Dammit! I knew it. It's all about the mustache. God has one, Jesus has one, and I can't grow a decent one. I'm not worthy. I'm scum. I'm gonna start praying to Tom Selleck.
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
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 your ignorance does not count as evidence against the theory of evolution. i mean your ignorance is overwhelming, amazingly overwhelming, but it just doesn't count as evidence against evolution nor for creatardism. but pls keep on entertaining us atheists with your ignorant drivel.
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.
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 living 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
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
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!
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.
I was thinking of Article 6 of the Constitution: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The tenth amendment extends this provision to the States. I must admit that I cannot see how any State can maintain a requirement that its officeholders not be atheists under these provisions.
Surely a requirement that a person be not an atheist - that is, that a person must have a religion to stand for office - is necessarily a "religious test", and hence unConstitutional? Has there never been a case brought in these States?
@puffin51 The Constitution states that religion should take no part in government, and overrides any state laws, so technically anybody should be able to run for office regardless of what the state says.
In the statistics by the Federal Bureau of Prisons you mentioned there is a large category of people (about 17%!) who did not give any information about their religious affiliation. I think it is not totally unrealistic to suppose that they are unaffiliated to any organization and therefore fall into the category Atheists/Agnostics/Humanists etc. The share of the general US population unaffiliated to a religious group is 15%. So, 17% of unaffiliated jail inmates is nothing to be proud of!
Enjoy wasting your life being 'pure' (although we all know that those who are slaves to religion still fail to follow the guidelines whenever it suits them), only to find that there's nothing after death. I'll be fucking copious amounts of varying people, drinking, gambling, eating meat on Saturday/Sunday (depending which part of the bible you believe), pissing on churches and generally having a good time. Sucks to be you.
@alagodny I'm not Christian, therefore I have all rights to embrace my abilities as a human being and judge the fuck out of everybody.
And don't tell me to read the bible. I used to believe in God until I read it through front to back for the third time, and realised what a ludicrous cunt God actually was.
Ok if there is no God ,If you can`t pay for your sin right or wrong you don`t really care if you have to kill why would you not do it if there is no punishment ofcouse if somebody don`t find out about your crime .other thing the Catholic church is a men made religion and there are many ways to interprete the Bible to my condoms are nice but I hate to use them but is not a sin to me
way to go south carolina, I found a fun artlcle about it:
americanhumanist.o r g/HNN/details/2009-12-can-an-atheist-serve-in-public-office
"Herb Silverman, the Secular Coalition for America's president and founder, may be one of the most well-known examples of the challenges atheists running for office face. Silverman fought an eight year battle--culminating in $100,000 spent by South Carolina to keep Silverman out of office "
What needs to happen in those states is to start a aethist party, then run for a office. The first one to tell you no, sue their ass off, and the state.
I believe that Religious authorities apply a lot of quiet pressure to society to sanction atheists whenever and wherever possible. Atheists are their biggest threat. I would not dare to reveal at my workplace that I am an atheist. I can imagine my boss, who I believe is religious, would try to find a way to fire me.
The prison/religion link is not really anything to do with religion itself I think - more to do with education. Atheists tend to be more highly educated, and so in good jobs, whilst religious people tend to be less intelligent and so more likely to be out of work and fall into crime.
@grisollon Ya, but it comes down to popular vote in the end. There is no official rule, but candidates know if they declare their unbelief then their campaign is doomed.
its amazing at the hypocrisy of religious people and arrogant WTF yeh that this whole fucking universe was not created for us and only for us how the fuck is that arrogant religious people have the most arrogance of any human beings on the planet its all total bulshit but any one willing to beleive in jonah and the whale has some fucked up logical and reasoning skills
As a Christian I was a missionary among pre-modern people and I saw how brutally hard it is for the children of single parents. They often die from lack of adequate provision.
While in a modern Western society it is somewhat more feasible for a single parent to raise children, it is still often very hard. In any case, our basic instincts and social values were developed long, long before technology. I think we should respect what evolution built into us. It is there for good historical reasons.
I want to make clear that I am writing as a post-Christian. I don't believe anyone is going to hell for fornication. However, I believe that basic sexual morality evolved because certain rules proved conducive to the survival of the species. A taboo against fornication is not a cultural universal, but it is common. The evolutionary reason seems obvious enough: children will be much better cared for by a father than a mother than by only one parent, particularly in a pre-technological culture.
Why do people seem so convinced that premarital sexual abstinence is almost impossible? Up until around 1975 or 1980 it was the norm in middle America where I grew up. When I was in high school (1975-79), I would be willing to bet that less than a quarter of the kids had sex before graduation. Back in my parents' high school days probably less than 10% did. Now probably 90 or 95% do. Is abstinence a physical impossibility? No. Should it be the norm? Yes, for many reasons, none religious.
"When I was in high school (1975-79), I would be willing to bet that less than a quarter of the kids had sex before graduation. Back in my parents' high school days probably less than 10% did."
Thomas Jefferson made sure there was a 'wall of seperation' between church and state. Over the the past 230 odd years, religious fundamentalists have tried to tear that wall down. Putting bullshit religious tests for office in state constitutions is part of that.
No one will give a shit about it until it someone makes a stink. Then, guess what, Fox news will run a story about "Oh these silly atheists. They won't get elected, so why bother!"
Isn't it just sad that even if there a great, charismatic politician, who had good intentions, a plan, and knew his/her stuff about law, economics, etc..., this person would likely not be elected, simply because they would not win the religious vote.
Uuuuuurk: "nah contraceptives have been used thousands of years before christanity, for example during the stone ages they used pig intestines as condoms."
You really don't know the answer to this? Clearly, 'atheists' don't have the best thinking skills.
It is because you don't represent anything. You represent opposition. You're "anti-theist". Why don't you actually make something of yourself instead of opposing everyone else? You're brain dead if you don't understand this.
As for your claim about lower crime rates... It's no surprise that you're more religious than we are. Stop being a pussy and go get laid and break some laws. Wuss.
Just in case you're confused by my statement "It's no surprise that you're more religious than we are". In the past the word religious meant trying to merit favor through adherence to the law. This is what the Pharisees were doing. The Pharisees were the atheists. And notice they were accusing Jesus of breaking the laws.
You're all cowards. Not to mention dumb as rocks when it comes to understanding anything. Keep bitching about how bad you have it in our free country. Complain. Complain.
Everybody knows that the underlying reason for atheists not getting elected is because we eat babies(evolved animal). I prefer mine slow cooked on the BBQ with a mild garlic(evolved plant) rub and 4hr marinade with a pepper(evolved plant) and lemon(evolved plant) mixture. A side of evil satanicly blessed potatoes(artificially selectively evolved plant) and of course, two glasses of unholy water(made safe by science) to chase it down.
My fave is baby hair moose a la chocolat. The tricky part of this dish is to make sure you get the tender hair from the nape of the neck or it gets too stringy. The part where you warm up the hair is crucial to the recipe. If you heat it up too quick, it will burn and come out nasty.
Garnish with a swirl of baby blood, well oxygenated( fresh kill).
Personally I could care less as to whether the politician being elected is religious or atheist, as what matters the most is how good they handle their power, and how wise and just their decisions are and whether they *love* the people they rule or are just doing it for themselves, their egos, more power, etc.
Can I get a source for the "fewer atheists in prison" bit. I've heard it many times in atheistic arguments, but I've never seen any source, much less a reliable one, cited.
It seems like one of those factoids that gets tossed around and used because it is convenient and helpful to do so, but most atheists I know can't say where it came from or how they are so sure it is true.
I just want to know that it is actually true before I go using it in my own arguments against other people's "truths."
Everyone says that, but I have yet to be pointed to any official documentation...just other atheist websites that also claim "Federal Bureau of Prison Statistics."
Is there a specific report name this came from? A year it was issued? I've been all over the government's official statistic site & I cannot find ANY publicly reported numbers on prisoner religions, much less these numbers.
Sad day with supposedly rational atheists thumbs down merely for asking for proof for a claim. Sad day indeed.
You may have gotten thumbs down because there is a slide in the video with the numbers I was using. It was a 1997 Federal Bureau of Prisons statistic. Try a google search for Federal Bureau of Prisons statistics by religion.
Near as I can find, these numbers were released by Denise Golumbaski, who claimed (and may be) a Research Analyst for the Federal Bureau of Prisons on March 5, 1997. She sent them direct to Rod Swift at HolySmoke(dot)org.
But she also just sent an e-mail & I can find NO official documentation to validate or back-up her claim. I've been all over the OFFICIAL justice stats. websites and the ONLY religious statistics they present are for hate crimes and discrimination cases.
You're right to ask for the source. My search has told me so far that the sources are actually quite questionable. They would not be used in scholarly circumstances.
However note that there has not been any report or statistics that refutes the actual claim until now.
Nonetheless the argument should not be used in a proper debate.
@NekoMouser I was unable to find a first hand information on that matter however I found a response to a freedom of information act request to the Federal Bureau of Prisons dating 2010, that supports the statistics, which , however, is again second hand information. BUT you can do the same request yourself and post the actual numbers then we'll see if they match!
Honestly, Atheistic nations (China) last longer, have lower crime rates, and bail countries like good ol' US out when we have hardships. GOOD OL' CHINA COMIN' TAH SAVE THA DAY!!
I bet that if an atheist ran in 08 he surely would've won. we've tried to be so unbiased to everyone that we've indeed tipped over the scales and had those who are presented as 'minorities' now held up as the majority had been. Simple, look in your scholarship application book, how many scholarships are out there for 'African Americans' and mothers, compare that to working class white males, I have found only about 10 in the whole book so far the last one being the Warren Fencl Scholarship.
(BTW. I say 'African American' Because I do not believe that the majority of black people living here in the USA were born in Africa, or were their parents. yes there are some, but i do not consider myself a german american or him an english american, or her a french american, we are all americans, we need to stop the diversity, diversity is not unity and this is the United States of America.
Smart comment, I agree. We are all descendants of Europe, are we European American? No, just American.
We still have a lot of issues to work out in this country regarding minorities, atheism included. People don't understand it so they reject it as something evil or bad.
Let science be taught in schools, religion in churches and allow everyone the freedom to learn and discover beliefs on their own.
I agree with you that that is completely biased, land of the free? not quite.
I wouldn't go as far as to say it reached the edges of slavery or how women weren't allowed to vote, (slavery being a little more intense i suppose, and well you still have more rights than women did at the time), but none the less this discrimination is disgusting.
(This coming from a firm Christian girl with a non-biased background [aka parents, Chirstian as they were, didn't instill church, I chose it for myself])
To true! There are very few modern moustachionados. Eddie Murphy is another, and Sean Connery. And the new kid on the block is Luke Wilson in The Darjeeling Ltd. Add to that Gary Oldman in The Dark knight.
Were you joking? For the millionth time; OBAMA IS NOT MUSLIM! He has gone to a Christian church for DECADES. Where do you think the controversy over REVEREND WRIGHT came from?? Muslims don't have REVERENDS. Sheesh.
Alas Atheist groups cannot fight against the Christian Reich in America out of fear of reprisal. In America Christians are well know for preaching how peaceful and accepting they are, while at the same time condemning and often attacking verbally and physically anyone that disagrees with their beliefs. Look up a video call "Wife Swap: God Warrior" and you will learn exactly what kind of people American Christians are.
Age 3: I realized that the Easter Bunny was made up and confronted my mother asking "Why did you lie to me?", and she tried to convince me that the he was real. It bothered me that she had lied to me about something like that.
Age 4: I figured out that Santa Claus was fake, as well. I challenged my mother on the issue, again asking why she had lied to me. I got an answer to this effect: "It wasn't a lie, it's just fun for kids to believe".
Age 7: I deduced that this 'god' character must also be fake. I concluded that churches were like baseball fields or movie theaters- just entertainment for grownups.
My friends and I enjoyed pretending to be superheroes and such, adults must like to play pretend too, right?
Age 10: I first spoke of my idea. By this time I was thoroughly immune to all stupidity virii. Oddly, adults still 'believed'.
I assumed(correctly) that someone had forgotten to tell them it was make believe.
atheism is a threat to their entire worldview. I really don't think they're capable of understanding atheism. (and I say this as an ex-christian) So it makes them nervous.
"I really don't think they're capable of understanding atheism.", there really isn't much to understand. Everyone starts out an atheist. You are either convinced by emotional blackmail and shockingly bad fiction or you are not.
When you're born into a religious family, there's not much chance that you won't be successfully indoctrinated. and once you accept the "emotional blackmail", Faith is the main requirement, and doubt is evil. So even asking yourself questions is something to fight against.
If America was a single mind, Lady Liberty, the fact that it is actually illegal to be an atheist and stand for office in even one of her states would (or should) be embarrassing. How on Earth did they get THAT law around the constitution? Are States free to pass laws that contradict the constitution?
It used to be that states could do as they pleased, the US constitution only protecting people from federal oppression. Most of these ridiculous laws and state constitution clauses date from that period.
But after the civil war, the Reconstruction Amendments were passed. One of these, the 14th amendment, arguably includes a principle called incorporation which applies bill of rights guarantees to the states.
Now anti-atheist laws and clauses would be ruled unconstitutional if taken to court.
100% violent crimes are from ppl who act atheisticly? Then god acted atheisticly in bible?(by killing lots of children) What about stone all who work on sabbath? Or kill all who drink alchohol? and so on, and on, bible is one filthy book, So shut your vile lie christian shit deep to yourself!!
Typical Christian response, anyone that disagrees with your dogma is ignorant. Meanwhile you will beat an atheist with the cross while calling them heathen, godless, and a dozen other names, but if they dare try to fight back you accuse them of not showing you respect.
Ignorance: Making people feel undeservedly rightous for over 2000 years.
Fantastic video, Paul. You always hit the nail on the head.
The 'least trusted' statistic was the first thing I heard about attitudes towards atheism in the US. I was stunned. You pick apart the ideas behind it extremely eloquently.
The godless atheist label comes from the "red scare" of McCarthyism when communists were labeled evil and godless. If anyone suggested they were atheists they were labeled as communists and enemies of America.
Around 30% of the adult population of my country said in the last census that they have no religion. (5% didn't know/wouldn't say). It's higher for people under 50.
I'm just beginning to appreciate the difference it makes to public life!
You should be happy. I mean who needs a atheist politicians lying to you. When we already have religious one doing that already.
Lone432345 2 months ago in playlist atheist
Dammit! I knew it. It's all about the mustache. God has one, Jesus has one, and I can't grow a decent one. I'm not worthy. I'm scum. I'm gonna start praying to Tom Selleck.
ChipArgyle 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
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
@Mogley52 your ignorance does not count as evidence against the theory of evolution. i mean your ignorance is overwhelming, amazingly overwhelming, but it just doesn't count as evidence against evolution nor for creatardism. but pls keep on entertaining us atheists with your ignorant drivel.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
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
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 living 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
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
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
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
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
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
I was thinking of Article 6 of the Constitution: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The tenth amendment extends this provision to the States. I must admit that I cannot see how any State can maintain a requirement that its officeholders not be atheists under these provisions.
puffin51 6 months ago
Surely a requirement that a person be not an atheist - that is, that a person must have a religion to stand for office - is necessarily a "religious test", and hence unConstitutional? Has there never been a case brought in these States?
puffin51 8 months ago
@puffin51 The Constitution states that religion should take no part in government, and overrides any state laws, so technically anybody should be able to run for office regardless of what the state says.
LiFam2 6 months ago
In the statistics by the Federal Bureau of Prisons you mentioned there is a large category of people (about 17%!) who did not give any information about their religious affiliation. I think it is not totally unrealistic to suppose that they are unaffiliated to any organization and therefore fall into the category Atheists/Agnostics/Humanists etc. The share of the general US population unaffiliated to a religious group is 15%. So, 17% of unaffiliated jail inmates is nothing to be proud of!
Troul478 10 months ago
@alagodny I'll have a nice life.
Enjoy wasting your life being 'pure' (although we all know that those who are slaves to religion still fail to follow the guidelines whenever it suits them), only to find that there's nothing after death. I'll be fucking copious amounts of varying people, drinking, gambling, eating meat on Saturday/Sunday (depending which part of the bible you believe), pissing on churches and generally having a good time. Sucks to be you.
TalonWolf 1 year ago
@alagodny I'm not Christian, therefore I have all rights to embrace my abilities as a human being and judge the fuck out of everybody.
And don't tell me to read the bible. I used to believe in God until I read it through front to back for the third time, and realised what a ludicrous cunt God actually was.
TalonWolf 1 year ago
@alagodny Your failure with logic and reason in that comment is only matched by your worshipping of an insanely evil and malicious deity ¬.¬
TalonWolf 1 year ago
@alagodny Well, if you're a Christian you shouldn't be judging and insulting others - that's all I'm saying.
Pressuming you are Christian, of course.
TalonWolf 1 year ago
@alagodny28 How very non-Christian of you.
TalonWolf 1 year ago
There are several that ban anyone with Christian connections too, grow up.
daddyg321 1 year ago
You're absolutely wrong when you say that abstinence is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy.
I remember this 2000 year-old story about some Jewish chick named Mary who got pregnant while practicing abstinence.
sleazybtd 1 year ago
11 pissed off Christians missed the "Like" button.
cdfox85 1 year ago
Ok if there is no God ,If you can`t pay for your sin right or wrong you don`t really care if you have to kill why would you not do it if there is no punishment ofcouse if somebody don`t find out about your crime .other thing the Catholic church is a men made religion and there are many ways to interprete the Bible to my condoms are nice but I hate to use them but is not a sin to me
reniercosta 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alagodny28
>you are incredibly stupid and the sad part of it you will never know it.
Oh, the irony.
Buzzap14 1 year ago
way to go south carolina, I found a fun artlcle about it:
americanhumanist.o r g/HNN/details/2009-12-can-an-atheist-serve-in-public-office
"Herb Silverman, the Secular Coalition for America's president and founder, may be one of the most well-known examples of the challenges atheists running for office face. Silverman fought an eight year battle--culminating in $100,000 spent by South Carolina to keep Silverman out of office "
recyard12x 1 year ago
What needs to happen in those states is to start a aethist party, then run for a office. The first one to tell you no, sue their ass off, and the state.
recyard12x 1 year ago
I believe that Religious authorities apply a lot of quiet pressure to society to sanction atheists whenever and wherever possible. Atheists are their biggest threat. I would not dare to reveal at my workplace that I am an atheist. I can imagine my boss, who I believe is religious, would try to find a way to fire me.
DandAinTac 1 year ago
The prison/religion link is not really anything to do with religion itself I think - more to do with education. Atheists tend to be more highly educated, and so in good jobs, whilst religious people tend to be less intelligent and so more likely to be out of work and fall into crime.
lozman67 1 year ago
@grisollon Ya, but it comes down to popular vote in the end. There is no official rule, but candidates know if they declare their unbelief then their campaign is doomed.
freethinker923 1 year ago
Obama's an atheist.
freethinker923 1 year ago
@freethinker923 he's a christain, don't you remember the fun quotes from his pastor during the elections?
recyard12x 1 year ago
its amazing at the hypocrisy of religious people and arrogant WTF yeh that this whole fucking universe was not created for us and only for us how the fuck is that arrogant religious people have the most arrogance of any human beings on the planet its all total bulshit but any one willing to beleive in jonah and the whale has some fucked up logical and reasoning skills
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@mortuus8 first of all fertillety gods and godesses is not a new concept... it has been around for thousands and thousands of years.
if u know very little about history and claim a bunch of things u dont know about, well then it might sound dubious.
i dont bother so much about this discussion that i will get citations.. however look it up for urself: wikipedia ---> birth control ---> history
as for you, if you dont know about something dont argue like you do.
Uuuuurk 1 year ago
@mortuus8 gffggf
Uuuuurk 1 year ago
@mortuus8 its what i learned in history class aswell as read in articles. i dont know how they knewed it worked or understand how it worked.
what do u mean whit b? even if it was after christanity how would ppl know that contreceptives would work?
Uuuuurk 1 year ago
90% of statistics are made up.
awesomenize1 1 year ago
@awesomenize1 Actually they did a study on that it it turned out that only 73% of statistics were made up. So there :-P
dkt80 1 year ago
5/5
DakaSha 2 years ago
As a Christian I was a missionary among pre-modern people and I saw how brutally hard it is for the children of single parents. They often die from lack of adequate provision.
While in a modern Western society it is somewhat more feasible for a single parent to raise children, it is still often very hard. In any case, our basic instincts and social values were developed long, long before technology. I think we should respect what evolution built into us. It is there for good historical reasons.
Puchicas9 2 years ago
I want to make clear that I am writing as a post-Christian. I don't believe anyone is going to hell for fornication. However, I believe that basic sexual morality evolved because certain rules proved conducive to the survival of the species. A taboo against fornication is not a cultural universal, but it is common. The evolutionary reason seems obvious enough: children will be much better cared for by a father than a mother than by only one parent, particularly in a pre-technological culture.
Puchicas9 2 years ago
Why do people seem so convinced that premarital sexual abstinence is almost impossible? Up until around 1975 or 1980 it was the norm in middle America where I grew up. When I was in high school (1975-79), I would be willing to bet that less than a quarter of the kids had sex before graduation. Back in my parents' high school days probably less than 10% did. Now probably 90 or 95% do. Is abstinence a physical impossibility? No. Should it be the norm? Yes, for many reasons, none religious.
Puchicas9 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"When I was in high school (1975-79), I would be willing to bet that less than a quarter of the kids had sex before graduation. Back in my parents' high school days probably less than 10% did."
I'd like to house u
flylike1 2 years ago
@Larsinger58 Genesis 38 states that Onan "spilled his seed onto the Earth." Therefore, he was killed by God.
Guin987 2 years ago
well reasoned. I enjoyed the video!
cryosynthe 2 years ago
Fantastic video. I've included it on my playlist of atheist/agnostic/humanist videos.
ehhhhhhhhhh 2 years ago
0:24
hah!
thats probably how they see atheists too!
warpedwiselegoman 2 years ago
Great video! Thanks for posting it as a response. Now get to work on more new material!
KingHeathen 2 years ago
this deserves at least a million veiws....
Giblinono 2 years ago 2
Thomas Jefferson made sure there was a 'wall of seperation' between church and state. Over the the past 230 odd years, religious fundamentalists have tried to tear that wall down. Putting bullshit religious tests for office in state constitutions is part of that.
kodiakfred140 2 years ago 16
Makes sense.
FlamingBat 2 years ago
Great video... 5* and sub
AJBonkoski 2 years ago
seriously? athiest can't be elected in 8 states????
i'm no expert on american law but is that not in breach of the constitution and freedom from religion?
mambuduomally 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
PrplPplEatr 2 years ago
Bullshit.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
No one will give a shit about it until it someone makes a stink. Then, guess what, Fox news will run a story about "Oh these silly atheists. They won't get elected, so why bother!"
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago 2
Isn't it just sad that even if there a great, charismatic politician, who had good intentions, a plan, and knew his/her stuff about law, economics, etc..., this person would likely not be elected, simply because they would not win the religious vote.
SilverIgnika 2 years ago 2
nah contraceptives have been used thousands of years before christanity, for example during the stone ages they used pig intestines as condoms.
otherwise ur video is gr8
Uuuuurk 2 years ago
Uuuuuurk: "nah contraceptives have been used thousands of years before christanity, for example during the stone ages they used pig intestines as condoms."
That statement is false.
eequalsfb 2 years ago 10
Comment removed
AholeAtheist 1 year ago
@eequalsfb Before contraception infanticide was the most common form of birth control.
Moses was an example of the common practice of leaving a child to die in the wilderness.
Religious condemnation meant any found babies condemned to the army or domestic service for religious scum to buy and exploit.
Religious attitudes to babies has always been sick, many many such killings were done so as not to offend religious dogma.
Religion wants people to cruely kill their babies like in the bible.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@eequalsfb It was sheep bowels they used...(Joke)
sulthus 1 year ago
You really don't know the answer to this? Clearly, 'atheists' don't have the best thinking skills.
It is because you don't represent anything. You represent opposition. You're "anti-theist". Why don't you actually make something of yourself instead of opposing everyone else? You're brain dead if you don't understand this.
As for your claim about lower crime rates... It's no surprise that you're more religious than we are. Stop being a pussy and go get laid and break some laws. Wuss.
knowwaie 7 months ago
Just in case you're confused by my statement "It's no surprise that you're more religious than we are". In the past the word religious meant trying to merit favor through adherence to the law. This is what the Pharisees were doing. The Pharisees were the atheists. And notice they were accusing Jesus of breaking the laws.
You're all cowards. Not to mention dumb as rocks when it comes to understanding anything. Keep bitching about how bad you have it in our free country. Complain. Complain.
knowwaie 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Uuuuurk
"for example during the stone ages they used pig intestines as condoms"
The oldest know condoms don't even go back a millenia.
tskasa1 1 year ago
Everybody knows that the underlying reason for atheists not getting elected is because we eat babies(evolved animal). I prefer mine slow cooked on the BBQ with a mild garlic(evolved plant) rub and 4hr marinade with a pepper(evolved plant) and lemon(evolved plant) mixture. A side of evil satanicly blessed potatoes(artificially selectively evolved plant) and of course, two glasses of unholy water(made safe by science) to chase it down.
saxmanchiro 2 years ago 4
wow what a comment lmao!
rgtjyj 2 years ago
I forgot to mention desert.
My fave is baby hair moose a la chocolat. The tricky part of this dish is to make sure you get the tender hair from the nape of the neck or it gets too stringy. The part where you warm up the hair is crucial to the recipe. If you heat it up too quick, it will burn and come out nasty.
Garnish with a swirl of baby blood, well oxygenated( fresh kill).
saxmanchiro 2 years ago
omg i hope your joking
rgtjyj 2 years ago
OMT, yes I am. ;)
saxmanchiro 2 years ago
Personally I could care less as to whether the politician being elected is religious or atheist, as what matters the most is how good they handle their power, and how wise and just their decisions are and whether they *love* the people they rule or are just doing it for themselves, their egos, more power, etc.
mike4ty4 2 years ago
Can I get a source for the "fewer atheists in prison" bit. I've heard it many times in atheistic arguments, but I've never seen any source, much less a reliable one, cited.
It seems like one of those factoids that gets tossed around and used because it is convenient and helpful to do so, but most atheists I know can't say where it came from or how they are so sure it is true.
I just want to know that it is actually true before I go using it in my own arguments against other people's "truths."
NekoMouser 2 years ago
U.S. Federal Bureau of Prison Statistics
eequalsfb 2 years ago
Everyone says that, but I have yet to be pointed to any official documentation...just other atheist websites that also claim "Federal Bureau of Prison Statistics."
Is there a specific report name this came from? A year it was issued? I've been all over the government's official statistic site & I cannot find ANY publicly reported numbers on prisoner religions, much less these numbers.
Sad day with supposedly rational atheists thumbs down merely for asking for proof for a claim. Sad day indeed.
NekoMouser 2 years ago
You may have gotten thumbs down because there is a slide in the video with the numbers I was using. It was a 1997 Federal Bureau of Prisons statistic. Try a google search for Federal Bureau of Prisons statistics by religion.
eequalsfb 2 years ago 12
I've done just that.
Near as I can find, these numbers were released by Denise Golumbaski, who claimed (and may be) a Research Analyst for the Federal Bureau of Prisons on March 5, 1997. She sent them direct to Rod Swift at HolySmoke(dot)org.
But she also just sent an e-mail & I can find NO official documentation to validate or back-up her claim. I've been all over the OFFICIAL justice stats. websites and the ONLY religious statistics they present are for hate crimes and discrimination cases.
NekoMouser 2 years ago
I guess if you can't find them they don't exist then.
rickelmonoggin 2 years ago
You're right to ask for the source. My search has told me so far that the sources are actually quite questionable. They would not be used in scholarly circumstances.
However note that there has not been any report or statistics that refutes the actual claim until now.
Nonetheless the argument should not be used in a proper debate.
centristross 2 years ago
@NekoMouser I was unable to find a first hand information on that matter however I found a response to a freedom of information act request to the Federal Bureau of Prisons dating 2010, that supports the statistics, which , however, is again second hand information. BUT you can do the same request yourself and post the actual numbers then we'll see if they match!
Zaraken 1 year ago
very nice vid my friend.
atheelogos 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
5:30 is due to abortion.
Novjunulo 2 years ago
This is now featured on Think Atheist! Keep up the great work!
ThinkAtheistdotCom 2 years ago
3:50
The term is Circular Logic btw
Great points made!!
Honestly, Atheistic nations (China) last longer, have lower crime rates, and bail countries like good ol' US out when we have hardships. GOOD OL' CHINA COMIN' TAH SAVE THA DAY!!
no1sjester 2 years ago
or scandinavia... the scandinavian countries are pretty atheistic and they're doing pretty well...
micp4130 2 years ago
Not true. Kowloon was about as crime ridden as LA back in the day.
rumbazz 2 years ago
I bet that if an atheist ran in 08 he surely would've won. we've tried to be so unbiased to everyone that we've indeed tipped over the scales and had those who are presented as 'minorities' now held up as the majority had been. Simple, look in your scholarship application book, how many scholarships are out there for 'African Americans' and mothers, compare that to working class white males, I have found only about 10 in the whole book so far the last one being the Warren Fencl Scholarship.
89victoria07 2 years ago
(BTW. I say 'African American' Because I do not believe that the majority of black people living here in the USA were born in Africa, or were their parents. yes there are some, but i do not consider myself a german american or him an english american, or her a french american, we are all americans, we need to stop the diversity, diversity is not unity and this is the United States of America.
It just makes sence.
89victoria07 2 years ago
Smart comment, I agree. We are all descendants of Europe, are we European American? No, just American.
We still have a lot of issues to work out in this country regarding minorities, atheism included. People don't understand it so they reject it as something evil or bad.
Let science be taught in schools, religion in churches and allow everyone the freedom to learn and discover beliefs on their own.
refuckulate420 2 years ago
great comment, I have been saying that for years. I just call them black Americans.
andron333 2 years ago
Excellent, succinct and true. Favorited and subsribed!
Stegocephalian 2 years ago
Gah..I live in one of those states that prohibit me from running for office. How I weep at the obvious discrimination.
MrKrov 3 years ago
I'm shocked to find out about these laws. They remind me of times when slavery was accepted, and women were not allowed to vote.
NotThat3 3 years ago 2
Well, I could probably run based on a 1961 precedent, even if it is still technically illegal.
MrKrov 3 years ago
I agree with you that that is completely biased, land of the free? not quite.
I wouldn't go as far as to say it reached the edges of slavery or how women weren't allowed to vote, (slavery being a little more intense i suppose, and well you still have more rights than women did at the time), but none the less this discrimination is disgusting.
89victoria07 2 years ago
(This coming from a firm Christian girl with a non-biased background [aka parents, Chirstian as they were, didn't instill church, I chose it for myself])
89victoria07 2 years ago
Ah, the ancient timeless truth: everyone wants to have some Irish in them. Even if it's securely wrapped in the filthy, stinky guts of a dead sheep.
beriukay 3 years ago
True about the whole Tom Selleck thing... I can't grow a 'stache worth a crap. He's definitely my facial hair higher power.
jussts 3 years ago
To true! There are very few modern moustachionados. Eddie Murphy is another, and Sean Connery. And the new kid on the block is Luke Wilson in The Darjeeling Ltd. Add to that Gary Oldman in The Dark knight.
Great Video. Well measured and humourous.
aiyic 3 years ago
Quite interesting.
kimbo Slice is easily more powerful than me. For those of you who don't know who he is, well...he eats Tyson ears for breakfast.
chepenudo 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Obama is Muslim how is muslim most untrusted then?
Dandy4Candy 3 years ago
Were you joking? For the millionth time; OBAMA IS NOT MUSLIM! He has gone to a Christian church for DECADES. Where do you think the controversy over REVEREND WRIGHT came from?? Muslims don't have REVERENDS. Sheesh.
ChuckyJesus666 3 years ago 3
Don't you get wikipedia on your computer? He's not a Muslim. He's much worse than that - he's a politician.
aiyic 3 years ago 9
true true
Dandy4Candy 3 years ago
Great again. Especially the last minute or two. which could have been a five-star video on its own.
Thanks for these.
NonStampCollector 3 years ago
"Tom Selleck can grow a mustache better than me"
LOLLL!!!!
Hilarious.
callif 3 years ago
A very well worded and level headed treatise, favorited and subscribed! I hope this opens a few eyes.
AbbeyNormal 3 years ago 4
Let's hope...btw, I love your name. LOL
ChuckyJesus666 3 years ago
great stuff. 5 stars
mp9yq9tx 3 years ago 3
5 stars
decipherDude 3 years ago 3
Great vid.
flayed2 3 years ago
Great video. 5 stars !
heethen1 3 years ago
Alas Atheist groups cannot fight against the Christian Reich in America out of fear of reprisal. In America Christians are well know for preaching how peaceful and accepting they are, while at the same time condemning and often attacking verbally and physically anyone that disagrees with their beliefs. Look up a video call "Wife Swap: God Warrior" and you will learn exactly what kind of people American Christians are.
popecorkyxxiv 3 years ago 7
Age 3: I realized that the Easter Bunny was made up and confronted my mother asking "Why did you lie to me?", and she tried to convince me that the he was real. It bothered me that she had lied to me about something like that.
Age 4: I figured out that Santa Claus was fake, as well. I challenged my mother on the issue, again asking why she had lied to me. I got an answer to this effect: "It wasn't a lie, it's just fun for kids to believe".
predaking50ae 3 years ago 14
Age 7: I deduced that this 'god' character must also be fake. I concluded that churches were like baseball fields or movie theaters- just entertainment for grownups.
My friends and I enjoyed pretending to be superheroes and such, adults must like to play pretend too, right?
Age 10: I first spoke of my idea. By this time I was thoroughly immune to all stupidity virii. Oddly, adults still 'believed'.
I assumed(correctly) that someone had forgotten to tell them it was make believe.
predaking50ae 3 years ago 14
I suspect the cold war propaganda slogan 'godless commies' has something to do with the how atheists are viewed in the US.
artyfarty2 3 years ago 11
No, my comment was a response to some retard. The video is great.
Shalek 3 years ago 4
subscribed
only one side note, scripting your videos would greatly increase their quality
cyberdemon107 3 years ago 3
You didn't actually subscribe, but thanks for the suggestion.
eequalsfb 3 years ago
kay i clicked it again
bizzare
cyberdemon107 3 years ago
very, very nicely done. i like the point that rational people can accept new information and therefore be free to amend their opinions and actions.
ReligiousFiction 3 years ago 7
Great point about the 8 states! And I love the blue balls!
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago 6
atheism is a threat to their entire worldview. I really don't think they're capable of understanding atheism. (and I say this as an ex-christian) So it makes them nervous.
samsroomie 3 years ago 10
"I really don't think they're capable of understanding atheism.", there really isn't much to understand. Everyone starts out an atheist. You are either convinced by emotional blackmail and shockingly bad fiction or you are not.
artyfarty2 3 years ago 19
When you're born into a religious family, there's not much chance that you won't be successfully indoctrinated. and once you accept the "emotional blackmail", Faith is the main requirement, and doubt is evil. So even asking yourself questions is something to fight against.
samsroomie 3 years ago 12
Wow, after watching this video I will be sure to look into your other videos. I agree 100% with pretty much everything you said.
swinder2508 3 years ago 3
well thought out - great points!
eperkins21 3 years ago
good video man, i was surprised you didn't go into the atheism and communism argument that some theists like to use. Perhaps for another day ey.
not4resale 3 years ago
Yea, that does need to be addressed, doesn't it?
eequalsfb 3 years ago
As ever, 5.
If America was a single mind, Lady Liberty, the fact that it is actually illegal to be an atheist and stand for office in even one of her states would (or should) be embarrassing. How on Earth did they get THAT law around the constitution? Are States free to pass laws that contradict the constitution?
philhellenes 3 years ago 4
Thanks, Phil. Good to see you on the tubes, even if it isn't in video form. : )
eequalsfb 3 years ago
To answer your questions, I don't know. It doesn't sound right to me either.
These are apparently old laws that were never removed from the books.
eequalsfb 3 years ago
It used to be that states could do as they pleased, the US constitution only protecting people from federal oppression. Most of these ridiculous laws and state constitution clauses date from that period.
But after the civil war, the Reconstruction Amendments were passed. One of these, the 14th amendment, arguably includes a principle called incorporation which applies bill of rights guarantees to the states.
Now anti-atheist laws and clauses would be ruled unconstitutional if taken to court.
AtSwimTwoBricks 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
100% of violent crimes are committed
by those who act "atheistically."
procommenter 3 years ago
What the shit?
SexyMelon 3 years ago 5
to procommenter
100% violent crimes are from ppl who act atheisticly? Then god acted atheisticly in bible?(by killing lots of children) What about stone all who work on sabbath? Or kill all who drink alchohol? and so on, and on, bible is one filthy book, So shut your vile lie christian shit deep to yourself!!
LMstrike 3 years ago 2
procommenter ==> Be quiet, adults are talking.
Blocked.
eequalsfb 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Do you pride yourself on spouting ignorant bullshit?
Shalek 3 years ago
Typical Christian response, anyone that disagrees with your dogma is ignorant. Meanwhile you will beat an atheist with the cross while calling them heathen, godless, and a dozen other names, but if they dare try to fight back you accuse them of not showing you respect.
Ignorance: Making people feel undeservedly rightous for over 2000 years.
popecorkyxxiv 3 years ago 6
My comment was a response to some other guy. I am an atheist too.
Shalek 3 years ago 2
Excellent, as always. Keep making more videos - it's important that more people watch things like this.
Gisburne2000 3 years ago 3
Thanks for the encouragement, Nick.
eequalsfb 3 years ago
Fantastic video, Paul. You always hit the nail on the head.
The 'least trusted' statistic was the first thing I heard about attitudes towards atheism in the US. I was stunned. You pick apart the ideas behind it extremely eloquently.
QualiaSoup 3 years ago
I appreciate it, Doug!
eequalsfb 3 years ago
great video!
cozmikzen 3 years ago
Excellent video.
ftom2006 3 years ago 3
excellent.
thank you!
msginca 3 years ago 2
Damn dude, you never cease to impress. This video was very eloquently delivered and really conveyed your position well. Well done brother.
mconn2112 3 years ago 2
Thanks, Matt.
eequalsfb 3 years ago
GREAT Vid!!!
johnatspray 3 years ago
Just friggin awesome.
agnosticman77 3 years ago
Amazing that you can have something on the statute books that requires someone to have a religious belief in order to hold office.
thatgaybloke 3 years ago 3
Excellent video.
The godless atheist label comes from the "red scare" of McCarthyism when communists were labeled evil and godless. If anyone suggested they were atheists they were labeled as communists and enemies of America.
justintempler 3 years ago 5
Great vid! Thanks for posting it.
Around 30% of the adult population of my country said in the last census that they have no religion. (5% didn't know/wouldn't say). It's higher for people under 50.
I'm just beginning to appreciate the difference it makes to public life!
dunnonuffink 3 years ago 6
Rub it in, why don't ya. ; )
eequalsfb 3 years ago
Very well done.
justbekindtooall 3 years ago 3