you have done the same as them you are responsible for the same ignorance when he says themselves maybe he means themselves as a race as in mankind we only believe ourselves and those we see you choose to take it as a self centered gesture you didn't give him the benefit of the doubt because you choose to think hes ignorant
@Carpenter4134 Dude I don't know what state you live in but in North Carolina, I am descriminated every day for being an atheist. And I don't ask for anything from them, not respect, nor equal rights. I am descriminated, and once beaten, for just existing.
Huckabee's comment was ridiculous. Atheists believe in more than themselves; they believe in the universe and all that's in it, including other people! I am heartened that Obama mentioned nonbelievers in his inaugural speech.
I am a Catholic, and I find nothing wrong with President Obama's inagural address by mentioning people who have no religion (I think it's good for people to follow something that they feel comfortable with, rather than just agreeing with what is acceptable) and although I am not an atheist, I am fairly certain that atheists do not, as Govenor Huckabee put it, "believe in themselves." That's just a load of crap.
Fox News Coverage was biased and evil. So happy that Murdoch is getting something back in his face at the moment. Outrageous. Appalling. Biased. And they call it news.
@Kuner1 According to some, he was a deist. But deisim, spinoism, pan/entheism and buddh/jainism are all practical atheists as they dont believe god is a personal deity and works in our lives. But I do agree with you. Look at sweden, the most atheistic country in the world, it is relatively small but so prosperous. Imagine that happening to US - btw, search for "After the rapture the thinking atheist" - a similiar concept is explored there.
@aaqucnaona94 it probabally already does..Obama is an atheist..u have to play the game...nobody that comes out and says he is an atheist or that he or she is gay will be a president of this country...
What bothers me a lot more is that he mentions muslims second, and fails mention native american religions and buddhists at all. Shows where his priorities lie
@Kuner1 I think he wanted to mention religions (or lack of) that american citizens are mostly prejudice against. If he stood up there and named off every religion, his legs would give out.
Non-believers are just that, non-believers. There is no implication that they believe in themselves, whatever that means. Many however do believe that relying on human reason and rationality is a more prudent approach than accepting religious dogma or superstition of one sort or another.
Fox News' discussion was definitely more offensive to non-believers than Obama's could have been to non-believers.
"-Isms in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism. He should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon: 'I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me.' Good point there. After all he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I'd still have to bum ride off people." ~Ferris Bueller.
Huckabee's a moron. To be atheist, and I don't know how many times we've heard this, is to merely have a lack of belief in a deity or dieties. The reasons are numerous: never heard of the concept, heard of it but never taught that a deity exists, believed at one time but stopped for any number of reason, etc. This just shows how uneducated and/or indoctrinated Huckabee is.
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 !!!
If you are Christian, I will battle you in the streets, your churches and your homes to keep Christianity out of my public schools and government offices. BEHAVE!! >_<
If Obama found the cure for cancer, Fox headlines would read "Scientists and doctors lose jobs! How Obama is killing the drug companies". Seriously Faux...
I'm atheist and I believe in everything that has evidence of actually existing, which doesn't include an invisible wizard in the sky.
Silly Fox News!
I would say that I was offended by this Huckabee fellow's statements, but then that would mean that I am actually giving them weight, which is something I don't want to do. Truth is, I didn't even notice the "non-believe/atheist" thing in Obama's speech until this video pointed it out XD
i dont like the phase non-believe idk id prefer athiest. But it was nice to be mentioned idk who would be offened by it im offened that people are offened athiests a people to and to expand that perhaps more than any religous person. and what that ass hole dick fuck god ass licking guy said was just stupid pure stupidity how dare you look down apon me how dare you it should be the other way around however the majority of this fucking planet have the delution there is a god.
@alexanderhulse Just a thought...If you're trying to make a point, try spelling correctly, and occasionally utilizing punctuation. People may take what you say more seriously.
I believe that there are many more things than we understand now. I believe they are all part of space-time, and as such, can be examined by science. I believe that almost every barrier, scientific or religious, that we place on how things CAN work will one day be proven wrong, as surely as the ancients thought the sky was a solid dome. So is there a God? Not a personal one we can understand. The fundies profess to understand something they don't, and that makes me respect them less.
So now it's offensive to acknowledge the existence of atheists? Now it's offensive to acknowledge that 15% of U.S. citizens don't believe in religion? You shitcunt slimy pricks, rot in the earth.
Offensive? Where the did that come from? Who even gave him that idea? Atheists are generally smarter than highly religious people, most scientists (the people that actually advance our species) are agnostic or atheists.
The only way including non-believers could be offensive is if you believe that non-believers have no place in America, if you believe that it is wrong to publicly tolerate freedom of belief and speech if it conflicts with your beliefs or vision of America. Lets not forget that 'under God' was only added to the pledge of allegiance in 1954 to differentiate 'freedom-loving Americans' from 'the godless commies'. America is not, and has never been a Christian nation.
I was actually proud when president Obama included non-believers in his speech, but Mr. Huckabee I feel does nonbelievers a disservice. I may not believe in any supernatural forces or what have you, but I wouldn't describe it as "believing in myself" I like to say that I believe in people. I actually believe in lots of things, none of them supernatural. I believe in people and science, and I believe that the best thing anyone can do is to try to improve the lives of others. In any way possible.
I think the most beautiful "American Value" is the idea that we are free to choose how to live our lives. There are some other "values" that I don't particularly value, but freedom of choice is pretty cool. We can choose to believe in whatever worldview we want, whether that's Christianity, Islam, or reason and science. We don't have to conform, and I think that's what Obama is trying to say; it's okay not to conform. Fox News doesn't quite understand that American Value...
I would not say Huckabee is entirely correct, but it possibly stems from those who refer to themselves as their own god. As in "I am my own god, I control my destiny", etc. etc... To a religious person this idea is probably offensive, so I can see why he would take it as narcissism. In fact it's just being responsible for yourself, rather than hoping someone else is going to take care of you.
@BeautyBoyTV Lol score a touchdown. What the fuck? The longer I spend alive not being retarded, the harder I find it to understand such stupid (non-)thoughts.
I love at 0:25 - 0:55 how at the bottom of the screen it says he mentions Atheists AND muslims in his speech,As if mentioning islam was also offensive and/or controversial,Too bad they didn't have the balls to say that,Would have been funny-Atheism Rules!
@billywms I noticed that, too. I really believe that some of the more extreme anti-Islamic rhetoric being flung around - particularly the "creeping Sharia" nonsense - is an attempt by certain OTHER religious extremists to create a particularly pro-Christian backlash that might be expressed in legislation. That's very scary to me; I'm neither an atheist nor a Christian (at least, not by the general conception of the term), so this stuff truly makes me fear for true American Freedom.
a freudian slip by obama? an atheist with no balls,or just self preservation of his position, well said all the same. as an atheist i believe in the natural world and all that it provides for our existence. peace and happiness to all except those that try to ram their dogma down my throat from time to time.they can simply talk to my hand.
To the Atheists here Fox news is a satanic organization that drinks Hong Kong Chinese Communist Cunt Juice in Satanic Rituals. They don’t hate you because you don’t believe in God; they hate you because you won’t drink the Satanic Cunt Juice in honor of Satan. Otherwise why wouldn’t they ask Mike Huckabee, a so called Christian, how is it that he can cash his FOX paycheck when Christians as well as Atheists are sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia?
Here’s what I think. You won’t catch my ASS nowhere near a Fox broadcast because I’m too scared I’ll get demon possessed from that Hong Kong Chinese Communist Cunt Whore who spits out Lucifer’s spawn from her slanted Hong Kong Cunt for the Rupert Murdock Empire. I can only imagine some Satanic Ritual in an underground cave somewhere with all in the Murdock Empire including Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal who drink her Kong Kong CUNT juice in honor of Satan.
I believe in the wonder of the universe, the majesty and splendour, made even better by the fact that it happened over billions of years, and not created by one being, no matter how powerful that being is.
@erebus890 True. I have to admit that its a lot to do with the media. Im from the UK and people don't hate you so vehemently for being an Athiest. But with the media output from the US its like there is something wrong with you if you dont believe in a god. When I visit the US this is not how americans are. They are really nice, friendly and social people.
How closed-minded and shut off is that - that what is being called offensive here, the ONLY thing I can see which could conceivably be seen as offensive about it - is that someone is saying that atheists have contributed to the good of a country right alongside christians, muslims, jews, and hindus.
@SerpentStare Are you saying no atheists have contributed anything? If you are saying that, then perhaps you should take a look at your technology & your medicines... do you really believe they were all created by 'believers?' Not only that, several VERY influential founders, presidents & people have either been atheists or deists at best, including, but not limited to John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln & Albert Einstein... just saying.
@allfitch84 ... Umm... Take a look at my previous comment. I think Obama's statement of unity throughout followers of many different religions as well as unbelievers was great. Hell. I AM atheist. I'm just saying that it seems like the only thing these reporters are considering to be offensive is the idea that atheists have merits. And -that- bias is disgusting. They think it offensive that atheists deserve mention in a list of faith categories. And I think THAT is offensive.
@SerpentStare Yep, it was lost in translation! I'm an atheist as well. I just didn't quite follow what you said. I do that on occasion. Now I'm with you though & I agree. It is rather mind-numbing to realize that people actually think that their religious views & beliefs give them some kind of authority over those without the same ones. It seems like all religions tend to bring out the very things it's supposed to oppose: anger, hatred, oppression, violence, exploitation, greed. It's quite odd.
@allfitch84 The really astounding thing here is that the way they're reacting, it's not just that they feel they have authority over people who don't believe the same as them - their objection wasn't to the Islamists, Hindus or anyone else. They are, it seems, much more willing to cooperate and accept as equals people who believe radically different things about God, than those who don't believe in any form of God. I can see why they would be, religiously, but taking that into politics...
@SerpentStare Perhaps I should have let you explain what you meant exactly... It was a little hard to tell, perhaps just getting lost in translation. Damn interweb haha
It was honorable and heartwarming to see someone in a position of power for once make a statement that shows he understands that human beings of all backgrounds have something to contribute to a country, which seems clearly to me to be the point of the speech - that everyone, from religions all around the world, and those with no religion, were valued as Americans.
I think what Fox is objecting to and calling offensive is that acceptance of atheists as people.
@gat0rgirl13 - No, I'm going to say that he did mean it that way. I've come across tons of believers who claim that "atheists don't believe in anything", or "atheists only worship themselves". And I have no reason to believe that people like huckabee would point out that is ridiculous, its part of their crappy defense of belief to claim that atheists believe in nothing
@OPE08 ive come across those remarks too, which are offensive. I just think huckabee meant atheists only believe in the natural world not "atheists only believe in themselves", but your'e right that he and no one else on fox would point that out...or stick up for us
What can I do, if I believe in God, but I see non-Christians using up valuable lebensraum while christian populations are exploding, and see them exploiting valuable oil resources which I will soon need as mine have run out? What does the bible advise me? Perhaps God has already planned the answer for us all...
As an atheist, I was not offended by Obama's comment, but a little insulted by them asking if it's offensive. Why should it be offensive to anyone that there is a large number of people who believe only in themselves? And, as you can probably gather, I'm not pleased that your comment at the end of the video assumes one has to be a narcissist to believe in themselves. I was raised catholic and even at a young age mom said I should believe in myself. I can prove that I exist. I control my life.
The comment was not believe in themselves, but believe ONLY in themselves which is different and narcissistic basically I hope you simply missed the nuance.
He's smart...IMO too smart to be a theist. He acts Christian, because more or less in the US you have to be to be President. Delusional conspiracy theorists and some nut job republicans think he's Muslim. I think he's an atheist.
Yes Fox, some people, are non believers. Don't go starting another holy war over it. Just let people live freely without trying to brainwash the masses against them.
Fox News is so ridiculous. Obama dares even mentions them as one group out of many that constitute the American population, and the guy on Fox does "a double take"? Offensive? Really? To even acknowledge that atheists exist? And then they bring on Huckabee, a Southern Baptist minister, to give commentary?
I think this channel is valuable for talking about harmful Fox news lies, but I unsubscribed because I got tired of all the pedantic pissy shit like this that they get caught up on.
Dear god, why the hell is mogly bitching in caps? This isn't a forum for religious madness. And more on topic, did anyone sincerely expect fox "news" *cough* to behave any differently?
They only care about atheists being offended when it's at Obama's expense. Like the other day when they complained 'Obama is killing the Middle Class' for one thing he did. I've never heard them even mention 'Middle Class' until that day.
i'm an atheist can i honestly can't see how obama's speech could possibly be taken as offensive... all he said was the word "non-believers" how is that even offensive?? the guy on fox news on the other hand is just a fuckhead...
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN ON ANOTHER PLANET? Imagine finding a planet where robots are programmed to make other robots just like themselves from raw materials. Now, imagine an alien scientist visiting the planet and, after studying these robots, comes to the conclusion that because science can explain how these robots work, function, and reproduce there's no reason to believe there was an intelligent designer behind them! Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or a cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
I think it is a little offensive to the intellect when you refer to Fox news as "our friends"and make it sound as if Fox is the only organization that "creates" a controversy.
atheist usually defend their position by saying that they believe in themselves and don't need an imaginary friend in the sky, or a crutch, etc. huckabee's comment is not offensive, just silly. I have been called the guy that believes in the imaginary friend in the sky many times. no big deal, lighten up
Actually only believing in one self does not have to be narcissitic. In fact I would state the only think we know for sure is the fact that we are real, everything could simply be an illusion or a trick of the mind, but I doubt he meant it that way :P
Well done. Religion is mythology and nothing more. I believe in many thingsand am not narcissitic. A Former Governor showed his ignorance and lack of class.
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)
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
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
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 its is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
I'm not sure who is a bigger idiot. Fox News for having air such a nonstory or the fucking tools that take the story seriously. Either way Bing fail for both.
you have done the same as them you are responsible for the same ignorance when he says themselves maybe he means themselves as a race as in mankind we only believe ourselves and those we see you choose to take it as a self centered gesture you didn't give him the benefit of the doubt because you choose to think hes ignorant
TheMoogle42 1 day ago
fox are a bunch of religious tools...
just look at oriely's reasons for being catholic "tide comes in tide goes out! Sun comes up sun goes down! without fail!"
yup thats right... he must have flunked science...
DemoraX 2 days ago
Once gays get their equal rights, I feel like atheists will be the next target for discrimination.
Carpenter4134 5 days ago 2
@Carpenter4134 Dude I don't know what state you live in but in North Carolina, I am descriminated every day for being an atheist. And I don't ask for anything from them, not respect, nor equal rights. I am descriminated, and once beaten, for just existing.
93214919321491 3 days ago
Huckabee's comment was ridiculous. Atheists believe in more than themselves; they believe in the universe and all that's in it, including other people! I am heartened that Obama mentioned nonbelievers in his inaugural speech.
GameShowGuy 6 days ago
I am a Catholic, and I find nothing wrong with President Obama's inagural address by mentioning people who have no religion (I think it's good for people to follow something that they feel comfortable with, rather than just agreeing with what is acceptable) and although I am not an atheist, I am fairly certain that atheists do not, as Govenor Huckabee put it, "believe in themselves." That's just a load of crap.
AliensHateUs 6 days ago
Fox News Coverage was biased and evil. So happy that Murdoch is getting something back in his face at the moment. Outrageous. Appalling. Biased. And they call it news.
peterobs 1 week ago
fox news definity! we all know they are puppets for the REAL people in power....
Se7eN11247 1 week ago
Yeah Hucabee was an idiot to say that. "nothing other then themselves." Not very Christian-like, I'll say that much.
ex0gen 1 week ago
he didn't actually write that speech
UnderCoverPope 1 week ago
I don't believe in myself. I know for a fact that I exist.
TarousDT 1 week ago
When US has an atheist president, it will truelly become the greatest country in the world.
aaqucnaona94 1 week ago 4
@aaqucnaona94
Last one was Thomas Jefferson. Probably the greatest President of all.
Kuner1 1 week ago
@Kuner1 According to some, he was a deist. But deisim, spinoism, pan/entheism and buddh/jainism are all practical atheists as they dont believe god is a personal deity and works in our lives. But I do agree with you. Look at sweden, the most atheistic country in the world, it is relatively small but so prosperous. Imagine that happening to US - btw, search for "After the rapture the thinking atheist" - a similiar concept is explored there.
aaqucnaona94 1 week ago
@aaqucnaona94 it probabally already does..Obama is an atheist..u have to play the game...nobody that comes out and says he is an atheist or that he or she is gay will be a president of this country...
bettydaw1970 1 week ago
What bothers me a lot more is that he mentions muslims second, and fails mention native american religions and buddhists at all. Shows where his priorities lie
Kuner1 2 weeks ago
@Kuner1 I think he wanted to mention religions (or lack of) that american citizens are mostly prejudice against. If he stood up there and named off every religion, his legs would give out.
imoiinu 1 week ago
Non-believers are just that, non-believers. There is no implication that they believe in themselves, whatever that means. Many however do believe that relying on human reason and rationality is a more prudent approach than accepting religious dogma or superstition of one sort or another.
Fox News' discussion was definitely more offensive to non-believers than Obama's could have been to non-believers.
mnhsty 2 weeks ago 3
I'm amazed that an educated country like America shudders whenever atheists and logical thinkers get officially mentioned.
sparkymmilarky 2 weeks ago
@sparkymmilarky
Fuckin little kids shouldnt be allowed to post on youtube..
TopTenCrew 2 weeks ago
"-Isms in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism. He should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon: 'I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me.' Good point there. After all he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I'd still have to bum ride off people." ~Ferris Bueller.
Crust218 3 weeks ago 3
@Crust218 the walrus was paul.... it says so in the song they did called glass oignon... lol
deckadad1 2 weeks ago
There is a reason I dont watch fox news.
dimcoin 3 weeks ago
Huckabee's a moron. To be atheist, and I don't know how many times we've heard this, is to merely have a lack of belief in a deity or dieties. The reasons are numerous: never heard of the concept, heard of it but never taught that a deity exists, believed at one time but stopped for any number of reason, etc. This just shows how uneducated and/or indoctrinated Huckabee is.
HimesInu 3 weeks ago
i would put the blame on fox news its not a probelm to ackknoleg non belevaver s there ar both good and bad non belvaves but thats just me
spmandmtgr 1 month ago in playlist More videos from LiberalViewer
@spmandmtgr In the same way there are both good and bad believers.
HimesInu 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
GET READY FOR THE GREAT WARNING NOW!!!
thewarningsecondcoming . com
JezusSlave 1 month ago
As a "non-believer", I find that I agree with the Huckabee person. I absolutely believe in myself, and I have evidence to support my belief.
Rakafeth 1 month ago 5
i think your voice gives me headaches. Anyways i like waffles
luisrock2008 1 month ago
About to think Huckabee was saying something right and smart, then he carried on. Shame on him.
10trojan10 1 month ago
If you are Christian, I will battle you in the streets, your churches and your homes to keep Christianity out of my public schools and government offices. BEHAVE!! >_<
Karoke77 1 month ago 5
Of course it's not right of them.
terronova 1 month ago
If Obama found the cure for cancer, Fox headlines would read "Scientists and doctors lose jobs! How Obama is killing the drug companies". Seriously Faux...
TBird4490 1 month ago 3
@TBird4490 That's a good point!
EclecticSceptic 1 month ago
Comment removed
Dragodemon000 1 month ago
Could you zoom in a little more on her tits?
TheMetalRiffer 1 month ago
@TheMetalRiffer Exactly what I was thinking. =D
ComicBookBoy1082 1 month ago
LOL "Atheists only believe in themselves."
I'm atheist and I believe in everything that has evidence of actually existing, which doesn't include an invisible wizard in the sky.
Silly Fox News!
I would say that I was offended by this Huckabee fellow's statements, but then that would mean that I am actually giving them weight, which is something I don't want to do. Truth is, I didn't even notice the "non-believe/atheist" thing in Obama's speech until this video pointed it out XD
foojuice101 1 month ago
i dont like the phase non-believe idk id prefer athiest. But it was nice to be mentioned idk who would be offened by it im offened that people are offened athiests a people to and to expand that perhaps more than any religous person. and what that ass hole dick fuck god ass licking guy said was just stupid pure stupidity how dare you look down apon me how dare you it should be the other way around however the majority of this fucking planet have the delution there is a god.
alexanderhulse 1 month ago
@alexanderhulse Just a thought...If you're trying to make a point, try spelling correctly, and occasionally utilizing punctuation. People may take what you say more seriously.
tlucentefl 1 month ago
@tlucentefl I type too quickly trying to get everything down.
alexanderhulse 1 month ago
Athiests only believe in themselves? I believe in EVERYONE. The only thing I don't believe in is a giant floating man in the sky that created us.
SUPERMARKYSHARKY 1 month ago
That's th kind of snide attitude that keeps Huck from the Oval Office.
riftalope 1 month ago in playlist Fox News Bias
Its the truth "non believers" are exactly that. Nothing else I don't see how anyone has offence to that!
MrLogicthinking 1 month ago
Who THE FUCK would be offended by that...
philberz 1 month ago
I believe that there are many more things than we understand now. I believe they are all part of space-time, and as such, can be examined by science. I believe that almost every barrier, scientific or religious, that we place on how things CAN work will one day be proven wrong, as surely as the ancients thought the sky was a solid dome. So is there a God? Not a personal one we can understand. The fundies profess to understand something they don't, and that makes me respect them less.
-Agnostic
Christhefireshark 1 month ago
So now it's offensive to acknowledge the existence of atheists? Now it's offensive to acknowledge that 15% of U.S. citizens don't believe in religion? You shitcunt slimy pricks, rot in the earth.
EclecticSceptic 1 month ago 82
@EclecticSceptic That is...a new insult combination. I can't wait to use that one on someone, haha.
JillBrameld 1 month ago
@EclecticSceptic
16% to be exact.
9N8X 4 weeks ago
@EclecticSceptic It's actually 17%.... that makes it even worse
squishylobster111 1 week ago
@squishylobster111 Yay! We are on the rise!
aaqucnaona94 1 week ago
Offensive? Where the did that come from? Who even gave him that idea? Atheists are generally smarter than highly religious people, most scientists (the people that actually advance our species) are agnostic or atheists.
Fox news is the downfall of society...
LOGICandREAS0N 1 month ago
There was nothing offensive about what was said in Fox News. Its true it was something no many presidents have dared to say so it was interesting.
Stop acting so sensitive.
josevanreyes 1 month ago
The only way including non-believers could be offensive is if you believe that non-believers have no place in America, if you believe that it is wrong to publicly tolerate freedom of belief and speech if it conflicts with your beliefs or vision of America. Lets not forget that 'under God' was only added to the pledge of allegiance in 1954 to differentiate 'freedom-loving Americans' from 'the godless commies'. America is not, and has never been a Christian nation.
thetexandub 1 month ago
I was actually proud when president Obama included non-believers in his speech, but Mr. Huckabee I feel does nonbelievers a disservice. I may not believe in any supernatural forces or what have you, but I wouldn't describe it as "believing in myself" I like to say that I believe in people. I actually believe in lots of things, none of them supernatural. I believe in people and science, and I believe that the best thing anyone can do is to try to improve the lives of others. In any way possible.
lissy42nerdfighter 1 month ago 3
@lissy42nerdfighter i was going to write the same exact thing, but you did it quite well.
IWasSentToDestroyYou 1 month ago
It's also not exclusively American (sorry, I forgot to mention that in the previous post).
SidheSaid 1 month ago
I think the most beautiful "American Value" is the idea that we are free to choose how to live our lives. There are some other "values" that I don't particularly value, but freedom of choice is pretty cool. We can choose to believe in whatever worldview we want, whether that's Christianity, Islam, or reason and science. We don't have to conform, and I think that's what Obama is trying to say; it's okay not to conform. Fox News doesn't quite understand that American Value...
SidheSaid 1 month ago
I believe in donuts that are so good u could go nuts. I can see donuts. I can eat them. Yummmm. With chocolate frosting.
psistarpsi80 1 month ago
What Huckabee is describing is a solopsist, not an atheist.
ShavedKnuckle 1 month ago
I would not say Huckabee is entirely correct, but it possibly stems from those who refer to themselves as their own god. As in "I am my own god, I control my destiny", etc. etc... To a religious person this idea is probably offensive, so I can see why he would take it as narcissism. In fact it's just being responsible for yourself, rather than hoping someone else is going to take care of you.
BeautyBoyTV 1 month ago
@BeautyBoyTV If anything religion is narcissistic, considering yourself the center of the universe.
EclecticSceptic 1 month ago
@EclecticSceptic
Absolutely. Thinking that some almighty deity cares if you score a touch down or win an award. That's narcissism at its best.
BeautyBoyTV 1 month ago
@BeautyBoyTV Lol score a touchdown. What the fuck? The longer I spend alive not being retarded, the harder I find it to understand such stupid (non-)thoughts.
EclecticSceptic 1 month ago
How the fuck is it offensive???
BeautyBoyTV 1 month ago
I love at 0:25 - 0:55 how at the bottom of the screen it says he mentions Atheists AND muslims in his speech,As if mentioning islam was also offensive and/or controversial,Too bad they didn't have the balls to say that,Would have been funny-Atheism Rules!
billywms 1 month ago 41
@billywms I noticed that, too. I really believe that some of the more extreme anti-Islamic rhetoric being flung around - particularly the "creeping Sharia" nonsense - is an attempt by certain OTHER religious extremists to create a particularly pro-Christian backlash that might be expressed in legislation. That's very scary to me; I'm neither an atheist nor a Christian (at least, not by the general conception of the term), so this stuff truly makes me fear for true American Freedom.
Flegetanis 2 weeks ago
@Flegetanis i fear that too.
billywms 2 weeks ago
Light the log for Thor!
joelgullick 1 month ago
Fuck Mike Huckabee. His statement was asinine - amongst many such statements.
SuperHuntard 2 months ago
Comment removed
SuperHuntard 2 months ago
a freudian slip by obama? an atheist with no balls,or just self preservation of his position, well said all the same. as an atheist i believe in the natural world and all that it provides for our existence. peace and happiness to all except those that try to ram their dogma down my throat from time to time.they can simply talk to my hand.
kram83au 2 months ago 2
So, apparently the very existence of nonbelievers is now offensive to these half wits. Ooh. Shocking.
Sustenance21 2 months ago in playlist Fox News Bias
To the Atheists here Fox news is a satanic organization that drinks Hong Kong Chinese Communist Cunt Juice in Satanic Rituals. They don’t hate you because you don’t believe in God; they hate you because you won’t drink the Satanic Cunt Juice in honor of Satan. Otherwise why wouldn’t they ask Mike Huckabee, a so called Christian, how is it that he can cash his FOX paycheck when Christians as well as Atheists are sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia?
biorgymd 2 months ago
Here’s what I think. You won’t catch my ASS nowhere near a Fox broadcast because I’m too scared I’ll get demon possessed from that Hong Kong Chinese Communist Cunt Whore who spits out Lucifer’s spawn from her slanted Hong Kong Cunt for the Rupert Murdock Empire. I can only imagine some Satanic Ritual in an underground cave somewhere with all in the Murdock Empire including Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal who drink her Kong Kong CUNT juice in honor of Satan.
biorgymd 2 months ago
I didn't find either offensive. Everyone is stating what they think.
If you think about it...if someone doesn't believe in anything....they should at least believe in themselves...No??
tinaw1969 2 months ago
1: I'm an atheist, i believe in the existence of the universe, including myself.
2: fuck fox news, its not worth spending time analyzing.
lopendepaddo 2 months ago 2
I believe in the wonder of the universe, the majesty and splendour, made even better by the fact that it happened over billions of years, and not created by one being, no matter how powerful that being is.
TheKaldarsPanda 2 months ago
Sad...just...freakin' sad..
Diamondhide1994 2 months ago
What the fuck is it with America that suddenly its deviant to not believe in stuff that others believe in. How did we get to this point?
massivojohnson 2 months ago
@massivojohnson Oh it's been like that all over the world. It's actually getting a lot better though.
erebus890 2 months ago
@erebus890 True. I have to admit that its a lot to do with the media. Im from the UK and people don't hate you so vehemently for being an Athiest. But with the media output from the US its like there is something wrong with you if you dont believe in a god. When I visit the US this is not how americans are. They are really nice, friendly and social people.
massivojohnson 2 months ago
Fox NEWS is an oxymoron.
JohnathanHauck 2 months ago 2
@JohnathanHauck Faux news is a correct statement
telemarker93 2 months ago
How closed-minded and shut off is that - that what is being called offensive here, the ONLY thing I can see which could conceivably be seen as offensive about it - is that someone is saying that atheists have contributed to the good of a country right alongside christians, muslims, jews, and hindus.
SerpentStare 2 months ago
@SerpentStare Are you saying no atheists have contributed anything? If you are saying that, then perhaps you should take a look at your technology & your medicines... do you really believe they were all created by 'believers?' Not only that, several VERY influential founders, presidents & people have either been atheists or deists at best, including, but not limited to John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln & Albert Einstein... just saying.
allfitch84 2 months ago
@allfitch84 ... Umm... Take a look at my previous comment. I think Obama's statement of unity throughout followers of many different religions as well as unbelievers was great. Hell. I AM atheist. I'm just saying that it seems like the only thing these reporters are considering to be offensive is the idea that atheists have merits. And -that- bias is disgusting. They think it offensive that atheists deserve mention in a list of faith categories. And I think THAT is offensive.
SerpentStare 2 months ago
@SerpentStare Yep, it was lost in translation! I'm an atheist as well. I just didn't quite follow what you said. I do that on occasion. Now I'm with you though & I agree. It is rather mind-numbing to realize that people actually think that their religious views & beliefs give them some kind of authority over those without the same ones. It seems like all religions tend to bring out the very things it's supposed to oppose: anger, hatred, oppression, violence, exploitation, greed. It's quite odd.
allfitch84 2 months ago
@allfitch84 The really astounding thing here is that the way they're reacting, it's not just that they feel they have authority over people who don't believe the same as them - their objection wasn't to the Islamists, Hindus or anyone else. They are, it seems, much more willing to cooperate and accept as equals people who believe radically different things about God, than those who don't believe in any form of God. I can see why they would be, religiously, but taking that into politics...
SerpentStare 2 months ago
@SerpentStare Perhaps I should have let you explain what you meant exactly... It was a little hard to tell, perhaps just getting lost in translation. Damn interweb haha
allfitch84 2 months ago
That coverage was despicable.
It was honorable and heartwarming to see someone in a position of power for once make a statement that shows he understands that human beings of all backgrounds have something to contribute to a country, which seems clearly to me to be the point of the speech - that everyone, from religions all around the world, and those with no religion, were valued as Americans.
I think what Fox is objecting to and calling offensive is that acceptance of atheists as people.
SerpentStare 2 months ago
Yes and know.
Technically, all we can believe in is ourselves because it is the only thing we have evidence of.
Then again, most of us believe in the reality around us.
I'm going to say it's not offensive. (I am atheist).
"I just believe in me," -John Lennon (from the song "God")
tomorrowneverknows94 2 months ago
huckabee didnt mean it that way, you're interpreting it wrong. and im an atheist. and that hosts an asshole
gat0rgirl13 3 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 - No, I'm going to say that he did mean it that way. I've come across tons of believers who claim that "atheists don't believe in anything", or "atheists only worship themselves". And I have no reason to believe that people like huckabee would point out that is ridiculous, its part of their crappy defense of belief to claim that atheists believe in nothing
OPE08 2 months ago
@OPE08 ive come across those remarks too, which are offensive. I just think huckabee meant atheists only believe in the natural world not "atheists only believe in themselves", but your'e right that he and no one else on fox would point that out...or stick up for us
gat0rgirl13 2 months ago
What can I do, if I believe in God, but I see non-Christians using up valuable lebensraum while christian populations are exploding, and see them exploiting valuable oil resources which I will soon need as mine have run out? What does the bible advise me? Perhaps God has already planned the answer for us all...
bobinhk1 3 months ago
No.
Fox News coverage.
But these ones were way to easy to answer.
VolcanicPenguin 3 months ago
The most intelligent humans on the planet refute the Bible as literal truth!!!
railroadtrash09 3 months ago
Neither. I just think that some people can't speak or understand English.
VonManavis 3 months ago
huckabee correct? never
Frederico99er 3 months ago
Fox news is the most anti-atheist organisation in america.
and oh suddenly they become open minded when obama mentions us specifically!
dickheads
Mikeybetts 3 months ago
Does fox think it's offensive that he included Christians?
systematic101 3 months ago
As an atheist, I was not offended by Obama's comment, but a little insulted by them asking if it's offensive. Why should it be offensive to anyone that there is a large number of people who believe only in themselves? And, as you can probably gather, I'm not pleased that your comment at the end of the video assumes one has to be a narcissist to believe in themselves. I was raised catholic and even at a young age mom said I should believe in myself. I can prove that I exist. I control my life.
moshcustom 3 months ago
@moshcustom
The comment was not believe in themselves, but believe ONLY in themselves which is different and narcissistic basically I hope you simply missed the nuance.
way2jaded1 3 months ago
He's smart...IMO too smart to be a theist. He acts Christian, because more or less in the US you have to be to be President. Delusional conspiracy theorists and some nut job republicans think he's Muslim. I think he's an atheist.
counterclockwise123 3 months ago
Yes Fox, some people, are non believers. Don't go starting another holy war over it. Just let people live freely without trying to brainwash the masses against them.
dtafoya20 3 months ago
No, i believe he's not correct....
lolocig125 3 months ago
Fox News is so ridiculous. Obama dares even mentions them as one group out of many that constitute the American population, and the guy on Fox does "a double take"? Offensive? Really? To even acknowledge that atheists exist? And then they bring on Huckabee, a Southern Baptist minister, to give commentary?
Ashiman12 3 months ago 11
They were even questioning if Obama was officially president because Chief Justice Roberts messed up the oath.
peacelord 3 months ago
I appreciate Obama mentioning atheists. I don't see how it was offensive at all
daccord1 3 months ago
I think this channel is valuable for talking about harmful Fox news lies, but I unsubscribed because I got tired of all the pedantic pissy shit like this that they get caught up on.
AllOtherNamesTaken2 3 months ago
My Cock, a bee
MatsEP 3 months ago
why doesn,t fox news just adopt a swastika over across as their symbol.
ghylltarvoke 3 months ago 76
@ghylltarvoke i just recently found out the swastika was originally a symbol of peace, until the nazis got ahold of it.
FreakyKing2 3 months ago
@FreakyKing2 Yes,you will find it in tibetan monasterys.the nazi,s reversed it to the right,the path of satan
ghylltarvoke 3 months ago
@ghylltarvoke
They're too busy sucking Israel's cock, that's why.
NorthCitySider 3 months ago
@ghylltarvoke I think they should change their name to Propaganda News, as well as pretty much every other mainstream news outlet.
IHighLikePlane 3 months ago
@ghylltarvoke Well said.
maooz 2 months ago
@ghylltarvoke let's not get hyperbolic now.
MonsieurRondu 2 months ago
@ghylltarvoke Well tho I hate fox news they are nothing like the Nazis. Go read Mein Kampf,and study what the nazis were about.
Cogitatio023 2 months ago
@ghylltarvoke
Ever heard of Godwin's law?
myusernameisluc 1 month ago
Fox news coverage was offensive. Obama's speech was inclusive.
cherrypiedie 3 months ago 5
God dammit, why must Fox make me side with Obama?
SteinUndStahl666 3 months ago 2
Dear god, why the hell is mogly bitching in caps? This isn't a forum for religious madness. And more on topic, did anyone sincerely expect fox "news" *cough* to behave any differently?
Linazazel 3 months ago
Well I, as an atheist choose to believe in nothing and stick to trusting what I know.
And the fox footage was definitely more offensive.
DemonfireNinja 3 months ago 2
I cant wait till Huckabe gets cancer. Ill enjoy hearing about his trip to a non existent imaginary god concept.
699backstab 3 months ago
The only thing offensive in this is FOX and news being next to each other.
hagamablabla 4 months ago 111
They only care about atheists being offended when it's at Obama's expense. Like the other day when they complained 'Obama is killing the Middle Class' for one thing he did. I've never heard them even mention 'Middle Class' until that day.
Bastards.
StarxLolita 4 months ago 2
i'm an atheist can i honestly can't see how obama's speech could possibly be taken as offensive... all he said was the word "non-believers" how is that even offensive?? the guy on fox news on the other hand is just a fuckhead...
PaladinswordSaurfang 4 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How 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
INTELLIGENT DESIGN ON ANOTHER PLANET? Imagine finding a planet where robots are programmed to make other robots just like themselves from raw materials. Now, imagine an alien scientist visiting the planet and, after studying these robots, comes to the conclusion that because science can explain how these robots work, function, and reproduce there's no reason to believe there was an intelligent designer behind them! Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 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 a cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 4 months ago
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
I think it is a little offensive to the intellect when you refer to Fox news as "our friends"and make it sound as if Fox is the only organization that "creates" a controversy.
atheist usually defend their position by saying that they believe in themselves and don't need an imaginary friend in the sky, or a crutch, etc. huckabee's comment is not offensive, just silly. I have been called the guy that believes in the imaginary friend in the sky many times. no big deal, lighten up
isaac407 4 months ago
Actually only believing in one self does not have to be narcissitic. In fact I would state the only think we know for sure is the fact that we are real, everything could simply be an illusion or a trick of the mind, but I doubt he meant it that way :P
darkmawl 4 months ago
Well done. Religion is mythology and nothing more. I believe in many thingsand am not narcissitic. A Former Governor showed his ignorance and lack of class.
BCNbananas 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions 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 undirected natural laws can bring about an airplane or a living cell. 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 its is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 4 months ago
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
I find O B O M B M A Offensive period. Get rid of this snake Impeach the lying so and so. Your life and America may depend on it.
Go Ron Go
johnnycmajor 4 months ago
I'm not sure who is a bigger idiot. Fox News for having air such a nonstory or the fucking tools that take the story seriously. Either way Bing fail for both.
redwineisfine 4 months ago