Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
As an agnostic, I have no idea. If someone could outline the evidence with a corresponding % to determine the correct perspective of that there is no god. It would help me a lot.
To prove the non-existence of whatever is a very hard thing to do and probably impossible. Think about it, what kind of evidence would prove that there is NO God. If I say there is a invisible, intangible pink dragon in my tool shed. You cant detect it, yet I claim there is one, If we allow people to make up all kinds of stuff that we cant verify, we end up with a lot of bullcrap. The danger imo is the horrible things people do in the name of this impotent pantheon
I agree that proving the non-existence is impossible. But using leprechauns to prove a god doesn't exist is assuming your conclusion. I have thought about it an the point makes no sense to me.
If you believe that everything that exists, or has existed, is verifiable then your point may have a basis, but only a nut would think everything is verifiable.
@GlassHaus123 Philatelist is one who collects stamps. The speaker was referring to the practice of not collecting stamps and the person in the audience joked that he could be called an Aphilatelist. I know it's been a week since you asked but I thought I'd answer anyways. Cheers!
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
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 !!!
I'm a non-theist. However to claim to know that everything esoteric or metaphysical is nonsense IS arrogant and ignorant. It's fine to say religion is nothing but a control mechanism, or that it's wrong to force your beliefs on people, especially small children. However, to claim to KNOW that there is no spirituality and that everything has and will be explained is completely ARROGANT and observably false. Science explains a lot and gives technology, however there are many things unexplainable.
@caldunagan You seem to think there is something special about made up nonsense if it's about spirituality. Perhaps 2+2=5 to spirits. Does that make it wrong to tell a child 2+2=4?
@caldunagan "however there are many things unexplainable"
Because somethings have not yet been explained that does not mean they can never be explained, or are "unexplainable". I'm happy to accept them as "not known".
If, by spirituality you mean that warm fuzzy feeling you get when you hold your newborn child or standing on top of a mountain looking out over a sea of icy peaks, then yes, spirituality exists. Other than that I'd need a little more evidence.
@caldunagan Even if knowledge helps to become an atheist, atheism isn't about knowledge but whether you believe or not. You don't need that much information to believe or not believe in something. For example, I don’t have a great knowledge about dragons, yet I don’t believe in them. Am I arrogant for doing so?
Atheists aren't arrogant. Theists are just envious that atheists have facts and evidence on their side. All they have on theirs is some kind of god that's invisible, irrational, intangible, immoral, and ultimately, imaginary.
It's naive to put all faith in that "evidence". There's always a margin of error and can even be downright bias or skewed. And so what if God is imaginary? Some kids have imaginary friends growing up and we don't ridicule them. Our imagination is what makes us truly unique from other animals. I think it's rude for atheists to mock and put down others that don't believe as they do. As long as someone else's beliefs don't infringe on our rights, there's no need for such animosity.
@kcf2pp Evidence requires no faith. You don't believe in evidence. That's the nature of it: a piece of evidence is undisputed-it's just there. Determining what the evidence explains is the fun part. That's where more evidence is used.
Religious beliefs ALWAYS infringe on rights, and unfortunately, on facts too. Just look at people trying to put Intelligent Design into science classes and forced prayer in schools. It's dangerous, especially if as you suggest, God may not exist.
@ChipArgyle You should write a book based on what you have written above. You might need to expand it a bit though (with words that start with anything other than "i" or "u" or else it gets a bit boring) on your argumentation to get more than 15 readers with thumbs up. But go for it because you are clearly so right and, well, really logical.
@Juneaugold123 A book? I doubt I could do any better than the Four Horsemen.
My views come from questions like these:
If you were a god, would you hide from your creations who wanted nothing more than to have an actual, two-way relationship with you? If so, why?
If you were a god, would you allow your creations to follow differing religious paths, thus guaranteeing the vast majority of them would never make it into your after-life paradise? If so, why?
@ChipArgyle I find it more difficult to be an atheist than a theist (not talking specifically about Christians as I`m sure most of atheist, or better, religion-haters, thought I was). I really tried looking at your side, and it requires much more faith, at least for me to be a atheist than a theist..So I ask you, please show me the facts and evidence that prove you are right so you can once and for all make a an atheist..
@lucasmez That's a common logical fallacy that theists trot out all the time. By definition, it takes absolutely no faith to be an atheist. Sorry, but you don't get to put rational atheists on the same level as those who believe in things that don't appear to exist, claiming they must also have faith when they are doing nothing more than rejecting an unprovable assertion. It just doesn't work that way.
It is the believer who must show us god(s). Atheists can't show you not-gods.
@ChipArgyle The thing is, you`re ruling out a reasonable explanation for the origins of life, that`s not true science, that`s excluding an explanation for life even before evidence has a chance to speak only because you don`t like it or associate it with religion.
@lucasmez By "reasonable explanation" you mean a god created everything.
Science, by definition, deals only with the real, verifiable, physical world: energy, the building blocks of matter, and the properties contained therein. Science rejects myths and other fallacies made up in the minds of men, because fiction, averred and otherwise, isn't-pay attention here-real. No exploration of it is necessary.
Now that you know this, do you understand how silly your previous post is?
@ChipArgyle Just because it hasn`t been proved yet it doesn`t mean it`s a myth, otherwise Evolution would have been a myth before it was discovered, and evolution also came from the mind of man, Darwin, because he liked to question. It just turned out it was right...An intelligent designer is also a theory for the foundations of life, and it is not unreasonable...Look at the DNA for example..that is the most efficient information storage system ever known to man,
@ChipArgyle and it contains exactly that, information, a "program", of how our body, and every other living thing must be built. Our "code" could fit a book of +/- 500,000 pages, and every letter has to be in its right place so we can be built perfectly, of course there are some errors, mutations that happens, that causes diseases, etc...That is exactly the problem scientists have today: "where did this info. come from?
@ChipArgyle it is impossible for the atoms to have arranged themselves to create this much information, though some materialists "believe" so..The thing is, it is possible, and very reasonable to think that the code has been written by someone.If you see a message written on the sands of the beach, for example "I love you", that`s info.
@lucasmez Not only is it possible for matter to have arranged itself into complex biochemistry over time with a constant supply of energy being added to the system (the sun's heat and light), there are actually numerous ways that it could have happened. All you need to do is educate yourself about it. The field is called abiogenesis and it's fascinating.
The watchmaker (need for a designer) argument in biology is a tired, debunked concept.
@jeffiek No..I have not been living on a cave...I`m not ignorant because I do not close my mind to possible explanations, and that one is a possible explanation...If we will be able to simulate an universe with conscious living beings in a computer in the future, who guarantees us that we are not some kind of simulation already? then we would be the "aliens". That are other possible explanations for life other than extreme chance and luck as you believe..Dude, I do not judge you for your beliefs
@jeffiek Yes, I noticed you were trying to ridicule me, the funny thing is: you didn`t notice you were ridiculing yourself as well..Well, I suppose you are an agnostic, right? because if you aren`t, you must be an atheist, christian, or have some kind of belief..If you have a belief, it means you cannot prove your position, and if you try to ridicule other people because of their belief, you are ridiculing yourself as well...
@jeffiek .....a creator, intelligent being, God, or whatever you call it is a reasonable explanation for life, as is pure chance.Some scientists say the universe is organized, that is one of many arguments in favor of a "bearded old man watching over us all" as atheists like to simplify and ridicule it to make it sound impossible......
@jeffiek .......Some say it came to be by pure chance, and to explain it in a way you like to see things: "first there was nothing, than nothing exploded and became something, than something evolved and became us", in an oversimplified, ridicularized way.Please, show me overwhelming evidences that show your position to be correct and mine to be incorrect..You cannot, nobody can, because nobody knows how life came to be, that is one of the questions we cannot answer, at least not yet.
@jeffiek ....And ruling out possible explanations for something we do not understand is not science at all, it is totally blind faith. I have a belief, but I recognize it as being a belief. If you are an atheist, you have a belief, but you do not recognize it as being one, you say your position is the answer for everything.Imagine a round kitchen table, if the whole table represents all the knowledge we can get in the entire universe....
@jeffiek .....I ask you to draw a circle on the table to represent what you know. We would agree we should draw a tiny tiny circle. Now, how ignorant do you have to be to claim yourself as the owner of the truth?
@jeffiek ......As Galileo Galilei said: "Your vain presumption of knowing all can take beginning solely from you never having known anything; for if one has but once experienced the perfect knowledge of one thing, and truly tasted what it is to know, he shall perceive that of infinite other conclusions he understands not so much as one."
@jeffiek Though I hate discussion on beliefs and faiths, I just cannot stand people with the ignorant belief of knowing it all without admitting that their beliefs only comes from faith. This goes to Atheists and everybody else except agnostics.
@ChipArgyle I think it would require more faith to think it is there because the water of the ocean created it through time, be it billions of year, than to think someone wrote it..and the DNA is not a simple "I love you" its much more than that..So rule out a reasonable explanation, that`s not science at all, of course look for new things that could explain it, but don`t rule out the ones that could be true...And we`re talking only about DNA.
People is ignorant. "Life was begun by accident" "Big Bang theory is correct, God doesnt exists" And why canñt God use the Big Bang to create the universe? Bible says clearly "In the beginnig God created the Heavens and the Earth" is that unclear??
@SiGhast Oh ok, you want more? Why dont you read Lee Strobel life? or his books? Or waht do you think about Malcom Mudgerridge? Read Lee Strobel{s books? Give scientific evidence of the evolution of the eye, an I shut up. Prove me there is no Ark of the Covenant inside Jerusalem Temple beaing controlled by Israels goverment and I shut up
@norcorneliocastrogo Evolution is a scientific fact. Keep thinking you're a part of a special group of enlightened people while the rest of the world continues to advance.
@norcorneliocastrogom If that day comes, then yes, I will -- without a doubt -- regret having lived my life an atheist. I'm very certain it won't, though. But I admit that I cannot know this for sure. I'm a bit agnostic-like in that sense. I suppose I would classify myself as an agnostic atheist (with the only other option being agnostic theist; I don't believe there is such a thing as agnostic -- either you believe or you don't).
@SiGhast Man Im telling you, dont wait till that day or your death´s day. What do you prefer? Live your life as an agnostic and risk that day coming and doom yourself, or living as a Christian, and if the day comes you will be prepared and you will not choose? I prefer the second one
@norcorneliocastrogom What you fail to understand is that it's not a conscious choice. I would very much like there to be a God. I can't think of anything more comforting... wouldn't be the least bit afraid of death, either. If I could, I'd choose to believe it is so. I cannot do this. Whatever is going on in my brain, which is technically physical, is preventing me from doing so. It is out of my control.
I'll live my life as I want to and make the best out of the little time I have.
@rikar2001 "True" atheist? Since when did it become a title you have to work for? Regardless, even if the world shaped me, here I am, rejecting the notion of a god. It's as real as it can be.
I'm not sure you grasp what I'm saying, though. I'm saying it CAN'T BE a choice, fundamentally. I can't wake up one day and simply tell myself I'm gonna start loving someone I despise and PRESTO - I believe that person is my soulmate and I'm completely obsessed with her for the rest of my life.
I'm saying this is all much more related to plain old physics than we seem to think it is. I'm talking about chemical reactions in the brain. Emotions and thoughts shaped by external sources. I'm talking about what should indicate a complete lack of belief in God and anything beyond the material world. There's no soul. Consciousness, while fascinating, is an illusion. There is no purpose. We live to die.
If I'm not a "true atheist", as you call it, then what am I? Just stupid?
@SiGhast You are right. You can't choose to believe or not. You can choose to look and find more information that could change your view of the world. But believing in itself is never a choice.
@MrG0TH1ER believe me (uneducated) people who can not or will not investigate a topic, CAN choose to (not) believe stuff. You can identify them when they say: " I do (not) agree with you" concerning matters of fact.
@niekvdbogert You can't choose to believe in something. You do or don't put it's not something you choose. You can pretend that you believe (or don't) and lie to others and even yourself, but in the end you still can't choose what you believe.
@norcorneliocastrogom Good old Pascal's Wager, what then if you chose the wrong god, or your god is insulted by your selfish reason for believing in him?
@norcorneliocastrogom prove there is an ark ya fundie twat. Strobel is a YEC dickhead and muggeridge a pompous crashing bore. Go to talk origins to get information about the evolution of the eye, now shut the fuck up
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
@Mogley52 You sound like an intelligent guy only you got your "facts" wrong. Maybe one day you will start reading REAL books and be able to study your way out of your dark religion. Good luck.
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 of tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
@Mogley52 There was life of a sort before cells, but cell-based life probably wiped them out entirely, as far as we can tell. Life originated from somewhere, we're actually trying to find out, rather than make up an answer.
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. Even for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing harm and even extinction, not upward evolution. Genetic similarities are better explained due to a common design for common purposes.
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
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
I find most atheists smug, self-satisfied and condescending those who do not accept that they have solved the secrets of the universe. If you bring this up to them, their response is to start attacking religion as if disproving negatives proves their thesis.
@AxelQC The atheist never claims to have solved the secrets of the universe. The atheist is the one saying "I don't know, but there must be a natural reason for it" instead of the theist, who says "well I don't know, so let's just say God did it".
The fact is theism had to exist before its counter culture existed and as a counter culture (inherent in the term atheist, "without god") it's just another personal choice. Atheism is only theory, it isn't a fact, it's a hypothesis (and the conclusions ALWAYS have bias connotations depending on the scientist). A person has to have a personal reason to accept the banner of atheism, making them as subjective as a theist. It's point of view just like something exists before there's anti something.
@OneUhBuv hate to break it to you, atheism isn't some kind of great liberation, you stick yourself into some one-track box of Aristotelian logic, and hate everyone that disagrees with you. You're the alter-ego of religious types like Torquemada and Jim Jones.
@hellstrueassassin Actually, you open yourself out of the box of blind faith and jump out into the world of discovery and reality. I don't hate everyone that disagrees with me; listening to people disagree with my beliefs is what made me an atheist.
@OneUhBuv Discovery is important. Theists and atheists should agree that if one side says it's faith and the other side knows their logic comes from a subjective source somewhere in history, then their methodology on accepting reality isn't really that different. Aristotle said to use your sensory perception, but it was sensory perception that told people the Earth was flat, so systems like math and science always throw inconclusive philosophy into it to keep it working in the real world.
@OneUhBuv The peak of culture has changed at different times for different cultures in different ways, technically Greeks and Romans had philosophy of a spherical Earth around 600 B.C (Europeans)., so how does information get lost between that time and Europe 1500 to 1600 A.D.? Several reasons, some are religious, but religious revisionism isn't anything new or one dimensional either. The Quran in 600 A.D.(C.E.) revised a story nearly 1,000 older with Abraham and worked it's way up history.
@VUTFC I didn't say it wasn't, but even when they upgraded geocentric theory to heliocentric theory they were still wrong because the universe doesn't revolve around the Earth or Sun. Even the scientific community then would have probably burned you alive if you said we're one solar system in one galaxy with billions of stars floating around a supermassive black hole, and then there is an unknown number of galaxies on top of it, but the smaller discoveries lead to today's consensus anyway.
@XmrdX You´re right! It is time we declare war on the deluded postcard senders and pigeon posters, and let the Post Office reign supreme once and for all! Philatelists of all countries unite!
@XmrdX That is blasphemy! That is MADNESS! Only the Sacred Personnel of the Post Office is allowed to place stamps on letters. And postcards are an abomination! According to 1 Thurn und Taxis 13:37 all mail should consist solely of handwritten text, as our ancestors have done in all the past centuries, a tradition that must be honoured.
Dubliner magazine (14 July 2011 page 20) interview with the chairman of Atheist Ireland.
Quote: “We [atheists] are open to evidence and what there is to reality in reality. At our world conference in Dublin we even invited an Islamic research group to attend our weekend gathering. They were outside the main hall with a stall selling their message and debating with us. We made them very welcome.”
It's not just Muslims who misrepresent themselves by lying. They weren't invited..
@dimaniak 1, I would simply say: "I brought you into this world because I wanted to bring you up and allow you to experience it" then 2: should die? Telling a child they should/would/could/will die is a nasty thing to do in most cases and you shouldn't be a parent if that's what you bring them up to say it to them.
A question for atheists. In a world where there's no proof of God's existence or of life after death; how will you explain to your children why you brought them into the world and why they should die?
@LettuceReason . How can you say we don't understand how small [as humans] we are? As far as we both know, man is the most dominant being in our universe... As far as we both *know*
What we cannot understand with our present logic and reason is simply wrong? The post office analogy? Use humour to paint over any lack of intellectual depth?
I understand agnosticism, but atheism is so smug and self serving, that the lack of humility in how small we truly are is astounding.
@LettuceReason What are you talking about? "Lack of humility in how small we truly are"? What do you think his rant about the 100 million galaxies *was*? Fine, let me explain -- it's arrogant for Christians to think that the consciousness of the universe cares what we do with our dingles. Atheists recognize how small we are, which is why we think that the Christian idea of a god that listens to and answers prayers is ridiculous. It'd be like saying we can hear and answer the prayers of bacteria!
@johnclavis it would be! It's incredible to fathom the idea with our limited human brains! But it would not be like saying that 'we' can hear bacteria, but perhaps God could! His rant about the 100 million galaxies is a prime example of what I said!
Fine, let me explain. (again) Atheists ten to think that anything outside of what they can imagine with their human brain, is impossible. That is why the "God" concept is so baffling, (and so ridiculous) to them.
@Juvjuv87 when I "reach the level".......of YOUR present logic and reason? I am only human, just like you. I have had the same access to the books and institutions as you do. I was agnostic at best for decades. I used to think exactly the same way as you do now. However, there was no "dummying up" when I experienced the transcendent knowledge and power and grace of God. That is why I am here, talking with you. Not to spout superiority in any way, but to share the good news with you, my friend.
@LettuceReason lol. I wasn't claiming superiority. Which is why i used ' ' on 'our'. I by no means am very well verse in the sciences either, at least, not as well as those actually in that field. I was merely quoting your previous comment that claims 'what we cannot understand with our present logic and reason is simply wrong' twisting it. I seriously doubt you've internalized all the knowledge, logic and reasoning of our time enough to qualify that statement.
@Juvjuv87 of course, I could be wrong. You might be a top scientist or academia in the fields of neuroscience or evolutionary biology! Though I seriously doubt so, judging from what i'm reading coming from you.
And yea, you're human, just like me. So? Are you suggesting that everyone's the same? Uhh... okay.
And sure, you have access to the same books as I do (well most of them anyway. Censorship is lame here):...), but whether or not you read them and internalize them is the thing.
@LettuceReason Also, contrary to you, I was a christian for decades before turning Atheist. I know exactly how people like you think and operate, though I'm not so arrogant enough to claim that you're all the same. You don't know how I think.
So yea, when you finally reach the level of 'our' present logic and reasoning... :D
Just enjoy the joke and move on. You're not gonna be convincing anyone around here.
@Juvjuv87 We 'turn' atheist only when we are angry at God. If there were no God, there would be no atheists. You called yourself a christian, probably by association.
I find it interesting how in the same paragraph you say "I know exactly how you people think, and you dont know how I think" . who is arrogant? I am already familiar and experienced with your 'level'. I will move on as I am obviously arousing your anger. It happens like that alot.
@LettuceReason Again, you're simplifying thing to what you can understand. Don't assume you know me, and why I chose Atheism. People are not all the same, regardless of what you want to believe.
I find it interesting how you only pick the parts you wanna read to form your argument. Selective reading much? Don't take my words out of context.
It's harder to understand science than religion. No two-way about that. Sorry. I seriously doubt you're that familiar with atheism.
@LettuceReason No idea where you get that I'm annoyed. I'm rather amused. It's been awhile since I've debated with theists about religion, since in most cases it's not worth my time. But I'm starting to remember why I don't bother anymore. All the same crap over and over, never new arguments. Groupthink much? It's starting to get olddddd.
Perhaps it's time to read those science and reason books you have access too, so you can come back up to 'our' level. lolololol.
@LettuceReason - it was clear, you don't get it. You have an imaginary invisible friend who grants wishes, and you think that is sensible! Sweet zombie Jesus!
@Gordonisgreat your childish comments are typical. Tedious and tiresome also. (right back to the first point that you commented on, 'ridiculing Christ'). Got any of your own thoughts?, or did you sleep through the fourth grade too?
@Gordonisgreat ah semantics! Now you really are showing off your deep thinking! Please try to convey an idea on me, and this time, without insults. Ready? Impress me!
@Gordonisgreat because you havent impressed me with insults. You havent said anything that makes any intelligent point. Plus, I asked you first! Now, we can play the "you first, no YOU first" game if you want to, but I have a feeling that you are smarter than that. Am I right?
I'm declaring myself the first member of the United World Organization for Free Aphilatelists (UWOFA).
Far too long we've been oppressed by the relentless yoke of philatelists and their sick, twisted and ignorant abuse of their "hobby"!
I say NO MORE!!!
Ebvardh 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
tigersforchrist 1 week ago
There is a cross in the wood's grain. Above his right shoulder, the irony is awesome.
bmichael4 2 weeks ago
Great analogy
holyhoploc 1 month ago in playlist More videos from AtheistIreland
Misses the loving reasoning behind the sabbath law. Ie man needs rest
MrJcenter7 1 month ago
As an agnostic, I have no idea. If someone could outline the evidence with a corresponding % to determine the correct perspective of that there is no god. It would help me a lot.
jelliedsoup 1 month ago
@jelliedsoup
To prove the non-existence of whatever is a very hard thing to do and probably impossible. Think about it, what kind of evidence would prove that there is NO God. If I say there is a invisible, intangible pink dragon in my tool shed. You cant detect it, yet I claim there is one, If we allow people to make up all kinds of stuff that we cant verify, we end up with a lot of bullcrap. The danger imo is the horrible things people do in the name of this impotent pantheon
niekvdbogert 1 month ago
@niekvdbogert
I agree that proving the non-existence is impossible. But using leprechauns to prove a god doesn't exist is assuming your conclusion. I have thought about it an the point makes no sense to me.
If you believe that everything that exists, or has existed, is verifiable then your point may have a basis, but only a nut would think everything is verifiable.
jelliedsoup 1 month ago
Because we are better.
heargote 1 month ago
What did the spectator say to Michael Nugent at the end? I couldn't make it out.
GlassHaus123 1 month ago
@GlassHaus123 Philatelist is one who collects stamps. The speaker was referring to the practice of not collecting stamps and the person in the audience joked that he could be called an Aphilatelist. I know it's been a week since you asked but I thought I'd answer anyways. Cheers!
cvanunen 1 month ago
@cvanunen Thanks!
GlassHaus123 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
Watch:
" youtube.com/watch?v=YZPmTH6sloo"
"youtube.com/watch?v=lutJYDxP6ys"
"youtube.com/watch?v=R9ike7PKd8U"
Regards.
TrumpetCallofGodLT 2 months ago
@TrumpetCallofGodLT No, fuck off.
Ebvardh 1 week 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
funny :-)
boikanyoketsile 2 months ago
I'm a non-theist. However to claim to know that everything esoteric or metaphysical is nonsense IS arrogant and ignorant. It's fine to say religion is nothing but a control mechanism, or that it's wrong to force your beliefs on people, especially small children. However, to claim to KNOW that there is no spirituality and that everything has and will be explained is completely ARROGANT and observably false. Science explains a lot and gives technology, however there are many things unexplainable.
caldunagan 2 months ago
@caldunagan You seem to think there is something special about made up nonsense if it's about spirituality. Perhaps 2+2=5 to spirits. Does that make it wrong to tell a child 2+2=4?
wrjamescom 2 months ago
@caldunagan "however there are many things unexplainable"
Because somethings have not yet been explained that does not mean they can never be explained, or are "unexplainable". I'm happy to accept them as "not known".
If, by spirituality you mean that warm fuzzy feeling you get when you hold your newborn child or standing on top of a mountain looking out over a sea of icy peaks, then yes, spirituality exists. Other than that I'd need a little more evidence.
unixhead101 2 months ago 2
@caldunagan Even if knowledge helps to become an atheist, atheism isn't about knowledge but whether you believe or not. You don't need that much information to believe or not believe in something. For example, I don’t have a great knowledge about dragons, yet I don’t believe in them. Am I arrogant for doing so?
MrG0TH1ER 1 month ago
The universe is so large because god loves a bit of real estate.
davewatcher 2 months ago
Atheists aren't arrogant. Theists are just envious that atheists have facts and evidence on their side. All they have on theirs is some kind of god that's invisible, irrational, intangible, immoral, and ultimately, imaginary.
ChipArgyle 2 months ago 18
@ChipArgyle
It's naive to put all faith in that "evidence". There's always a margin of error and can even be downright bias or skewed. And so what if God is imaginary? Some kids have imaginary friends growing up and we don't ridicule them. Our imagination is what makes us truly unique from other animals. I think it's rude for atheists to mock and put down others that don't believe as they do. As long as someone else's beliefs don't infringe on our rights, there's no need for such animosity.
kcf2pp 2 months ago
@kcf2pp Evidence requires no faith. You don't believe in evidence. That's the nature of it: a piece of evidence is undisputed-it's just there. Determining what the evidence explains is the fun part. That's where more evidence is used.
Religious beliefs ALWAYS infringe on rights, and unfortunately, on facts too. Just look at people trying to put Intelligent Design into science classes and forced prayer in schools. It's dangerous, especially if as you suggest, God may not exist.
ChipArgyle 2 months ago
@ChipArgyle you`re right...you don`t believe in evidence, but you need to believe in the theories that are thought based on them.
lucasmez 2 weeks ago
@ChipArgyle You should write a book based on what you have written above. You might need to expand it a bit though (with words that start with anything other than "i" or "u" or else it gets a bit boring) on your argumentation to get more than 15 readers with thumbs up. But go for it because you are clearly so right and, well, really logical.
Juneaugold123 1 month ago
@Juneaugold123 A book? I doubt I could do any better than the Four Horsemen.
My views come from questions like these:
If you were a god, would you hide from your creations who wanted nothing more than to have an actual, two-way relationship with you? If so, why?
If you were a god, would you allow your creations to follow differing religious paths, thus guaranteeing the vast majority of them would never make it into your after-life paradise? If so, why?
ChipArgyle 1 month ago
@ChipArgyle I find it more difficult to be an atheist than a theist (not talking specifically about Christians as I`m sure most of atheist, or better, religion-haters, thought I was). I really tried looking at your side, and it requires much more faith, at least for me to be a atheist than a theist..So I ask you, please show me the facts and evidence that prove you are right so you can once and for all make a an atheist..
lucasmez 2 weeks ago
@lucasmez That's a common logical fallacy that theists trot out all the time. By definition, it takes absolutely no faith to be an atheist. Sorry, but you don't get to put rational atheists on the same level as those who believe in things that don't appear to exist, claiming they must also have faith when they are doing nothing more than rejecting an unprovable assertion. It just doesn't work that way.
It is the believer who must show us god(s). Atheists can't show you not-gods.
ChipArgyle 2 weeks ago
@ChipArgyle The thing is, you`re ruling out a reasonable explanation for the origins of life, that`s not true science, that`s excluding an explanation for life even before evidence has a chance to speak only because you don`t like it or associate it with religion.
lucasmez 2 weeks ago
@lucasmez By "reasonable explanation" you mean a god created everything.
Science, by definition, deals only with the real, verifiable, physical world: energy, the building blocks of matter, and the properties contained therein. Science rejects myths and other fallacies made up in the minds of men, because fiction, averred and otherwise, isn't-pay attention here-real. No exploration of it is necessary.
Now that you know this, do you understand how silly your previous post is?
ChipArgyle 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChipArgyle Just because it hasn`t been proved yet it doesn`t mean it`s a myth, otherwise Evolution would have been a myth before it was discovered, and evolution also came from the mind of man, Darwin, because he liked to question. It just turned out it was right...An intelligent designer is also a theory for the foundations of life, and it is not unreasonable...Look at the DNA for example..that is the most efficient information storage system ever known to man,
lucasmez 1 week ago
@ChipArgyle and it contains exactly that, information, a "program", of how our body, and every other living thing must be built. Our "code" could fit a book of +/- 500,000 pages, and every letter has to be in its right place so we can be built perfectly, of course there are some errors, mutations that happens, that causes diseases, etc...That is exactly the problem scientists have today: "where did this info. come from?
lucasmez 1 week ago
@ChipArgyle it is impossible for the atoms to have arranged themselves to create this much information, though some materialists "believe" so..The thing is, it is possible, and very reasonable to think that the code has been written by someone.If you see a message written on the sands of the beach, for example "I love you", that`s info.
lucasmez 1 week ago
@lucasmez Not only is it possible for matter to have arranged itself into complex biochemistry over time with a constant supply of energy being added to the system (the sun's heat and light), there are actually numerous ways that it could have happened. All you need to do is educate yourself about it. The field is called abiogenesis and it's fascinating.
The watchmaker (need for a designer) argument in biology is a tired, debunked concept.
ChipArgyle 1 week ago
@lucasmez Of course the code was written by someone.
Everyone knows there was a race of aliens from the other side of the galaxy that wrote it. Where have you been? Living in a cave?
I see you have internet access. How is it possible you haven't heard of this? The evidence is everywhere.
jeffiek 2 days ago
@jeffiek No..I have not been living on a cave...I`m not ignorant because I do not close my mind to possible explanations, and that one is a possible explanation...If we will be able to simulate an universe with conscious living beings in a computer in the future, who guarantees us that we are not some kind of simulation already? then we would be the "aliens". That are other possible explanations for life other than extreme chance and luck as you believe..Dude, I do not judge you for your beliefs
lucasmez 2 days ago
@lucasmez Thanks for the laugh.
I was ridiculing you. You should have realized that when I ended my post with "The evidence is everywhere", if not before.
Belief without evidence is nothing more than imagination, otherwise known as FICTION.
Personally, I like leprechauns. I just don't go around shoving that fantasy down children's throats as if they really existed.
jeffiek 2 days ago
@jeffiek Yes, I noticed you were trying to ridicule me, the funny thing is: you didn`t notice you were ridiculing yourself as well..Well, I suppose you are an agnostic, right? because if you aren`t, you must be an atheist, christian, or have some kind of belief..If you have a belief, it means you cannot prove your position, and if you try to ridicule other people because of their belief, you are ridiculing yourself as well...
lucasmez 1 day ago
@jeffiek .....a creator, intelligent being, God, or whatever you call it is a reasonable explanation for life, as is pure chance.Some scientists say the universe is organized, that is one of many arguments in favor of a "bearded old man watching over us all" as atheists like to simplify and ridicule it to make it sound impossible......
lucasmez 1 day ago
@jeffiek .......Some say it came to be by pure chance, and to explain it in a way you like to see things: "first there was nothing, than nothing exploded and became something, than something evolved and became us", in an oversimplified, ridicularized way.Please, show me overwhelming evidences that show your position to be correct and mine to be incorrect..You cannot, nobody can, because nobody knows how life came to be, that is one of the questions we cannot answer, at least not yet.
lucasmez 1 day ago
@jeffiek ....And ruling out possible explanations for something we do not understand is not science at all, it is totally blind faith. I have a belief, but I recognize it as being a belief. If you are an atheist, you have a belief, but you do not recognize it as being one, you say your position is the answer for everything.Imagine a round kitchen table, if the whole table represents all the knowledge we can get in the entire universe....
lucasmez 1 day ago
@jeffiek .....I ask you to draw a circle on the table to represent what you know. We would agree we should draw a tiny tiny circle. Now, how ignorant do you have to be to claim yourself as the owner of the truth?
lucasmez 1 day ago
@jeffiek ......As Galileo Galilei said: "Your vain presumption of knowing all can take beginning solely from you never having known anything; for if one has but once experienced the perfect knowledge of one thing, and truly tasted what it is to know, he shall perceive that of infinite other conclusions he understands not so much as one."
lucasmez 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jeffiek Though I hate discussion on beliefs and faiths, I just cannot stand people with the ignorant belief of knowing it all without admitting that their beliefs only comes from faith. This goes to Atheists and everybody else except agnostics.
lucasmez 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChipArgyle I think it would require more faith to think it is there because the water of the ocean created it through time, be it billions of year, than to think someone wrote it..and the DNA is not a simple "I love you" its much more than that..So rule out a reasonable explanation, that`s not science at all, of course look for new things that could explain it, but don`t rule out the ones that could be true...And we`re talking only about DNA.
lucasmez 1 week ago
One of the most succinct, witty explanations I've heard.
Think I'll go NOT collect more stamps.
Candyliz2003 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God's Concept in the QURAN chapter 112:
[Say, "He is Allah, [who is] One, 1
Allah, the Eternal Refuge. 2
He neither begets nor is born, 3
Nor is there to Him any equivalent." 4]
=> to know more about Islam type in google "TheDeenShow"
akeello 3 months ago
Why is it talking about religious beliefs is better than stand-up comedy?
rcguy69 3 months ago 22
he should do standup
qabandiman 3 months ago
Brilliant!
thapaj68 3 months ago
That was great. Thanks for uploading!
AtheistActionNews 3 months ago
People is ignorant. "Life was begun by accident" "Big Bang theory is correct, God doesnt exists" And why canñt God use the Big Bang to create the universe? Bible says clearly "In the beginnig God created the Heavens and the Earth" is that unclear??
norcorneliocastrogom 3 months ago
@norcorneliocastrogom And as usual, one book is all you derive your "evidence" from. You sure showed us, man.
SiGhast 3 months ago
@SiGhast Oh ok, you want more? Why dont you read Lee Strobel life? or his books? Or waht do you think about Malcom Mudgerridge? Read Lee Strobel{s books? Give scientific evidence of the evolution of the eye, an I shut up. Prove me there is no Ark of the Covenant inside Jerusalem Temple beaing controlled by Israels goverment and I shut up
norcorneliocastrogom 3 months ago
@norcorneliocastrogo Evolution is a scientific fact. Keep thinking you're a part of a special group of enlightened people while the rest of the world continues to advance.
Very cute.
SiGhast 3 months ago
@SiGhast Well believe what you want to believe, you will retract on Judgement day...
norcorneliocastrogom 3 months ago
@norcorneliocastrogom If that day comes, then yes, I will -- without a doubt -- regret having lived my life an atheist. I'm very certain it won't, though. But I admit that I cannot know this for sure. I'm a bit agnostic-like in that sense. I suppose I would classify myself as an agnostic atheist (with the only other option being agnostic theist; I don't believe there is such a thing as agnostic -- either you believe or you don't).
SiGhast 3 months ago
@SiGhast Man Im telling you, dont wait till that day or your death´s day. What do you prefer? Live your life as an agnostic and risk that day coming and doom yourself, or living as a Christian, and if the day comes you will be prepared and you will not choose? I prefer the second one
norcorneliocastrogom 3 months ago
@norcorneliocastrogom What you fail to understand is that it's not a conscious choice. I would very much like there to be a God. I can't think of anything more comforting... wouldn't be the least bit afraid of death, either. If I could, I'd choose to believe it is so. I cannot do this. Whatever is going on in my brain, which is technically physical, is preventing me from doing so. It is out of my control.
I'll live my life as I want to and make the best out of the little time I have.
SiGhast 3 months ago
@SiGhast
I'm sorry, but if your atheism is not based in a conscious choice, or, fot that matter, reason... You are not a true atheist.
rikar2001 3 months ago
@rikar2001 "True" atheist? Since when did it become a title you have to work for? Regardless, even if the world shaped me, here I am, rejecting the notion of a god. It's as real as it can be.
I'm not sure you grasp what I'm saying, though. I'm saying it CAN'T BE a choice, fundamentally. I can't wake up one day and simply tell myself I'm gonna start loving someone I despise and PRESTO - I believe that person is my soulmate and I'm completely obsessed with her for the rest of my life.
SiGhast 3 months ago
Comment removed
SiGhast 3 months ago
I'm saying this is all much more related to plain old physics than we seem to think it is. I'm talking about chemical reactions in the brain. Emotions and thoughts shaped by external sources. I'm talking about what should indicate a complete lack of belief in God and anything beyond the material world. There's no soul. Consciousness, while fascinating, is an illusion. There is no purpose. We live to die.
If I'm not a "true atheist", as you call it, then what am I? Just stupid?
SiGhast 3 months ago
@SiGhast We dont live to die, we just live to live and then we die.
Xolfcfan 3 months ago
@Xolfcfan The funny thing is that I was gonna word is EXACTLY like that initially, but changed it for some reason.
SiGhast 3 months ago
@SiGhast You are right. You can't choose to believe or not. You can choose to look and find more information that could change your view of the world. But believing in itself is never a choice.
MrG0TH1ER 1 month ago
@MrG0TH1ER Exactamundo.
SiGhast 1 month ago
@MrG0TH1ER believe me (uneducated) people who can not or will not investigate a topic, CAN choose to (not) believe stuff. You can identify them when they say: " I do (not) agree with you" concerning matters of fact.
niekvdbogert 1 month ago
@niekvdbogert You can't choose to believe in something. You do or don't put it's not something you choose. You can pretend that you believe (or don't) and lie to others and even yourself, but in the end you still can't choose what you believe.
MrG0TH1ER 1 month ago
@norcorneliocastrogom Good old Pascal's Wager, what then if you chose the wrong god, or your god is insulted by your selfish reason for believing in him?
blarghblarghblargh 3 months ago
@norcorneliocastrogom prove there is an ark ya fundie twat. Strobel is a YEC dickhead and muggeridge a pompous crashing bore. Go to talk origins to get information about the evolution of the eye, now shut the fuck up
Rockster969 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The atheist Delusion!
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
1tabligh 3 months ago
I love being an arrogant athiest...
dspikey 4 months ago
@dspikey its better then stamp collecting thats for sure!
mikaila31 3 months ago
Not knowing how the cells originated means exactly that.
drewnumbertwo 4 months ago
@Mogley52 You sound like an intelligent guy only you got your "facts" wrong. Maybe one day you will start reading REAL books and be able to study your way out of your dark religion. Good luck.
An0maly777 4 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 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 4 months ago
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 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 4 months ago
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 4 months ago 2
@Mogley52 There was life of a sort before cells, but cell-based life probably wiped them out entirely, as far as we can tell. Life originated from somewhere, we're actually trying to find out, rather than make up an answer.
bonyoldbehind 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
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 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
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 4 months ago
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. Even for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing harm and even extinction, not upward evolution. Genetic similarities are better explained due to a common design for common purposes.
Mogley52 4 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 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
I find most atheists smug, self-satisfied and condescending those who do not accept that they have solved the secrets of the universe. If you bring this up to them, their response is to start attacking religion as if disproving negatives proves their thesis.
AxelQC 4 months ago
@AxelQC The atheist never claims to have solved the secrets of the universe. The atheist is the one saying "I don't know, but there must be a natural reason for it" instead of the theist, who says "well I don't know, so let's just say God did it".
OneUhBuv 4 months ago
@AxelQC *facepalm*
VUTFC 4 months ago
The fact is theism had to exist before its counter culture existed and as a counter culture (inherent in the term atheist, "without god") it's just another personal choice. Atheism is only theory, it isn't a fact, it's a hypothesis (and the conclusions ALWAYS have bias connotations depending on the scientist). A person has to have a personal reason to accept the banner of atheism, making them as subjective as a theist. It's point of view just like something exists before there's anti something.
hellstrueassassin 5 months ago
@hellstrueassassin Just like slavery had to exist before the abolitionists.
OneUhBuv 4 months ago
@OneUhBuv hate to break it to you, atheism isn't some kind of great liberation, you stick yourself into some one-track box of Aristotelian logic, and hate everyone that disagrees with you. You're the alter-ego of religious types like Torquemada and Jim Jones.
hellstrueassassin 4 months ago
@hellstrueassassin Actually, you open yourself out of the box of blind faith and jump out into the world of discovery and reality. I don't hate everyone that disagrees with me; listening to people disagree with my beliefs is what made me an atheist.
OneUhBuv 4 months ago
@OneUhBuv Discovery is important. Theists and atheists should agree that if one side says it's faith and the other side knows their logic comes from a subjective source somewhere in history, then their methodology on accepting reality isn't really that different. Aristotle said to use your sensory perception, but it was sensory perception that told people the Earth was flat, so systems like math and science always throw inconclusive philosophy into it to keep it working in the real world.
hellstrueassassin 4 months ago
@hellstrueassassin Maybe the Europeans thought the Earth was flat, but the Arabs had known about the shape of the Earth for a while.
OneUhBuv 4 months ago
@OneUhBuv The peak of culture has changed at different times for different cultures in different ways, technically Greeks and Romans had philosophy of a spherical Earth around 600 B.C (Europeans)., so how does information get lost between that time and Europe 1500 to 1600 A.D.? Several reasons, some are religious, but religious revisionism isn't anything new or one dimensional either. The Quran in 600 A.D.(C.E.) revised a story nearly 1,000 older with Abraham and worked it's way up history.
hellstrueassassin 4 months ago
@hellstrueassassin Well, actually, it was sensory perception that made people wonder about it's shape.
VUTFC 4 months ago
@VUTFC I didn't say it wasn't, but even when they upgraded geocentric theory to heliocentric theory they were still wrong because the universe doesn't revolve around the Earth or Sun. Even the scientific community then would have probably burned you alive if you said we're one solar system in one galaxy with billions of stars floating around a supermassive black hole, and then there is an unknown number of galaxies on top of it, but the smaller discoveries lead to today's consensus anyway.
hellstrueassassin 4 months ago
The post office created the universe. All hail the post office and kill the postcard collectors!
XmrdX 5 months ago
@XmrdX You´re right! It is time we declare war on the deluded postcard senders and pigeon posters, and let the Post Office reign supreme once and for all! Philatelists of all countries unite!
Dietseleeuw 5 months ago
@Dietseleeuw And they lick the stamps!!!1!eleven!
XmrdX 5 months ago
@XmrdX That is blasphemy! That is MADNESS! Only the Sacred Personnel of the Post Office is allowed to place stamps on letters. And postcards are an abomination! According to 1 Thurn und Taxis 13:37 all mail should consist solely of handwritten text, as our ancestors have done in all the past centuries, a tradition that must be honoured.
Dietseleeuw 5 months ago
The possibilities of a higher being is not zero, however, the Christian one... well it's as good as this speech.
CantBelikeit 5 months ago
There is no god. If you have proof of one, message me. You would be the first.
thinkboutit 5 months ago
Study then you are goin to be an atheist.
stopandchek 6 months ago
This is a GREAT , GREAT VIDEO!!!
THANK YOU!
JOHNINCOLUMBUS 6 months ago 2
A-philatelist... that is a perfect description of what Atheism is all about.
JOHNINCOLUMBUS 6 months ago
Comment removed
JOHNINCOLUMBUS 6 months ago
Comment removed
JOHNINCOLUMBUS 6 months ago
Comment removed
JOHNINCOLUMBUS 6 months ago
Dubliner magazine (14 July 2011 page 20) interview with the chairman of Atheist Ireland.
Quote: “We [atheists] are open to evidence and what there is to reality in reality. At our world conference in Dublin we even invited an Islamic research group to attend our weekend gathering. They were outside the main hall with a stall selling their message and debating with us. We made them very welcome.”
It's not just Muslims who misrepresent themselves by lying. They weren't invited..
FEXRO 7 months ago
@dimaniak 1, I would simply say: "I brought you into this world because I wanted to bring you up and allow you to experience it" then 2: should die? Telling a child they should/would/could/will die is a nasty thing to do in most cases and you shouldn't be a parent if that's what you bring them up to say it to them.
ConnorXV 7 months ago
Haha, brilliant!
Subbed!
thedutchman01 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A question for atheists. In a world where there's no proof of God's existence or of life after death; how will you explain to your children why you brought them into the world and why they should die?
dimaniak 7 months ago
I really like the way this guy explained this. Bravo
thinkboutit 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
to listen to opinions of ex atheists and ex christians plz go to rekkitten on youtube peace
TheAngelofliberty 7 months ago
Well done!
MatheusLegenda 7 months ago
10 people are religious stamp collectors
lucasisking 7 months ago
@LettuceReason . How can you say we don't understand how small [as humans] we are? As far as we both know, man is the most dominant being in our universe... As far as we both *know*
DDazzle1 7 months ago
I did not understand the last joke :(
87Philips 8 months ago
What we cannot understand with our present logic and reason is simply wrong? The post office analogy? Use humour to paint over any lack of intellectual depth?
I understand agnosticism, but atheism is so smug and self serving, that the lack of humility in how small we truly are is astounding.
LettuceReason 8 months ago
@LettuceReason What are you talking about? "Lack of humility in how small we truly are"? What do you think his rant about the 100 million galaxies *was*? Fine, let me explain -- it's arrogant for Christians to think that the consciousness of the universe cares what we do with our dingles. Atheists recognize how small we are, which is why we think that the Christian idea of a god that listens to and answers prayers is ridiculous. It'd be like saying we can hear and answer the prayers of bacteria!
johnclavis 8 months ago 2
@johnclavis it would be! It's incredible to fathom the idea with our limited human brains! But it would not be like saying that 'we' can hear bacteria, but perhaps God could! His rant about the 100 million galaxies is a prime example of what I said!
Fine, let me explain. (again) Atheists ten to think that anything outside of what they can imagine with their human brain, is impossible. That is why the "God" concept is so baffling, (and so ridiculous) to them.
LettuceReason 8 months ago
@LettuceReason Perhaps when you finally reach the level of 'our' present logic and reason, you'd see why religion is so ludicrous to many Atheists.
Contrary to what you claim, most Atheists are aware of how limited and myopic our capabilities to comprehend the universe is.
Juvjuv87 8 months ago
@Juvjuv87 when I "reach the level".......of YOUR present logic and reason? I am only human, just like you. I have had the same access to the books and institutions as you do. I was agnostic at best for decades. I used to think exactly the same way as you do now. However, there was no "dummying up" when I experienced the transcendent knowledge and power and grace of God. That is why I am here, talking with you. Not to spout superiority in any way, but to share the good news with you, my friend.
LettuceReason 8 months ago
@LettuceReason lol. I wasn't claiming superiority. Which is why i used ' ' on 'our'. I by no means am very well verse in the sciences either, at least, not as well as those actually in that field. I was merely quoting your previous comment that claims 'what we cannot understand with our present logic and reason is simply wrong' twisting it. I seriously doubt you've internalized all the knowledge, logic and reasoning of our time enough to qualify that statement.
Juvjuv87 8 months ago
@Juvjuv87 of course, I could be wrong. You might be a top scientist or academia in the fields of neuroscience or evolutionary biology! Though I seriously doubt so, judging from what i'm reading coming from you.
And yea, you're human, just like me. So? Are you suggesting that everyone's the same? Uhh... okay.
And sure, you have access to the same books as I do (well most of them anyway. Censorship is lame here):...), but whether or not you read them and internalize them is the thing.
Juvjuv87 8 months ago
@LettuceReason Also, contrary to you, I was a christian for decades before turning Atheist. I know exactly how people like you think and operate, though I'm not so arrogant enough to claim that you're all the same. You don't know how I think.
So yea, when you finally reach the level of 'our' present logic and reasoning... :D
Just enjoy the joke and move on. You're not gonna be convincing anyone around here.
Juvjuv87 8 months ago
@Juvjuv87 We 'turn' atheist only when we are angry at God. If there were no God, there would be no atheists. You called yourself a christian, probably by association.
I find it interesting how in the same paragraph you say "I know exactly how you people think, and you dont know how I think" . who is arrogant? I am already familiar and experienced with your 'level'. I will move on as I am obviously arousing your anger. It happens like that alot.
LettuceReason 8 months ago
@LettuceReason Again, you're simplifying thing to what you can understand. Don't assume you know me, and why I chose Atheism. People are not all the same, regardless of what you want to believe.
I find it interesting how you only pick the parts you wanna read to form your argument. Selective reading much? Don't take my words out of context.
It's harder to understand science than religion. No two-way about that. Sorry. I seriously doubt you're that familiar with atheism.
Juvjuv87 8 months ago
@LettuceReason No idea where you get that I'm annoyed. I'm rather amused. It's been awhile since I've debated with theists about religion, since in most cases it's not worth my time. But I'm starting to remember why I don't bother anymore. All the same crap over and over, never new arguments. Groupthink much? It's starting to get olddddd.
Perhaps it's time to read those science and reason books you have access too, so you can come back up to 'our' level. lolololol.
Juvjuv87 8 months ago
@Juvjuv87 it's fun ridiculing Christ, isnt it? "lololololo"
LettuceReason 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LettuceReason Enjoy it while it lasts.
AdmRomulus 7 months ago
@LettuceReason - it's fun ridiculing any silly belief that people take seriously. Thinking "You can't be serious"
Gordonisgreat 7 months ago
@Gordonisgreat I wasn't being serious of course. I was using sarcasm to make a point. Perhaps that wasn't clear to you.
LettuceReason 7 months ago
@LettuceReason - it was clear, you don't get it. You have an imaginary invisible friend who grants wishes, and you think that is sensible! Sweet zombie Jesus!
Gordonisgreat 7 months ago
@Gordonisgreat your childish comments are typical. Tedious and tiresome also. (right back to the first point that you commented on, 'ridiculing Christ'). Got any of your own thoughts?, or did you sleep through the fourth grade too?
LettuceReason 7 months ago
@LettuceReason - because only an idiot wouldn't have an imaginary friend?
Gordonisgreat 7 months ago
@Gordonisgreat but I'm not talking about imaginary friends. Only YOU are.
LettuceReason 7 months ago
@LettuceReason - sorry, is Jesus more of an imaginary acquaintance to you than an imaginary friend?
Gordonisgreat 7 months ago
@Gordonisgreat ah semantics! Now you really are showing off your deep thinking! Please try to convey an idea on me, and this time, without insults. Ready? Impress me!
p.s. the topic has to be God related.
LettuceReason 7 months ago
@LettuceReason - why do I need to impress you?
Why don't you try to show off an intelligent idea about god? It'd be the first one in centuries, so it'd make the news.
Gordonisgreat 7 months ago
@Gordonisgreat because you havent impressed me with insults. You havent said anything that makes any intelligent point. Plus, I asked you first! Now, we can play the "you first, no YOU first" game if you want to, but I have a feeling that you are smarter than that. Am I right?
LettuceReason 7 months ago