JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
i do not believe in any god. i am an atheist. i think obsession with any god is the greatest obstacle to human intellectual enhancement. i come from a traditional buddhist background. so i guess i am religious. but these arguements of anti-religious atheists leave me speechless. i do not fit into any gross categories nor do i want to.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
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)
@Mogley52 Nobody is saying it did sustain itself eternally in the way that you are suggesting. Science has a few good theories about how the universe may have 'begun' none of which invoke god(s). Einstein did NOT say a supernatural being must have started it of at all; you're just quote mining. If god(s) exist, let science prove it and everyone will accept it. One thing that is utterly certain; religion (all of them) do not answer any of the questions with anything close to truth.
An absense of causation does not make an alternative explanation without direct evidence true. If there is no direct evidence for a supernatural or natural explanation for the big bang then you must maintain an open perspective. There has been recent evidence for alternative universes from oberved galactic gravitational pulls that may someday explain the big bang. Because science keeps filling in gaps of knowkedge the scienific explanation will always be the realistic answer.
@Mogley52 What? Science pointed to the supernatural, are you serious? how about you stop lying for your god. Nothing in science point to the supernatural. In fact science deals with what is observable and measurable, which is not what the supernatural is.
@Mogley52 look up A Universe from Nothing, a lecture by Lawrence Krauss. it's on here, youtube. Listen to it, it will explain exactly how a universe starts from nothing, and how if we have a state of absolute nothingness, it will ALWAYS produce something. Look it up before posting again.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
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
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
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.
All I'll say about this is if people like Jimmy Swaggart, Haggard, or bill o'reilly are the ones in heaven, and guys like Dennet, Dawkins, Hawkings, Einstein, Tyson, Franklin, Lincoln, et al are the ones in hell; I choose hell <-- Semi colon correctly used to show lack of hesitation.
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)
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Human sexuality isn't just for reproduction. There are reasons the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches, in heaven, we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Bible says we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be great spiritual joy and pleasures in heaven.
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy. 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)
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, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs 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.
WHAT ABOUT THE STARS? Gravity explains how the order found in the precise courses of trillions of stars is maintained, but gravity can't explain the origin of that order! Did all the trillions stars agree to get out of each others way? C'mon! Disorder in the universe is because of chance, but the order is because of design. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it's irrational to believe that undirected natural laws can bring about an airplane or a living cell. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
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 my popular Internet articles: ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE!
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument for 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 in design or useless.
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from variations produced having survival value. It doesn't produce variations. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be 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 living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T 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! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) 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!
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), arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of transitional forms and lack of evolutionary sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
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!
NOT ALL EVOLUTIONISTS even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
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 creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
The most good rated comment says "Hitler was a catholic". Really?? tat is the best comment? Yes he was some sort of catholic but he didnt care for anything that catholic church had to say. In fact, the catholic church helped thousands of jews during WW2 and many priest and nns and believers died saying no to Hitler. And keeping that line of thinking i could as well say STALIN WAS AN ATHEIST. And he killed a much grater number of people than Hitler. But that doesnt mean that atheist are bad
@homtyy stalin or anyone else for that matter killed in the name of atheism because atheism isnt a belief system.its simply"show me evidence of skydaddy and ill consider believing,until you do that,bye bye"
hitler thought he was dong gods work so much so that the pope celebrated his birthday for he felt he was avenging the jews for god.in turn hitler was making decisions for the church to include christianity in schools because he felt christianity was important.what did the nazi badges have?
@1984LizardKing There is a great deal of evidence in favour of God although there is not a total truth about it, that is why we say "we believe" instead of "we know". Among the highest authorities of the nazis there were lots of atheist as well.
Wonder how those highest authorities of the Nazis felt about having to affirm their belief in the Christian god in order to be allowed to serve in Hitler's regime.
@CaptainSmallFoot A lot of them were not catholic. So you are saying that beacause some christians were bad, christianity is not good? Beacause if that is how you think no one is good in this world. And the nazis also had to study Nietzsche as the philosopher of the nazi regime. Did they missunderstood Nietzsche?, yes they did, did they missunderstood christianity? YES THEY DID
I didn't say they were Catholic. Your first statement doesn't apply to anything I said. I didn't say anything about Christianity being bad as a result of believers. Your second statement does not apply. By the way, have you ever read the Bible? I will say now that Christianity is bad--thank goodness good people know better than to follow the religion to the letter. I'd have been murdered a long time ago if it were strictly obeyed in the United States.
@CaptainSmallFoot OK i apologize then. And yes i have read the Bible. When reading the Bible you must do it from a mature point of view, not like most people who criticise it or follow it to the letter. You musty take into account when it was written and how to follow it nowadays. You also must realize wich parts ae poethical and wich are not. If you dont purchuse to find God's will (specially in the gospels)in the Bible you are going to take it the wrong way
@homtyy I don't care when it was write because it is suppose to be the word of God and God should know better and tell his followers that rape is wrong and slavery etc even thou it was common practice at the time of its writing But instead of leading people down the path of a moral life were people are treated equally and with respect God instead tells the writers to include the rules for beating your slaves and the story of god killing the population of the earth including babies
@christinepeace God tells them all that is wrong also, read carefully the Gospels. And if you dont care when it was written, well i suggest you not to read it beacause you would take it the wrong way. And yes, the word of God was interpreted by men, the Bible is not made out of Gods hand writing. When you read it you must ask youserf, what is God telling me nowadays about life?.
According to the Bible, God's will is that people kill gay men, children who strike their parents, and women who cannot prove their virginity on their wedding night.
Jesus agreed with killing gay men, children who strike their parent, women can't prove their virginity on their wedding night, slavery and the beating of slaves, etc.. Or are you claiming that YHWH and Jesus disagreed with each other?
@DNAunion Well, you are wrong, please tell me were in the gospel Jesus said that it was all right killing gay men and all that stuff you said. What you are doing is to make out of christianity a monster that doesnt exist beacause you are afraid that if you realized all the good that christianity is doing you may consider the posibility of God.
The gospel of "John" tells us that Jesus (The Word) existed from the creation of the worldm so He existed during the Old Testament times too. In the OT, YHWH commands people to kill gay men, children who strike their parents, women who can't prove their virginty, etc. Jesus was there and agreed with those commands ... unless you are going to say that YHWH and Jesus disagreeed. Is that what you want to say??
Jesus existed in OT times (see gospel of "John"), back when YHWH was commanding that gay men, parent-striking children, and women who couldn't prove their virginity be killed, and that it was okay to beat your slaves. So ...
@DNAunion No they are not my options, Jesus existed, yes, but, he never agreed on killing anyone, in fact He only forviges those who have sin. And the children have no sin. But it is nice to discuss with you beacause it seems that you know a lot, i can learn from you.
So you are saying that Jesus and YHWH - two co-existing parts of the same "being" - disagreed about killing gay men, killing women who can't prove their virginity, killing children who strike their parents, slavery and the beating of slaves, etc.
How is that possible? God contradicts Himself? HUGE theological problem you've got there.
”Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the Lord, who makes you holy. …
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone here to death."
4) God condoning the beating of slaves (even if the slave ends up dying).
“The LORD said to Moses: Thus you shall say to the Israelites: ‘… When a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment: for the slave is the owner’s property.’”
@DNAunion you should read beyond so as to know when is God speaking and when is it an interpretation. Remember that the Bible was written by men in a certain time.
I read it. It is the end of a parable. Jesus is using a cultural practice his listerners are familiar with to explain a point about knowing disobedience and unknowing wrong doing and their "heavenly punishment". It is not a direct statement by Jesus saying it's fine to beat your slaves.
@DNAunion You'd think an omnipotent and omnipresent being would foresee how confusing a book full of half parabolic and half straightforward stories would be. The book doesn't even bother to denote what's a parable and what isn't! The Israelites were taking slaves and beating them to death over your god's incompetency!
@DNAunion My o my that passage has just converted me, How clever and free thinking you are, did you type or use cut and paste? You're so very clever! I no longer will seek the truth of the universe and our place in it on evidence but will reject it all and put all my faith in a 2000 year old mythical book ..... Thank you
@DNAunion Clicked on wrong reply. This page never seems to run properly on my PC. Jumps .... I apologise my free thinking, released from bronze age dogma friend!
@EvilDrCatfish With no missing links found, I think your religion of evolution requires as much faith as scientology. The bible is 100% science friendly. Sea shells found on My Everest prove a global flood, as do fossils. The current human population is cosistant with a young earth. The 300 prophecies in the Old Testament about Jesus Christ being exactly fulfilled to the smallest details, and prophecies now being fulfilled - i.e. the nation of Israel in 1948, a cacheless society, the NWO, etc.
@TextusReceptusBible The new testament was made after the old testament. Its all a big fairy tale. So is there being only one true god. The nail in the coffin for all monotheistic and polytheistic societies is that we do not know how many gods there are. One set of seashells on a mountain means the hateful God killed the entire world except 9 people? Who then did animal sacrifices for God after the flood? Do all religions agree with a world flood?
@TextusReceptusBible The nail in the coffin for Jesus: Jesus was god so he must've known about medicine. Why didn't he write down how to make medicine to fix disease? Why does it all SOUND like lies? Why can't God show himself? Why does a book keep people ignorant of other religions? Why is one religion better than the others? Why is one god better than multiple gods? Why didn't Jesus invent soap? lol. That's how ridiculous Jesus was and the stoneage bible
Atheism is simply put absence of belief in any gods, it does not claim that there is or isnt gods. Atheism should not be mistaken with agnosticsm either. A person can believe in a god without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism. Agnosticsm was created by people who misunderstood atheism. It's complicated. x_x
#jonPulze Oh really? Communizm (Stalin, Mao) Nazism? How many millions died under and because of atheist regimes using stupid assumptions causing famine poverty war and outright murder?
Atheism is a Religion, because you believe, you have faith there is no God without proof. When you die, it is only then you see the truth.
Go back to the definition of faith. Faith is believing in something without proof. Religion is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Therefore Atheism is a religion.
@SunTzuing There seems to be a terminological misunderstandement here: atheism is not faith, it is simply rejecting the claim of God's existance due to lack of evidence. However, atheism does not claim that there is a God or that there is no God. It is not belief in something, it is actually the opposite: lack of belief. Atheism does not have rules, eschatology nor a philosophy by which to live. Religion is a means of understanding our existence. Atheism does not explain anything.
@SunTzuing About what? Atheism? Well that's a ridicilous statement. The fact that we acknowledge atheism is evidence enough, we, homo sapiens, after all created this ideology.
@SunTzuing fyi (truth=light) After death U don't see truth only a continuation. You are soul & U take your beliefs with U because you "are" them.Less light in your soul = a darker environment but darkness is God's grace because the light would not be in harmony with your soul & upset you. It's a remedial place, not eternal hell. God is Love. Man created religion with hate. God doesn't know hate...The Padgett Messages.com explain this much better than I and you have the rest of this life to c.
Am I the only one who geeked out a little bit on this because Jonathan Miller sounds alot like the late Tony Jay (Megabyte from ReBoot or the Frollo from Disney's Hunchback of Notre Dame)?
was the twin towers a political or religious act? is the IRA V UDA based on politics or religion? regards these as religious acts is confused at best, propaganda at worst.
This video starts with a poor definition for Atheism, "The growing conviction that god doesn't exist". The word "Conviction" can be misleading, as it is often used as a synonym for "Belief". While all atheists hold the position that there are no deities, this is usually not a faith based proposition. Nearly all Atheists would define their position as, "The absence of belief that any deities exist.". Theists are the ones who make unprovable and untestable claims, Atheists do not.
@c0unterph0bia isn't it a belief ?? believing in the absence of any deities is in fact a belief ! it is a religion ... atheism is a religion like others ! it has its prophets, testaments ...
when we talk about evil, who can say that something is evil or not ??? it depends on our perception ! there is no objective definition of evil !!! killing, or any other thing cannot be objectively evil !!!!
@notinthemood2005 I agree with your stance on evil, but don't get your point. A majority of atheists are skeptics, and thus assert nothing beyond the existence of an objective "mind-independent" reality. An atheist would agree with your stance on evil. Again, atheists do not, "Believe there are no deities", the just reject claims of deities that lack empirical evidence, which happens to be all of them! If you are arguing for a subjective reality, then I suggest you lose your ego.
@c0unterph0bia for the good of every body, religion's morality is the only solution to all our problems ! An atheist is a person who doesn't believe in God ! that means, He think (confirms) God doesn't exist ... it's a religion ! and we know it's prophets like Darwin !
"empirical evidence" nothing is based on that .. even mathematics ! try to prove that 1+1=2 ? all what we can do is to start from supposing that there are evidences ! we can't prove 1+1 = 2 but we suppose it's evident !
@notinthemood2005 Sure, we can't prove 1+1=2, but we "suppose it's evident" BECAUSE IT WORKS. 1+1=2 produces beautiful art and music. 1+1=2 puts men on the moon. 1+1=2 collides atoms that can't be seen or felt. 1+1=2 constructs massive structures. 1+1=2 enables technology like the computer you are using. When Christians start praying people to the moon, maybe then I'll consider your method a better tool for perceiving reality than 1+1=2. Until then, you'll continue to look like an idiot.
@c0unterph0bia I completely agree with your contention. But I would like to strengthen your argument by saying that there actually exists a mathematical proof by Russell & Whitehead that 1+1 does actually equal 2.
@c0unterph0bia science is based on what we call evidences ! we think that parallel lines don't cross each other in any point ... nonce can prove that ! why do we believe in it ???
believing in God is based on reason !
science say that the universe began to exist ! and "evidence" tells me that every thing that begins to exist must be created ...
in addition to that, the universe can't have a infinite past of events ! if it has a infinite past of events, we wouldn't exist ...
@c0unterph0bia i was merely stating what an atheist or agnostic is, you were trying to explain what an atheist is, but what you described was an agnostic.. an atheist has a belief that there is no gods while an agnostic beliefs in an abscense of gods but (because of a scientific mind) will not say for certain there is no gods
an atheist will never be able to be scientific since atheists are just as bad as religious people when it comes to being openminded
@miskbalder Seriously consider studying this topic before debating it. Positive atheism maintains that, "There is no god". In negative atheism however, one lacks belief in the existence of any deity, but does not explicitly claim that the statement, "There is at least one god" is false. Stop saying that Atheism is a belief in anything, atheism is a lack of belief, that's it! Also, agnosticism only maintains that the claim, "God exists" is an uncertainty. Plenty of agnostics believe in god.
@c0unterph0bia n agnostics believe in god, neither do they say there is no god.. if they believe in god, they are not agnostics anymore, if they say there is no god they are not agnostics anymore, easy peasy so to say.. ive never heard of negative or positive atheism and i think you might have just made it up in the moment
@c0unterph0bia this is so wrong.. the absence of belief that any deities exist is called agnosticism.. what he says in this video is absolutely correct.. so i guess when you claim to be atheist, you are actually agnostic, since being atheist would be totally unscientific
@miskbalder You are terribly misinformed. Agnosticism says that the "truth value" of certain claims is unknown or unknowable. Have you not heard of Agnostic Theism? My stance is that of an Agnostic Atheist; I do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, but do so without certainty about whether any deity actually exists. There are very few Atheists who will claim to know that a deity does not exist. Everyone is an atheist, some just go one god further.
I'm a closet atheist because of the fear of rejection. to be born in a 3rd world theistic country is just sad. but thanks to the internet here I can express my feelings.
And the neurobiologist professor Dr. Amy Bishop, who executed three of her colleagues and wounded three others early this year, was an atheist. So what is your point?
people makeup things which do not understand and most often beleave everything to gives them answer which they change to fit new problems(questions) thats way the beleif in the devil is older than god see long ago people asked why if god creates all and does all why is their evil, killings, rapes and they created the devil
In the midst of my mind rages armageddon ,my spiritual endeavor for some hard to imagine,so many lost souls whom refuse to see, continuing on a path of uncertainty ,you live thy life for thy self ,now you have your reward so you boast,keep all that you have and obey your worldly master;just remember who you served on apocalyptic disaster
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@InsideReality Right now I am on my knees begging God to forgive your sins. You are a fool for not believing in God. I hope you find Jesus before it is too late
I define my atheism as a philosophical stand that questions the problematic meaning of the word God. You can talk about God all you want, but the meaning is problematic. All religions have a different story about some divine being. Its meaning, again, is serious in trouble.
Therefore, I do not tell anyone that "God dose not exist." I don't even understand what one means by God. Or indeed if I care AT ALL!
Yes, being an atheist is insignificant. We are all atheists in the context of countless gods invented by ancient humanity.
Unfortunately, it is considerable in the context of today's prolific delusions, with christianity and islam, judaism and hinduism, always breaking the peace, always spawning more violence.
"The hocus-pocus phantasy of a God, like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs." Thomas Jefferson, third President of the USA
I love how right off the bat they improperly define atheism and yet the title "A Brief History of Disbelief" does imply the proper definition. What's with that?
@JonPulze Creationism and Atheism are explanations. They are formed in the pursuit of truth. The morals of those who believe in either of the theories has very little to with a theory's validity . If an evil person believes the sky is blue, does their evilness bring the sky’s color into question? As is the case here, some atheists point out “evil” creationists as "evidence" that creationism is the false theory....... [I will continue in a reply to this comment]......
@241Groundhog [continued] … and some creationists point out “evil” atheists as “evidence” that atheism is the false theory. Both the atheists and the creationists who do this are fools. Your morals do not change the color of the sky. Your morals do not change the fact that 1 apple and 1 apple is 2 apples. Why would you think that someone's morals would change the facts on whether or not there is or isn’t a god in the real world?
@241Groundhog I am an atheist because the facts point that way. The “evil” or “good” actions of creationists have no impact on that. Whether creationists are “benefiting” the world or “hurting” it has no bearing on the fact that there is not god. The universe works the way it does regardless of whether you’re an “evil” person or a “good” person.
@241Groundhog Cool! The universe has Absolute Spiritual Laws put in place by God. The workings of these laws are invisible, like gravity. BUT the collective negativity of this planet is evident. It has nothing to do with Atheist or Religious belief. It's living a faith in HARMONY with these universal Laws. There's room for both! Don't confuse angry bigotry be it religious or atheistic. Another Law, that is Love Love conquers ALL. It's the Essence of God. Check out The Padgett Messages.com : )
Hitler received the majority vote several times, but just not enough of a majority to elect him to office. After several elections, he was appointed...ect.
He was a raving fucking lunatic nutcase but a very motovational speaker in a country that was falling apart. People voted for him, he got into power and the rest is history.
None of his actions were religiously motovated nor were the athiest driven.
I'm so sick of hearing about Hitler.
He has nothing to do with the birth of the human race nor does he give fair argument to the morals of religion. We do not get our morals from religion.
I know this is an old comment by internet standards and I completely agree with you on everything with one exception. Hitler was not elected. He was appointed without a public vote to Chancellor by then President Hindenburg who was one of the people he lost the election to. I think it would be hard to think that any election after that would be an honest one.
Your religious plague spreads numbing the progression of global peace. Keeping people separated fighting and dying not for a belief but for make-belief is something that should be stopped
There have never been any regimes that are in the name of atheism. Atheist arnt that stupid, unlike christians catholics jewdism and islam. you never hear about a group of atheist going into a small town, killing everyone just because they do believe in a god. That is exactly what all religions are doing except they kill u if you dont believe in THEIR god.
No, instead they have their own faith in which they eliminate the non-followers which potentially cause disorder in their social belief-system. We have scientists to thanks for all the technologists they've given politically motivated groups to acquire their power and dominate a society. And believe me, they show NO mercy!
@iluvtoargue So you're saying that because scientists create technology that could be used for good but instead is given to politicians, who were put into office because of their pro christian beliefs, use it for harm it's the scientist fault? I guess you're right, if u give a retard a gun and they kill with it it should be the parants fault. Athiest/scientists/logicalists are the parents watching and making sure religious idiots/christian/islam etc.. dont kill us all.
@mgs6ps3 not trying to defend religious regimes here, but to be fair, the Soviet state was very much founded with atheism as a principle. Perhaps not in "the name of atheism" but it was certainly a case of enforced atheism.
@BurenVanMartin Very true that it was enforced atheism. Enforced any belief system is wrong but you missed the point. There is no logical pathway that leads from atheism to violence besides self defence from religious nuts who want us killed.. There are no people out there saying "Dont believe in god or we'll kill you". That's not the case for christianity islam etc... It's like islam, they say things like "Say islam is a religion of peace or we'll kill you". Atheists are not like that.
@mgs6ps3 There IS the whole Communist regime...people can be horrible, atheists are no different. We can be corrupted by power, we can be cruel, greedy and all those other things. Communism was a staunchly atheist state and Stalin was responsible for thousands upon thousands of deaths. It would be folly for us to fall into the same trap as so many other religions of believing ourselves infallible.
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
GET READY FOR THE GREAT WARNING NOW!!!
thewarningsecondcoming . com
JezusSlave 4 weeks ago
i do not believe in any god. i am an atheist. i think obsession with any god is the greatest obstacle to human intellectual enhancement. i come from a traditional buddhist background. so i guess i am religious. but these arguements of anti-religious atheists leave me speechless. i do not fit into any gross categories nor do i want to.
pixusbubblejet 1 month ago
There are morons and then there is Mogley52
dirtydonki 3 months ago
"I've found me own ways." lol good boy
jsamari 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 4 months ago
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 4 months ago
@Mogley52 Nobody is saying it did sustain itself eternally in the way that you are suggesting. Science has a few good theories about how the universe may have 'begun' none of which invoke god(s). Einstein did NOT say a supernatural being must have started it of at all; you're just quote mining. If god(s) exist, let science prove it and everyone will accept it. One thing that is utterly certain; religion (all of them) do not answer any of the questions with anything close to truth.
TheMogulmonster 4 months ago
@Mogley52
An absense of causation does not make an alternative explanation without direct evidence true. If there is no direct evidence for a supernatural or natural explanation for the big bang then you must maintain an open perspective. There has been recent evidence for alternative universes from oberved galactic gravitational pulls that may someday explain the big bang. Because science keeps filling in gaps of knowkedge the scienific explanation will always be the realistic answer.
drbarry00 3 months ago
@Mogley52 What? Science pointed to the supernatural, are you serious? how about you stop lying for your god. Nothing in science point to the supernatural. In fact science deals with what is observable and measurable, which is not what the supernatural is.
petion2010 3 months ago
@Mogley52 look up A Universe from Nothing, a lecture by Lawrence Krauss. it's on here, youtube. Listen to it, it will explain exactly how a universe starts from nothing, and how if we have a state of absolute nothingness, it will ALWAYS produce something. Look it up before posting again.
t1mel1ne 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How 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 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 4 months ago
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 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 4 months ago
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 4 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 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
Mogley52 4 months ago
stopped watching before 0:30 when they misdefined atheism
Bayview05 4 months ago
All I'll say about this is if people like Jimmy Swaggart, Haggard, or bill o'reilly are the ones in heaven, and guys like Dennet, Dawkins, Hawkings, Einstein, Tyson, Franklin, Lincoln, et al are the ones in hell; I choose hell <-- Semi colon correctly used to show lack of hesitation.
losghost 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Atheism
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Human sexuality isn't just for reproduction. There are reasons the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches, in heaven, we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Bible says we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be great spiritual joy and pleasures in heaven.
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Atheism
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy. 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 in playlist Atheism
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, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs 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 in playlist Atheism
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT ABOUT THE STARS? Gravity explains how the order found in the precise courses of trillions of stars is maintained, but gravity can't explain the origin of that order! Did all the trillions stars agree to get out of each others way? C'mon! Disorder in the universe is because of chance, but the order is because of design. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Atheism
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 undirected natural laws can bring about an airplane or a living cell. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Atheism
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 my popular Internet articles: ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE!
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Atheism
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 for 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 in design or useless.
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Atheism
This has been flagged as spam show
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from variations produced having survival value. It doesn't produce variations. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be 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 living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Atheism
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T 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! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Atheism
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) 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 in playlist Atheism
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), arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of transitional forms and lack of evolutionary sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Atheism
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 in playlist Atheism
This has been flagged as spam show
NOT ALL EVOLUTIONISTS even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Atheism
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 creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Atheism
How horrible, someone doesn't believe in magic.
bmehoota 5 months ago
The world would be a much much better place if everyone was an atheist
But one day .... it might :)
AtheistBelgium 6 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Bhagavad Gita says that material world where we live now was created by God specially for atheists.
We didnt want to see God and He put us in this world to fulfill our desire.
Caesar88888 8 months ago in playlist Atheism
The most good rated comment says "Hitler was a catholic". Really?? tat is the best comment? Yes he was some sort of catholic but he didnt care for anything that catholic church had to say. In fact, the catholic church helped thousands of jews during WW2 and many priest and nns and believers died saying no to Hitler. And keeping that line of thinking i could as well say STALIN WAS AN ATHEIST. And he killed a much grater number of people than Hitler. But that doesnt mean that atheist are bad
homtyy 10 months ago
@homtyy stalin or anyone else for that matter killed in the name of atheism because atheism isnt a belief system.its simply"show me evidence of skydaddy and ill consider believing,until you do that,bye bye"
hitler thought he was dong gods work so much so that the pope celebrated his birthday for he felt he was avenging the jews for god.in turn hitler was making decisions for the church to include christianity in schools because he felt christianity was important.what did the nazi badges have?
1984LizardKing 10 months ago
@1984LizardKing There is a great deal of evidence in favour of God although there is not a total truth about it, that is why we say "we believe" instead of "we know". Among the highest authorities of the nazis there were lots of atheist as well.
homtyy 10 months ago
@homtyy
Wonder how those highest authorities of the Nazis felt about having to affirm their belief in the Christian god in order to be allowed to serve in Hitler's regime.
CaptainSmallFoot 9 months ago
@CaptainSmallFoot A lot of them were not catholic. So you are saying that beacause some christians were bad, christianity is not good? Beacause if that is how you think no one is good in this world. And the nazis also had to study Nietzsche as the philosopher of the nazi regime. Did they missunderstood Nietzsche?, yes they did, did they missunderstood christianity? YES THEY DID
homtyy 9 months ago
@homtyy
I didn't say they were Catholic. Your first statement doesn't apply to anything I said. I didn't say anything about Christianity being bad as a result of believers. Your second statement does not apply. By the way, have you ever read the Bible? I will say now that Christianity is bad--thank goodness good people know better than to follow the religion to the letter. I'd have been murdered a long time ago if it were strictly obeyed in the United States.
CaptainSmallFoot 9 months ago
@CaptainSmallFoot OK i apologize then. And yes i have read the Bible. When reading the Bible you must do it from a mature point of view, not like most people who criticise it or follow it to the letter. You musty take into account when it was written and how to follow it nowadays. You also must realize wich parts ae poethical and wich are not. If you dont purchuse to find God's will (specially in the gospels)in the Bible you are going to take it the wrong way
homtyy 9 months ago
@homtyy I don't care when it was write because it is suppose to be the word of God and God should know better and tell his followers that rape is wrong and slavery etc even thou it was common practice at the time of its writing But instead of leading people down the path of a moral life were people are treated equally and with respect God instead tells the writers to include the rules for beating your slaves and the story of god killing the population of the earth including babies
christinepeace 8 months ago
@christinepeace God tells them all that is wrong also, read carefully the Gospels. And if you dont care when it was written, well i suggest you not to read it beacause you would take it the wrong way. And yes, the word of God was interpreted by men, the Bible is not made out of Gods hand writing. When you read it you must ask youserf, what is God telling me nowadays about life?.
homtyy 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@homtyy
"God tells them all that is wrong also"
So God contradicts Himself.
DNAunion 7 months ago in playlist Atheism
@homtyy
According to the Bible, God's will is that people kill gay men, children who strike their parents, and women who cannot prove their virginity on their wedding night.
DNAunion 7 months ago in playlist Atheism
@DNAunion n when Jesus reformulated the law of God like it needed
, did He said that?
homtyy 6 months ago
@homtyy
Jesus agreed with killing gay men, children who strike their parent, women can't prove their virginity on their wedding night, slavery and the beating of slaves, etc.. Or are you claiming that YHWH and Jesus disagreed with each other?
DNAunion 6 months ago
@DNAunion Well, you are wrong, please tell me were in the gospel Jesus said that it was all right killing gay men and all that stuff you said. What you are doing is to make out of christianity a monster that doesnt exist beacause you are afraid that if you realized all the good that christianity is doing you may consider the posibility of God.
homtyy 6 months ago
@homtyy
"Well, you are wrong, "
No I'm not. You just ignored part of what I said.
The gospel of "John" tells us that Jesus (The Word) existed from the creation of the worldm so He existed during the Old Testament times too. In the OT, YHWH commands people to kill gay men, children who strike their parents, women who can't prove their virginty, etc. Jesus was there and agreed with those commands ... unless you are going to say that YHWH and Jesus disagreeed. Is that what you want to say??
DNAunion 6 months ago
@DNAunion No, what i say is that an interpretation of Gods law was made by the people but then Jesus came and said love the others.
homtyy 6 months ago
@homtyy
No, you don't have that option.
Jesus existed in OT times (see gospel of "John"), back when YHWH was commanding that gay men, parent-striking children, and women who couldn't prove their virginity be killed, and that it was okay to beat your slaves. So ...
1. Jesus agreed with YHWH's commands.
2. Jesus and YHWH disagreed.
Those are your options. Choice your poison.
DNAunion 6 months ago
@DNAunion No they are not my options, Jesus existed, yes, but, he never agreed on killing anyone, in fact He only forviges those who have sin. And the children have no sin. But it is nice to discuss with you beacause it seems that you know a lot, i can learn from you.
homtyy 6 months ago
@homtyy
So you are saying that Jesus and YHWH - two co-existing parts of the same "being" - disagreed about killing gay men, killing women who can't prove their virginity, killing children who strike their parents, slavery and the beating of slaves, etc.
How is that possible? God contradicts Himself? HUGE theological problem you've got there.
DNAunion 6 months ago
@DNAunion If you know enough to say that, i would apprecieate if you could say were in the Bible is that please.
homtyy 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@homtyy
1) God commanding that gay men be killed:
”Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the Lord, who makes you holy. …
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
(Leviticus 20:8, 13)
DNAunion 6 months ago
@homtyy
1 of 2
2) God commanding that women who cannot prove their virginity on their wedding night be killed.
"
If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad
name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her
virginity,” then the girl’s father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town
elders at the gate. … [continued]
DNAunion 6 months ago 2
@homtyy
2 of 2
...
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone here to death."
(Deuteronomy 22:13-15, 20-21)
DNAunion 6 months ago 2
@homtyy
3) God commanding that children who merely strike their parents be killed.
“Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘… He who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.’”
(Exodus 20:22, 21:15)
DNAunion 6 months ago 18
@homtyy
4) God condoning the beating of slaves (even if the slave ends up dying).
“The LORD said to Moses: Thus you shall say to the Israelites: ‘… When a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment: for the slave is the owner’s property.’”
(Exodus 20:22, 21:20-21)
DNAunion 6 months ago 21
@DNAunion you should read beyond so as to know when is God speaking and when is it an interpretation. Remember that the Bible was written by men in a certain time.
homtyy 6 months ago
@homtyy
You should learn to read.
They have God doing the command. For example ...
"The LORD said to Moses..."
"Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the Lord, who makes you holy"
DNAunion 6 months ago
@DNAunion Try Luke 12, 47-48 where dear Jesus talks about punishing your slave...
Rusvi1 2 months ago
@Rusvi1
Try it ... for what? I guess you are trying to make a point, but you didn't. Care to take another shot?
DNAunion 2 months ago
@DNAunion OMG....dude...fucking read it...
Rusvi1 2 months ago
@Rusvi1
I read it. It is the end of a parable. Jesus is using a cultural practice his listerners are familiar with to explain a point about knowing disobedience and unknowing wrong doing and their "heavenly punishment". It is not a direct statement by Jesus saying it's fine to beat your slaves.
DNAunion 2 months ago
@DNAunion LOL...you know your bible like I know fucking Chinese...
Rusvi1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rusvi1
Says the person who is too stupid to make a point.
DNAunion 2 months ago
@DNAunion You'd think an omnipotent and omnipresent being would foresee how confusing a book full of half parabolic and half straightforward stories would be. The book doesn't even bother to denote what's a parable and what isn't! The Israelites were taking slaves and beating them to death over your god's incompetency!
c0unterph0bia 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@c0unterph0bia
"@DNAunion ... The Israelites were taking slaves and beating them to death over your god's incompetency!"
My god's incompetency? What god would that be?
DNAunion 2 months ago
@DNAunion My o my that passage has just converted me, How clever and free thinking you are, did you type or use cut and paste? You're so very clever! I no longer will seek the truth of the universe and our place in it on evidence but will reject it all and put all my faith in a 2000 year old mythical book ..... Thank you
currie1967 4 days ago
@currie1967
Um, I'm an atheist.
DNAunion 4 days ago
@DNAunion Clicked on wrong reply. This page never seems to run properly on my PC. Jumps .... I apologise my free thinking, released from bronze age dogma friend!
currie1967 4 days ago
@homtyy Nazi motto: "God with us".
hedleypanama 9 months ago
Religion Kills!! Just say no..
cruiseplatoon 10 months ago
Science has disproved Evolution.
TextusReceptusBible 11 months ago
@TextusReceptusBible Sure...... the same science that disproved gravity no doubt.
shmonksta 11 months ago
@TextusReceptusBible Science has done nothing but prove evolution.
EvilDrCatfish 10 months ago
@EvilDrCatfish With no missing links found, I think your religion of evolution requires as much faith as scientology. The bible is 100% science friendly. Sea shells found on My Everest prove a global flood, as do fossils. The current human population is cosistant with a young earth. The 300 prophecies in the Old Testament about Jesus Christ being exactly fulfilled to the smallest details, and prophecies now being fulfilled - i.e. the nation of Israel in 1948, a cacheless society, the NWO, etc.
TextusReceptusBible 10 months ago
@TextusReceptusBible The new testament was made after the old testament. Its all a big fairy tale. So is there being only one true god. The nail in the coffin for all monotheistic and polytheistic societies is that we do not know how many gods there are. One set of seashells on a mountain means the hateful God killed the entire world except 9 people? Who then did animal sacrifices for God after the flood? Do all religions agree with a world flood?
iliveon 10 months ago
@TextusReceptusBible The nail in the coffin for Jesus: Jesus was god so he must've known about medicine. Why didn't he write down how to make medicine to fix disease? Why does it all SOUND like lies? Why can't God show himself? Why does a book keep people ignorant of other religions? Why is one religion better than the others? Why is one god better than multiple gods? Why didn't Jesus invent soap? lol. That's how ridiculous Jesus was and the stoneage bible
iliveon 10 months ago
Atheism is simply put absence of belief in any gods, it does not claim that there is or isnt gods. Atheism should not be mistaken with agnosticsm either. A person can believe in a god without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism. Agnosticsm was created by people who misunderstood atheism. It's complicated. x_x
Neea91 11 months ago
#jonPulze Oh really? Communizm (Stalin, Mao) Nazism? How many millions died under and because of atheist regimes using stupid assumptions causing famine poverty war and outright murder?
pashute12 11 months ago
little kid @ 9:08- "I found me own ways now" (lol) good for you jr. !
mysterymediacorp 1 year ago
Atheism is a Religion, because you believe, you have faith there is no God without proof. When you die, it is only then you see the truth.
Go back to the definition of faith. Faith is believing in something without proof. Religion is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Therefore Atheism is a religion.
SunTzuing 1 year ago
@SunTzuing There seems to be a terminological misunderstandement here: atheism is not faith, it is simply rejecting the claim of God's existance due to lack of evidence. However, atheism does not claim that there is a God or that there is no God. It is not belief in something, it is actually the opposite: lack of belief. Atheism does not have rules, eschatology nor a philosophy by which to live. Religion is a means of understanding our existence. Atheism does not explain anything.
Neea91 11 months ago
@Neea91
.
You don't have proof.
SunTzuing 11 months ago
@SunTzuing About what? Atheism? Well that's a ridicilous statement. The fact that we acknowledge atheism is evidence enough, we, homo sapiens, after all created this ideology.
Neea91 11 months ago
@SunTzuing "You don't have proof."
Do I have to prove that I don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster? No, because that is absurd and you are a retard!!!!!!!!!
knobcheese22 11 months ago
@SunTzuing fyi (truth=light) After death U don't see truth only a continuation. You are soul & U take your beliefs with U because you "are" them.Less light in your soul = a darker environment but darkness is God's grace because the light would not be in harmony with your soul & upset you. It's a remedial place, not eternal hell. God is Love. Man created religion with hate. God doesn't know hate...The Padgett Messages.com explain this much better than I and you have the rest of this life to c.
1created1 10 months ago
@1created1 God knew man would make hate?
iliveon 10 months ago
Am I the only one who geeked out a little bit on this because Jonathan Miller sounds alot like the late Tony Jay (Megabyte from ReBoot or the Frollo from Disney's Hunchback of Notre Dame)?
StarMaster3dfx 1 year ago
@StarMaster3dfx Yes.
BurenVanMartin 1 year ago
was the twin towers a political or religious act? is the IRA V UDA based on politics or religion? regards these as religious acts is confused at best, propaganda at worst.
jimburp 1 year ago
BBC ripping off Pink Floyd....
again!
sixtiksix 1 year ago
This video starts with a poor definition for Atheism, "The growing conviction that god doesn't exist". The word "Conviction" can be misleading, as it is often used as a synonym for "Belief". While all atheists hold the position that there are no deities, this is usually not a faith based proposition. Nearly all Atheists would define their position as, "The absence of belief that any deities exist.". Theists are the ones who make unprovable and untestable claims, Atheists do not.
c0unterph0bia 1 year ago 10
@c0unterph0bia isn't it a belief ?? believing in the absence of any deities is in fact a belief ! it is a religion ... atheism is a religion like others ! it has its prophets, testaments ...
when we talk about evil, who can say that something is evil or not ??? it depends on our perception ! there is no objective definition of evil !!! killing, or any other thing cannot be objectively evil !!!!
notinthemood2005 4 months ago
@notinthemood2005 I agree with your stance on evil, but don't get your point. A majority of atheists are skeptics, and thus assert nothing beyond the existence of an objective "mind-independent" reality. An atheist would agree with your stance on evil. Again, atheists do not, "Believe there are no deities", the just reject claims of deities that lack empirical evidence, which happens to be all of them! If you are arguing for a subjective reality, then I suggest you lose your ego.
c0unterph0bia 4 months ago
@c0unterph0bia for the good of every body, religion's morality is the only solution to all our problems ! An atheist is a person who doesn't believe in God ! that means, He think (confirms) God doesn't exist ... it's a religion ! and we know it's prophets like Darwin !
"empirical evidence" nothing is based on that .. even mathematics ! try to prove that 1+1=2 ? all what we can do is to start from supposing that there are evidences ! we can't prove 1+1 = 2 but we suppose it's evident !
notinthemood2005 4 months ago
@notinthemood2005 Sure, we can't prove 1+1=2, but we "suppose it's evident" BECAUSE IT WORKS. 1+1=2 produces beautiful art and music. 1+1=2 puts men on the moon. 1+1=2 collides atoms that can't be seen or felt. 1+1=2 constructs massive structures. 1+1=2 enables technology like the computer you are using. When Christians start praying people to the moon, maybe then I'll consider your method a better tool for perceiving reality than 1+1=2. Until then, you'll continue to look like an idiot.
c0unterph0bia 2 months ago
@c0unterph0bia I completely agree with your contention. But I would like to strengthen your argument by saying that there actually exists a mathematical proof by Russell & Whitehead that 1+1 does actually equal 2.
userjclchan 1 month ago
@c0unterph0bia science is based on what we call evidences ! we think that parallel lines don't cross each other in any point ... nonce can prove that ! why do we believe in it ???
believing in God is based on reason !
science say that the universe began to exist ! and "evidence" tells me that every thing that begins to exist must be created ...
in addition to that, the universe can't have a infinite past of events ! if it has a infinite past of events, we wouldn't exist ...
it was crated ...
notinthemood2005 4 months ago
Comment removed
miskbalder 4 months ago
@c0unterph0bia i was merely stating what an atheist or agnostic is, you were trying to explain what an atheist is, but what you described was an agnostic.. an atheist has a belief that there is no gods while an agnostic beliefs in an abscense of gods but (because of a scientific mind) will not say for certain there is no gods
an atheist will never be able to be scientific since atheists are just as bad as religious people when it comes to being openminded
miskbalder 4 months ago
@miskbalder Seriously consider studying this topic before debating it. Positive atheism maintains that, "There is no god". In negative atheism however, one lacks belief in the existence of any deity, but does not explicitly claim that the statement, "There is at least one god" is false. Stop saying that Atheism is a belief in anything, atheism is a lack of belief, that's it! Also, agnosticism only maintains that the claim, "God exists" is an uncertainty. Plenty of agnostics believe in god.
c0unterph0bia 4 months ago
@c0unterph0bia n agnostics believe in god, neither do they say there is no god.. if they believe in god, they are not agnostics anymore, if they say there is no god they are not agnostics anymore, easy peasy so to say.. ive never heard of negative or positive atheism and i think you might have just made it up in the moment
miskbalder 4 months ago
@c0unterph0bia this is so wrong.. the absence of belief that any deities exist is called agnosticism.. what he says in this video is absolutely correct.. so i guess when you claim to be atheist, you are actually agnostic, since being atheist would be totally unscientific
miskbalder 4 months ago
@miskbalder You are terribly misinformed. Agnosticism says that the "truth value" of certain claims is unknown or unknowable. Have you not heard of Agnostic Theism? My stance is that of an Agnostic Atheist; I do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, but do so without certainty about whether any deity actually exists. There are very few Atheists who will claim to know that a deity does not exist. Everyone is an atheist, some just go one god further.
c0unterph0bia 4 months ago
I'm a closet atheist because of the fear of rejection. to be born in a 3rd world theistic country is just sad. but thanks to the internet here I can express my feelings.
maddyboi1973 1 year ago 3
@maddyboi1973 What would happen if you let the people around you know that you were an atheist? What is the dominant religion where you are?
bearchewtoy75 1 year ago
@maddyboi1973 Good man.
Stay strong my friend and good luck.
jimmywrangles 1 year ago
And the neurobiologist professor Dr. Amy Bishop, who executed three of her colleagues and wounded three others early this year, was an atheist. So what is your point?
iluvtoargue 1 year ago
people makeup things which do not understand and most often beleave everything to gives them answer which they change to fit new problems(questions) thats way the beleif in the devil is older than god see long ago people asked why if god creates all and does all why is their evil, killings, rapes and they created the devil
kingtigion09 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In the midst of my mind rages armageddon ,my spiritual endeavor for some hard to imagine,so many lost souls whom refuse to see, continuing on a path of uncertainty ,you live thy life for thy self ,now you have your reward so you boast,keep all that you have and obey your worldly master;just remember who you served on apocalyptic disaster
tricia7771 1 year ago
god never existed,except in the minds of people who are too afraid to think
InsideReality 1 year ago 20
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@InsideReality Right now I am on my knees begging God to forgive your sins. You are a fool for not believing in God. I hope you find Jesus before it is too late
ClythiaMystica 1 year ago
@ClythiaMystica My sins of not believing? *rolls eyes at troll*
theclinger 1 year ago
I define my atheism as a philosophical stand that questions the problematic meaning of the word God. You can talk about God all you want, but the meaning is problematic. All religions have a different story about some divine being. Its meaning, again, is serious in trouble.
Therefore, I do not tell anyone that "God dose not exist." I don't even understand what one means by God. Or indeed if I care AT ALL!
Voodoofreak35 1 year ago
I'm also reluctant to call myself an atheist for the same reason.
lynxiness 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@-)--)--
click on my name for the u rl to see the DANCE OF DEATH ON TOP OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER & see how we crushed the NEW ATHEIST MOVEMENT...
@-)--)--
felixmab66 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the NEW ATHEISM movement has been completely crushed...click on my name for the ur l to see how...
Atheist:
have you for but a moment considered that you have adopted a position against 98% of the human race, both past and present?
do you think you are RIGHT and they are all WRONG?
WRONG
88strangelove 2 years ago
Yes, being an atheist is insignificant. We are all atheists in the context of countless gods invented by ancient humanity.
Unfortunately, it is considerable in the context of today's prolific delusions, with christianity and islam, judaism and hinduism, always breaking the peace, always spawning more violence.
cartmanspp2 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
click on my name for the u r l to see why atheism will never be tolerated...
drmabus7 2 years ago
"The hocus-pocus phantasy of a God, like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs." Thomas Jefferson, third President of the USA
qaplatlhinganmaH 2 years ago
I love how right off the bat they improperly define atheism and yet the title "A Brief History of Disbelief" does imply the proper definition. What's with that?
TylerBoBylerFyler 2 years ago
Hitler was a big pussy that never got over haveing to quit sucking his mommies tits.
IEALES2 2 years ago
Wow! I don't think I've ever seen anyone get a thumbs down for insulting Hilter! That is fucking awesome. :P
HoleDweller 2 years ago
Hitler was a catholic
JonPulze 2 years ago 84
Didn't he hated Christains JonPulze?
SamPD2 2 years ago
@JonPulze He worshiped demons!
HedeenJeff 1 year ago
@JonPulze Creationism and Atheism are explanations. They are formed in the pursuit of truth. The morals of those who believe in either of the theories has very little to with a theory's validity . If an evil person believes the sky is blue, does their evilness bring the sky’s color into question? As is the case here, some atheists point out “evil” creationists as "evidence" that creationism is the false theory....... [I will continue in a reply to this comment]......
241Groundhog 1 year ago
Comment removed
241Groundhog 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@241Groundhog [continued] … and some creationists point out “evil” atheists as “evidence” that atheism is the false theory. Both the atheists and the creationists who do this are fools. Your morals do not change the color of the sky. Your morals do not change the fact that 1 apple and 1 apple is 2 apples. Why would you think that someone's morals would change the facts on whether or not there is or isn’t a god in the real world?
241Groundhog 1 year ago
@241Groundhog I am an atheist because the facts point that way. The “evil” or “good” actions of creationists have no impact on that. Whether creationists are “benefiting” the world or “hurting” it has no bearing on the fact that there is not god. The universe works the way it does regardless of whether you’re an “evil” person or a “good” person.
241Groundhog 1 year ago
@241Groundhog Cool! The universe has Absolute Spiritual Laws put in place by God. The workings of these laws are invisible, like gravity. BUT the collective negativity of this planet is evident. It has nothing to do with Atheist or Religious belief. It's living a faith in HARMONY with these universal Laws. There's room for both! Don't confuse angry bigotry be it religious or atheistic. Another Law, that is Love Love conquers ALL. It's the Essence of God. Check out The Padgett Messages.com : )
1created1 10 months ago
@241Groundhog
I agree with you, altough I think atheism is not an explanation at all. It is simply disbelief to an explanation, and the claim behind it.
aaKonda 1 year ago
@241Groundhog so true.
BurenVanMartin 1 year ago
@JonPulze
Hitler was also a Conservative
jfeltes 10 months ago
@JonPulze
NO he was actually a freemanson (illuminati)
spacetraveller2521 9 months ago
Hitler received the majority vote several times, but just not enough of a majority to elect him to office. After several elections, he was appointed...ect.
Serpent
Serpent257 2 years ago
Hitler is dead. So let go. That's the way for people to move on. Stop living in the past.
2estring57 2 years ago
same with racism,that needs to stop also.
TLSlayer 2 years ago
Fuck using Hitler as an example of anything!
He was a raving fucking lunatic nutcase but a very motovational speaker in a country that was falling apart. People voted for him, he got into power and the rest is history.
None of his actions were religiously motovated nor were the athiest driven.
I'm so sick of hearing about Hitler.
He has nothing to do with the birth of the human race nor does he give fair argument to the morals of religion. We do not get our morals from religion.
petestrat07 2 years ago 8
I know this is an old comment by internet standards and I completely agree with you on everything with one exception. Hitler was not elected. He was appointed without a public vote to Chancellor by then President Hindenburg who was one of the people he lost the election to. I think it would be hard to think that any election after that would be an honest one.
theredblueblurr 2 years ago
Your religious plague spreads numbing the progression of global peace. Keeping people separated fighting and dying not for a belief but for make-belief is something that should be stopped
mgs6ps3 2 years ago
You're right, atheist regimes have always promoted global peace, haven't they?
SonofOxford 2 years ago
There have never been any regimes that are in the name of atheism. Atheist arnt that stupid, unlike christians catholics jewdism and islam. you never hear about a group of atheist going into a small town, killing everyone just because they do believe in a god. That is exactly what all religions are doing except they kill u if you dont believe in THEIR god.
mgs6ps3 2 years ago 47
No, instead they have their own faith in which they eliminate the non-followers which potentially cause disorder in their social belief-system. We have scientists to thanks for all the technologists they've given politically motivated groups to acquire their power and dominate a society. And believe me, they show NO mercy!
iluvtoargue 1 year ago
@iluvtoargue So you're saying that because scientists create technology that could be used for good but instead is given to politicians, who were put into office because of their pro christian beliefs, use it for harm it's the scientist fault? I guess you're right, if u give a retard a gun and they kill with it it should be the parants fault. Athiest/scientists/logicalists are the parents watching and making sure religious idiots/christian/islam etc.. dont kill us all.
mgs6ps3 1 year ago
@mgs6ps3 not trying to defend religious regimes here, but to be fair, the Soviet state was very much founded with atheism as a principle. Perhaps not in "the name of atheism" but it was certainly a case of enforced atheism.
BurenVanMartin 1 year ago
@BurenVanMartin Very true that it was enforced atheism. Enforced any belief system is wrong but you missed the point. There is no logical pathway that leads from atheism to violence besides self defence from religious nuts who want us killed.. There are no people out there saying "Dont believe in god or we'll kill you". That's not the case for christianity islam etc... It's like islam, they say things like "Say islam is a religion of peace or we'll kill you". Atheists are not like that.
mgs6ps3 1 year ago
@mgs6ps3 There IS the whole Communist regime...people can be horrible, atheists are no different. We can be corrupted by power, we can be cruel, greedy and all those other things. Communism was a staunchly atheist state and Stalin was responsible for thousands upon thousands of deaths. It would be folly for us to fall into the same trap as so many other religions of believing ourselves infallible.
ZarathustrasCrown 8 months ago
@ZarathustrasCrown There's no doubt that atheists can be just