were waiting for that "snap-back" moment that never came until the war started, at which point it was too late.
JackWigal 1 month ago in playlist Liked videos
DOMINIONISM? sounds like as much a conspiricy as Glenn Beck creates.
First it sounds like you assume our Gov was always secular. The US Gov was developed based on Religion from the beginning. Thats why they swore people in on the Bible.
Looks to me like the Religion of Atheism is trying to surplant the existing Gov with Their Beliefs.
The difference is that a Christian Gov will allow Atheism to exist where an Atheist Gov will ban all other Religions.
Texmurphy51 1 month ago
@Texmurphy51 Google Dominionism. It's real.
The U.S. was created as a secular nation. It was not based on religion, but on Enlightenment principles and English common law, which existed before the "introduction" of christianity to England. Many of the founders were deists, not christians. If you really think the country was founded on religion, reading the U.S. Constitution will disabuse you of that notion. Atheism is not a religion, and atheists do not seek to ban religion.
YY4Me133 1 month ago
@YY4Me133 sez"The U.S. was created as a secular nation. It was not based on religion"
The mistake modern secularists make is obvious. They take a twentieth century concept like "secularism" and read it back into the Constitution. They take a concept that didn't even exist in the eighteenth century and attribute it to the framers of the Constitution.
As a Belief System, Atheism is a Religion
Religious Atheism does seek to ban religions, Read Secular Magazine & see.
Texmurphy51 1 month ago
@Texmurphy51 Have you read the U.S. Constitution? If not, please do so. Also read the contemporaneous writings of its authors, e.g. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, and Jefferson's letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper.
Atheism is not a religion: it worships no god, has no dogma, no authorities from whom atheists take orders. Atheism is no more a religion than is theism. Both are opinions with respect to the existence of gods. Nothing more.
We seek to educate religion away.
YY4Me133 1 month ago
@YY4Me133 sez"Atheism is not a religion: it worships no god,"
Buddism, Taouism, Raëlian are all No God Religions, No god is needed.
Neither Atheism nor Theism are actual Religions but each has organized forms that are Religions.
Atheists say Theists are all Religious so I say the same of Atheists.
Secularism does not exclude Religion so that does not mean the laws & principals of the founders were not based on it.
If our laws are not based on ancient Religious principals than What?
Texmurphy51 1 month ago
@Texmurphy51 Have you read the U.S. Constitution? If so, show me where it says god-belief had anything to do with the creation of the document/country. Our laws are based on English common law. I gave you references that you obviously ignored.
secular: "Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis."
I've never said all theists are religions, but those who follow a religion are. Atheism is not a religion, unless you ignore reality.
YY4Me133 1 month ago
@YY4Me133 sez"Our laws are based on English common law"
English common laws are based on Religious laws.
Secularism does not imply no religion as you imply.
I never sayd YOU said Theists are Religions, Atheists in general term all those who follow a religion as Theists.
A Religion is a Belief System/Faith as to how the Universe was created.
Atheism falls into this catagory.
Organized Belief in No God & trying to spread that Faith is a Religion
Texmurphy51 1 month ago
@Texmurphy51 English common law existed for about two hundred years before the "introduction" of christianity to England.
I gave you a dictionary definition of "secular." If you disagree with it, take it up with the folks who compile dictionaries.
Atheism has nothing to do with how the universe came to be. It's simply not believing in any gods. Faith has nothing to do with it. Faith is required for god belief because there's no evidence.
You're wrong about everything.
YY4Me133 1 month ago
@YY4Me133 sez"English common law existed for about two hundred years before the "introduction" of christianity to England"
I am not talking about Christianity, I speak of ancient Religions.
All our moral laws come from Religions
"Atheism has nothing to do with how the universe came to be"
The why do you argue on how it DID NOT come to be?
Atheism is Belief in No God as Creator
Faith is required for any Belief
What happend before the Big Bang is unknowns so to say you KNOW is Belief
Texmurphy51 1 month ago
@Texmurphy51 To my knowledge, English common law was not based on any religion. Saying that "All our moral laws come from Religions" implies that humans didn't create religious rules/laws, but they did. So, all laws come from humans. Religions simply take credit for them.
I don't argue about how the universe did NOT come to be. I reject baseless claims about how it did.
Faith is not required for belief. Belief can be based on evidence, e.g. I believe Earth orbits our sun.
YY4Me133 1 month ago
@YY4Me133 sez"To my knowledge, English common law was not based on any religion"
English law was based on previous laws.
Since Religion has been around since before recorded history, all written law is based on Religious morals.
The Beliefs came before written laws, not after.
Ancient people thought Gods caused all natural actions
"Faith is not required for belief"
Since there is no evidence of the conditions pre Big Bang , to say one KNOWS is a Faith
Texmurphy51 1 month ago
@Texmurphy51 All laws, even religious laws, are created by humans. Some may attribute their thinking/actions to some god or gods, but it all comes from human minds.
I don't know of a single person who claims to *know* what existed "before" the Big Bang, because time is thought to have started at that event. However, the Theory does explain what has been observed.
YY4Me133 1 month ago
@YY4Me133 sez"I don't know of a single person who claims to *know* what existed "before" the Big Bang"
Sure you do, all Theists & Atheists who Belief they KNOW there is a God or No God.
The "theory" does not describe conditions before the event, what happened is unknown.
Laws DO come from the human mind but because of Belief in Gods, not any Secular connection as you suggested.
Secular Laws have not absolutes so are all relative.
No action can be "wrong" with no absolutes
Texmurphy51 1 month ago
@Texmurphy51 Atheists don't claim to know there are no gods, we simply haven't seen any reason to believe there are any. I put gods on the same level as leprechauns and invisible garden faeries, and for the same reason: no evidence.
The U.S. Constitution is a secular document, not base on any religion. Many of the founders were, at most, deists. Their ideas came from the Enlightenment, not god-belief.
Of course actions can be considered "wrong" if there are no "absolutes."
YY4Me133 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@YY4Me133 sez"Atheists don't claim to know there are no gods, we simply haven't seen any reason to believe there are any"
Leprechauns are a strawman argument. They are a KNOW myth your using as a comparison to God(s).
I could use the same argument against any unproven Scientific hypothesis.
There are only 2 choices
1 Believe in God
2 Belief in No God
You cannot choose not to make a choice
Religious Atheists have as strong a Belief in No God as any Bible thumper.
They are the same
Texmurphy51 1 month ago
God is real, and He loves you.
SummerSunshine1988 2 months ago
The religious right certainly is a dangerous group, they are hard to contend with because they have propaganda and idiots that demand everyone be subject to a fairy tale. There are 43% of young earth creationists according to a Gallup survey in 2007 and 55% believe America is a Christian nation according to a study by The First Amendment Center. I'm not certain how much I can appreciate the US if education is being marginalized, because ignorance is a dangerous thing.
Bourtini 2 months ago
The caller lady is fucking annoying.
flatpat 3 months ago
@flatpat HAHAHA I had to sift through the flame war on here just to see if anyone noticed that too. I AGREE!!!
theciskokidd 1 month ago
John Lennon FTW!!
lago4 3 months ago
God exists, that's the accepted claim by the majority of people, you want to challenge that, bring the evidence, the burden of proof is on YOU. Some narrow minded atheist proposed the wrong notion that atheism doesn't require evidence and many gullible atheists had run to foolishly embrace it. Philosophically the burden of proof is in the argument challenging the establishment. What evidence you have that atheism is true? None, zero, nada. Open your eyes, you're being deceived by an evil cult.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx your an idiot. So you are allowed to believe in something and tell us its true because more people believe in it? What is your proof of God.
MrChaosSyndrome 4 months ago
@MrChaosSyndrome ""What is your proof of God"" I asked first, what evidence you have atheism is true.
I have evidence for God existence, plenty. Scientific, prophetic, visionary, and personal evidence God exists.
What evidence you have for atheism?? That some other atheist told you God doesn't exists? You don't have a book, a tradition, an argument, not even a hint of a clue that can be remotely taken as a minuscule evidence to prove your faith.
Open your eyes.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx Atheism does not claim to have absolute certainty, religion does. There is plenty of proof in science textbooks. and books written by scientists. there is not a single word of proof for any idealogy of creationism. Read Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion. HE isnt an atheist bcause he just doesnt believe it, hes an atheist because he happens to be a biologist at cambridge.
MrChaosSyndrome 4 months ago
@MrChaosSyndrome "There is plenty of proof in science textbooks."" I haven't seen a single shred of evidence that disprove God in any science book, and I studied those for 9 yrs in college.
""Read Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion"" What the video: "Who Designed The Designer? a response to Dawkins' The God Delusion by Dr. William Lane Craig" Here WLC sweeps the floor with Dawkins and calls him inept.
I am a biologist and I can tell you Dawkins is a fraud. I can give more details later
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dejesusluisx Okay, ive given you my answers. now you tell me why i should believe in god.
MrChaosSyndrome 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx If you say there is a city called New York and I say I don't believe you. Then you show me overwhelming evidence that there is a city called New York I have no option but to believe you. I have not been presented with any evidence so I don't believe there are any gods. What a lot of other people believe is not evidence.
whaddyta 3 months ago
@whaddyta There's plenty of scientific evidence that favors overwhelmingly the existence of a force directing the universe than the universe coming into existence out of randomness. The Penrose calculations, Hoyle calculations, the string theory landscape model, the BB model and the definition of energy all points towards a conscious force rather than pure chance. If you're unfamiliar with them, I could explain.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx All of those forces are natural and you are simply asserting that a conscious super natural being is behind them. Penrose and Hoyle have been debunked many times and there is no need for me to repeat it here. String theory landscape model is still merely a proposal and falls into the same shortcomings as Penrose and Hoyle. I am unfamiliar with the BB model.
whaddyta 3 months ago
@whaddyta Things that years ago were believed to be supernatural today are not. What today is believed to be supernatural tomorrow might not be. You are closing yourself to the possibility. Is light supernatural? No, and God is described as light. Is Love supernatural? No, and God is described as Love. Is energy supernatural?. You call it supernatural because can't be explained, at least not yet. To move atoms to resurrect a body is science at it's best. I cannot see, measure or prove love exist
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx Attaching attributes that we have evidence for to something we don't have evidence for is not an argument. Do horses exist? Yes. Do horns exist? Yes. Do unicorns exist? No. I am not closing myself to the possibility, I am completely open to the possibility of all things. I just require evidence before I accept anything not philosophical ramblings or debunked probability models.
whaddyta 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@whaddyta "I am not closing myself to the possibility, I am completely open to the possibility of all things" So, if there were multiverses out there in reality, would you say is possible that God exist in one of them?
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx "So, if there were multiverses out there in reality, would you say is possible that God exist in one of them?" This would make Gods existence contingent on the existence of a single universe which goes against the argument that god is outside of space and time. This is a bit like asking if in an infinite number of universes is there one with a square circle. I am open to possibility but only when accompanied with evidence.
whaddyta 3 months ago
@whaddyta "This would make Gods existence contingent on the existence of a single universe which goes against the argument that god is outside of space and time" That is not a requisite for God existence, God can very well exists within our space and time, as a matter of fact He does, how else could you explain He lives inside of each of us.
So, would it be possible that God exists in a particular universe?
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@whaddyta ""Penrose and Hoyle have been debunked many times"" I don't think so, give me the reference, and I'll show you were is the misunderstanding. The BB (big bang) model is the cosmological argument, it proves the universe began to exist as stated in the Bible.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx Infidels has an article on Penrose and wikipedia has an article on Hoyles fallacy.
"The BB (big bang) model is the cosmological argument, it proves the universe began to exist as stated in the Bible."
Okay, then it talks about a talking snake, a magic tree, etc. Getting a few things right will never make up for all the things it gets wrong.
whaddyta 3 months ago
@whaddyta "Okay, then it talks about a talking snake, a magic tree, etc. Getting a few things right will never make up for all the things it gets wrong" Is a metaphor. The story tries to depict that consciousness is a gift from God but we still have animal instincts that convince us not to follow it. The animals instincts are the "original sin" since they are the program we evolved with. God wants us to reject our selfish animal instincts to move to a higher consciousness plane.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx "Is a metaphor." Sorry each person that uses the Bible has a completely different interpretation. My argument still stands though. The same book endorses slavery and murder. This would be much easier if you would stay on topic and provide the evidence for god before moving on to the Bible.
whaddyta 3 months ago
@whaddyta "The same book endorses slavery and murder" That was the mode of life for a lower level consciousness, the same way if we move to the next consciousness plane, we would not believe we condoned a system based on greed and materialism where 1% of the people have 80% of the wealth and allows children to die by the millions in Africa. Our system is as bad as a system based on slavery, incest, genocide, and tribalism, and yet I don't see you protesting it.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx "I don't see you protesting it."
I admit that our current system has flaws, I just don't know of a better one to replace it. Our current system is flawed and so is the bible because they are human constructs and there is no evidence of divinity in either. Why would I bring up the flaws of politics in this argument. Your inability to stay on topic is becoming annoying.
whaddyta 3 months ago
@whaddyta You mentioned the Bible condoned slavery, remember? I'm just making the comparison that slavery is intolerable only to a higher consciousness the same way our system is intolerable to a higher consciousness than us. Using the Bible to defend your point is futile, you're not dealing with a fundamentalist here, so you can save it. The Bible has to be interpreted in light of who, where, why and how that particular passage was wrote. If you do that, you get the true inspiration it meant.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@whaddyta "Infidels has an article on Penrose" and? what? what does it say? "wikipedia has an article on Hoyles fallacy" anyone can write in wikipedia, the article there is based on an Ian Musgrave book. This guy's credentials are nothing, he is no one compared to Fred Hoyle, his article is like a fly wanting to bite an elephant. The article is based on five premises, which are false. So it wasn't been answered because it doesn't deserve the ink.
Is that all you have for rebuttal?
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx You asked for a link to the article not for me to paraphrase the article here which I will not do. You have a computer, google it. When given said links you merely use ad hominems rather than any sort of rebuttal. Also, saying that existence is unprobable then inserting god is not evidence. If you want to give me a link to an article I will read it but trying to argue over something so complex here is silly.
whaddyta 3 months ago
@whaddyta "You asked for a link to the article not for me to paraphrase the article here which I will not do." I looked at the site you mention and found no article what rebutted or challenged Penrose's calculation, so if you don't give me a direct link I'll call it a bluff.
The complexity is in the calculation, not in the arguments, the odds are correctly calculated by competent professionals and the interpretations are easy to grasp. The calculations say randomness is an impossibility.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx Google infidel/penrose it is the first article that comes up. Have you even tried to google these arguments? The arguments against fine tuning and the anthropic principle are all over the internet.
whaddyta 3 months ago
Comment removed
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@whaddyta "Google infidel/penrose it is the first article that comes up." Are you serious??? this is a blog!!! is this were you get your references from a blog???!!! I give you peer review references and you give me blogs??? and even worst, an ATHEIST blog!!! Do you have a clue of what a scientific article is?? A peer review publication??? Please...
No wonder you're an atheist. It takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a believer...
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx You didn't give me a peer reviewed reference you asked me if I heard of the penrose calculation etc. and said you could explain them to me. The improbability of an event does not constitute the insertion of a god as being the only way it could happen. Your argument is so muddled that I can only assume that is why you have an inability to stay on topic going from the bible to politics and resorting to logical fallacies along the way.
whaddyta 3 months ago
@whaddyta "You didn't give me a peer reviewed reference" Penrose calculations are peered reviewed, even Hawkins has collaborated with Penrose, so there's no possible argument against them, unless someone find specific data for specific constants proving is not possible for them to assume other values than the ones Penrose used. The problem is Penrose considered 30+ cosmological constants, so even if you can fix half, the other half still shows randomness as a statisticaly unfeasible explanation.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx I made a mistake. What I should of said is that the apologetics arguments that use these calculations have been refuted. I still don't see how these prove that god exist. What is the threshold of improbability of an event occurring that would require a god? How is it possible to assert that an unlikely event would require a god?
whaddyta 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@whaddyta "I still don't see how these prove that god exist" Theists present arguments that support the existence of God, no one can present direct evidence for God existence, because God made it to be so. Read 1Cor 1:21. If there were direct empirical evidence for God, faith would be gone and we would not be free agents. That can only happen it the final judgment, so don't bother to wait for evidence, you'll get only arguments.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@whaddyta ""What is the threshold of improbability of an event occurring that would require a god?"" The issue is whether the universe came out out of randomness of not. Statistical analysis at a 95% confidence level has to show a P value <0.05 to show a significant difference. That is 10^2 and Penrose calculations are 10^1230, Hoyle's are 10^40,000 and String theory landscape 10^520. So there is no theory, that anyone in it's right mind can say that proves we are the product of chance.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@whaddyta "How is it possible to assert that an unlikely event would require a god?" I say it's God, because I believe in God, and that explanation is the only one available when you eliminate chance, but if I didn't know that there is an explanation called God, I would be scratching my head and trying to find out how and from which source some super powerful one time energy surge had acted, to materialize an ordered universe, not to repeat that event ever again. There would be no explanation.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
BastEternal 3 months ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
@BastEternal "Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false)" for your statement to have any chance at being remotely rational, you need to provide a third alternative. Either there was intervention in the universe or not, either the universe is random or not, there is no third option that can make the proposed two false. So, which one is that third option? If you don't have it, save your opinions until you do.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx I couldn't think of an easier and more rational way to explain this than basteternal has provided. An inability to provide a correct answer does not make a wrong answer right. This is a fact not an opinion, at most you can say it is a misused fact, which I would not. If you can not provide evidence making either proposal true then there is no need to prove it false before rejecting it or suggesting there is a possible unknown answer.
whaddyta 3 months ago
@whaddyta "An inability to provide a correct answer does not make a wrong answer right" Are you assuming there's another option? are you assuming that there could be something more than intervention or randomness? if you assume that then you must have an idea of what it is, so what is it? why don't atheist save the empty rhetoric and schoolyard logic and say what is the alternative? say it in black an white, no word games, no tricks and deceptions. What is it? Give us something! Make your case!
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx dude, atheism isn't a religion idiot.
LoluskPoo 2 weeks ago
@LoluskPoo Of course, not, is a cult. Thank you for correcting me...
dejesusluisx 2 weeks ago
the potential harm of conservative christians?
president michelle bachman
Frederico99er 4 months ago
@Frederico99er OR:
President Sara Palin
" Rick Perry
" any of the republican field right now, really...
therealfriday13th 4 months ago
@therealfriday13th RON PAUL?!
IndigoVagrant 4 months ago in playlist More videos from FFreeThinker
@IndigoVagrant Yes, even RON PAUL.
therealfriday13th 4 months ago
@therealfriday13th He doesn't try to force religion down people's throats at least.
IndigoVagrant 4 months ago
@IndigoVagrant ...and that's the only nice thing about him we can say regarding this topic.
therealfriday13th 4 months ago
@therealfriday13th I wish we didn't elect Christian presidents every time as well, but it seems to be unavoidable. The theocratic fascists in this country like David Allen Coe and the John Birch Socieety wield tremendous power. At best, we can hope to elect a universalist unitarian.
IndigoVagrant 4 months ago
@IndigoVagrant Yep. Of course, it also helps to make sure that those we elect aren't science deniers (like RON PAUL, Rick Perry, Herman Cain), economic idiots (RON PAUL, Newt Gingrich), Dominionist Historical Revisionists (Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry), (among other issues) or too easily bought by them (Mitt Romney). Right now, the best choice would be Huntsman, but the fact that he doesn't deny science renders him dead in the water in the primary.
therealfriday13th 4 months ago
@therealfriday13th By the way:
RON PAUL
/old and stupid meme is old and stupid
therealfriday13th 4 months ago
@therealfriday13th I agree that Huntsman is a good choice.. Although if the choice was between him and Obama.. I'd probably just as soon go protesting.
IndigoVagrant 4 months ago
@IndigoVagrant Yeah, pretty much the same here...
therealfriday13th 4 months ago
The harm of conservative christinas?
Anders Behring Breivik.
thedutchman01 6 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
@jdurnal And I didn't respond. Had I done so I would have crushed your argument and left it in its own piss puddle whimpering in a corner. Then I would have gone and made a sandwich because I would have probably been hungry. Always being right makes me hungry.
HubbellKent 6 months ago
Comment removed
HubbellKent 6 months ago
@jdurnal It's funny because you're wrong again. However, you do believe in fairy tales so I shouldn't expect anything more.
HubbellKent 6 months ago
@jdurnal There is just so much fuck in what you just said that it just doesn't deserve an answer. Seriously, everything you said is wrong on so many levels. Read a science text, keep trying.
HubbellKent 6 months ago
@HubbellKent well why did you respond then bud.. lets define "Sci·ence/ˈsīəns/Noun
1. The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." Observation and Experiment. Sorry if i don't want to listen to a textbook that hasn't observed or experimented on how life began.. or even scratched the surface on actually creating life.
jdurnal 6 months ago
Evolutionist theory is crumbling!! How can living tissue be found in a dinosaur bone? How are there carvings and paintings of dinosaurs all over the world? Because humans coexisted with them. How can the first living cell become alive from a bunch of non living matter. It is the equivalent of smashing a bug on the ground. All of the chemical biological properties are there for life, so given enough time it can suddenly become alive again? Noo only God can create life. Keep trying guys keep tryin
jdurnal 6 months ago
@jdurnal First of all living tissue isn't located in bones especially when the organism is dead. Second ancient men didn't make painting/carvings of dinosaurs these were probably just lizards. Third dinosaurs died out 65million years ago whereas human started to 150thousand years ago but assuming that dinosaurs co-existed with humans the dinosaurs would of ate all of the humans and drove the human race to extinction because they are much faster and bigger than us.
SubVLPer 6 months ago
@SubVLPer Not living tissue sorry, but tissue in general that is found indicates that the animal couldn't possibly be 70million years old. "Current theories about fossil preservation hold that organic molecules should not preserve beyond 100,000 years." Thats because of scientific studies on half life decay rates. Just saying it begs the question are they really that old.
jdurnal 6 months ago
@jdurnal Its possible for soft tissue to be preserved under certain anoxic environmental conditions but the tissue itself will cease to exist however the impressions of the tissue will remain. There have been documented cases of soft tissue impressions being preserved for thousands to millions of years but never living tissue.
SubVLPer 6 months ago
It wouldnt let me send a link on here.. but google tissue found in dino. Also google carvings and paintings of dinosaurs. if you truly want to look at the other side of the issue you should. Ive lived on the side of evolutionist myself for many years, but the evidence. If you really break it down doesn't add up. Even molecular biologists that are non biased will agree that it is beyond any explanation or odds that life is here.
jdurnal 6 months ago
@jdurnal
I too was a Gravitationalist for many years, but the love of Jesus illuminated my path.
kissmygrittsyall 4 months ago
@kissmygrittsyall roflchopper
IndigoVagrant 4 months ago in playlist More videos from FFreeThinker
@jdurnal Fourth all living matter is made from non-living chemical elements what you're talking about is abiogenesis which has shown by Stanley Miller that basic chemical element can give rise to proteins and amino acids which serves as the building blocks of life. And sorry no it is not the equivalent of smashing a bug on the ground this just shows how incredibly ignorant you are. Go read a damn book...
SubVLPer 6 months ago
@SubVLPer No it is the same equivalent.. when you smash a bug on the ground all of the necessary CHEMICAL NON LIVING elements are right there on the ground. So how do those elements rearrange themselves and become alive? How did the first chemical non-living elements at the beginning come together to make life?
jdurnal 6 months ago
@jdurnal My goodness! Abiogenesis explains how living molecules arose. It doesn't explain how the said molecules slowly evolved into animals. You're tying to intertwine biological evolution with chemistry. Get your facts straight! When you take hydrogen rich gases like ammonia, methane, water vapor and subject it to UV light and electricity it make will make amino acids and proteins which serves as the basis of organic molecules. This in no way is like smashing a bug on the ground.
SubVLPer 6 months ago
@jdurnal You really need to learn your science. You come across as having an 8th grade knowledge of molecular biology.
IndigoVagrant 4 months ago
Americans love being ruled by foreign interests. They suck the banker cocks of the Zionist Israelies, of the Swiss, and of the Japanese and Chinese. You are completely ruled by other countries, and we elect your politicians, especially the right wing Christian ones who espouse false "free market" ideas.
We also control Obama, and we have controlled every president for the last century. You are completely fucked, and when WWIII rolls around, we will use you to open new markets for the IMFbank.
IndigoVagrant 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Americans love being ruled by foreign interests. They suck the banker cocks of the Zionist Israelies, of the Swiss, and of the Japanese and Chinese. You are completely ruled by other countries, and we elect your politicians, especially the right wing Christian ones who espouse false "free market" ideas.
We also control Obama, and we have controlled every president for the last century. You are completely fucked, and when WWIII rolls around, we will use you to open new markets for the IMFbank.
IndigoVagrant 4 months ago
Tracie's boobs are amazing in this clip. Just sayin'.
PaladinHero 7 months ago
@PaladinHero Indeed. I personally find her very attractive. And its not just because she has a sharp mind, I just find her physically appealing :)
jrcahill2 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BURN IN HELL FOREVER OR BELIEVE IN JESUS
fuckmania07 8 months ago
Alright, enough with this religious nonsense. Let's get down to what we REALLY want to know: which one is hotter Keryn or Tracie?
zweiosterei 8 months ago
@moopism And a person with the idea that he is an accident in this world is a fool
dvdthames693 9 months ago
@dvdthames693 No that would be the the person who thinks the whole universe was created with them in mind. Its just being humble to say that you occurred by an accident of birth through a continued chain reaction of births and beginnings. And in my opinion it is so much more incredible and beautiful than to say everything was just poofed into existence and planned.
xynth101088 9 months ago 11
@xynth101088 Chaos is beautiful, especially when it's the expanding universe kind of chaos.
fatouche99 3 months ago
@fatouche99 Indeed
xynth101088 3 months ago
@dvdthames693 who thinks they are an accident? unless of course our parents said you were an accident maybe due to laxed birth control or something. we are here because our parents had sex and became pregnant with us.. period.
raztis1 8 months ago 2
Hmmm, that chick kinda sounded like the stereotypical dumb blonde, I wonder if she looks that way too......
s5b678 9 months ago
@s5b678 I was thinking the same thing when I first heard her speak. I was impressed afterwards. Gotta love when you find exceptions to stereotypes.
xynth101088 9 months ago
@GermanChocolateCake how can any man justify any such law if it does not have a base such as god. To tell a child he shouldnt steal is in vain if you dont have a base for it. now what is your base?
dvdthames693 9 months ago
@dvdthames693 My base is that I don't like suffering, I know others don't like suffering and so we get together as a group and make sure nobody steals our stuff or hurts us. If someone within the group hurts another we have rules that punish those individuals so they won't do it again. Plus I have genuine empathy for others without having to rely on an authority or reward. Thats the basis and since other animals also grasp this concept I have no idea why you would need specific godly commands.
sharkjack 9 months ago 5
@dvdthames693 A person that requires a fantasy to decide right and wrong for him is a sociopath.
moopism 9 months ago
@dvdthames693 because you dont need a fairytale to justify a moral compass. you do good for others for the gratification of doing good, and in the hopes that they or others will do good towards you. Im adult enough to not require a fairytale daddy to throw me in a pit of fire if i do bad. I dont steal because it hurts the store owner. I dont kill because i dont want to be killed. the idea that you need someone telling you that if you dont follow these rules you will be punished is childish.
raztis1 8 months ago 3
bitch be trippin
JohnF30Music 10 months ago
@JohnF30Music ...in what way?
PrettyMurky 9 months ago
I think Austin is a cool city with these guys, too bad I am not there.
CaptCamping 10 months ago
This caller sounds hot.
ChibiMysticGohan 11 months ago
@2:17,
Muslims pose a greater threat than Christian Reconstructionists because of sheer numbers. They have more kids, they're 10 millions times more numerous in the world, and they want to replace our constitution with sharia law. Christian Reconstructionists number no more than 20,000 and Art Robinson's homeschool curriculum is a dud. It doesn't really work too well. I don't think that's how he taught Noah Robinson, who really was an unbelievable student.
TheFlanker35 1 year ago
i just farted
CORNP00 1 year ago
"Jesus Camp" creepy ass film.
PIlotrcm 1 year ago 8
@PIlotrcm i want to see it but i always said later
i hope ill get to see it this week
ARAFELI 11 months ago
@PIlotrcm The folks in Jesus camp are dangerous, single-minded and, in my opinion, child-abusing anti-patriots. The way they raise their children is cruel and abusive. If you want to be a good parent, watch "Jesus Camp" and raise your child in the opposite way from the parents in that film. If I could take their children away - I would do it in a New York minute. We'd eliminate another generation of intolerance. They are just as much of a threat to our way of life as radical islam.
fatouche99 3 months ago
I think the right needs to learn that there is a difference between being anti-christian/anti-religion and secular.
Most the conservative christian right seem to see seculars and atheists as the same which is totally incorrect.
They see anyone who supports secularism is a threat to their agenda.
Some believers take faith as a personal expierence and still support a strong seperation of church and state.
PIlotrcm 1 year ago
LOL. Potential problem?
There may be a potential risk in jumping off a cliff or having sex with a slut with every STD and AIDS.
ArcyTheFurryArcanine 1 year ago
People are born very capable of EVIL and CAUSE OF SUFFERING TO OTHERS and people use religon to augment themselves to do good .... now religon can also be used to hurt people such as MUSLIMS and CHRISTIANS in the middle east but atheism is a total denial of ANY higher power so you hold yourself to NO regulation,NO um ..... law. Because you have denied any higher power how can you justify ANY LAW. THat is all i have to say thank you
dvdthames693 1 year ago
@dvdthames693 You're stupid.
vOddy75 10 months ago
@dvdthames693 Because the atheist recognizes that all laws and morals are man-made, there has never been an objective law handed down by a god of any sort.
GermanChocolateCake 9 months ago 2
@dvdthames693 Here's how you can justify ANY LAW without need of a higher power: "How will my actions affect others around me?" If you do something & it helps people in need, then that's classed as good, but if what you do hurts people in need, then that's classed as bad...religion paints itself as good in order to try justifying its evils, like slavery & murder...instead of picking & choosing from your holy books, try understanding how your actions will affect those around you & work from there
Tarynus 7 months ago
@Tarynus Altruism is evil.
mrhnm 6 months ago
@mrhnm In whose eyes? I don't call sending a pack of bears to maul a bunch of children to death after they called a prophet "Baldie" a moral & just thing to do...in fact, THAT is more evil than saying "What I do can affect people around me, so I should try & avoid hurting them"
Isn't that what religion is meant to be teaching, ensuring you don't always think about yourself & that you care for the people around you? Or is that another "misinterpretation by non-believers" such as myself?
Tarynus 6 months ago
@Tarynus Altruism enslaves people to the needs of others. Helping people is okay if you want to do it, but it is not more moral than anything else.
Altruism obligates people and says that only deeds done for others are moral. And I'm sorry that's just not true. Also it creates a dichotomy because Altruistic behavior and what we need to do to survive are opposites.
mrhnm 6 months ago
"Porque por tuas palavras serás justificado, e por tuas palavras serás condenado." (Mateus 12:37)
"Quem crê nele não é condenado; mas quem não crê já está condenado, porquanto não crê no nome do unigênito Filho de Deus." (João 3:18)
DanielPatrese 1 year ago
Athiests aren't any better than christians. I hate to break it to you but no one has the answers. I'm in doubt that humans are intelligent enough to get down into the depths of understanding the creator of life, the universe and why we are here for that matter. Athiesm is in fact ignorant and simple just as religion is a little silly and naive. Agnosticism is the only reasonable answer for me, though christians have the potential to glow with a genuine warmth that is beautiful and old fashioned.
B360Lightning 1 year ago
@B360Lightning: The two aren't exclusive. Most atheists are agnostics. Agnostics are people who admit they don't know and it's probably unknowable. Atheists simply reject the claims of theists and their religions without proper evidence.
I think you may be confusing atheists with anti-theists, who oppose religion and believe there is no god. Atheists are just asking for proof before they believe in something.
KaitonsCorner 1 year ago
@B360Lightning So because you can't prove wether or not there is a flying teapot around Mars that dictates every part of your life, you are ignorant and silly for thinking that such a teapot does not exist? You have to be open minded to both possibilities, 'cause you couldn't possibly know!
If there's no evidence for something, there's no reason to believe it. Every time you close your eyes and no one is looking, dancing skeletons MAY appear in front of you. Right? -_-
vOddy75 10 months ago
I believe that the Christians are every bit as capable of the level of insanity as Muslims.
Zurround100 1 year ago 4
@Zurround100 Every person is human so yes they would be capable. However is that what is occuring? No.
mattsmoski37 1 year ago
hey all you people need guidence. I'm a Christian, and athiests like to leave out key notions. 1. Usa was founded on Christian Principles christianity founded America, dont beleive me or if you debate this please ask George Washington in a time machine, and sense u dnt have 1 look at history with eyes and not personal beleifes. Understand its christian principles that made this country 1 of the greatest in the world. Now its straying from it. Trust Jesus!
hinc1mike 1 year ago
@hinc1mike umm, we are a secular nation? i'm pretty sure blasphemy is a 1st amendment right, and slavery is illegal.
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 year ago
@hinc1mike
"1. Usa was founded on Christian Principles christianity founded America,"
Can you please provide some specific examples of these Christian principles? What are they exactly?
1ProudFemaleAtheist 1 year ago
@hinc1mike G. Washington,T.Jefferson, B.Franklin,E.Allen,J.Madison & J.Monroe were all Deists having a philosophical belief widely accepted by the colonial intelligentsia @the time.The major tenets included belief in human reason 4 reliable means 2 solving social & political problems. The Supreme God of a Deists removed it's self from the universe, creating it 2 operate by natural laws.They knew not 2 let religion rule law cause theocracy has in all instances automatically violated human rights
ciji916 1 year ago
@hinc1mike What are the "principles that made this country 1 of the greatest in the world."? How can U trust Jesus U don't even knew the guy, can't prove that he is who he said he is or even did what he did what he claims. The Bible isn't Historical Doctrine & has proven mostly incorrect. U don't trust Jesus, U trust the men who illustrated the idea of Jesus 4 U. Some1lied 2 U & U don't have the knowledge/common scene 2 find the truth. Why must your faith make you stray so far from real &reason?
ciji916 1 year ago 2
@hinc1mike "Usa was founded on Christian Principles"
Constitution VS bible goes like this:
"Congress shall make no law with respect to an establishment of religion..."
VS
Exodus 22:20, Deuteronomy 13:6-10, and Mark 6:11: Kill anybody who worships differently than you (Exo), including friends and family (Deu), and just destroy the entire city if even one citizen doesn't worship like you (Mark).
UnderlordZ 1 year ago 20
All conservative christians have a negative effect on the long term progression of our society
sanman312 1 year ago 4
The only reason dubya thought that "the jury [was] still out", was because he made them take a recess and then locked the doors behind them.
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
As an atheist, I'm ecstatic that groups such as the WBC are out there. Little do those idiots realize that their efforts are only creating more atheists. LOL
nosajj12345 1 year ago
Dominionism and End-Times eschatology are the two reasons I started to attack religion.
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
I think he is sorely mistaken as to how much influence the dominionists actually have. I believe they have already annexed much control without our knowledge.
bloomingdedalus 1 year ago
i still think a true atheist would leave us Christians alone, if I were an atheist, I think I would just do my thing...i dont try to change atheists minds about their ideas so I dont know why some atheist groups are concerned about us scary Christians. I came across this vid 4 example looking for Christian stuff-im not obsessed with atheists
Conail23 1 year ago
@Conail23 We'll leave Christians alone when the fundamentalists stop knocking on our doors early in the morning to spread the "word", when they stop killing abortion doctors, stop opposing science, stop trying to rewrite history to suit their agenda, learn that our government is founded on the separation of church and state, and stop discriminating against non-Christians. Until the fundamentalists stop doing these things, we're gonna keep on fighting back. If you don't like it, too bad.
gir908922 1 year ago 181
@gir908922 At the risk of being ironic, amen, brother.
Acorafication 1 year ago
@gir908922 WELL SAID!
julzabro 1 year ago
@gir908922 Love it!! Isn't it amazing, the double standard?? They can "persecute" anyone they want, using "faith" as their excuse for willful ignorance and then have the gall to kvetch when someone does it to them. It's friggin' laughable.
richwfd2002 1 year ago
@gir908922 Precisely.
GermanChocolateCake 9 months ago
Re: the Texas School Board tentacle issue starting at about 3:20.
Just to let you know, the Texas School Board issue is rather significant internationally among those aware of it.
I'm an Australian living in Japan. And if the subject comes up among my expat Canadian, American, Kiwi, Oz, etc. circle of friends, everyone is aware and has an opiniion.
We generally/unanimously agree.
I'm just letting you know that lots of us are watching stuff, and are aware.
Thankyou so much for your efforts.
naganokumas 1 year ago
Letting yourself be brainwashed like this, is handing over control of your own life to someone else, the one thing any human should hold sacred. You are taught to let them control your mind, and therefore are no better than the terrorist fundamentalists. Well, I guess you aren't one, but "moderate" religion is nothing more than a sleeping cell of terrorists waiting for their leader to tell them to commit atrocities in the name of God. Sad, but true. Free your mind by stepping out of the box.
angelofsin80 1 year ago 52
If you turn these tables around and assume someone is guilty until proven innocent, you should be in a mental asylum for schizofrenic paranoia. Reasonable doubt.. that is where you fail. Faith in God requires you to abandon reason and accept that wich cannot be proven. Religion has been around for thousands of years, and still hasn't even come up with one single shred of evidence to justify itself. You are enslaving yourself to those "teaching" you, believing their word instead of your reason.
angelofsin80 1 year ago 4
@massmayhem12 "what is the proof that atheism is true and religion is false, all atheists have actually avoided answering this." The burden of proof lies on the proposer of the statement, in this case the people believing in God. The statement is that there is a God. There is no proof of God. Therefore the atheists are right until otherwise proven wrong, the same way a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.
angelofsin80 1 year ago 4
i really want this show to answer shockofgods question, what is the proof that atheism is true and religion is false, all atheists have actually avoided answering this. now im not saying that christianity has proof because we cannot physically prove or disprove it, so i want to know what proof is there that atheism is completely right, dont say its just the lack of belief in god actually have proof and evidence that its the only way to go.
massmayhem12 1 year ago
@massmayhem12
" what is the proof that atheism is true and religion is false, all atheists have actually avoided answering this."
Ever heard the words: "You can't prove a negative" before?
What are your reasons for not believing in unicorns, leprechauns and elfs? It's the same reasons why people shouldn't believe in the existence of a god/gods.
The problem is that you and SOG simply don't understand that issue at hand.
Aaberg123 1 year ago
@Aaberg123 religion is not a negative and unicorns and all that shit were from groups wanting to make entertaining stories. science has proved recently that there is a creator, but its not for sure what kind of creator it is. what you dont understand is that i dont give a fuck about what you believe so you need to shut your ignorant mouth. you just avoided answering the question as well, you say god is not real then show me the physical proof, and dont come back saying you cant.
massmayhem12 1 year ago
@massmayhem12 "Religion is not a negative" correct. Therefore they have to prove the existance of their God. It's EXACLY the same as the unicorn example! The statement "There are no unicorns" is exacly the same as "There is no God". Until someone proves that they do in fact exist, noone has to or can prove them wrong. Science have not EVER proven that there is a creator. I don't even know where you get this kind of bullshit and asinine statements from, even if I may suspect.
angelofsin80 1 year ago
@massmayhem12
Your profile says 21, but your reasoning is like that of a 6 year old.
"and unicorns and all that shit were from groups wanting to make entertaining stories." Basically same principles for religion. Grow up.
"science has proved recently that there is a creator, but its not for sure what kind of creator it is." Creator implies intent and intellect, and neither have been show to be qualities in whatever effect that formed the universe in its present state.
Get a grip, kid.
Aaberg123 1 year ago
@Aaberg123 idk why it says 21 cause im 18, and no the bible wasnt written to entertain, so many people dont understand it and cant connect it to life and science that they say its make believe, that includes you. honestly you people need to just shut the fuck up you all act like children arguing "Im right! no im right! no im right! mommy he keeps arguing with me saying im wrong!" honestly thats what im seeing, just shut the fuck up, if you dont have physical proof that you are right then shut up
massmayhem12 1 year ago
@massmayhem12 Ok, so do you have "proof?" No? Then by your own words: shut the fuck up.
jymbo1969 1 year ago
@jymbo1969 i never said god existed, but atheists like to push that he doesnt which actually requires proof to say and atheists cannot provide a lick of proof. therefore...shut the fuck up.
massmayhem12 1 year ago
@massmayhem12 Proof is only found in mathematics. There is evidence regarding the existence or nonexistence of a god. And the evidence is one sided. There is no god. People who believe in a god fly planes into buildings and blow themselves up. In America, the christian counterparts vote republiklan. It skews your entire worldview. It is dangerous, and demonstrably false. So, how about you shut the fuck up, at least until you know a bit about the topic.
jymbo1969 1 year ago
@jymbo1969 actually there is no evidence of a god not existing lol its extremely impossible to ever find any evidence of a god not existing. and uhm yeah im christian and im not a republican and we arent counterparts of the fucktards who think they are doing what "allah" wants by flying planes into buildings. with t