Atheism - Barack Obama's Government Sneak Peek (HD)

[amine17360]

Down with the five permanent member of the U N terror council the atheist government the arms dealers the scum bags

Long live Islam ISLAM POWER

Don’t you sell weapons on my continent

[DrinkSkateSleep]

@amine17360 Fuck islam

[barosanescu]

The more uneducated a country is, the more religious. The more religious, the poorer it is. It is a FACT. The reverends that you see on America's TV sets are charlatans, not religious people. They know where the money come from: the stupid, uneducated people.

[TakesTwoToTango]

(continued) was horribly short-sighted and plain wrong. Turns out it was just incomplete. I hate the 500 character limit :(

[TakesTwoToTango]

@TraceurAlec Ah, that's better. From your initial comment I thought that you actually believed that an atheist would automatically make well thought-through decisions. And indeed, there is no correlation between intelligence and religiosity. In America there is one oddly, but I think that's because religion is the default position there and education is main cause of atheism there. I thought you were grossly generalizing, but it was just your wording. Apologies, I wrongly thought your position

[MrKGatl]

@TakesTwoToTango Want to find a high concentration of atheists, go look at universities.  Want to find a high concentration of christians, go look at the trailer park.

[TakesTwoToTango]

@MrKGatl Which means what exactly? It seems you're jumping to conclusions based on a synchronicity that occurs in your country...

[MrKGatl]

@TakesTwoToTango yes, I was refering to America. Just mentioning the fact that atheists are generally smarter than theists.

[TakesTwoToTango]

@MrKGatl And the relevance of that is?

The same can be said about white people generally being more intelligent than black people, but that doesn't seem to come up as an arguement anywhere.

And that last statement IS true. The reason most people dismiss it however is the same reason that your statement is completely irrelevant: it's merely a correlation. There is, to my knowlage, no known causal relation in either case.

[MrKGatl]

@TakesTwoToTango Atheists are generally better educated, and make up the smallest percentage of inmates. Sure these comments dont speak for 100% of the population, but they are true. Comparing white and black intellegence, usually needs to be put in a socioeconomic context. I wouldnt say the same for atheists and theists.

[TakesTwoToTango]

@MrKGatl But I thought this was a presidency discussion? My actual point, which I thought would be clear in the last post, is that you can't use averages to make conclusions about specific cases. The average human is a 40 year old woman with roughly 10 years of education behind her. Though for some reason not many candidates fit that bill...

Unless this discussion is not about presidency candidates, but about how stoooopid american christians are and how smart atheists are, because of averages.

[MrKGatl]

@TakesTwoToTango Actually the average person in the world would be an asian man in his late 30's. Why is it unfair to measure the average atheist versus the average theist?

[TakesTwoToTango]

@MrKGatl Hmm, would depend on your average. There are still more women in the world than men as far as I'm aware of, so the average person should be female. Though agreed, I did base it on some quick statistics I looked up...

And if you want your next president to be an as average person as possible, please go ahead. Glad I don't live in the states...

[TakesTwoToTango]

(continued) Now outside the presidency discussion (since I'm guessing you want to leave the topic of the video behind): what point is it? Your initial point was apparently completely irrelevant to the video. I just don't expect people to share random statistics with me. It's just VERY unclear to me what the relevance of the statistic you shared is to ANYTHING whatsoever. If it's not: in 'the simpsons' there's a lepricaun that tells ralph to burn things. Interesting ey?

[MrKGatl]

@TakesTwoToTango My first comment to you was in response to the comment you wrote where you were talking about generalizations and religion. I thought I would stir the pot, so to speak. So yes, I do think that my original statement was a generalization, but I also believe it would be true almost every time.

[TakesTwoToTango]

@MrKGatl I do think you're wrong there... America is a strange country where atheism is a small group of people, generally well educated. Theism is also apparently more extremistic in the US than in the rest of the world (except maybe the islam world), and many forms contradict scientific fact. This leads to the well educated having a better chance of being atheists, but it doesn't mean that atheists are smarter than theists. In countries where there is no such religious extremity

[TakesTwoToTango]

(cont), it appears that there is no difference. It's not so much underestimating theists, but overestimating atheists. Being an atheist doesn't intrinsically make you smarter than anybody else. In America specifically, there are other factors, like education. Wherever you go, people tend to accept the worldviews of the people they look up to the most. This doesn't change, reguardless of what that worldview is.

[sephiroth70001]

@MrKGatl so your saying because one thinks a certain way they are smarter your a fool to think so. because there is no difference to say one is smarter than the other. i can name as many intelligent Christians as atheists. want me to name some to broaden you knowledge?

[MrKGatl]

@sephiroth70001 Im saying that a good deal of educated (smart) people tend to atheistic.  Don't get confused, im not saying that people are smarter for being atheists. The majority of great minds these days are atheist or atleast deists, very few are christians.

[sephiroth70001]

@MrKGatl that statement also i disagree with because there are many great minds out there that are christian and i know just as many "famous" intelligent Christians as compared to atheists. this whole idea on which is more intelligent is a matter of opinion rather than facts. also how do you measure ones intelligence?

[MrKGatl]

@sephiroth70001 I guess its not really fair comparing the intellegence or education of atheists vs. theists. Especially since almost all third world nations are extremely religious and uneducated. (this is my opinion) If you were to take a general sample of people in America and Europe you would find a link between higher IQ's and atheism. Meaning people with higher IQ's are more likely to be atheist, and people with lower IQ's are more likely to be religious. Know any dumb atheists?

[barosanescu]

@MrKGatl It is not just your opinion, it is a proven fact, you named it right. Religious countries are poorer than ( top of the list: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland to name a few ) the rest of developed countries. There are many studies about that. The ones who dismiss these FACTS, are simply ignorant. :)

[sephiroth70001]

@MrKGatl yes but a lot of the government officials that make third world countries such a horrible place are athiest. (i have no disrespect to atheists at all most my friends are atheist.) and yes i do know a lot of dumb atheists and some smart atheists also.

[MrKGatl]

@sephiroth70001 The majority of third world countries are religious

[sephiroth70001]

@MrKGatl agree to disagree?

[TakesTwoToTango]

@TraceurAlec Oh, you gave a specific example of a retard christian! Now I understand that christians are retards and atheists are brilliant!

And yes, I'm mocking you.

You are so blinded by religion... Apparently it doesn't take being religious to be fucked up by it... You're assuming that nonreligious people are automatically better for office than religious people. It basically seems like you believe that there are only 2 people in the world: Christine O'Donnell and yourself...

[TakesTwoToTango]

@TraceurAlec You're wrong.

I'm sorry I'm just picking in on a conversation I didn't follow, but you are blatently wrong in this particular statement. There is no reason an atheist would be guaranteed to follow evicence, or science in general. There is also no reason the atheist wouldn't make decisions because of "faith" in people around him: bias has a lot of sources.

[Lawlessuk]

Science FTW

[AspiringPotato]

Obama is one of those "soft" Christians. That's basically as good as it's going to get for some time.

A president's personal religious beliefs shouldn't matter if they don't influence policy. That's a pretty damn big if.

[Babytcm]

We need an Atheist president. I country would be so much better off.

[someonetoogoodforyou]

@Babytcm prime minister of Australia is atheist. Her competition is a devout Catholic

[176smn]

Also for all the Closet Atheists talk. Why jump straight to Atheism. Could be neutral about a belief in God, but 100 percent deny religion as do I.

[Mitologicc]

@176smn

That`s exactly what being an atheist mean.

You don`t ensure the existence of a god.

But you don`t deny it either (this would be a belief).

Atheist= people who dosen`t believe in a god. Justi it, nothing more than that.

[TakesTwoToTango]

@Mitologicc If I may, not believing in a god is the same as denying there is one. Denying something doesn't mean you're wrong... I deny the flat earth hypothesis, and I have reasons to deny it. The point I think you're trying to make is about gnosticism rathar then theism. Not ensuring the existance of a god is agnosticism. Denying the existance of one is atheism. Agnosticism is also meaningless, because virtually everybody is an agnost.

[176smn]

FAIL. -at loosing.

Obama is WAAAAYY BETTER than stupid BUSH.

[yousckk]

Another reason why OBAMA is THE MAN!

[Lukeor]

Thank goodness we have an atheist president.

[steffyb528]

@Lukeor uh, while I don't agree with him on everything, he is not atheist. He goes to church.

[Lukeor]

@steffyb528 I would bet you a large sum of money he is a closet atheist.

I know a closet atheist when I hear one. All confident atheists do.

[Kiru26]

@Lukeor Agreed. It would be hard to be an atheist gunning for the oval office. I think he is taking on the appearance of a religious man to get them to listen to reason for once. It seems to affect the liberal Christians, but the conservative side gets heated over everything he says, no matter how reasonable it is. I had to explain thoroughly to several people how the ten commandments is not even near our constitution. I don't recall killing everyone working on Saturday being in the law.

[Jarut195]

So true, you Christians are retarded when it comes to science. You accept that the scientific discoveries that the bible never mentioned, are solid, iron-clad fact. But the moment science discovers something that disproves the Bible (the earth being round, the earth revolving around the sun, beetles having six legs, animals not being able to talk, the world being well over 4 billion years old, etc etc etc.) you won't believe a word of it

[patrickledford420]

@Jarut195 or medicin since evolutionary biology helped make many kinds of medicine yet they come cowaring when there sick and say STUPID shit like evolutions only a theory yet they dont say that shit about germs or cells or atoms

[frostycarga]

@patrickledford420 wait what? can you get some grammar and sense into your post?

[micah1116]

@Jarut195 The bible says the earth is a sphere and floats on nothing, and the earth isn't 4 billion years old, give me your best evidence for that claim. If you think radiometric dating is evidence for anything, you've got a lot to learn.

[Luckadirish]

@micah1116 Unfortunately you've just embarrassed yourself, because all the evidence thus far is against you. Loopholes and unknowns are not an excuse for your ignorance to actually have an open mind, and look at the facts. Circular logic and trying to make the bible myth fit in with progressing science is not a means, it's an escape. I hope your pathetic attempts at opinion don't wind up on a jury anywhere.

[steffyb528]

@Jarut195 The Bible says the Earth is round. Read your Bible. It never says the Earth doesn't revolve around the sun. It does say the sun moves but that is just from the perspective of someone on earth. Parrots talk. And my neighbors dog growing up could sing to his favorite TV show, no kidding. As far as beetles, I've never read that anywhere in the Bible. Maybe they called different animals beetles back then though.

[dnaversa]

Finally, your assertions about dating are bogus. Margins of error are clearly recognized by science, but they are not significant (i.e. a few %). When you paint dating with the "Carbon-14" brush, are you overlooking myriad other methods? Argon-argon;uranium-lead;urani­um-thorium, et al provide a wealth of evidence. You don't mention molecular dating either. Its precision and utility support assertions made by other dating techniques in other disciplines. Care to offer specifics to the contrary?

[micah1116]

I've got a video on my channel discussing those, rather a scientist debunking those dating methods, look in my favorites.

[Aanthanur]

@micah1116 LOL i watched them, they are laughable. and long long ago debunked.

[dnaversa]

Micah, I saw the vids in your favorites and am still laughing. Dawkins being "stumped"? Is that all you got? He could have mentioned Down Syndrome, which would have answered the question succinctly. The vid "debunking" dating methods was also laughable. Hovind doesn't know science from his arse. Neither does Behe. Neither does that complete illiterate Venomfang. I Love the way you spell "emperical" to correct someone else. Please, please go back to skool because you are horribly misinformed.

[micah1116]

@dnaversa I hardly ever add videos on my youtube channel, plus, I have plenty enough to make a good case against evolution anyway. Down syndrome is duplicate chromosome, it's not new information, and certainly isn't beneficial. It's like claiming writing the same book twice is new information. I'll gladly have a debate with you through PM's, or in a forum.

[dnaversa]

Micah, we also have exact DNA evidence for evolution of species, including our own, that is growing everyday. DNA is not fairy dust; it is not fiction. For example, can you explain how our Chromosome #2 is an exact fusion of two chimpanzee chromosomes? Remember your biology? Chimps share 95% of our DNA; they have one more pair of chromosomes than humans. Their "extra" pair fused into Chromosome #2 on its way to us. Check the research, Kenneth Miller's specifically, for details.

[dnaversa]

Micah, it is you who are arguing from a point of ignorance. We witness evolution everyday. Ever heard of bacteria? Have you researched diseases before? How is it possible for bacteria to evolve mechanisms, entirely different mechanisms for survival no less, in complete isolation, if not for evolution? We have nylon-digesting bacteria experiments that have been corroborated all over the world. We have evidence of changes to middle ear bone in mammals-- the land to sea kind. Get it?

[micah1116]

Evolution is not science in the least. Anyone who disagrees with me, please send me a PM and we can discuss it. Please be prepard to give your best evidence.

[snaxel3971]

im not going to pm you about a discussion on evolution. but its so dumb to say that evolution is not a fact. Just look at dogs for example. they went from wolfs to chihuahuas over a really short period of time. its so obvious that evolution is a fact

[micah1116]

LOL! My ENTIRE point exactly. Your getting micro and macro mixed up. If you think going from a wolf to a chihuahua is evolution, then I agree, evolution is 100% a scientific fact! Evolution teaches dogs came from something other than a dog, has anything like this ever been observed, no ofcourse not, so therefore it's not science. Also when you get varieties like you mentioned, the information is already present to produce these varieties in the parents DNA, it's actually a loss of information.

[micah1116]

Also wolves and any other dogs and still interfertal, which is the exact definition of the word kind in the bible. No new kinds of animals are ever produced, only varieties of kinds. If you will agree that dogs produce dogs, etc etc. Then how do we get all these radically different kinds of animals? If you say it takes millions of years, then it's not science, that's faith not based on any scientific evidence what so ever. Are you starting to understand what I'm saying?

[snaxel3971]

my whole point is that if its possible for wolfs to change so radically in such a small time spand, then its definetely possible for liveforms to change over millions and millions of years. have you even done the smallest amount of research on evolution? its pretty easy to understand and then you will be able to see how evolution have formed the enviroment around you

[micah1116]

If we can't observe it, it's not science. These changes you speak of are not an increase in information(DNA) It's a literal LOSS, it's going in the total opposite direction of what you need to happen for actual evolution to occur. You know your wrong and your losing this debate. Give me your best evidence for evolution and you'll find out "have you even done the smallest amount of research on evolution?" First define what you mean by evolution, micro or macro. Science is what we can observe.

[micah1116]

You hide behind millions of years that don't even exist, let me guess, carbon dating proves the earth is millions of years old. You've got a lot to learn my friend. You've been lied to. Carbon dating is a joke, actually C14 proves the earth is less than 30,000 years old. It should have reached equilibrium in less than 30,000 years according to the man who won a nobel prize for inventing the dating method.

[darkness88ew]

That's b/c that is the extent of C14 dating, there are many other dating methods, some of which can go back billions of years. Even using comparative tree-ring structures, which no one ever discusses, can prove the earth is older than 10,000. And speciation has been documented a few dozen times in the last 100 years. It's not much, but it takes a long time so a few dozen is about what you'd expect from our ability to track a limited number in only 100 years.

[micah1116]

No, they are all based on flawed assumptions, I've got a video on my channel discussing these other dating methods you speak of that supposedly go back millions of years, and they are even more flawed than carbon dating. Speciation is not evolution, it's a variety. I'm talking about macro evolution, not variety, I'm speaking of new structures being formed, show me some examples of that.

[darkness88ew]

Ok, publish your great "work" in the peer reviewed literature, which is all about trying to disprove another person, and you'll win the nobel prize. These arguments have been refuted so many times, but I know some people just dig into the opposition of a side, rather than what the evidence supports. It's funny how you'll argue against only the science that disagrees with the Bible, but not the science that lands us on the moon or runs your very computer.

[micah1116]

The changes are LIMITED, not unlimited like you want to BELIEVE. Admit it's not science, it's your religion. We never observe evolution, the fossil record confirms evolution didn't happen, science confirms it didn't and can't happen. It's unfortunate you have to deny science to keep your world view.

[snaxel3971]

ok. i can see that youre too far out to ever accept the simple truths about the world we live in. its also clear that you go to great extent to find "proof" against evolution. you probably have found a couple o websites supporting your claims. however, to believe that evolution is false is just retarded and i am not going to spend anymore time in writing why its so fucking obvious that evolution is a fact. i am not interrested in debating someone who is willfully ignorant in this comment section

[micah1116]

@snaxel3971 AGAIN DEFINE what you mean by evolution. One meaning is indeed 100% a scientific fact and is observed, therefore science. If it's so obvious show me an example of it happening, it should be easy since "it's so incredibly obvious".

[PassionForPasta]

Newton followed alchemy, face it, it was not infallible. Only the infallible creator of all (the Flying Spaghetti Monster) can know all without mistake.

[sephiroth70001]

@PassionForPasta and netwon was a Christian.

[DCGideon]

For more info on Isaac Newton goto newton2ac2uk3newtlife2html

replace 2 with a dot and 3 with a slash.

Search on the page for RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS AND PERSONALITY. You will find Newton believed in Creation.

Where do you get the notion that "the god of the bible/koran changes randomly" The Bible and the Koran paint very different views of God. The God of the Bible cannot contradict Himself. It is people mishandle the Bible, some will even cherry-pick things outy of context to build straw-men

[slideawayification]

Newton believed in creation because that was pretty much the only option back then, since it was long before Origin of Species was published.

Also, what does it make a difference if he believed in creation or not, that doesn't make the arguments for Creation any less ridiculous.

[DCGideon]

The belief in evolution is very, very old, dating back to ancient paganism. Newton believed in Creation because it makes more sense to believe that a rational Creator created an orderly universe than to believe that the universe is a result of a cosmic accident. While you may find creation ridiculous,it is self- contradictory to believe that intelligence, order and personality can emerge from chaos, which would necessarily follow if Darwinism is true

[Jesussucksfagdick]

The ancient hypothesis of evolution isn't the same theory accepted by scientists today. Newton was never exposed to the modern theory of neo-Darwinian evolution. PERIOD.

Newton also believed in alchemy, the philosophers stone, the bible code, and all kinds of mythical nonsense. Creation is just another obsolete myth. The scientific community doesn't accept 'creation.'

[DCGideon]

Why did India, China, and ancient Greece fail to have a scientific revolution in spite of being more advanced civilizations than western Europe. The dominant religious perspectives in these place provided no warrant for scientific investigation because people did not believe that the universe was rationally ordered by rational Creator. It was a rational interpretation of theism that provided the warrant that justified the application of the scientific method.

[DCGideon]

An example of scientists putting ideas they cannot back with observation is when they attempt to put out theories of origins. The beginning of the universe simply cannot be observed, neither can it be reproduced in an experiment. The questions of origins is outside of the realm of science and necessarily a question of philosophy and theology

[rddaos]

Ummm... methinks you're straw-manning scientists again.

[DCGideon]

Google "scientific method" and you will learn that scientific knowledge is necessarily based on observable data. Issues that cannot be resolved by appeal to observable data are outside the realm of science. Science cannot answer every question that exist and was never intended to.

[DCGideon]

Obama's definition of science is too broad. Science is not about the universal pursuit of knowledge and truth, but is limited to that which is empirically observable and repeatable. When science does that it is a wonderful thing, but when scientists put the prestige of science to ideas that they cannot back with observation then that is fraudulent

[rddaos]

Actually scientists are quite often able to figure out how something works, or how something transpired, without being able to witness it directly in a lab. Science is about using logic and reason to learn about the universe, unlike religion, which has never added anything to scientific understanding.

[DCGideon]

The methods of science were formulated by religiously devout people whose religious presuppositions shaped their understanding of science. The early great scientists, like Sir Isaac Newton, believed that there was a correspondence between our categories of perception of the universe and the categories that existed in the categories because both the human mind and the outside world were framed by the same Creator. Because of this correspondence we could scientifically investigate the universe

[rddaos]

I'm sorry.  I hate to make you repeat yourself, but tell me once again how first corinthians helped Newton figure out integral calculus?

[DCGideon]

Now you are creating a straw man. I never asserted that modern science was the result of citing a specific passage of scripture. My assertion was that the scientific method was founded on religious presuppositions concerning the basic nature. If reality were primarily mystical or the result of random chance or the ARBITRARY rule of God, then there would be no reason to believe that the scientific method could produce reliable results.

[rddaos]

Hey, nice circular reasoning there. Science is based on consistency and patterns because that's the only tool we have for understanding natural phenomena. And since the god of the bible/koran changes randomly, contradicts himself, and is inconsistent, the last thing the scientific method could ever be based on, is inconsistent mythology like the bible/koran.

[DCGideon]

What circular reasoning? My comment are based on historical facts concerning the scientific revolution. The scientific revolution happened in a deeply religious context. Isaac Newton finished his achievements in science and mathematics before he turned 30. He then spent the rest of his life studying theology.

A non-theistic world-view provide no basis for confirming that there would exist patterns and consistency in the external world.

[rddaos]

As theism has never added anything to scientific knowledge, and in fact has actively impeded scientific discovery, for example burning heretics who challenged the theistic view that the earth is the center of the universe, it is up to secularism to shed light on truth. Moreover the haphazard, inconsistent, and random worldview of theists can by definition, never add anything of value to science.

[DCGideon]

You are begging the question, as well as incorrect on virtually every point of your latest post. Theism does not teach that the earth is the center of the universe. Both sides of that debate were theists. Theists do not hold to random world view. It was the theistic belief in a rational Creator that inspired the scientific revolution. Isn't it the atheist, that insists the it is random processes that produced the world we live. How can random processes produce logic and science. They can't.

[rddaos]

Theism = geocentrism, burn mentally-ill people as witches/wizards, earthquakes are god's wrath, and the earth is flat. And since theism is based on faith in a random and haphazard creator, it cannot add anything to science. Thankfully secularism defeats theism in the war of ideas. "How can random processes produce logic and science." I dunno, nobody's saying they do, just you.

[PassionForPasta]

"How can random processes produce logic and science"

Exactly! Something cannot come from nothing, not just that, but the disbelievers insist that the universe came RANDOMLY from nothing, molecules RANDOMLY formed to make chemicals, which RANDOMLY formed our cells which "evoluted" RANDOMLY to form us who think and reason.

[MongoloidBabyUSA]

This is mindless dreck that makes no sense.

[wearewanted2012]

i hate polictics

[PR0GRAMMING]

Well said Obama.

[wildboy789789]

i know... im glad hes president now

i was sceptical at first because of his spending but as long as i know hes not giving it to churches (like bush did)... then i trust him

[CaseRed0605]

I do not think there is anything wrong with being an atheist. I don't think there is anything wrong in believing in God.

I think we poison ourselves by getting so caught up in being afraid of "non-believers". Why? Just because someone does not believe in a higher deity does not mean that they are without morals.

[CHARESTHEHAMER]

lol Obama is a Christian.

[CHARESTHEHAMER]

Yeah well till then all you have is an inflated ego.

[CHARESTHEHAMER]

No Medals?

No Awards?

No Degrees?

All you have then is an inflated ego.

[CHARESTHEHAMER]

And what evidence do you have of your superiority?

[Havenfall]

I think Superiority is a bad way to put it. Though, I do believe religious ideas are extremely silly, it's often not a reflection of the person.

People do this thing, compartmentalization, and they will use reason and logic in every aspect of their life, save sunday at church.

I, personally, wouldn't say I'm superior. After all, the fact is, there is no such thing as a smart human being, for it is merely a matter of time, before their ideas are updated, changed or eradicated.

[CHARESTHEHAMER]

ghandi didn't compartmentalize.

[Havenfall]

Ghandi lived in another time. With the science available at the time, I'd probably believe in god too.

So yes, I 100% agree with your statement.

[CHARESTHEHAMER]

He didn't live in the dark ages he lived in the 20th century.

The century you spent most of your life in.

[Havenfall]

He died in 1948. I was born in 1987.

If you don't think that we've made monumental breakthroughs in cosmology, nuclear and sub-nuclear physics, evolutionary biology, and countless other fields... then you have some SERIOUS catching up to, my friend.

[CHARESTHEHAMER]

"He died in 1948. I was born in 1987."

Someone doesn't understand what a century is.

[Havenfall]

Did I deny that he wasn't born in this century?

Or are you really too stupid to grasp the point that he died 61 years ago? In that 61 years, the human race has exponentially, and radically, expanded our knowledge of the universe.

Ghandi lived in a MUCH different time.

[CHARESTHEHAMER]

I pointed out that he lived in the century that you spent most of your life in and you repsonded with "He died in 1948. I was born in 1987."

BTW He lived in a time of cars, nuclear weapons, mass media, electric communication, and innoculations.

Things have changed but not as much as you want to claim.

[Havenfall]

I don't accept your almost attempt at refuting, and I'll just leave you with this.

If I've overestimated the amount of empirical data discovered in the last 61 years that would influence someone's opinion on the existence god. Then I would amend my other statement agreeing with you, and assert that Ghandi did compartmentalize.

You can respond, but I assert any belief in a god is irrational. That is another discussion in it's entirety. - Peace

[CHARESTHEHAMER]

"I assert any belief in a god is irrational."

"Basically ... out of all the ridiculous religion stories which are greatly, wonderfully ridiculous—the silliest one I've ever heard is, 'Yeah ... there's this big giant universe and it's expanding, it's all gonna collapse on itself and we're all just here just 'cause ... just 'cause'. That, to me, is the most ridiculous explanation ever."

Trey Parker.

[Havenfall]

Right, because slapping a conscious onto it, even though we've only ever observed consciousness in beings with material minds, suddenly solves all of our problems.

I get to laugh at you, because what you think is ridiculous, is observed by an overwhelming majority of scientists. The contributions of modern science, make religion and your pathetically simple ideas, into a complete mockery.

Religion has absolutely no use. No reliability, and should be seen as obviously weak to even a child.

[MongoloidBabyUSA]

Funny

But you have no problem with technology borne from science or things like the H bomb, but you whine like a little stupid girl over how your creationist crap has been exposed as a myth

[CHARESTHEHAMER]

First of all your hate of women isn't going to help you in life.

second of all your assumption I'm a creationist is sad.

Lastly "33"? I've met teens better at debating than you.

[MongoloidBabyUSA]

My hate of women? You're right ,I'm blown away not only by your debating skills but by your psychic abilities.

[CHARESTHEHAMER]

You wrote "you whine like a little stupid girl".

It's clear from that statement that you don't like women.

[Havenfall]

"I pointed out that he lived in the century that you spent most of your life in and you repsonded with "He died in 1948. I was born in 1987." "

Yes, I stated the date of his death, and the time of my birth. With those facts established, I then made a comparison of the amount of research gained after his death, and before my birth.

I'm so terribly sorry if it was hard to draw that line... Are you really going to need to hinge your argument on know what century means?

[CHARESTHEHAMER]

"Are you really going to need to hinge your argument on know what century means?"

No I'm going to laugh at your not knowing what a century is.

[Havenfall]

You've reduced your argument to needing this.

You're pathetic, and a waste of time.

[CHARESTHEHAMER]

Hey cletus how old are you?

oh about a millenium.

[CHARESTHEHAMER]

Interesting.

You consider a Harvard grad, former Vince President, and Nobel Prize winner to be stupider than you.

Do you also think that your farts smell pleasant?

[CHARESTHEHAMER]

He's a practicing Baptist.

[CHARESTHEHAMER]

Al Gore is stupid and delusional?

[CHARESTHEHAMER]

Like I said I can't figure out why some people are mad he acknowledged that atheists exist.

I acknowledge dog shit exists.

Doesn't mean I like it.

[CHARESTHEHAMER]

I'm going to guess you were drunk or somthing when you went waaaay out on that limb and claimed Obama was raised as an atheist.

But you have the balls to say you were wrong so I guess it's cool.

I can't figure out why some people are mad he acknowledged that atheists exist.

I acknowledge dog shit exists.

Doesn't mean I like it.

Oh and he didn't screw up the oath the judge guy did.

BTW We're in agreement I said "half ass wikipedia article" for a reason.

[CHARESTHEHAMER]

lol if you had bothered to read a single book about Obama (or even checked out the half ass wikipedia article on him) you'd know he barely knew his atheist father that he was raised in part by a moderate Muslim and his hippie mom ditched him with his Christian grandparents when he in his early teens.

[CHARESTHEHAMER]

LOL the jokes on you faith haters Obama is a Christian.

[CreepNarrator]

Obama is made of 100% win!

[fupasack2]

hey barack, get that hand out of your ass! dont think i cant see it you fucken puppet!

[Jotto999]

This is FANTASTIC!!!

That's one of the best things I've heard a president say. I am starting to love this guy. And his actions are consistent with his words.

This president may have many world issues to deal with all at once, but he's going to be great even if he can't fix everything. He will get the ball rolling for left-libertarian thinking in America, he will enforce the separation of church and state. He will start the restoration of what America was supposed to be. Hail Obama! \m/

[preachersaredumb]

The fundamentalists must cringe to hear him speak. This is good:)

[lonerook860]

Thank 'God' a humanist is running America, it is a massive blow for the Christian right and theocrats in general. :D

[lilboyrudiger]

hmm very clever, pic out a few words from a speech and that meks him an atheist!! take defaultpositions comment and lets chop it up shall we?! as much as i love christ he has a secular upbringing! id call him an amazing president!! u can chop up any comments and make it sound any way ya wana it means nothing

[Maxdwolf]

"Especially when it's inconvenient"

Preach it brother!

[DefaultPosition]

I'm an atheist. As much as I'd love to say that your president is also a non-believer, I can't.

I suspect he considers himself a cultural Christian who has had a secular upbringing.

I'd call him a rationalist; which is an amazing feat for a US president.

[Articorse]

Frankly, I really think he's an atheist. He might say he's a christian only so he would get elected/wouldn't get impeached.

It's just a little hard to accept a truly smart person, whose parents are both atheists, to become a christian.

Either way, I agree totally with the 'rationalist' and 'incredible feat' parts.

[RationalFuture]

Well, he's not an atheist...

And please don't descend down the spiral of spineless admiration.

Watch him closely, because he's threading on our dreams.

[MrJBoma]

I love the sentiment. However, I didn't hear any mention at all of atheism.

[colin8696908]

finally a man who gets us, i love this guy

[taccun]

i knew i made the right choice when i supported Obama the whole way :) And i didnt even know he was going to promote more science. Im in love....but im not gay XD

[TransylvanianWinter]

Agreed.

[rubberbaby00]

It's sad that an openly atheist person cannot get elected in America. But his dad was atheist and his mother was an anthropologist & agnostic. He must be atheist.

[Matty14388]

I seriously hope he means this, im from england but i was really hoping he'd make it into the white house, and he has, and im glad, i hope he makes these kinds of changes towards science, and is it me or does he come across differently about science after he was elected compared to when he was trying to get elected?

[narudis]

Wow. I'm speechless.

[domrio]

I think (and hope) Obama is a 'secret' atheist.

[BlackMambaLAKB24]

I thought I was the only one who thought that he was a closet atheist. The Christians pressure him so much, and hit em hard on questions that doesn't need to be answered by a president.I think a president who believes in devils,praying to an invisible God shouldn't be elected.Clearly I loved when Obama showed on 1 vid how dangerous putting bible laws in politics and gov is.Obama flip flops on beliefs on the tele because hes scared these crazy religious people think hes the antichrist.How stupid.

[domrio]

Totally agree. Simply put, if he ran as an Atheist Hillary Clinton would be the next President right now. Which I think is backwards. Surely the most secular, rational thinker is right for the job of President. As you said, not someone who hears voices in their head.

[EarthlyDerision]

How the world has changed, the president-elect actually speaking sense and reason. Perhaps we have hope yet!

[bads06]

GO OBAMA !!! =3

[shubidubar]

warm and fuzzy feelings =)

[iAstrophysics]

Well, I'm pretty happy we have a intelligent President. Hopefully he'll make intelligent decisions.

[Nashy119]

Nobody says Atheist don't believe in anything, if anyone ever does just hand them a dictionary.

It's good to hear a bit of common sense though, I think the person guiding Barrack is different from the guy who figured things for the Bush family.

[RicowOTC]

Actually i hear that quite often... I think there's a common misunderstanding on the concept of Atheism. We have no official dogma or doctrine, which seems to make people believe sometimes it's some kind of "just believe in nothing" idea. And btw, plenty of the christians (pretty much all of them) donnot have any form of fundamental knowledge on their own ideologies, so we can't always expect them to know anything about ours...

Txs for commenting! =D

[LanceDirk]

"Nobody says Atheist don't believe in anything, if anyone ever does just hand them a dictionary."

Lol, maybe you should look up the definition of nobody.

I'm sorry if that sounded mean, I don't mean it to be, I just thought that was a fitting comment. The sad truth is I have heard multiple preachers say to atheists "You're and atheist? So you believe in nothing?"  It's frustrating to argue with them, they refuse to understand what we think.

[Nashy119]

I see what you mean, nobody in that context tends to mean 'nobody in our "group".

The point is though, people shouldn't be making up their on definitions, not understanding Science is one thing but not having a basic understanding how the English language works is over the top.

[DarkAngel182]

Nice to know that not everyone in the US is a religious fruitcake!

[AlienTruth]

I'm glad he's speaking about this. If you get a chance, youtube "Obama on Religion" You will see how rational Barack is, even while speaking to a room full of religious leaders. I was surprised when I went to changedotgov and saw a section on faith. Click on Agenda and then Additional Issues to take a look for yourself. I was hopeful that Obama had a little atheist left in him from the first half of his life and I believe its starting to show:)

[RicowOTC]

Yeah, despite facing beliefs, he is one of the most admired people nowadays. I just hope he won't be punished for being so daring...

I see that world has totally lost its faith in America since Bush was reelected. Though, i'm pretty much confident that Obama is about to be the most open minded president since Willian Taft and Abrahan Lincoln, so he can introduce everyone a brand new creative way of managing a laic nation. And then, US is gonna be respected like it used to be.

Amen! =D

[drzsr13]

how rational is 53 trillion debt?

[EarthlyDerision]

I dont think that the world had truelly ever given up on the US. There was very low oppinion of America here in London, something that I think American tourists tended to feel very strongly, however it is amazing to see how this has changed so strongly, so quickly, with the election of Obama. I just hope that he has not been given to tough a job given the mess that America, and indeed the world, is in for him to perform to the expectations the world now has of him. Good luck Obama.