Religion can be argued that its Amoral and anti-intellectual. Many of the current political leaders and presidential runners for the right advocate an idiocracy by saying only creationist arguments are right, gays are sub human and we will only worry about women's rights when they get the vote. The 13th century were the good old days.
I agree with Bill Maher, atheist need a voice. The religious right are making way too many dicissions in government and taking away the rights of those with whom they don't agree. Blacks have to organize for their rights as do gays and women. I feel it's no different for atheist.
Let's go back to the meaning of "prove". It comes from the same root as "probe", and it means "test", or "put to the test". The statement "God does/does not exist" cannot be put to the test because it is essentially meaningless. You would first have to define exactly what you mean by "God", and exactly how you proposed to put the proposition that he/she/it exists to the test. Until the theists come up with an agreed definition of God and propose a way to test it, there is "no case to answer".
Atheism is not a religion. It can have a political wing, to combat religious stupidity when it infringes on our rights or offends our intelligence. Comparing atheism to religion is silly and it sucks.
@sephiroththewise Saying your agnostic is a cheap way of avoiding the question, "do you believe in god?". Any true Atheist can say he is agnostic, Of course, if presented with the evidence of gods existence we have no choice but to believe in god. But the Question is "Do you believe in god" not Do you think you could believe in god.
1-didnt see corolla as close minded or rejectionist or lazy.
2- I only want to see atheists and agnostics organize to dispel the notions by conservative christians in this country that somehow atheists are un American or are people to be regarded with suspicion or disdain, that's all, anything more would be acting just like many followers of organized religion
You are way off base. I agree with both men, however you seem to be somewhat of a cultist of sorts by suggesting that atheists should congregate to form an agenda. The most undersold freedom in this country is freedom FROM religion. You are the reason why Adam Carolla feels like he does, Im a big fan of Maher and agree that agnostics and atheists are hugely under represented in this country but i dont need a political party speeking on behalf of my religious beliefs.
@streakfighter Atheism is the lack of religion, not the lack of believing in an invisible man in space. Besides, the christians control the government as is, so why cant atheists stop them? Exactly, atheists have that right.
There can be no world peace until religion is in a category equal to mythology.Secular humanism
would be a great third party. I would like to see a black,lesbian,atheist with a PHD from Harvard (married of course-to her wife and getting full entitlements for her union).The first day in office she would withdraw all troops from foreign lands and we would start massive farming (say in the Dakotas).Delusional?Dreamer? Campaign slogan? USA=United Secular Alliance.
Bill Maher's side. Atheists need to unite and be politically active. Atheism as a political movement is not a religion since it is based on empericism, the movement is about secularity of government and law. Relating it to religion is a bit like calling the NSF or UCS a religious group. the goals of the NAP is to promote rationality and protect people from non-secular policies and laws. This is in everyones interest insofar as upholding the letter and spirit of the constitution.
Coming from a christian, I dislike organized religion pretty highly. I don't like when I'm expected to go to church. I'll pray on my own time, not on football sunday. I find it funny that we're entering a world where the religious are becoming open-minded and sympathetic, while many in the atheist community are becoming zealous dicks. The thing i liked about atheists before is that they almost never pushed their ideals on other people. That trait is dissolving quickly.
@straightfromvirginia Speaking as an Atheist I'll admit that some of the things like the whole Christmas thing but I think in a lot of cases they're ultimately just trying to protect their rights to separation of church and freedom of religion (because, as aronra put it "freedom of religion also means freedom from religion").
@swordhunter12 - Exactly, neither atheism or theism be involved in government affairs. The thing is that religion (especially here in America) is becoming more sympathetic and less involved politically. Atheists organizing on a large scale will make them more involved and less sympathetic. Example: Leader of the American Atheist organization criticized the 9/11 memorial because a cross (made from metal cross-beams found in ground zero) was put on site to comfort victims. Dick move
@straightfromvirginia While I don't support the AA's actions I would like to point out that not all the victims families were Christian and thus, may have found the cross in some way offensive. My alternative would be to put as many known religious symbols on Ground zero as possible as a comfort to all victims and their families regardless of personal beliefs.
@straightfromvirginia Part 2: Either way I believe that both sides are capable of being insanely horrible (the online reaction to the American Atheist Organisation was just as reprehensible as the AAOs actions cafemom. com/answers/931249/Violent_Anti_Atheist_Posts_On_FOX_News_Facebook_Page) and while I'd like to keep Religion vs Atheism out of politics there are some times where it is sadly inevitable particularly in regards to Science, Morality and Education.
logic wins always, and at least listening usually lends respect at a certain level. truth is corrolla is right, those with religion don't view it as a debate, so to sum it up...in today's rhetoric -- 'Shut-up, and leave me alone, you crazy teabag-idiot.' is more logical because in the end, 'the juice ain't worth the squeeze' on this one. (or any of the topics we have to keep explaining to the ones on the "short-bus" each election.)
They are both wrong. That atheists would organize does not make atheism a religion. We might have need to organize for mutual protection if we were severely persecuted. In the modern USA, however, atheists are not subjected to substantial persecution, and politically we don't have much in common. I left American Atheists in 2002 over their Islam-bashing and support of the "War on Terror." As an atheist, I obviously disagree with Islam, but supporting the government doesn't follow from that.
Well, I'm not sure if atheism is a strong enough ideology to form an organized group on its own, I would prefer if they merged with the Democratic Party and started influencing their policies. I believe this answers both questions.
It is my understanding that trying to classify as atheists, as a whole, together, is about successful as trying to herd cats. It's like trying to put the millions of Christians under the same title, or more incredulously, putting the 1+ billion members of Islam together. It's just a big generalization to class atheists together, on any political issue. Everyone should be politically involved, and I support this group in as much as it's doing so.
who cares what you CALL it..are we TAX EXEMPT? and can we get 'Hi'?
Because it seems to be if "everyone" is kicking in here.Religion and Corporations sure get a lot of stage time for tax free pedophilia and corporate welfare for job creators to pay 15% on $200 million. Yah, and Joe the Plumber said he could clear the shit from my toilet too, but Obama ruined it.
I just used a plunger to get it to flush, newt would be proud.
some people want to fix the wrong of religion. others just wish to escape its influence. both positions are correct. perhaps 2 new terms are needed - working-antitheists and fuck-god-ists. After all, 100% of christians insist they know what atheism means, even though they get it wrong, refuse to listen to or believe atheist's explanation of what the term means, and refuse to look it up in a dictionary. My definition of Christian is: a person who disbelieves in the existence of dictionaries
Yes, and no. Yes, to keep religion out of the lives of the nonreligious. No, because we really don't have much outside of my "yes" answer to keep us together. And to make a small argument, I'll give you that you're an agnostic, but do you believe in a deity or not? If so, you're an agnostic theist. If not, you're an agnostic atheist.
Yes the fore mentioned should organize politically. No doing doesn't make it a religion, nor more than the than the other politically organized are religions. There will be those like Corolla that will think differently, than the organized group, but as long as the group looks after the freedoms & interests of all in the US, Corolla won't matter.
Let's look at this carefully. Corolla has as much right to hold his personal view as his religeous counterpart, only it's been long established that religeon is the destablizing element in our society, not Corollla's nonchalance.. Bill Mahar is right and we should proceed, I thought Corollla was speaking for himself, anyway.
On the first Q: Yes, atheists need to be political to be a balance point towards none secular theists with political ambitions. If the situation in the stats was like in my country, Norway, where even the majority of Christians are also secular then the answer would be no.
Second Q: It dosent matter. The important part is just political ambition. I actually think most of people in that group woldnt really have a issue with anyone once they knew them. They are just to lazy for active conflict.
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
Atheists do not believe in god(s); agnostics think the [non-]existence of god(s) cannot be known. One is about BELIEF; the other is about KNOWING.
Everyone either believes or doesn't; everyone is a theist or atheist. IN ADDITION, everyone either thinks the [non-]existence of god(s) can be known, or doesn't; so everyone is agnostic or "gnostic." Many believers are agnostic, some proudly so: "I can never KNOW/PROVE god exists; and yet I believe!"
I'm an atheist. I believe we need to get organized. There are too many issues in this country that need to be addressed. Addressed by people who are not delusional.
I agree with Adam Carolla that part of the point of atheism is that it frees you from doctrine and allows you to pursue your own moral code. But I also think this is exactly why atheists SHOULD organize - atheism has a stated purpose, so it needs a front to put it foward.
"agnostics, atheists and humanists"...Humanism separated from Christianity??? Christianity is the basis of western humanistic views! This "intelectual" attempt to separate christianity from good and western civilization itself is lunacy at is best.
@dragaoastro69 Yup gotta love killing homosexuals, endorsing slavery, killing people who work on the sabbath. rape, human sacrifice, burning for all eternity for a mere lack of belief, incest, getting shitfaces to the point where you impregnate your daughters, genocide, killing pregnant women, ripping children apart with bears, well you get the point. All of those things are not humanistic. All of those things are a part of christianity.
@guitarfuckist lol Thats a lot of ammunition brother for something you do not know: christianity! And the "ammunition" that you send is nothing more than copy paste ideas that you read from some militant atheist books or blogs. My advice is for you to read neutral historical books about the subject and make your one mind and know how to make the diference between imposters and christians.
@dragaoastro69 No its not that easy to get off. You were given the examples in the bible that are evil. You said I only read atheist propoganda. I gave examples of things in the Bible. Peace to you is all you can say? You seem like a decent person. I think you have good intentions. The only difference between us is a simple beleif. There is no reason to be hateful over another person because of such things. Please just talk to me in pm if you truly care about such things.
@guitarfuckist "There is no reason to be hateful over another person because of such things." I agree and thank you very much for the complement and i am not running away, just said that i read the bible and i always understood its divine and human message. Look at king David. He is chosen by its pure caracter by God and after he became king he sends a general to be killed on the war to marrie Bathsheba and his reign is full of imorality. What is the moral of the story? That we
@guitarfuckist are all humans and proon to great good and evil. God punishes David but never stops loving him. The concept of justice and love is of course decisive to understand the Bible along whit historical know how of semitic cultures like the israelite of that period. As for christianity let me describe the "fruit" that Paul says that all christians should have in them when he writes to the galatians. Bare in mind that this is the ancient christian text of the new testament.
@guitarfuckist "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.” I wonder how many "christians" you know have this fruit inside them...
Organised atheism definitely has to be carefully but just because you are organised for a cause doesnt necessarily mean you follow it 'religiously' there is a difference between activism and religion. Organisation does take away from the philosophical aspect of atheism but perhaps the world requires such a movement to get people thinking.
Are lazy atheists who dont think as bad as lazy non-thinking thiests, Hell yes! No difference!
@mason19atheist -- What happened to the days when religion was supposed to play no part in our government? Y'know?
Now, I was raised Christian, but I'm not out there advocating for my faith in my vote. I don't know why people connect the interests of their country with the interests of God. Why do the two have to be intermingled?
We are organized! Remember this is a war on rational thinking and must be fought on every level.We are in the schools, Government and are finally speaking out with a strong voice. If you are an Atheist, Agnostic or Humanist it is your duty to illuminate peoples thoughts. Happy teachings everyone.
Ah, I'm a proud pantheistic pagan and all I have to say: I trust and Atheist with policies more than a Christian. I'm elated, Secularism protects my right to believe more than an institutionalized belief.
Atheism, Anarchy and no world order... there is such a place... Portugal, the home of the free... where we don't graduate, run our own bar or restaurant where we sell fried chicken and just don't give a shit.
Adam Carolla's just doing schtick. His schtick is to go against the grain, so when going against the grain becomes organized in any way, he has to step outside of it and find a new way to go against the grain.
yes, being just as closed minded of an atheist is just as bad. It's like how someone that says they know there's no god is just as bad as someone that says they know that there is a god. Open mindedness is the key here, and you can't be open-minded if you believe in a god (either that or your logical processing is 0) - for those who would ask whether open-minded religious people are worse than open-minded atheists.
@jrockpunk1 almost no athiests say that they know there is no god. and the few that i know of who do, only do so because they believe the lack of evidence is evidence enough to justify such a claim. so they realy aren't being closed minded either.
then there are some crazy people who don't believe in god because they believe we were put on earth by space aliens.
@MrGlennatat no, i mean crazy, because there is absolutely no evidence for such things. it is idiotic, and requires someone with a certain type of mindset to believe it.
@panda0100 I'm one of those few that believe there's no god(s). In the seven thousand or so years that religions have been a part of human civilisations, there has been no proof of the deities in any such religion. I wholeheartedly believe that there's no god whatsoever, but I am willing to concede the fact that I cannot prove there is no god, and as such the view on a "god" being real could be true, however unlikely it may be.
@RequiemFear yes, like any rational person, you are not denying the existence of anything. while understanding the extremely low probabilaty of its existance. we may not know if god exists. but that does not make the claim any more credible.
I agree with mason19atheist and panda0100, however, it's apathetic atheists like Adam Carolla that make me want to call myself an agnostic, so people aren't too judgemental. I think it's a waste of time calling yourself an agnostic though if you strongly believe there is no God but just say you don't "know for certain."
@PaladinswordSaurfang for me, i just refuse to define myself by other peoples actions...
if someone wants to think my views are in line with those of people like Adam Carolla. then that person is obviously not interested in learning about my actual point of view anyway.
@panda0100 while philosophically I can't prove that the keyboard I'm typing this on is real, I'm pretty sure it's real, and equally sure God isn't. Absolutely damned sure that the God of the bible isn't. Atheists need to organize and lobby because religious people do, and someone has to work against their efforts to sneak religion into government. Like they did with the pledge of allegiance. Also to spread the message - hey, you don't need big daddy in the sky, you can be free.
@gspaulsson i agree, just because i do not believe god exists does not mean i can't see the harm caused by those who do, or that i cannot try to prevent/correct the behaviour that caused the harm.
Atheism is, literally, the absence of belief. That's the only common denominator. Grouping together like that does seem wrong, in my view. However, I live in a secular country with about 90% atheists, so it's not really a big deal here. In an initial stage like it is in the US, it might not be such a bad idea to organize. His worries are valid, though.
As for his close-mindedness, I don't think anything he said points to that. There's nothing close-minded about not being into religion.
@getsallad Are you from Vietnam? Funny you'd call the US 'in an initial stage' :D (which is, in regard of secularity, of course true, frankly, I like to think it evolved backwards over the last fifty to hundred years (as Bill Maher points out on every occasion))
Vietnam is very much a religious country! Buddhism is their state religion! They also have many Taoists and Confuscianists. The most secular nations you will find in Europe.
@ciaobellakate Yes, of course! It was only for the sake of the joke, since I only recently learned that Buddhists technically count as atheists (read the previous comments).
About the secularity in Sweden: State and Church have been seperated in year 2000 (sic!) and until 1951 (!!!) it was illegal to not belong to any (Christian) church. Yes, there are reportedly 48% to 85% Atheists (depening on the study), but in 2009, about 71% of the population still formally belonged to the Church of Sweden.
@longapc Many belong to the Church because of tradition. Baptism, and later confirmation, are rites still performed regardless of belief or not, and since many want to marry in church, or are just too lazy, they'll refrain from actually leaving the Church. How many members there are isn't really a good measure, since most people don't believe anyway.
@ciaobellakate Sweden has problems of its own. One being that we're just a lapdog who does whatever America tells us to.
I think all citizens of the USA, needs to keep the Constitution's basics in mind. Foremost of these is the 1st Amendment notion that the government needs to purposefully ignore issues of religion. Religious leaders should not be listened to and anyone who bases their grievances to the government may be ignored, if they do so on religious grounds.
Atheists, in general, don't base their grievances on faith, so their voice is legitimate. It is the fundamentalist faithful that should be dismissed.
who gives a flying fuck.....you are no different from the fucking religion hes rite in that way.... just let people be... stop trying to spread ur way of life...i dont believe in religion or anyone who says they r rite 100%.... till they start accepting that people have there own reality...dont shove urs on to it.....i mean grow up we got bigger things to worry about..
@vj62 Everybodies freedom ends where other other peoples freedom begins. What you are not taking into account is that the US government is heavily influenced by religious beliefs which lead to actions that a secular country should and would never undertake (as Bill Maher pointed out in earlier shows), thus indirectly forcing religious beliefs upon everybody.
@vj62 Yes, everybody can belief what they want, but I believe there to be a reason why religious influence was originally excluded from nation wide decisions.
I'm perfectly aware of my radical opinion in that matter, which is that Atheism is the best religion when it comes to govern a country in that it leads to best results for everybody.
But of course, everybody else thinks that about their religion too.
@CallMeRiverton you think so? To me, Atheism is the ultimate truth, rational thinking builds the world around me. I tell people about my opinion, sometimes even impose it on them. Now, it you replace Atheism with any religion of your choice, would it make a difference? Atheism becomes a religion when you pursue it religiously (which I gotta admit I am doing)
What is the difference between you and a truly religious person?
Atheism might not be a religion by definition, but can be regarded as one.
@longapc Well atheism isn't analogous to rational thinking, though the second can lead to the first, but many atheists (Raylians, some Buddhists) have irrational beliefs.
The difference between me and a religious person is that I believe things that are evidenced, while they believe the same but just try to rationalize their religion.
Atheism is not a religion and should not be considered one because atheism is the direct opposite of religion.
@CallMeRiverton My sincere apologies, but 500 characters didn't allow a more detailed explanation. I was of course referring to Atheism as in a disbelief in anything supernatural, un-proofable (yes, I am aware of logic's self-inconsistency) or irrational, not only to Atheism as the denial of the existance of god.
My point is that rationality is just another point of view, just like faith; there are people misusing it, imposing it unto others, etc. What makes it more right (except being right)?
@longapc I don't see how one can misuse rational thinking. Forcing it upon people I would say is wrong, people have the right to believe irrational things, though I'd rather they didn't.
Also, if you're talking about skepticism, you should use the word, atheism is only one small part of skepticism.
@CallMeRiverton Rational thinking is a sharp weapon and dangerous as not everybody is equally able to wield it, which makes it easy for the eloquent to impose their will on the meek (just like religion is misused so frequently). As opposed to most religions it has no intrinsical morale and the premiss 'Whatever gains me the greatest advantage' rules supreme over the very rational minds of Wall Street's richest and corrupt politicians alike.
I agree with Maher that FreeThinkers should organize and try to balance the political field so that it is more inclussive of all points of view instead of not giving a shit to the point where a fundametalist point of view is what is now taking over the poiltical arena, laws & how we live our vies.
meh i dont want atheism to become just another cult. i think what adam meant is that he wants to get past the arguement of what we come from and just live the life he has. i totally agree with him.
Atheist are like cats, you just cant heard them. We are to spread out and stand on individual grounds. A belief/lack of doesn't mean you will have the same political views at all. But as far as standing up for our rights absolutely we should organize.
its hard to unite atheists over a common political ideal, as their are right wing atheists and left wing atheists, I know in america atheism is associated with the left, but in the rest of the world an particularly europe, religion or lack of religion holds no ties to political movements,
I'm sorry mister liberal viewer, but I think you're trying to associate apathy with closed mindedness because they're not "investigating"(& that word is questionable since its done in bias views) or involving themselves when you know damn well people on the opposing end are doing the same thing, like Christians for example who involve and organize more that atheists, but I'm sure you could agree are closed minded. It doesn't take involvement to be open-minded.
Calling yourself an atheist implies that you don't believe in any religion and I think there shouldn't be any religious implications when it comes to government.
So there shouldn't be christian or atheistic politic groups.
Whether atheist, agnostic, or theist a closed mind allows no change. A mind that allows no change is not taking the full advantage of the human social nature that has developed for millions of years. It is backward. So, I agree with Bill. Non-believers need to have a voice. We have been silent too long and it's time we made a conscious effort to make changes on a large scale.
i tend to agree with bill mahers aproach. ahtiests and agnostics need to have an organized and comprehensive voice in the political arena. otherwise we will get religous dogma forced as law,(like with texas altering their school curriculum) whether we agree with it or not or should i say the christian version of sharia law..
making groups of people to start an influence over other people is exactly what doesn't need to happen.being an independent person is more constructive to the progression of ones self. when one is in better shape, it is more likely of that person to pass it on in the inescapable influence of parenting. taking care of your self will lead to group investment called family.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN ON ANOTHER PLANET? Imagine finding a planet where robots are programmed to make other robots just like themselves from raw materials. Now, imagine an alien scientist visiting the planet and, after studying these robots, comes to the conclusion that because science can explain how these robots work, function, and reproduce there's no reason to believe there was an intelligent designer behind them! Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or a cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NOT NATURE MADE! Just because something exists in nature doesn't mean it was invented or made by Nature. If all the chemicals that make-up an earthworm were scattered and left to themselves, "Mother Nature" would have no ability to re-organize them into a worm again. It takes an already existing worm to bring about another worm. The worm exists and reproduces in nature but Nature didn't design or invent the worm! Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
@hagamablabla "Adam Corolla is a disgrace to atheists." Sorry, can't agree, we're not a group, yet.
We're fractures from mainstream society & always will be.
Yes I think he's wrong, but there are many lazy theists. Most atheists are thinkers but not all. I'd rather have Adam disespousing himself from religion & being classified as an atheist, than him lazily regurgitating of nomadic myths.
I think atheists constitute less than 10% of Americans, but their views should be coordinated & heard.
first off i agree with adam corolla but i also think our government should just be secular. religous or atheist (whether it is like a religion or not) interference would violate the whole idea of a secular government
@gulbirk "Are most atheists left winged" Good question. Here in Europe socialism is not considered to be a form of communism & atheists, because we have no scripture to give us answers have a different moral structure. Gender & sexual orientation are not factors when we consider a person's worth to hold office. Our morality is totally secular, that makes us centralists in Europe, but well left of centre in the US, where you're virtually unelectable unless you proclaim your faith in Christ.
THat is only on certain issues I would say. THe most left winged party in Norway (the socialist left) actually has a famale leader, and they dont care about sex/gender. Nor do they have any un-secular moral standards.
@gulbirk Interesting. I'm unfamiliar with Norwegian politics, I'm open to be informed, but statistics indicate that the population is overwhelmingly Christian, circa 84%, mainly Lutheran, circa 80%. That would suggest that the country is by nature Right Wing, therefore what would be consider centralist in the UK would be considered Left Wing in Norway.
The fact is that there is no centre party in the US. The Left has moved to the Centre, & the Right has fallen off a religious cliff.
@GuillemotWatcher Actually, its quite the opposite. I dont know what you define as left winged or right winged. But I use the terms in comparison to what society it is. If it has very low taxes, and most things are private, and its very capitalistic. Its right winged. Left winged means to me that taxes are fairly high and most things are public. In which case, Norway is probably the second most left winged country in Europe after Albania :P
As for that statistic. Its kinda wrong. Because we have a state church. So when you are born you actually get signed in in some cases. And you have to sign out again. Almost all atheists I know are part of the state church.
@gulbirk Again you make me think. Off to buy some milk so I can have a cuppa. I mull better with a cup of tea in my hand. I'll get back to you with a considered reply. I need to trace our conversation to the start, 'most atheists are left winged'.
BTW we say Left Wing in the UK not Left Winged. It indicates where we stand, 'On the left wing'. Did you know that that the terms Right & Left Wing originated in pre-revolutionary France. Interesting, no? Speak soon.
No, it's a stupid idea, because atheists as a group don't have shared political interest.
However contrary to what you might think if you move around on the internet most atheists ARE left-wingers (and NOT libertards), now THOSE people could unite, if they're willing not to give to much of a shit about more right-wing atheists pissing and moaning about it, they could become a decently powerful voting block for the left.
Honestly though... I wish left-wingers in general gave much less of a shit about the sensibilities and desires of non-left wingers and just fought hardball for hearts and minds, all the time instead of compromising, bi-partisanship and all that bullshit. So I don't expect anything like that.
I mean the right has all the wrong idea's, but they fight like hell for them. The left should fight much harder for their GOOD idea's.
I mean sure, there's SOME left-wingers who do that and just stick it to all the right-wing bullshitters and other such fuckers. But their always the exception. I wish they where the rule. Kick the right-wing bullies teeth in instead of trying to make a deal with them where they get HALF our lunchmoney.
@gulbirk Part 2 first. The Church of Norway sounds very similar to the Church of England. I've read that many people in Norway stay registered as members of the Church for strong cultural reasons, so that your saying 'Almost all atheists I know are part of the state church' is not as contradictory as it may first seem. Anyway, I regard polls & statistics as indicators only. If the questions don't change however, I do regard statistical changes as worthy of investigation.
@gulbirk So back to your original question. I do think most atheists are left wing but not by conviction, but by coincidence. Atheist world views are devoid of scriptural dogmas therefore gender, & sexual orientation & private practices are not issues, but they're big issues to those who wish to conserve.
It's in the names, Conservatives want to conserve, Liberals want to liberate, Socialists want social justice. Atheists generally want social justice & liberty to to think. (Next Post)
@gulbirk Conservative Right Wing views should not be ignored, they should be understood & considered, but they should not be automatically adopted & that's what religion is, the automatic adoption of the views of our predecessors. It's the cessation of new learning & I can't abide that.
I know I haven't address your replies directly. You don't have to be atheist to have a social conscience but religious politicians repulse me, they seem to have none.
""You don't have to be atheist to have a social conscience"" certainly not. But when I adress left wing and right wing there is also another important issue. You probably adress that as the socialism vs capitalism issue in england. But we consider that part of the left and right here in Norway (I am not sure about England). The left tends to be more socialistic, while the right is more capitalistic.
@GuillemotWatcher It depends on who you ask, how high tax levels should be (acording to you) and what you want the government to run.
Personally, I think I am on the left. I want governments to run schools, hospitals, libraries, roads, police men, firemen ( I dont like private insurence policies), and if necesary, banks.
@gulbirk That's it! I've decided bloody aliens cloned me years ago & forgot where I lived. (Brilliance & stupidity can exist together)
I accept you asking questions that intrigue me, but I'm finding it difficult to accept you writing answers that exactly express what I think & believe to be right.
You've now joined the list of people who've mentally pissed me off. There's only one other name on the list, Richard Dawkins, but I have to thank you both, you've made me feel less alone.
@GuillemotWatcher Maybe, I dont know. I dont tend to sign into things either. Espesially organisations with an opinion. Mainly because I am afraid it might give me some dogmatic views I shouldnt have. But normally, I can sign into things after I have checked what they are all about.
I mean sure, there's SOME left-wingers who do that and just stick it to all the right-wing bullshitters and other such fuckers. But their always the exception. I wish they where the rule. Kick the right-wing bullies teeth in instead of trying to make a deal with them where they get HALF our lunchmoney.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Religion can be argued that its Amoral and anti-intellectual. Many of the current political leaders and presidential runners for the right advocate an idiocracy by saying only creationist arguments are right, gays are sub human and we will only worry about women's rights when they get the vote. The 13th century were the good old days.
farthersaidin 7 hours ago
I agree with Bill Maher, atheist need a voice. The religious right are making way too many dicissions in government and taking away the rights of those with whom they don't agree. Blacks have to organize for their rights as do gays and women. I feel it's no different for atheist.
Roxxy52266 1 week ago
Maher advocates alternative medicine and stuff, he's not consistently on the side of reason to any great degree.
gamerunknown 1 week ago
@codbug How are you doing pussy? :)
You're such a pussy dude for blocking my comments and removing them.
You were impolite, immature behaved like a 12 year old and you have a huge ego dude.
I bit it and now the only solution you see is to block me from commenting. GOOD! :)
Dude it's gay to act smart and then leave the conversation.
randomnessnstuff 2 weeks ago
Let's go back to the meaning of "prove". It comes from the same root as "probe", and it means "test", or "put to the test". The statement "God does/does not exist" cannot be put to the test because it is essentially meaningless. You would first have to define exactly what you mean by "God", and exactly how you proposed to put the proposition that he/she/it exists to the test. Until the theists come up with an agreed definition of God and propose a way to test it, there is "no case to answer".
gspaulsson 2 weeks ago
Atheism is not a religion. It can have a political wing, to combat religious stupidity when it infringes on our rights or offends our intelligence. Comparing atheism to religion is silly and it sucks.
lunadogwoof 3 weeks ago
Thats great ... agnostic is a bullshit term
H4rdr1v3 3 weeks ago
@H4rdr1v3 As an agnostic, I can say your ignorance is just that: ignorance.
sephiroththewise 3 weeks ago
@sephiroththewise Saying your agnostic is a cheap way of avoiding the question, "do you believe in god?". Any true Atheist can say he is agnostic, Of course, if presented with the evidence of gods existence we have no choice but to believe in god. But the Question is "Do you believe in god" not Do you think you could believe in god.
H4rdr1v3 3 weeks ago
We SHOULD organize.
DaviBraid 3 weeks ago
@DaviBraid Ok fine with me, how do we start?
Ttoxcs 3 weeks ago
1-didnt see corolla as close minded or rejectionist or lazy.
2- I only want to see atheists and agnostics organize to dispel the notions by conservative christians in this country that somehow atheists are un American or are people to be regarded with suspicion or disdain, that's all, anything more would be acting just like many followers of organized religion
22steve5150 4 weeks ago
bueller bueller bueller
iinventedthequestion 4 weeks ago
What Chanel duos this come ?
ejohnsonff 1 month ago
You are way off base. I agree with both men, however you seem to be somewhat of a cultist of sorts by suggesting that atheists should congregate to form an agenda. The most undersold freedom in this country is freedom FROM religion. You are the reason why Adam Carolla feels like he does, Im a big fan of Maher and agree that agnostics and atheists are hugely under represented in this country but i dont need a political party speeking on behalf of my religious beliefs.
streakfighter 1 month ago
@streakfighter Atheism is the lack of religion, not the lack of believing in an invisible man in space. Besides, the christians control the government as is, so why cant atheists stop them? Exactly, atheists have that right.
sephiroththewise 3 weeks ago
There can be no world peace until religion is in a category equal to mythology.Secular humanism
would be a great third party. I would like to see a black,lesbian,atheist with a PHD from Harvard (married of course-to her wife and getting full entitlements for her union).The first day in office she would withdraw all troops from foreign lands and we would start massive farming (say in the Dakotas).Delusional?Dreamer? Campaign slogan? USA=United Secular Alliance.
rickuj 1 month ago
Bill Maher's side. Atheists need to unite and be politically active. Atheism as a political movement is not a religion since it is based on empericism, the movement is about secularity of government and law. Relating it to religion is a bit like calling the NSF or UCS a religious group. the goals of the NAP is to promote rationality and protect people from non-secular policies and laws. This is in everyones interest insofar as upholding the letter and spirit of the constitution.
Nothelian 1 month ago
Coming from a christian, I dislike organized religion pretty highly. I don't like when I'm expected to go to church. I'll pray on my own time, not on football sunday. I find it funny that we're entering a world where the religious are becoming open-minded and sympathetic, while many in the atheist community are becoming zealous dicks. The thing i liked about atheists before is that they almost never pushed their ideals on other people. That trait is dissolving quickly.
straightfromvirginia 1 month ago
@straightfromvirginia Speaking as an Atheist I'll admit that some of the things like the whole Christmas thing but I think in a lot of cases they're ultimately just trying to protect their rights to separation of church and freedom of religion (because, as aronra put it "freedom of religion also means freedom from religion").
swordhunter12 1 month ago
@swordhunter12 - Exactly, neither atheism or theism be involved in government affairs. The thing is that religion (especially here in America) is becoming more sympathetic and less involved politically. Atheists organizing on a large scale will make them more involved and less sympathetic. Example: Leader of the American Atheist organization criticized the 9/11 memorial because a cross (made from metal cross-beams found in ground zero) was put on site to comfort victims. Dick move
straightfromvirginia 1 month ago
@straightfromvirginia While I don't support the AA's actions I would like to point out that not all the victims families were Christian and thus, may have found the cross in some way offensive. My alternative would be to put as many known religious symbols on Ground zero as possible as a comfort to all victims and their families regardless of personal beliefs.
swordhunter12 3 weeks ago
@straightfromvirginia Part 2: Either way I believe that both sides are capable of being insanely horrible (the online reaction to the American Atheist Organisation was just as reprehensible as the AAOs actions cafemom. com/answers/931249/Violent_Anti_Atheist_Posts_On_FOX_News_Facebook_Page) and while I'd like to keep Religion vs Atheism out of politics there are some times where it is sadly inevitable particularly in regards to Science, Morality and Education.
swordhunter12 3 weeks ago
Dude, ditch the internet explorer, any other browser is way better trust me.
jabajabajaba12345678 1 month ago
logic wins always, and at least listening usually lends respect at a certain level. truth is corrolla is right, those with religion don't view it as a debate, so to sum it up...in today's rhetoric -- 'Shut-up, and leave me alone, you crazy teabag-idiot.' is more logical because in the end, 'the juice ain't worth the squeeze' on this one. (or any of the topics we have to keep explaining to the ones on the "short-bus" each election.)
FadmanID 1 month ago
They are both wrong. That atheists would organize does not make atheism a religion. We might have need to organize for mutual protection if we were severely persecuted. In the modern USA, however, atheists are not subjected to substantial persecution, and politically we don't have much in common. I left American Atheists in 2002 over their Islam-bashing and support of the "War on Terror." As an atheist, I obviously disagree with Islam, but supporting the government doesn't follow from that.
kevinwalsh1619 1 month ago
Well, I'm not sure if atheism is a strong enough ideology to form an organized group on its own, I would prefer if they merged with the Democratic Party and started influencing their policies. I believe this answers both questions.
ffiinnrroodd 1 month ago
It is my understanding that trying to classify as atheists, as a whole, together, is about successful as trying to herd cats. It's like trying to put the millions of Christians under the same title, or more incredulously, putting the 1+ billion members of Islam together. It's just a big generalization to class atheists together, on any political issue. Everyone should be politically involved, and I support this group in as much as it's doing so.
AnointedAtheist 1 month ago
@AnointedAtheist
who cares what you CALL it..are we TAX EXEMPT? and can we get 'Hi'?
Because it seems to be if "everyone" is kicking in here.Religion and Corporations sure get a lot of stage time for tax free pedophilia and corporate welfare for job creators to pay 15% on $200 million. Yah, and Joe the Plumber said he could clear the shit from my toilet too, but Obama ruined it.
I just used a plunger to get it to flush, newt would be proud.
FadmanID 1 month ago
I kinda think both
stonee206 2 months ago
some people want to fix the wrong of religion. others just wish to escape its influence. both positions are correct. perhaps 2 new terms are needed - working-antitheists and fuck-god-ists. After all, 100% of christians insist they know what atheism means, even though they get it wrong, refuse to listen to or believe atheist's explanation of what the term means, and refuse to look it up in a dictionary. My definition of Christian is: a person who disbelieves in the existence of dictionaries
tepitw 2 months ago 4
Yes, and no. Yes, to keep religion out of the lives of the nonreligious. No, because we really don't have much outside of my "yes" answer to keep us together. And to make a small argument, I'll give you that you're an agnostic, but do you believe in a deity or not? If so, you're an agnostic theist. If not, you're an agnostic atheist.
HimesInu 2 months ago
Yes the fore mentioned should organize politically. No doing doesn't make it a religion, nor more than the than the other politically organized are religions. There will be those like Corolla that will think differently, than the organized group, but as long as the group looks after the freedoms & interests of all in the US, Corolla won't matter.
waswestkan 2 months ago
Let's look at this carefully. Corolla has as much right to hold his personal view as his religeous counterpart, only it's been long established that religeon is the destablizing element in our society, not Corollla's nonchalance.. Bill Mahar is right and we should proceed, I thought Corollla was speaking for himself, anyway.
bryanttillman 2 months ago
On the first Q: Yes, atheists need to be political to be a balance point towards none secular theists with political ambitions. If the situation in the stats was like in my country, Norway, where even the majority of Christians are also secular then the answer would be no.
Second Q: It dosent matter. The important part is just political ambition. I actually think most of people in that group woldnt really have a issue with anyone once they knew them. They are just to lazy for active conflict.
Lobos222 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
GET READY FOR THE GREAT WARNING NOW!!!
thewarningsecondcoming . com
JezusSlave 2 months ago
I agree with you and Bill Maher
marqann 2 months ago
Why bother being a atheist if your gonna be closed minded?
sclf 2 months ago
Agnosticism is not an *alternative* to [a]theism.
Atheists do not believe in god(s); agnostics think the [non-]existence of god(s) cannot be known. One is about BELIEF; the other is about KNOWING.
Everyone either believes or doesn't; everyone is a theist or atheist. IN ADDITION, everyone either thinks the [non-]existence of god(s) can be known, or doesn't; so everyone is agnostic or "gnostic." Many believers are agnostic, some proudly so: "I can never KNOW/PROVE god exists; and yet I believe!"
lease2coach1 2 months ago
Atheists in America are far from being a religion. When secularists become organized
enough to start running the personal lives of their members, it then becomes a religion but
so far secularists are far from that point. Corolla is a bit of an oxymoron in that he goes to great
lengths to publicly express his views so others will think like him but he sees a problem with
people organizing to further secularist views. Organizing individualistic atheists is like hearding
cats.
mentalphysicalism 2 months ago
I'm an atheist. I believe we need to get organized. There are too many issues in this country that need to be addressed. Addressed by people who are not delusional.
Jonathanedward2010 2 months ago
I agree with Adam Carolla that part of the point of atheism is that it frees you from doctrine and allows you to pursue your own moral code. But I also think this is exactly why atheists SHOULD organize - atheism has a stated purpose, so it needs a front to put it foward.
OscarApollo 2 months ago
Atheism is a lack of a belief in a god, no where in any definition ever does Atheism mean "Not giving a shit"
rufuguru 2 months ago
"agnostics, atheists and humanists"...Humanism separated from Christianity??? Christianity is the basis of western humanistic views! This "intelectual" attempt to separate christianity from good and western civilization itself is lunacy at is best.
dragaoastro69 2 months ago
@dragaoastro69 Yup gotta love killing homosexuals, endorsing slavery, killing people who work on the sabbath. rape, human sacrifice, burning for all eternity for a mere lack of belief, incest, getting shitfaces to the point where you impregnate your daughters, genocide, killing pregnant women, ripping children apart with bears, well you get the point. All of those things are not humanistic. All of those things are a part of christianity.
guitarfuckist 2 months ago
@guitarfuckist lol Thats a lot of ammunition brother for something you do not know: christianity! And the "ammunition" that you send is nothing more than copy paste ideas that you read from some militant atheist books or blogs. My advice is for you to read neutral historical books about the subject and make your one mind and know how to make the diference between imposters and christians.
dragaoastro69 2 months ago
@dragaoastro69 Every single thing listed is in the bible. Perhaps you should give that a read.
guitarfuckist 2 months ago
@guitarfuckist I did brother. Peace to you! ps: love your user name lol
dragaoastro69 2 months ago
@dragaoastro69 No its not that easy to get off. You were given the examples in the bible that are evil. You said I only read atheist propoganda. I gave examples of things in the Bible. Peace to you is all you can say? You seem like a decent person. I think you have good intentions. The only difference between us is a simple beleif. There is no reason to be hateful over another person because of such things. Please just talk to me in pm if you truly care about such things.
guitarfuckist 2 months ago
@guitarfuckist "There is no reason to be hateful over another person because of such things." I agree and thank you very much for the complement and i am not running away, just said that i read the bible and i always understood its divine and human message. Look at king David. He is chosen by its pure caracter by God and after he became king he sends a general to be killed on the war to marrie Bathsheba and his reign is full of imorality. What is the moral of the story? That we
dragaoastro69 2 months ago
@guitarfuckist are all humans and proon to great good and evil. God punishes David but never stops loving him. The concept of justice and love is of course decisive to understand the Bible along whit historical know how of semitic cultures like the israelite of that period. As for christianity let me describe the "fruit" that Paul says that all christians should have in them when he writes to the galatians. Bare in mind that this is the ancient christian text of the new testament.
dragaoastro69 2 months ago
@guitarfuckist "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.” I wonder how many "christians" you know have this fruit inside them...
dragaoastro69 2 months ago
Organised atheism definitely has to be carefully but just because you are organised for a cause doesnt necessarily mean you follow it 'religiously' there is a difference between activism and religion. Organisation does take away from the philosophical aspect of atheism but perhaps the world requires such a movement to get people thinking.
Are lazy atheists who dont think as bad as lazy non-thinking thiests, Hell yes! No difference!
TheChamseyCampaign 2 months ago
Comment removed
nyrayallen 3 months ago
@mason19atheist -- What happened to the days when religion was supposed to play no part in our government? Y'know?
Now, I was raised Christian, but I'm not out there advocating for my faith in my vote. I don't know why people connect the interests of their country with the interests of God. Why do the two have to be intermingled?
Lndmk227 3 months ago
We are organized! Remember this is a war on rational thinking and must be fought on every level.We are in the schools, Government and are finally speaking out with a strong voice. If you are an Atheist, Agnostic or Humanist it is your duty to illuminate peoples thoughts. Happy teachings everyone.
OOberization 3 months ago
hes a nihilist.
SytrusISurtys 3 months ago
Ah, I'm a proud pantheistic pagan and all I have to say: I trust and Atheist with policies more than a Christian. I'm elated, Secularism protects my right to believe more than an institutionalized belief.
krouwtheknockingcrow 3 months ago
Atheism, Anarchy and no world order... there is such a place... Portugal, the home of the free... where we don't graduate, run our own bar or restaurant where we sell fried chicken and just don't give a shit.
CognitiveNetwork 3 months ago
Adam Carolla's just doing schtick. His schtick is to go against the grain, so when going against the grain becomes organized in any way, he has to step outside of it and find a new way to go against the grain.
ChipArgyle 3 months ago
yes, being just as closed minded of an atheist is just as bad. It's like how someone that says they know there's no god is just as bad as someone that says they know that there is a god. Open mindedness is the key here, and you can't be open-minded if you believe in a god (either that or your logical processing is 0) - for those who would ask whether open-minded religious people are worse than open-minded atheists.
jrockpunk1 3 months ago
@jrockpunk1 almost no athiests say that they know there is no god. and the few that i know of who do, only do so because they believe the lack of evidence is evidence enough to justify such a claim. so they realy aren't being closed minded either.
then there are some crazy people who don't believe in god because they believe we were put on earth by space aliens.
panda0100 3 months ago 9
@panda0100 what do you mean crazy? Oh, they got to you too, hugh>?
MrGlennatat 2 months ago in playlist More videos from LiberalViewer
@MrGlennatat no, i mean crazy, because there is absolutely no evidence for such things. it is idiotic, and requires someone with a certain type of mindset to believe it.
panda0100 2 months ago
@panda0100 I'm one of those few that believe there's no god(s). In the seven thousand or so years that religions have been a part of human civilisations, there has been no proof of the deities in any such religion. I wholeheartedly believe that there's no god whatsoever, but I am willing to concede the fact that I cannot prove there is no god, and as such the view on a "god" being real could be true, however unlikely it may be.
RequiemFear 2 months ago
@RequiemFear yes, like any rational person, you are not denying the existence of anything. while understanding the extremely low probabilaty of its existance. we may not know if god exists. but that does not make the claim any more credible.
panda0100 2 months ago
@panda0100 Neither does that make the theist's claims any less incredulous, but they seem to thing it makes them unequivocally true.
RequiemFear 2 months ago
@panda0100 and it is possible too that we were put here by intelligent species. but most likely not.
and about that god thingy.... disproving something that doesnt exists is impossible.
valtonen77 2 months ago
I agree with mason19atheist and panda0100, however, it's apathetic atheists like Adam Carolla that make me want to call myself an agnostic, so people aren't too judgemental. I think it's a waste of time calling yourself an agnostic though if you strongly believe there is no God but just say you don't "know for certain."
PaladinswordSaurfang 2 months ago
@PaladinswordSaurfang for me, i just refuse to define myself by other peoples actions...
if someone wants to think my views are in line with those of people like Adam Carolla. then that person is obviously not interested in learning about my actual point of view anyway.
panda0100 2 months ago
@panda0100 while philosophically I can't prove that the keyboard I'm typing this on is real, I'm pretty sure it's real, and equally sure God isn't. Absolutely damned sure that the God of the bible isn't. Atheists need to organize and lobby because religious people do, and someone has to work against their efforts to sneak religion into government. Like they did with the pledge of allegiance. Also to spread the message - hey, you don't need big daddy in the sky, you can be free.
gspaulsson 2 weeks ago
@gspaulsson i agree, just because i do not believe god exists does not mean i can't see the harm caused by those who do, or that i cannot try to prevent/correct the behaviour that caused the harm.
panda0100 2 weeks ago
Atheism is, literally, the absence of belief. That's the only common denominator. Grouping together like that does seem wrong, in my view. However, I live in a secular country with about 90% atheists, so it's not really a big deal here. In an initial stage like it is in the US, it might not be such a bad idea to organize. His worries are valid, though.
As for his close-mindedness, I don't think anything he said points to that. There's nothing close-minded about not being into religion.
getsallad 4 months ago
@getsallad Are you from Vietnam? Funny you'd call the US 'in an initial stage' :D (which is, in regard of secularity, of course true, frankly, I like to think it evolved backwards over the last fifty to hundred years (as Bill Maher points out on every occasion))
longapc 4 months ago
@longapc No, I'm from Sweden.
getsallad 4 months ago
@longapc
Vietnam is very much a religious country! Buddhism is their state religion! They also have many Taoists and Confuscianists. The most secular nations you will find in Europe.
ciaobellakate 4 months ago
@ciaobellakate Yes, of course! It was only for the sake of the joke, since I only recently learned that Buddhists technically count as atheists (read the previous comments).
About the secularity in Sweden: State and Church have been seperated in year 2000 (sic!) and until 1951 (!!!) it was illegal to not belong to any (Christian) church. Yes, there are reportedly 48% to 85% Atheists (depening on the study), but in 2009, about 71% of the population still formally belonged to the Church of Sweden.
longapc 4 months ago
@longapc Many belong to the Church because of tradition. Baptism, and later confirmation, are rites still performed regardless of belief or not, and since many want to marry in church, or are just too lazy, they'll refrain from actually leaving the Church. How many members there are isn't really a good measure, since most people don't believe anyway.
@ciaobellakate Sweden has problems of its own. One being that we're just a lapdog who does whatever America tells us to.
getsallad 4 months ago
@getsallad
Australia is America's bitch, too. We have the ANZUS treaty. But I guess every democratic nation answers to the US when it comes to foreign policy.
ciaobellakate 3 months ago
Comment removed
ciaobellakate 4 months ago
@getsallad
I want to move to Sweden! One of the most peaceful, democratic nations in the world. Australia isn't secular enough for me!
ciaobellakate 4 months ago
@ciaobellakate Canada is not scular enough for me either
ianfergusonian 3 months ago
I think all citizens of the USA, needs to keep the Constitution's basics in mind. Foremost of these is the 1st Amendment notion that the government needs to purposefully ignore issues of religion. Religious leaders should not be listened to and anyone who bases their grievances to the government may be ignored, if they do so on religious grounds.
Atheists, in general, don't base their grievances on faith, so their voice is legitimate. It is the fundamentalist faithful that should be dismissed.
drfoxcourt 4 months ago
who gives a flying fuck.....you are no different from the fucking religion hes rite in that way.... just let people be... stop trying to spread ur way of life...i dont believe in religion or anyone who says they r rite 100%.... till they start accepting that people have there own reality...dont shove urs on to it.....i mean grow up we got bigger things to worry about..
vj62 4 months ago
@vj62 I agree 100 percent. What does a persons religious belief has to do with anything?
JJJohnson32 4 months ago
@vj62 Everybodies freedom ends where other other peoples freedom begins. What you are not taking into account is that the US government is heavily influenced by religious beliefs which lead to actions that a secular country should and would never undertake (as Bill Maher pointed out in earlier shows), thus indirectly forcing religious beliefs upon everybody.
longapc 4 months ago
@vj62 Yes, everybody can belief what they want, but I believe there to be a reason why religious influence was originally excluded from nation wide decisions.
I'm perfectly aware of my radical opinion in that matter, which is that Atheism is the best religion when it comes to govern a country in that it leads to best results for everybody.
But of course, everybody else thinks that about their religion too.
longapc 4 months ago
@longapc Atheism isn't a religion, dude.
CallMeRiverton 4 months ago
@CallMeRiverton you think so? To me, Atheism is the ultimate truth, rational thinking builds the world around me. I tell people about my opinion, sometimes even impose it on them. Now, it you replace Atheism with any religion of your choice, would it make a difference? Atheism becomes a religion when you pursue it religiously (which I gotta admit I am doing)
What is the difference between you and a truly religious person?
Atheism might not be a religion by definition, but can be regarded as one.
longapc 4 months ago
@longapc Well atheism isn't analogous to rational thinking, though the second can lead to the first, but many atheists (Raylians, some Buddhists) have irrational beliefs.
The difference between me and a religious person is that I believe things that are evidenced, while they believe the same but just try to rationalize their religion.
Atheism is not a religion and should not be considered one because atheism is the direct opposite of religion.
CallMeRiverton 4 months ago
@CallMeRiverton My sincere apologies, but 500 characters didn't allow a more detailed explanation. I was of course referring to Atheism as in a disbelief in anything supernatural, un-proofable (yes, I am aware of logic's self-inconsistency) or irrational, not only to Atheism as the denial of the existance of god.
My point is that rationality is just another point of view, just like faith; there are people misusing it, imposing it unto others, etc. What makes it more right (except being right)?
longapc 4 months ago
@longapc I don't see how one can misuse rational thinking. Forcing it upon people I would say is wrong, people have the right to believe irrational things, though I'd rather they didn't.
Also, if you're talking about skepticism, you should use the word, atheism is only one small part of skepticism.
CallMeRiverton 4 months ago
@CallMeRiverton Rational thinking is a sharp weapon and dangerous as not everybody is equally able to wield it, which makes it easy for the eloquent to impose their will on the meek (just like religion is misused so frequently). As opposed to most religions it has no intrinsical morale and the premiss 'Whatever gains me the greatest advantage' rules supreme over the very rational minds of Wall Street's richest and corrupt politicians alike.
longapc 4 months ago
I agree with Maher that FreeThinkers should organize and try to balance the political field so that it is more inclussive of all points of view instead of not giving a shit to the point where a fundametalist point of view is what is now taking over the poiltical arena, laws & how we live our vies.
FreeformTao 4 months ago
Adam Carolla is a comedian. You need to take him less seriously.
TheFistlist 4 months ago
meh i dont want atheism to become just another cult. i think what adam meant is that he wants to get past the arguement of what we come from and just live the life he has. i totally agree with him.
RockerJack15 4 months ago
Atheist are like cats, you just cant heard them. We are to spread out and stand on individual grounds. A belief/lack of doesn't mean you will have the same political views at all. But as far as standing up for our rights absolutely we should organize.
mikeathiest 4 months ago
its hard to unite atheists over a common political ideal, as their are right wing atheists and left wing atheists, I know in america atheism is associated with the left, but in the rest of the world an particularly europe, religion or lack of religion holds no ties to political movements,
dan11009 4 months ago
I'm sorry mister liberal viewer, but I think you're trying to associate apathy with closed mindedness because they're not "investigating"(& that word is questionable since its done in bias views) or involving themselves when you know damn well people on the opposing end are doing the same thing, like Christians for example who involve and organize more that atheists, but I'm sure you could agree are closed minded. It doesn't take involvement to be open-minded.
Mortello 4 months ago
I believe that any group who wants to assemble has the right to assemble.
emmallanos 5 months ago
Calling yourself an atheist implies that you don't believe in any religion and I think there shouldn't be any religious implications when it comes to government.
So there shouldn't be christian or atheistic politic groups.
leqaf 5 months ago in playlist Más videos de LiberalViewer
Whether atheist, agnostic, or theist a closed mind allows no change. A mind that allows no change is not taking the full advantage of the human social nature that has developed for millions of years. It is backward. So, I agree with Bill. Non-believers need to have a voice. We have been silent too long and it's time we made a conscious effort to make changes on a large scale.
ProjectTrapdoor 5 months ago
I am with Bill,
sonofatiger 5 months ago
Organize.
undergroundo 5 months ago
i tend to agree with bill mahers aproach. ahtiests and agnostics need to have an organized and comprehensive voice in the political arena. otherwise we will get religous dogma forced as law,(like with texas altering their school curriculum) whether we agree with it or not or should i say the christian version of sharia law..
scorand 5 months ago
making groups of people to start an influence over other people is exactly what doesn't need to happen.being an independent person is more constructive to the progression of ones self. when one is in better shape, it is more likely of that person to pass it on in the inescapable influence of parenting. taking care of your self will lead to group investment called family.
chesterbooya 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sorry had to repeat this:-
'There is no centre party in the US, the Left has moved to the Centre, & the Right has fallen off a religious cliff.
GuillemotWatcher 5 months ago
This is just sad.
morganhchs 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
INTELLIGENT DESIGN ON ANOTHER PLANET? Imagine finding a planet where robots are programmed to make other robots just like themselves from raw materials. Now, imagine an alien scientist visiting the planet and, after studying these robots, comes to the conclusion that because science can explain how these robots work, function, and reproduce there's no reason to believe there was an intelligent designer behind them! Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or a cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NOT NATURE MADE! Just because something exists in nature doesn't mean it was invented or made by Nature. If all the chemicals that make-up an earthworm were scattered and left to themselves, "Mother Nature" would have no ability to re-organize them into a worm again. It takes an already existing worm to bring about another worm. The worm exists and reproduces in nature but Nature didn't design or invent the worm! Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
Comment removed
Mogley52 5 months ago
I think he was just trying to be funny and failed.
michaelwuzthere 5 months ago
Adam Corolla is a disgrace to atheists. Atheism should be about thinking, not laziness.
hagamablabla 5 months ago
@hagamablabla "Adam Corolla is a disgrace to atheists." Sorry, can't agree, we're not a group, yet.
We're fractures from mainstream society & always will be.
Yes I think he's wrong, but there are many lazy theists. Most atheists are thinkers but not all. I'd rather have Adam disespousing himself from religion & being classified as an atheist, than him lazily regurgitating of nomadic myths.
I think atheists constitute less than 10% of Americans, but their views should be coordinated & heard.
GuillemotWatcher 5 months ago
first off i agree with adam corolla but i also think our government should just be secular. religous or atheist (whether it is like a religion or not) interference would violate the whole idea of a secular government
thatdutchguy420 5 months ago
So, just a question here.
Are most atheists left winged. Because I get the impression that allot of atheists are libertarians, am I wrong?
gulbirk 5 months ago
@gulbirk "Are most atheists left winged" Good question. Here in Europe socialism is not considered to be a form of communism & atheists, because we have no scripture to give us answers have a different moral structure. Gender & sexual orientation are not factors when we consider a person's worth to hold office. Our morality is totally secular, that makes us centralists in Europe, but well left of centre in the US, where you're virtually unelectable unless you proclaim your faith in Christ.
GuillemotWatcher 5 months ago
@GuillemotWatcher Center?
THat is only on certain issues I would say. THe most left winged party in Norway (the socialist left) actually has a famale leader, and they dont care about sex/gender. Nor do they have any un-secular moral standards.
gulbirk 5 months ago
@gulbirk Interesting. I'm unfamiliar with Norwegian politics, I'm open to be informed, but statistics indicate that the population is overwhelmingly Christian, circa 84%, mainly Lutheran, circa 80%. That would suggest that the country is by nature Right Wing, therefore what would be consider centralist in the UK would be considered Left Wing in Norway.
The fact is that there is no centre party in the US. The Left has moved to the Centre, & the Right has fallen off a religious cliff.
GuillemotWatcher 5 months ago
@GuillemotWatcher Actually, its quite the opposite. I dont know what you define as left winged or right winged. But I use the terms in comparison to what society it is. If it has very low taxes, and most things are private, and its very capitalistic. Its right winged. Left winged means to me that taxes are fairly high and most things are public. In which case, Norway is probably the second most left winged country in Europe after Albania :P
CONT
gulbirk 5 months ago
@gulbirk PART 2
As for that statistic. Its kinda wrong. Because we have a state church. So when you are born you actually get signed in in some cases. And you have to sign out again. Almost all atheists I know are part of the state church.
gulbirk 5 months ago
@gulbirk Again you make me think. Off to buy some milk so I can have a cuppa. I mull better with a cup of tea in my hand. I'll get back to you with a considered reply. I need to trace our conversation to the start, 'most atheists are left winged'.
BTW we say Left Wing in the UK not Left Winged. It indicates where we stand, 'On the left wing'. Did you know that that the terms Right & Left Wing originated in pre-revolutionary France. Interesting, no? Speak soon.
GuillemotWatcher 5 months ago
Comment removed
reishvedaur 5 months ago
No, it's a stupid idea, because atheists as a group don't have shared political interest.
However contrary to what you might think if you move around on the internet most atheists ARE left-wingers (and NOT libertards), now THOSE people could unite, if they're willing not to give to much of a shit about more right-wing atheists pissing and moaning about it, they could become a decently powerful voting block for the left.
TheSkunkCat 5 months ago
@TheSkunkCat
Honestly though... I wish left-wingers in general gave much less of a shit about the sensibilities and desires of non-left wingers and just fought hardball for hearts and minds, all the time instead of compromising, bi-partisanship and all that bullshit. So I don't expect anything like that.
I mean the right has all the wrong idea's, but they fight like hell for them. The left should fight much harder for their GOOD idea's.
TheSkunkCat 5 months ago
@TheSkunkCat
I mean sure, there's SOME left-wingers who do that and just stick it to all the right-wing bullshitters and other such fuckers. But their always the exception. I wish they where the rule. Kick the right-wing bullies teeth in instead of trying to make a deal with them where they get HALF our lunchmoney.
TheSkunkCat 5 months ago
@TheSkunkCat Libertards, lol. That one was good.
Yeah sure we could do that, but think about it. How long would it take before someone went all Mcarthy on us?
An atheist left winged group. Hmm, what does that remind me of, :P
gulbirk 5 months ago
@gulbirk Part 2 first. The Church of Norway sounds very similar to the Church of England. I've read that many people in Norway stay registered as members of the Church for strong cultural reasons, so that your saying 'Almost all atheists I know are part of the state church' is not as contradictory as it may first seem. Anyway, I regard polls & statistics as indicators only. If the questions don't change however, I do regard statistical changes as worthy of investigation.
GuillemotWatcher 5 months ago
@gulbirk So back to your original question. I do think most atheists are left wing but not by conviction, but by coincidence. Atheist world views are devoid of scriptural dogmas therefore gender, & sexual orientation & private practices are not issues, but they're big issues to those who wish to conserve.
It's in the names, Conservatives want to conserve, Liberals want to liberate, Socialists want social justice. Atheists generally want social justice & liberty to to think. (Next Post)
GuillemotWatcher 5 months ago
@gulbirk Conservative Right Wing views should not be ignored, they should be understood & considered, but they should not be automatically adopted & that's what religion is, the automatic adoption of the views of our predecessors. It's the cessation of new learning & I can't abide that.
I know I haven't address your replies directly. You don't have to be atheist to have a social conscience but religious politicians repulse me, they seem to have none.
GuillemotWatcher 5 months ago
@GuillemotWatcher Well some of them have.
But just to go over to another point.
""You don't have to be atheist to have a social conscience"" certainly not. But when I adress left wing and right wing there is also another important issue. You probably adress that as the socialism vs capitalism issue in england. But we consider that part of the left and right here in Norway (I am not sure about England). The left tends to be more socialistic, while the right is more capitalistic.
gulbirk 5 months ago
@gulbirk "The left tends to be more socialistic, while the right is more capitalistic." 100% agree.
Capitalism works in a democracy, but people fall through the net & they need minimum care that can only be provided by central government.
It's morally right to tax members of society who have benefited greatly from operating under the freedom that that society allowed them.
I advocate capitalism with a social conscience. Am I right wing or left wing? I think I'm stuck in the center.
GuillemotWatcher 5 months ago
@GuillemotWatcher It depends on who you ask, how high tax levels should be (acording to you) and what you want the government to run.
Personally, I think I am on the left. I want governments to run schools, hospitals, libraries, roads, police men, firemen ( I dont like private insurence policies), and if necesary, banks.
gulbirk 5 months ago
@gulbirk That's it! I've decided bloody aliens cloned me years ago & forgot where I lived. (Brilliance & stupidity can exist together)
I accept you asking questions that intrigue me, but I'm finding it difficult to accept you writing answers that exactly express what I think & believe to be right.
You've now joined the list of people who've mentally pissed me off. There's only one other name on the list, Richard Dawkins, but I have to thank you both, you've made me feel less alone.
GuillemotWatcher 5 months ago
@GuillemotWatcher XD.
There are many people like us. If you look up social democrasy you will probably find even more like minded people.
gulbirk 5 months ago
@gulbirk My problem is I've never been much of a joiner. Maybe it's time I changed my habits. Perhaps my isolation was self-caused?
GuillemotWatcher 5 months ago
@GuillemotWatcher Maybe, I dont know. I dont tend to sign into things either. Espesially organisations with an opinion. Mainly because I am afraid it might give me some dogmatic views I shouldnt have. But normally, I can sign into things after I have checked what they are all about.
gulbirk 5 months ago
@GuillemotWatcher your a social conservative according to political definitions :)
IntellectualViewer 5 months ago in playlist More videos from LiberalViewer
@TheSkunkCat
I mean sure, there's SOME left-wingers who do that and just stick it to all the right-wing bullshitters and other such fuckers. But their always the exception. I wish they where the rule. Kick the right-wing bullies teeth in instead of trying to make a deal with them where they get HALF our lunchmoney.
TheSkunkCat 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 5 months ago