You May Be a Religious Zealot IF... (Battery 1)

[ForeverFreeride]

Well. Man speaks the truth & I love it. If common sense isn't enough for you, can you please, just try & understand a bit of simple science? Get over yourself, your pointless, insignificant existence & accept that the electrical impulses shooting through the quantum configuration of energy you call a body will cease one day, & that is it. Relax & live your life while you can, you only get one.

[DanRossiTV]

-applauds-

[BT3701]

7. You accuse Christians of being intolerant, judgmental and hateful, while you foam at the mouth calling them freaking lunatics, ignorant, weak-minded, stupid fundies, and hateful bigots.

[BT3701]

7. You accuse Christians of being intolerant, judgmental and hateful, while you foam at the mouth calling them freaking lunatics, ignorant, weak-minded, stupid fundies, and hateful bigots.

[BT3701]

5. You say the Bible is full of fairytales and fables, yet you believe your great great grandpa was a primate - As if that isn’t the biggest fairy tale of them all.
6. You laugh at the Supernatural, even though scientists have calculated the odds of life forming by natural processes to be estimated less than 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000 power - But you find nothing wrong with believing that billions of years full of random mutations would result in the impossible.

[BT3701]

3. You criticize Christians who believe the Bible, and say that it can't possibly be true because it's just a book written by mere men, yet you never question any of Darwin's writings or Richard Dawkins' books.
4. You can't seem to understand the primary differences between fundamental Muslims and fundamental Christians (hint: strap-on TNT. Plus - Muhammad says,“kill innocent people and yourself if you love me.” Jesus Christ said,“I’ll die for you because I love you”).

[BT3701]

7 Signs You're a Fundamental Religious Atheist
1. You vigorously deny the existence of God, yet you frequently blame Him for all the "evils" in the world, all the natural disasters, and everything else under the sun that is wrong in modern society.
2. You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when Christian's say that people were created in the image and likeness of God, but you have no problem with the evolutionist claim that we all evolved from slime by a cosmic accident.

[theclewis]

"You accuse atheists of being arrogant for denying your god, but have no problem arrogantly speaking on behalf of your god." Nice one!

[oblio1000]

You waste time accusing.  Learn first, then try to teach. Science has improved nothing. Science just shuffles stuff around and arrogantly applauds itself. You miss the point. Mice life was extended by starving the mice. Science is the false messiah that government and self-righteous jerks use to dictate lifestyle. Soon you will be taxed for sugar and salt use. Get ready, robot boy.

[oblio1000]

Science will eventually grant immortality, provide a way to undo unwanted pregnancies with time travel, allow any homosexual to be born with their preferred sexy bits and discover the very first marble ever played. I get it.

[DancingInChains]

@oblio1000 Two things: first, no, we're quite sure time travel will stay impossible. Second, you're confusing homosexuality with transvesticism. Anyhow, we're getting pretty close to immortality. The lifespan of some mice has already been doubled in laboratory, (google "methusalem mouse project) and our current life expectancy is twice as long as that of people 300 years ago. It's a trend that will continue, all thanks to science.

[oblio1000]

@DancingInChains B1: What with the "we're" blather - you got a mouse in your pocket? Also, everyone knows, two absolutes make a maybe. Therefore, if it's always impossible it may happen any day. B2: There is a difference between naught bits with naughty clothes - so point that little accusative "confused" finger at the mirror. B3: Immortal mice and a lot of poor people are starved and miserable. The God of Science makes life more tedious and less rewarding, for all but scientists.

[DancingInChains]

@oblio1000 if life is so tedious and not rewarding enough, why don't you kill yourself?

If you live anywhere in the western world you owe quite literally everything you have to science. Also, when was the last time you helped some of those poor and miserable people? I think my little accusative finger is pointed quite correctly. Yes, science has it's flaws and nobody ever claimed it was perfect. But so far it is the only thing in world history that has ever improved something AT ALL.

[wierdsmabob]

Your video is not entirely accurate since atheists are free to express their views.. Christians are on the other hand are being told they no longer can share their views in any public place, especially in government buildings, schools or the like which is contrary to the constitution in several countries which do allow for the expression thereof. The original founders however wanted to avoid setting up a state church which the citizens were required to support with their tax dollars.

[therm0911]

@types10000 - Why have you stopped responding since I posted factual data about your big bang myth?

The Big Bang was first proposed by a high ranking Catholic Priest who wanted to make the Bible scientific. The Theory of the Big Bang is religion masquerading as science. Be it "nothingness" "pure energy" or all the mass of the universe bound in a totality of singularity, the foundations of the big bang theory completely collapse when we ask a single question: Why did it explode?

[types10000]

@therm0911

- incorrect, regardless of the origin of the big bang or the intentions of it's discoverer it is peer reviewed science supported by evidence and hence not religion.

"Why did it explode? " - hahah BASIC COSMOLOGY FAIL it didnt explode. the big bang is not an explosion it's the rapid expansion of space time BIG DIFFERENCE. it expanded from the singularity and nothing 'caused' it to expand, in the beginning there was the singularity and it was expanding.

[therm0911]

@types10000 - If the big bang is a constant expansion, why are there RIVERS of galaxies colliding from different directions? Why do we have streams of billions of galaxies heading several different ways. Shouldn't they all be heading OUTWARD instead of dynamic cris-crossing? The theory that the universe is 13 billion years old is only because our primitive telescopes can only SEE 13 billion years distance of magnification. This is an absurd thing to regard as factual data or "evidence".

[types10000]

@therm0911

You made the claim that a planet has been found that dates back further than 13 Billion years, i'm not going to engage with you unless you provide a reference.

i have no reason to belief that all the unscientific nonsense you have just stated is any more credible than your previous claim.

PROVIDE EVIDENCE.

[therm0911]

@types10000 - Understood sir.

In 1927 Georges Lemaître, a Roman Catholic PRIEST suggested the big bang theory being that the universe is between 13-14 billion years old.

Source: wikipedia

The 13 billion year old planet resides near globular cluster M4, located 5,600 light years away in the northern constellation of Scorpius.

Source: NASA (google it)

[types10000]

@therm0911

An extract from the fist page in google that comes up from searching: "The 13 billion year old planet"

"Its...evidence the first planets were formed rapidly, within a billion years of the Big Bang"

the following is an exert taken from 'the age of the universe' wiki:

"The age of the universe is the time elapsed between the Big Bang and the present day. Current theory and observations suggest that the universe is between 13.5 and 14 billion years old"

issue is where?

[therm0911]

@types10000 - Scientifically, it take billions of years for a planet to form. Religiously, less than a trillionth of a second.

[types10000]

@therm0911

"Scientifically, it take billions of years for a planet to form" - what's your source because the worlds leading scientists disagree.

[therm0911]

@types10000 - Depends on the type of planet. Gas giants do not take "billions" of years to form and form quickly compared to earth-like planets. It would be odd to place an 'exact' duration in which planet formation occurs. Here is where we could either debate about things that nobody has really 'proven', considering the basis of planet formation is not quite a proven one. If we found a 13 billion year old planet in our very own milky way galaxy, it's more than likely we'll find even older ones.

[types10000]

@therm0911

- i suggest you provide some evidence that this planet type of planet could not have formed within 1 billion years.

- if you dont have any then this debate is rather pointless.

- no, i'd say the probability of them finding a planet older than the estimate for the age of the universe is incredibly low :)

[therm0911]

@types10000

If you're really curious about the big bang theory being disproved with logic, look up:

"Myth of the Big Bang: The Universe is Infinite & Eternal"

That's if you have about 55 minutes to watch it. I found it very interesting and supports many of the things I've mentioned. Anyhow nice debating with you if that's what we will call it. Good day sir.

[types10000]

@therm0911

- is it based on peer reviewed science?

- if not then it's an opinion piece and not worth a shred of time.

[therm0911]

The Big Bang Theory = False

According to the Wikipedia, the Big Bang states that the universe is between 13 and 14 billion years old. But this CONTRADICTED when we found a planet that is over 13 BILLION years old in our very own milky way galaxy.

Nice try, gg.

[types10000]

@therm0911

- that's a bit hard to swallow considering the big bang is STILL scientific concensus.

- provide a source or is this just the normal theist bullshit of the month material?

[therm0911]

Youtube Search: "Myth of the Big Bang: The Universe is Infinite & Eternal" to fully understand why the big bang theory is false.

Why do extremely religious types have to deify sciency for the universe to exist? If god was in fact a deity, he might strike me dead for these words and condemn me to burning "hell" for all eternity. Again, this is childish, archaic, and completely the opposite of science, logic and all things that make any sense.

[1tabligh]

How can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?

[types10000]

@1tabligh

"How can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen..." - let me stop you right there, atheism is compatible with any explanation other than that which involves a God. so no, atheists do not calim what you are saying.

secondly:

According to the big bang theory everything started with a singularity, the big bang theory has evidence to back it up the concept of something existing before the singularity does not.

[1tabligh]

Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow fortuitously emerged out of mindless matter?

[types10000]

@1tabligh

- yep because scientists know how the natural laws act apon eachother to produce what you would regard as complexity, a snow flake for instance.

- now tell me do you have any evidence that the universe could have turned out any other way than what it has, or that our current universe is somehow unlikely?

- we also KNOW that a God could not have created the universe as science has shown us that creation is the product of causality, causality is dependent on time.

[1tabligh]

How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?

[types10000]

@1tabligh

- quite simple, they made testable predictions, such as the existence of cosmic background radiation and the effects of hobbles law and observations such as the galaxies moving further and further apart.

if you want the evidence then go look up the wiki page.

[1tabligh]

Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?

[types10000]

@1tabligh

if your trying to assert that a God is responsible for the following reasons:

1). You do not have any evidence that an intelligent omnipotent being is responsible and if your claim is to be logical you will need to provide evidence

2). the information you have presented is nothing more than a logical fallacy based on 'we dont know how this could have happened so a God did it' it is an argument from ignorance and cannot be credible

[types10000]

@1tabligh

3). geometry is a form of mathematics that relates directly to cumulative measure :)

4). you do not know that the universe could have turned out any other way than what it has. you do not know it's possible for a universe to exist without laws, you simply do not know the probability.

5). Matter doesnt have a mind and therefore cant be ignorant.

[types10000]

@1tabligh

but yeh your entire statement is debunked by point 3.

[1tabligh]

Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?

[types10000]

@1tabligh

your rewording it but your essentially saying the same thing. 'we dont know how this could have happened so a God did it' it is not a valid argument, it is a basic logical fallacy.

[1tabligh]

What realistic scientist, sincerely given to seeking the truth could claim today that while a kidney transplant is the result of centuries of continuous scientific research and experimentation, the structure of the kidney itself reveals no trace of a creative intelligence and will, being the product of mere nature—nature which has no more knowledge or awareness than a kindergarten pupil?

[types10000]

@1tabligh

hmm are you quoting someone or something?

if your just having the usual rant then why not go for a more complex structure like the eye? oh wait that's right we can see every stage of the eye throughout the animal kingdom.

[types10000]

@1tabligh

your statement is still an argument from ignorance, despite what you might think my not being able to provide you with a scientific explanation of everything in existance does not make the 'God option' any more viable.

it is an affirmative claim and therefore REQUIRES EVIDENCE.

[therm0911]

@types10000 - The big bang theory is a THEORY which will never be proven and is also based on religious dogma. Assuming the big bang theory is correct is committing your mind to the notion that the universe is finite in size; when in fact we cannot comprehend its vastness. The big bang is simply magical thinking and is once again an archaic way of faithfully assuming a deity created the universe from "nothing" and is ultimately theology masquerading as science.

[types10000]

@therm0911

"The big bang theory is a THEORY" - INCORRECT!

The big bang theory is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY which is defined as a principle that explains a set of facts as opposed to joe-blows colloquial definition which is akin to a hypothesis.

Theory is the HIGHEST LEVEL OF PROOF the scientific method can grant (law only relates to mathematical proofs). the big bang is a theory because it has overwhelming evidence to support it.

you may regard it as a proven hypothesis.

[jacksmack77]

God loves you. Jesus died for you.

John 6:47.

[therm0911]

I used to go to church and believe in Christianity growing up. I questioned things a lot which lead me to become an Atheist. But my experience and knowledge of life lead me to believe there is a "god". God is the universe itself, the matter that holds us together, and we are always connected. There is no "hell", that is childish. The only "hell" that exists is the ignorance in the face of universal truths. Open your mind and this truth will come naturally, without quotes from any bibles.

[types10000]

@therm0911

"God is the universe itself" - ahhh crap it's another pantheist.

well guess what bud if your defining God as 'the universe' at not ascribing intelligence to it then you are still an atheist as the word atheism using God in the sense of deity and what you describe is NOT a deity.

[therm0911]

God doesn't necessarily have to be a "deity", that's an extremely archaic way of viewing things. By saying that god IS the universe, am I not ultimately ascribing the sum of ALL intelligence? Christianity is based on Egyptian spirituality. The United States SEAL is even a Pyramid found on one dollar bills and on the reverse we find an Eagle reminiscent of an Egyptian bird clutching snakes of knowledge in its' talons. The universe is obvious to those who can see it.

[bewarethelizards42]

I dont do any of those! I must be the anti-religious zealot! :D

[AncientAtheist]

I'd say, with the examples you gave - "You are almost certainly a religious zealot if even one of the following applies to you".

[bathory714]

I oppose abortion in cases of incest or rape, and I'm an atheist. I don't think that I can be a religious zealot.

[prodigyat9]

Maybe they meant "except in cases of ..." ?

[CHAS1422]

In a nutshell so to speak!

[TheLionOfMars]

That pretty much covered every religious person.....I know

[PsyckoSama]

Most Atheists are just as zealous and obnoxious as your average bible thumpers and pervert science just as badly as your average young earth creationist.

After all, you cannot scientifically prove a negative. You can use Occam's Razor to say that "based on the evidence, there probably isn't a God", but that is not proof to the negative.

I agree many of your points but find your own (anti)religious zeal just as obnoxious.

For the record, I'm an agnostic playing devils advocate so don't flame

[kshackleton]

@PsyckoSama

"Most" atheists?

[PsyckoSama]

@kshackleton

My mistake... and I apologize. Most vocal athiests.

For every loud mouth Dawkins like asshat, there are 20 people who choose to disbelieve without disrespecting others.

[moveste]

@PsyckoSama

Your points have merit, and the thumbing down of your comments is evidence.

That being said, many atheists only became vocal because of what religious zealots are willing to do to get to decide for the majority, and the success those zealots have had in the U.S.

Confronted with their reasoning, one is hard pressed to stay civil and respectful, and it gets harder. Example: my sister-in-law was a great christian - then, influenced by others, suddenly went "We're persecuted!"

Right...

[PsyckoSama]

@moveste

Morons are a dime a dozen. Just because you might occasionally have to deal with one, doesn't mean that you need to become one to keep up. Too many people miss this issue and it taints your arguments, making Atheists go from presenting a reasonable argument, to looking like IRL Trolls.

Freedom of belief is a right and people have the right to believe or disbelieve as they see fit. I just think that too many vocal atheists seem forget this at times.

[moveste]

@PsyckoSama

My take: behave very well three times. If after that one is still confronted with absolutely outrageous behaviour from the adversary, then grab the axe, no matter if that goes against one's principles. Being the perfect guy is just not gonna cut it in the end.

That is not the same as becoming a troll. If you were only talking about the real trolls, then I agree.

[PsyckoSama]

@moveste

Fair enough, the threat is panting everything with the same brush. If your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

[VarykGerai]

You fkin blind or what? i dont care in what you believe, but when people like you start going arround shouting this is wrong, this is wrong, this is right based on their beliefs, then its my business. Look further your nose.

[jussts]

"For every loud mouth Dawkins like asshat..."

Dawkins doesn't even meet your requirements for "atheist zealotry". He actually agrees with your statement, "You can use Occam's Razor to say that "based on the evidence, there probably isn't a God", but that is not proof to the negative." I'm not sure how you're turning a guy that agrees with you into a frothing at the mouth zealot.

[thewildvagipuss]

@PsyckoSama If I claimed that leprachauns live in my closet, the burden of proof would obviously be on me to prove to you that they exist. Clearly the same should go for miracles or invisible men in the sky. How is this a perversion of science? Asking for evidence from those who make supernatural claims is unscientific? You say you agree with most of the points, but you also think it is obnoxious to point out these points. Grow some balls and call yourself an atheist.

[PsyckoSama]

@thewildvagipuss

That point stands, if you're dealing with someone who demands you acknowledge their god. When you turn the tables and claim 'There is no god' you are shifting the burden of proof to yourself.

Thusly "There is no proof therefore there is no god" is inaccurate. "Based based on current scientific understand no evidence can be found proving the of god, thus I choose not to believe" on the other hand, is accurate and honest

and FTI, I'm not an athiest. I'm an Agonstic Deist

[SuperDoomandgloom]

The burden of proof is always rightly upon the shoulders of those who make the POSITIVE STATEMENT. As in (+)There is a god.

[CHAS1422]

@PsyckoSama Atheists have never been allowed a voice by the powerful clergy. Even in the days of Paganism their rights were denied. On Sunday Tv there are a multitude of programs that assert the veracity of the bible or Koran, etc...Now that Atheists are speaking without threat of attack, protected by a secular constitution, the theists whine about the audacity and arrogance of their position...BS. "A fool in his heart says there is no God"...how arrogant is that?

[mickeykozzi]

jesus said 'if you call someone a fool, you may never enter heaven' lol

[PsyckoSama]

@CHAS1422

When you claim to the enlightened, scientific attitude, you better be willing to hold yourself to those same high standards of maturity and non-biased scientific observation. Unfortunately, many of the visible atheists leadership are anything but. Instead, they act just like the loud mouthed idiot theists they claim to revile. This is hypocrisy and I hate hypocrites.

[MartinJWillett]

@PsyckoSama Why is hypocrisy the only unforgivable sin and who made it so?

[PsyckoSama]

@MartinJWillett

Its not the only unforgivable sin, but it sure as hell on the list.

[CHAS1422]

@PsyckoSama:

Mothodological materialism as explanation for cause effect relations is without doubt, the basis of my atheism. Scientific explanation requires no theism. However I agree that there is a social dilemma in that there are many immature minds lured by atheism, who cannot handle the internal self-control necessary to replace the God fearing rules of religion. The problem with the Bible is that many of it's moral teachings are outdated. The bible's moral code was fixed in 325 AD.

[PsyckoSama]

@CHAS1422

I've experienced first hand enough so 'psychic phenomenon' to put some doubts in the validity of a purely materialistic worldview. I think the scientific community needs to abandon the dogmatic adherence to a purely materialistic world view and seriously experiment with some other points of views. Problem is that the scientific community has as many sacred cows as religion these days. The worst that could happen is they learn something new.

[CHAS1422]

@PsyckoSama: Are you proposing that we add chapters on unexplainable unsupported supernatural phenomena in our biology chemistry zoology mathematics and physics texts? Science requires methods for determining predictable explanations based on empirical evidence and rules. It must remain disciplined, repeatable, and evidentary. When subject to controlled testing, 'psychic' claims have repeatedly failed. They have experimented! If Veracity is a sacred cow, then I say MOO!

[PsyckoSama]

@CHAS1422

No, I'm not. I'm just saying more experimentation is needed as while there sees to be some apparent truth to at least some of these events, our current scientific understanding cannot reproduce them. Scientific understanding grows every day. I'm just saying try going from another angle of attack, or just try again later when we know more.

[VarykGerai]

Science allways attacks itself, thats how it works, and thats how we got to the age of technology.

[VarykGerai]

get an apointment with your GP asap.

[LeksServices]

It has been my observation that a lot of people who really "don't know shit about nothin'" gravitate towards athiesm and the "volunteerist" movements as an act of rebellion, not true enlightenment. I find this irritating, troublesome, and nauseating because trying to explain to these people why they are wrong is like trying to talk to fundamentalist fucktards about all the flaws in their religious beliefs. They don't really know what they're talking about and I find it sad and infuriating.

[sclan2]

Always enjoy ur videos. U forgot, if Harry potter threatens your god, u may be a religious zealot.

[MangaFanGuy]

Nice vid. And thank goodness that, based on your list, I'm not a religious zealot.

[samsroomie]

"MAY be"? Try "you ARE".

[Alisterwolf66]

Never heard of Jeff Foxworthy?

[longslidenyc]

Excellent!

[kelliko70]

Fantastic!5* and a Fave

[bigsteakjoe]

I'd hate to work for a religious zealot! Awesome warnings about the problems that religions can bring and have brought about! Thanks for these wise words.

[Christheatheist1]

Nicely done. Short and to the point.

[MrKrov]

This's a nice condensed version.

[melowar78]

Word!

[KasparHauser4]

"Life in Lubbock, Texas taught me two things. One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, dirty thing on the face of the earth and you should save it for someone you love."

..........Butch Hancock

[666sidewalks]

@KasparHauser4 LoL. awesome.