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 did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and 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.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science 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 science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
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
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
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!
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. Even for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing harm and even extinction, not upward evolution. Genetic similarities are better explained due to a common design for common purposes.
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
HOW DOES DNA MAKE A BODY? When you divide a cake the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food we received in the womb to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read my article: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Your so special. You can swear allot. Brovo!! Hots off. You are a real man. No one can tell you what to do or think. You are the master of your own destiny.
I want to learn everything I can about the enemy. Let the racist, sexist, theist, and other evil people show me who they are. Let them show me what their plans are, so that I can prepare for them. If you think they are tolerating you, read their books, they want you gone. They think you are the reason for all their problems, and they are waiting for the sign to take care of that problem.
devtamagi isnt entirely right about religion getting special rights. just look at how much attention the race issue gets. nowadays people can call *anything* you say "racist". if you say the sky is blue, thats "racist" because against blacks somehow. if you paint your walls white, youre a "white supremacist".
still, race-card is only a trump-card - nothing more. it is an excuse. people get annoyed over it, have a collective circle-jerk about it and so on, so forth. can we see anything similar in religion? well, kinda but the scale is oomphteenth-fold more massive. the christian madmen kill over it and the muslims are eager to join(talking about extremism, naturally). has there actually been any anti-racist murders? (note, galactic whoop-asses dont count, i think)
I love living in America, where I can say I'm an atheist, where I can say that I'm gay. and where I won't be arrested for doing either of those things, especially since 2003. Hooray for the Supreme Court, and hooray for the fact that the guy I voted for gets to choose who gets to be a member of the Supreme Court!
did you hear he insulted his friends dead girlfriend? Coughlan deserved the shit he got. The girl was raped several times and couldn't live with herself. She then killed herself. Trust me, he deserved it.
It might seem like that,but that wasn't the full story. The guy went into coughlans blog where comedy is the topic. Coughlan had many people putting up comments on all kinds of stuff,how can anyone judge in that context what is a joke? The guy didn't make clear he was serious & didn't pull coughlan up on it later-only when tj was on the offensive. The term 'stitch up' applies here.
I don't know for sure if there is a real god but I dont care. I don't consider myself an atheist but I don't like the god Christians and Muslims worship. To their god I am an anti-theist and blasphemer. If god does not like it let him tell me himself. So far god has not complained.
... and yet, other countries have Hate Speech legislation and it works fine. I'm sorry; it doesn't work as an argument against socialized medicine and it doesn't work for Hate Speech either. In America you have freedom of speech, but, that's about it. Oh, you can also shop whereever you can afford to. Integration was legislated into being. Slavery was legislated out of being. No, you can't legislate virtue, but, last I checked Hate Speech isn't virtuous. Criticism is not the same as Hate Speech.
actually no, other than Canada there really are no "hate speech" laws. There had been UN talks about a "Culture of Peace", wherein they did little more than push religious supremacy.
Granted in many nations you can be killed for saying the wrong thing, I don't qualify those as "hate speech" laws.
No, "hate speech" isn't virtuous, but virtues are to be made of a persons values and morals, not a governments.
Of course one could label any criticism as hate speech. Muslims do it all the time.
It depends on what you call "hate speech." In the USA we have laws limiting what you can say. Can't endager the public well being willfully, example is yelling fire in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.
Can't incite violence, starting a mob to go kill somebody is illegal even if you don't do any of the killing.
Can't incite civil disobedience, you can't promote breaking the law.
Other than that you can say pretty much anything and I agree with that. Being mean shouldn't be illegal.
4:35 Religion gets all sorts of special exceptions. Vaccines passed by when every other child is required to be up on health shots. Ignoring science, even in science classes, for their *preferred* mythical story. Child abuse (multiple young girls married to one old fart). Tax exempt status while retaining political power over law and marriage. It goes on and on.
Being friends with people online is vasty different than being friends with someone in real life. Many don't see a difference and that's because of the level of immersion people go through when they venture in online communities.
It's no suprise how people become immersed in virtual reality and they start to use the online communities as the core of their life. It becomes their "life" and this simple truth as simplistic as it may be... is not obvious to so many.
This is why internet bullying is not as serious as real life bullying. If someone gets offended or seriously depressed by what a person said to them online, they should immidietly start to detach themselves from the online communities.
Internet has anonymity, thus people tend to be more cruel for the sake of being able to be so. It's human nature and I wont go more deep into that.
What you call "online friends" aren't necesserily your real friends at all, just people you know.
Above all humans are social beings by the end of the day and we seek social interaction wherever we go, automaticly. If you don't interact with the people around you in reality you might find yourself chatting with friends online on MSN or whatever more, and end up neglecting your actual real friends or because of a lack of real friends you do a lot of e-friending.
It's fucking alarming how stupid people are and how easily they are trolled. Stop being such lifeless morons and get lives! BUU HUU
8:06 Now see you've fallen into the same type of mania the fanatically religious do. First of all, you dispute an after life,you don't know if there is an afterlife,but you refute it. If you say something does NOT exist, it is as positive a statement as saying something DOES exist, both must be proven, since an afterlife cannot be proven or dis-proven a logical individual, cannot make a reasonable conclusion as knowledge is gained through experience.
YogiToad, dogmatism is bad, true enough. However, are you going to give credence to every single claim people make? How much credibility do we give flying spaghetti monster?
There is nothing wrong with denying the really ludicrous, and this applies especially to religions, when we critically examine the claims versus the evidence. i.e. we are never going to find out whether an afterlife exists, it's a childish, meaningless discussion.
Given, however every claim is exaggerated or fitted to meet some end,take dark matter for example, cosmologists cannot figure out where 90+% of the universe is at so they invented dark matter. It's never been proven, hell it was never even theorized, it is completely made up, it's a myth. Dark matter is an extra ordinary claim, but we don't demand the scientists to prove it, most just go along with it. So, what I am eluding at is that myth,all myth may have some kernel of truism.
YogiToad, you can't make headway without advancing a hypothesis first, you can test a hypothesis. That is how science works.
Whether or not you believe in dark matter does not effect what you can eat, who you have sex with or whether you can be elected for the US government. For that you need religion.
Really that's how science works, well then they should drop the idea of dark matter post haste as it is unproven then and stop talking such fantasy and come up with a real hypothesis.You are right about the secondary subject though, shamefully so.
That is how I and many others are practising the scientific method. Things like dark matter are exciting concepts for us to think about but they are not purported as hard and fast facts by scientists until they are properly proven. You will find it very difficult to get the words 'proven' from the mouth of a scientist, they are not apt to wild claims about the universe because they can be very easily disproved and it would seriously damage their careers. It is the complete opposite with faith.
incorrect, dark matter has ben hypothisized becuse cosmologists have Observed extra gravity in the Universe and gravity is a property of matter, the term dark matter is jsut a lable to say the matter we cant see. and then thay try to figer out what that matter is. the extra gravity is Evidence of matter wich leads to the idea of dark matter its not just pulled out of thin air.
YogiToad, disbelief in an afterlife is not a mania, it is the default position until an afterlife has been proven. Read some books on how the brain works and you will see that scientists and doctors are getting a better understanding of how our brain works and disorders caused by abnormal brain chemistry. How will you feel in the afterlife without the pleasure centers of your brain? How are you going to see heaven without eyes sending impulses through the optic nerve to a brain?
What is strange is that although you claim that disbelief in an afterlife is a default position,history bares out that it is not. Our ancestors have believed in an afterlife all the way back to the original myths of the aboriginals some 30,000 yrs ago,strange how completely isolated groups of people all have the same notion,but with their own version of it,sometimes those versions are almost exactly the same. How do you explain a global expansion of an idea where no contact was made?
man had to get to the completely isolated spots first wich means at one time the humans where not isolated we didnt spring into Existence in each litle area on the globe sepretly. and the idea of an afterlife comes form mans fear of death and are knowing we will die. to Comfort are self ideas of life after death have ben mass manufactured with out prof. and just because alot of people believe somthing dosent make it true. once apon a time the mases of humnity thoght thay knew the world was flat
How do you know that the myth of an afterlife was the result of fear of death,there is nothing to support that,maybe that applies to some people to modern man, but you have no way of knowing that man conceptualized an afterlife simply because of fear of death.And as far as the world being flat, that concept is a European concept,the rest of the world i.e. the ancient Indians and Mayans knew the earth was round and even calculated it's size by a few hundred miles.
Oh,by the way that extra gravity you're talking about is now believed to be a result of extra dimensions that are present in other parts of our universe that we cannot perceive. We can detect the extra gravity that support these extra dimension but the dimensions are still eluding us.The Boston Globe reported this in an interview with a physicist named Randall from Harvard U.
u miss understud him then, its belved that gravity is weaker than it should be and that gravity might permeate multipul universes, read A Brief History of Time, and The Fabric of the cosmos, thay talk about it in grate detale. and from what has ben observed so far gravity can not exist without matter, hence unseen matter hypothisezed as dark matter.
the existence of dark energy is far from proven, and some researchers believe they and their colleagues simply don't understand gravity at larger scales. The gravitational pull between any two objects becomes less with distance. But in Dvali's view, it weakens more than standard theory predicts.
"Lingering doubts about the existence of dark energy and the composition of the universe dissolved when the WMAP satellite took the most detailed picture ever of the cosmic microwave background (CMB)."
- Science Magazine 2003, "Breakthrough of the Year" article
Free speech,constitutionally,does not mean you can say anything you want,i.e. the Harm Principle. For example, if for example in the case where Christian groups were targeting the funerals of dead soldiers stating that they died because the deserved it, was banned by the supreme court. The reason is that it was only used to insight hurt on those at the funeral, not give an exchange of ideas.
iDeist, Good job it isn't a religion and we don't have prayer. There is no way I am singing it. Reminds me too much of Under the Sea. God I wish I didn't say that, gunna have the frigging crab in my head now. Dam Disney's catchy songs. To each his own.
But the Nazi party was not. Neither was the SS or the Wehrmacht, at least not exclusively Roman Catholic.
It's not a question of Hitler's beliefs, it's a question of whether a shared religious doctrine made it easier for Hitler to lead his nation off the metaphoric deep end.
You're wrong and now you are not only making excuses for, you have wound up defending the Nazi party in an attempt to defend the church. Your statement about there being many "concordants" is complete and total bullshit as well.
LOL. If you actually read the posts you'd see I wasn't defending the Nazi party OR the church. I'm merely seeking to place blame accurately.
For someone who mentioned the "Nazi Vatican Concordant" to not realize that the Nazi party made such arrangements with the major Protestant churches of Germany as well is kind of sad. This is pretty basic information obtainable easily from Wikipedia.
Thanks so much for including the "Godless & Free" song ... just a minor correction: in the description box, you listed the piano playing as coming from the "ToddAllenGates" channel. But I reserve that channel only for discussions about religion: all my piano accompaniments for Gisburne's "Blasphemy!" book are on this separate "BlasphemyPiano" channel.
Thanks for the promotion---hope that more singers join in!
Religion kills humanity, the religious are living in a altered state, a state where the target is unreachable... pure delusion fueled by selfishness and gread.. with a dash of fear
"religion has started more wars and killed more people than blah blah ..."
That is bullshit. Dogma, greed, jealousy and blood lust are the causes of these things. This 'religion started more wars..' idea is a dogma I see frequently used by naiive inexperienced atheists, and while one could be tempted to live with such a dogma for the betterment of humanity it is nonetheless a false dogma, similar to the 'Jews are responsible for ....", and look what that did. Think about it.
Religious organisations have been responsible for a lot of death, and religion has been used to justify a lot of death, you can't deny that. Dogma, greed, jealousy and blood lust may have been motivations, sure, but you can't blame abstract concepts for peoples choices, choices to follow religious leaders or interpret beliefs to justify immoral actions.
"Dogma, greed, jealousy and blood lust are the causes of these things."
I understand your point but it's not that simple. When you start a war with greed, blood lust, jealousy, you have to convince people to share your greed, blood lust, jealousy unless you throw a religion in there.
Add a religion and you can make good people do horrible things, and that is why people give religions credit for killing people.
"When you start a war with greed, blood lust, jealousy, you have to convince people to share your greed, blood lust, jealousy unless you throw a religion in there."
Stalin managed it, and possibly Hitler (the Germans weren't an overtly religious nation from what I can tell).
artyfary2, that is one of the most wrong things I've seen. Look at 'Mein Kampf' and see how many references you can find that point to the bible. Look at Hitler's speeches where he mentions god a hell of a lot. You cannot just ignore parts of History because you do not like them. If you ignore them you will repeat them.
"Stalin managed it, and possibly Hitler (the Germans weren't an overtly religious nation from what I can tell)."
That's true... but to be fair Stalin and Hitler had a lot more going for them in terms of opportunity and positioning than your average extremist cleric.
It's not that religion is to blame solely, it's that religion makes it easier and so religion will inevitably end up being the tipping point for an atrocity that almost didn't happen.
That's bullshit. Every war is a religious war. It's the only justification for war. Does an argument that ends in a brawl mean whoever won the fight was right in there opinion? No, it just means they were more brute than whoever took the contrary. It's the same with war. The people in power think that they're right and God is going to be on their side to remove those who disagree. It's all crap and if you don't believe it then you're naive.
There is no right to not be offended by what someone else says no mater how hateful or because of multiple uses of the wonderful word fuck. freedom of speech means just that there are NO restrictions on it even if our fucked up gov. tries to trample on our rights or weak individuals try to hide behind religion. free speech was meant to help an honest debate on any topic if that is to much for someone to handle waaaaaah they need to grow up and stop being such a little bitch.
A better analogy for our social group might have been "why does religion get the +5 steel shield with hp and mana boosts, while every other topic gets the crappy +1 copper?"
Agreed, that's why Alex Jones was taken off youtube. Free Speech is free to a point, its stops being free when you voice leads to harm of others. Preaching hateful stuff is fine, horrible but allowed. Preaching for hateful acts is not.
People don't really understand what free speech is in a legal sense
As far as US law goes, it only protects people from actions by the government, not other people... as in stopping an otherwise legal protest and the like
It differs slightly here in that it protects people from hate preachers that incite acts. I'd be surprised if you didn't have a similar law in place. It stops most notable stops religious extremists preachers from preaching people to perform acts that will lead to the harm of others. For me you breach free speech when you voice such things. Your country is their to protect all its citizens. A persons right to life out weights whatever feelings your have to voice bad acts. But your also right.
When I think of Free Speech of think of this. Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation. That's the definition I have when I think of it. I'm not sure if what I said falls into your definition as Criminal speech or Hate speech. We have three laws here that are restriction on Free Speech that I can think of, Public Order Act and Racial, Religious Hatred Act and Terrorism Act. All are restrictions and limitations on what you can say or write.
I'm not sure if I completely understood what you said. Freedom of speech, expression and thought is to my definition without censorship or limitation. Except there is limitation and censorship from laws by my Gov. What I'm trying to say it doesn't matter if its the Gov acting to limit them or someone else, there's still a limit there. If someone other than the Gov tries to limit them, then they are breaking my Human Rights. That's what I am trying to say, sorry if I never said it clearly.
So what you are saying there is nothing you cannot say. That you voice and/or words will NOT be censored no matter what the subject. Even if that subject is terror related? Or are you saying that US law labels that as something else entirely and that my definition in US law terms is wrong. I'm just wondering since if I don't ask I'll never know.
The Bill of Rights doesn't just apply to the actions of the government, it's about the individual. There's a reason the Bill constantly uses the phrase "the right of the people". Freedom is a concept of personal liberty, to be enforced and protected *by* a government.
Thankfully my joke doesn't require your endorsement. Also, I find it ironic that someone who initially used obscenities in such a crude manner could be so sensitive to the subversion of it.
English happens to be my second language - still, I can assure you my grasp of the English language surpasses yours, as you remain unaware of the meaning of the word "sensitivity."
You replied to my comment with a joke, you wanted to see what I thought of it, otherwise you wouldn't have posted it as a reply.
richard loves going to war with people... if they attacked magibon, for example, or any other person here whom arent trying to fight with people or be annoying even... that would piss me off, but i think richard can hold his own im sure..... i dont even kinow what the arguement was about, so i might change my opinion after seeing it, but grown men, whom THRIVE on arguing and debate, doing just that... i cant get pissed.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
freaking hate people who apologize for couhlan that buthurt little bitch. he could have stopped it any time he wanted but he continued to post and got his just response from tj. Now Tj's friend Bill Gates look alike was also a but hurt little bitch.
I agree with Dev. Some of you don't see the flip side of trying to limit someone else's speech. What happens when someone says the things that you say are hate speech? Do you the slippery slope that leads us towards?
hate speech of lets say 'racists' is often not expresing opinions. its convincing young and unevolved people that beating/killing someone is a good thing.
free speech is very important for freedom, but dont confuse freedom with bullying/harrasment.
its no problem if someone says stupid things, its not ok when someone attacks you with words, or learns children to kill people of other skin colour.
I disagree with alot of these people this week. Especially Devtamagi. Its easy for you to say you want people to express their beliefs when you arent the one getting attacked. If you were black and a group of people insulted you and your family and called you a nigger or if you were a homosexual and they called you a cocksucking faggot. You dont understand the pain because its not directed at you. Its unrealistic to want people saying terrible things to keep on saying them simply for free speech
Awesome to get a 'call out' on one of these videos, just feel it a *slight* shame it wasn't for my 'root of our morality' vid for which I was infinitely prouder (although i suppose to most people it's infinitely more boring as well hehe).
Psychiatrists diagnose a delusional disorder if the patient is excessively pre-occupied by the belief, especially if the person is subsequently unswayed in that belief by counter-evidence or reasonable arguments.
I would rather hang with nondelusional folks. At least, I can expect them to use sense and reason.
Sure, I'd rather be friends with someone with different religious beliefs but is a great person (in fact I have plenty of those friends) than an atheist who is a total douche bag.
however, of the "main" Christian youtubers, how many actually fit that bill? The problem is Christian people are very good at presenting hateful views under the guise of soft-spoken speech. I don't wish any pain on people like Jesusfreek or Venomfang, but do I think they are vile, pathetic, ignorant fuckheads? YES
And, to add, do i think they should be mocked when they present their childish, shallow, already-debunked arguments from perspectives of natural and social sciences, two topics neither of them have ANY fucking clue about? Yes, I do. Organized religion should be mocked in whole. It is the corruption of human spirituality, and it deserves to be treated like astrology and alchemy.
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 did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and 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
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science 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 science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
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
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
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
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. Even for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing harm and even extinction, not upward evolution. Genetic similarities are better explained due to a common design for common purposes.
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
This has been flagged as spam show
HOW DOES DNA MAKE A BODY? When you divide a cake the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food we received in the womb to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read my article: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
that song at the end was absolutely fantastic
hrhitter620 2 years ago
was that the song from the little mermaid...omg why do i know that...
element1988 2 years ago
Your so special. You can swear allot. Brovo!! Hots off. You are a real man. No one can tell you what to do or think. You are the master of your own destiny.
kingdmculture 2 years ago
LOL XD! "why does religion get the blowjob, when everything else gets the handjob?"
thats gonna b a famous quote one day, i just know it lol
a7xbeacon 2 years ago
noelplum99 ftw :D
cheetmeister 2 years ago
hahaha the number of ratings is 666 LOL i beat some Y.E.C will think this is the devils work!
m60yaface 2 years ago 15
I want to learn everything I can about the enemy. Let the racist, sexist, theist, and other evil people show me who they are. Let them show me what their plans are, so that I can prepare for them. If you think they are tolerating you, read their books, they want you gone. They think you are the reason for all their problems, and they are waiting for the sign to take care of that problem.
Do you know your enemy?
TaurusCanser 2 years ago 13
This has been flagged as spam show
devtamagi isnt entirely right about religion getting special rights. just look at how much attention the race issue gets. nowadays people can call *anything* you say "racist". if you say the sky is blue, thats "racist" because against blacks somehow. if you paint your walls white, youre a "white supremacist".
loturos 2 years ago
still, race-card is only a trump-card - nothing more. it is an excuse. people get annoyed over it, have a collective circle-jerk about it and so on, so forth. can we see anything similar in religion? well, kinda but the scale is oomphteenth-fold more massive. the christian madmen kill over it and the muslims are eager to join(talking about extremism, naturally). has there actually been any anti-racist murders? (note, galactic whoop-asses dont count, i think)
somberlight 2 years ago
The guy at 4.00 makes his point best.
lewisner 2 years ago
i pray everyday god gives me a million dollars, and kicks me in the balls...neither has happened yet.
Bockatadi 2 years ago 5
I love living in America, where I can say I'm an atheist, where I can say that I'm gay. and where I won't be arrested for doing either of those things, especially since 2003. Hooray for the Supreme Court, and hooray for the fact that the guy I voted for gets to choose who gets to be a member of the Supreme Court!
TimCubUAkbar 2 years ago 2
Atheists don't preach. Preaching is a purely religious way of speaking.
reanimeviewed 2 years ago 7
did you hear he insulted his friends dead girlfriend? Coughlan deserved the shit he got. The girl was raped several times and couldn't live with herself. She then killed herself. Trust me, he deserved it.
Goldleader727 2 years ago
It might seem like that,but that wasn't the full story. The guy went into coughlans blog where comedy is the topic. Coughlan had many people putting up comments on all kinds of stuff,how can anyone judge in that context what is a joke? The guy didn't make clear he was serious & didn't pull coughlan up on it later-only when tj was on the offensive. The term 'stitch up' applies here.
musicgeniusno1 2 years ago 2
you are grossly misinformed... or are a puppet...
and for all his deserving... he laughed you off...
Creationsofmyown 2 years ago
When people tell me they are christian, I retort with the same response, "I won't hold it against you."
ScottJanssen 2 years ago
I don't know for sure if there is a real god but I dont care. I don't consider myself an atheist but I don't like the god Christians and Muslims worship. To their god I am an anti-theist and blasphemer. If god does not like it let him tell me himself. So far god has not complained.
imaginethereisnogod 2 years ago 3
I think that makes you an agnostic.
Shigren 2 years ago
NoelPlum talks like the two hosts from the Britain's got Talent show :D
marowak1337 2 years ago
Sorry, I'm all for Hate Speech legislation.
MrPlaid81 2 years ago
All speech can be classified as hate speech per legislation.
You can not legislate virtue, and doing so imposes a moral tyranny upon the people.
drakionx 2 years ago
... and yet, other countries have Hate Speech legislation and it works fine. I'm sorry; it doesn't work as an argument against socialized medicine and it doesn't work for Hate Speech either. In America you have freedom of speech, but, that's about it. Oh, you can also shop whereever you can afford to. Integration was legislated into being. Slavery was legislated out of being. No, you can't legislate virtue, but, last I checked Hate Speech isn't virtuous. Criticism is not the same as Hate Speech.
MrPlaid81 2 years ago
actually no, other than Canada there really are no "hate speech" laws. There had been UN talks about a "Culture of Peace", wherein they did little more than push religious supremacy.
Granted in many nations you can be killed for saying the wrong thing, I don't qualify those as "hate speech" laws.
No, "hate speech" isn't virtuous, but virtues are to be made of a persons values and morals, not a governments.
Of course one could label any criticism as hate speech. Muslims do it all the time.
drakionx 2 years ago
It depends on what you call "hate speech." In the USA we have laws limiting what you can say. Can't endager the public well being willfully, example is yelling fire in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.
Can't incite violence, starting a mob to go kill somebody is illegal even if you don't do any of the killing.
Can't incite civil disobedience, you can't promote breaking the law.
Other than that you can say pretty much anything and I agree with that. Being mean shouldn't be illegal.
dlandon2000 2 years ago
I agree, but there's no blind "hate" in saying "i have a bomb" on an airplane or "give me all your money" in a bank.
Stupid? yes
hateful? no
drakionx 2 years ago
4:35 Religion gets all sorts of special exceptions. Vaccines passed by when every other child is required to be up on health shots. Ignoring science, even in science classes, for their *preferred* mythical story. Child abuse (multiple young girls married to one old fart). Tax exempt status while retaining political power over law and marriage. It goes on and on.
DeadlyChinchilla 2 years ago 2
G`day ... I could NOT agree more than what YOU said ... NO exeptions for people who believe in some sort of " higher" form of existens !
Like the late George Carlin said long time ago ... it´s called " BULLSHIT " ... thanks George :-)))
GermanStraight1 2 years ago 3
Being friends with people online is vasty different than being friends with someone in real life. Many don't see a difference and that's because of the level of immersion people go through when they venture in online communities.
It's no suprise how people become immersed in virtual reality and they start to use the online communities as the core of their life. It becomes their "life" and this simple truth as simplistic as it may be... is not obvious to so many.
CelChan1 2 years ago
This is why internet bullying is not as serious as real life bullying. If someone gets offended or seriously depressed by what a person said to them online, they should immidietly start to detach themselves from the online communities.
Internet has anonymity, thus people tend to be more cruel for the sake of being able to be so. It's human nature and I wont go more deep into that.
What you call "online friends" aren't necesserily your real friends at all, just people you know.
CelChan1 2 years ago
Above all humans are social beings by the end of the day and we seek social interaction wherever we go, automaticly. If you don't interact with the people around you in reality you might find yourself chatting with friends online on MSN or whatever more, and end up neglecting your actual real friends or because of a lack of real friends you do a lot of e-friending.
It's fucking alarming how stupid people are and how easily they are trolled. Stop being such lifeless morons and get lives! BUU HUU
CelChan1 2 years ago
this weeks epiasode wasen't that good
BlackTheDarkMoon 2 years ago
That song made me laugh
XD
lisa89 2 years ago
TAA jumped the shark about 6 months ago anyway.
bamboo4tameshigiri 2 years ago
8:06 Now see you've fallen into the same type of mania the fanatically religious do. First of all, you dispute an after life,you don't know if there is an afterlife,but you refute it. If you say something does NOT exist, it is as positive a statement as saying something DOES exist, both must be proven, since an afterlife cannot be proven or dis-proven a logical individual, cannot make a reasonable conclusion as knowledge is gained through experience.
YogiToad 2 years ago
YogiToad, dogmatism is bad, true enough. However, are you going to give credence to every single claim people make? How much credibility do we give flying spaghetti monster?
There is nothing wrong with denying the really ludicrous, and this applies especially to religions, when we critically examine the claims versus the evidence. i.e. we are never going to find out whether an afterlife exists, it's a childish, meaningless discussion.
versanil 2 years ago
Given, however every claim is exaggerated or fitted to meet some end,take dark matter for example, cosmologists cannot figure out where 90+% of the universe is at so they invented dark matter. It's never been proven, hell it was never even theorized, it is completely made up, it's a myth. Dark matter is an extra ordinary claim, but we don't demand the scientists to prove it, most just go along with it. So, what I am eluding at is that myth,all myth may have some kernel of truism.
YogiToad 2 years ago
YogiToad, you can't make headway without advancing a hypothesis first, you can test a hypothesis. That is how science works.
Whether or not you believe in dark matter does not effect what you can eat, who you have sex with or whether you can be elected for the US government. For that you need religion.
versanil 2 years ago
Really that's how science works, well then they should drop the idea of dark matter post haste as it is unproven then and stop talking such fantasy and come up with a real hypothesis.You are right about the secondary subject though, shamefully so.
YogiToad 2 years ago
That is how I and many others are practising the scientific method. Things like dark matter are exciting concepts for us to think about but they are not purported as hard and fast facts by scientists until they are properly proven. You will find it very difficult to get the words 'proven' from the mouth of a scientist, they are not apt to wild claims about the universe because they can be very easily disproved and it would seriously damage their careers. It is the complete opposite with faith.
versanil 2 years ago
incorrect, dark matter has ben hypothisized becuse cosmologists have Observed extra gravity in the Universe and gravity is a property of matter, the term dark matter is jsut a lable to say the matter we cant see. and then thay try to figer out what that matter is. the extra gravity is Evidence of matter wich leads to the idea of dark matter its not just pulled out of thin air.
vage365 2 years ago
YogiToad, disbelief in an afterlife is not a mania, it is the default position until an afterlife has been proven. Read some books on how the brain works and you will see that scientists and doctors are getting a better understanding of how our brain works and disorders caused by abnormal brain chemistry. How will you feel in the afterlife without the pleasure centers of your brain? How are you going to see heaven without eyes sending impulses through the optic nerve to a brain?
jgoemat 2 years ago 3
What is strange is that although you claim that disbelief in an afterlife is a default position,history bares out that it is not. Our ancestors have believed in an afterlife all the way back to the original myths of the aboriginals some 30,000 yrs ago,strange how completely isolated groups of people all have the same notion,but with their own version of it,sometimes those versions are almost exactly the same. How do you explain a global expansion of an idea where no contact was made?
YogiToad 2 years ago
man had to get to the completely isolated spots first wich means at one time the humans where not isolated we didnt spring into Existence in each litle area on the globe sepretly. and the idea of an afterlife comes form mans fear of death and are knowing we will die. to Comfort are self ideas of life after death have ben mass manufactured with out prof. and just because alot of people believe somthing dosent make it true. once apon a time the mases of humnity thoght thay knew the world was flat
vage365 2 years ago
How do you know that the myth of an afterlife was the result of fear of death,there is nothing to support that,maybe that applies to some people to modern man, but you have no way of knowing that man conceptualized an afterlife simply because of fear of death.And as far as the world being flat, that concept is a European concept,the rest of the world i.e. the ancient Indians and Mayans knew the earth was round and even calculated it's size by a few hundred miles.
YogiToad 2 years ago
Oh,by the way that extra gravity you're talking about is now believed to be a result of extra dimensions that are present in other parts of our universe that we cannot perceive. We can detect the extra gravity that support these extra dimension but the dimensions are still eluding us.The Boston Globe reported this in an interview with a physicist named Randall from Harvard U.
YogiToad 2 years ago
u miss understud him then, its belved that gravity is weaker than it should be and that gravity might permeate multipul universes, read A Brief History of Time, and The Fabric of the cosmos, thay talk about it in grate detale. and from what has ben observed so far gravity can not exist without matter, hence unseen matter hypothisezed as dark matter.
vage365 2 years ago
the existence of dark energy is far from proven, and some researchers believe they and their colleagues simply don't understand gravity at larger scales. The gravitational pull between any two objects becomes less with distance. But in Dvali's view, it weakens more than standard theory predicts.
YogiToad 2 years ago
"Lingering doubts about the existence of dark energy and the composition of the universe dissolved when the WMAP satellite took the most detailed picture ever of the cosmic microwave background (CMB)."
- Science Magazine 2003, "Breakthrough of the Year" article
DistinctiveBlend 2 years ago 2
Free speech,constitutionally,does not mean you can say anything you want,i.e. the Harm Principle. For example, if for example in the case where Christian groups were targeting the funerals of dead soldiers stating that they died because the deserved it, was banned by the supreme court. The reason is that it was only used to insight hurt on those at the funeral, not give an exchange of ideas.
YogiToad 2 years ago 2
Atheists make horrible music. lol
iDeist 2 years ago
iDeist, Good job it isn't a religion and we don't have prayer. There is no way I am singing it. Reminds me too much of Under the Sea. God I wish I didn't say that, gunna have the frigging crab in my head now. Dam Disney's catchy songs. To each his own.
SudokuSky 2 years ago
lol wtf
iDeist 2 years ago
Uhmm all secular music could be seen as Atheist music
Gavlefilms 2 years ago
So we get everything except Christian rock?
I could live with that. Silly me with my Indie tastes. ^_^
DeadlyChinchilla 2 years ago
And any other religious music of course ;)
Not really a loss I can´t live with.
Gavlefilms 2 years ago
"Hitler was a Roman Catholic"
But the Nazi party was not. Neither was the SS or the Wehrmacht, at least not exclusively Roman Catholic.
It's not a question of Hitler's beliefs, it's a question of whether a shared religious doctrine made it easier for Hitler to lead his nation off the metaphoric deep end.
Jermbot15 2 years ago
"But the Nazi party was not. Neither was the SS or the Wehrmacht, at least not exclusively Roman Catholic."
Apparently you have never seen a picture of every single belt buckle ever issued to the Germans in WW2 or heard of The Nazi Vatican Concordant.
bamboo4tameshigiri 2 years ago
"Apparently you have never seen a picture of every single belt buckle ever issued to the Germans in WW2"
No, I've seen them. "God With Us." I've also seen plenty of WWJD armbands and I don't call the rednecks wearing them Roman Catholics.
But most importantly, when it comes to Nazi's they all believed their irrational, genocidal goals were reasonable, not religious.
As for the Concordant, the Nazi party made such agreements with every major religion, so I fail to see your point.
Jermbot15 2 years ago
You're wrong and now you are not only making excuses for, you have wound up defending the Nazi party in an attempt to defend the church. Your statement about there being many "concordants" is complete and total bullshit as well.
bamboo4tameshigiri 2 years ago
LOL. If you actually read the posts you'd see I wasn't defending the Nazi party OR the church. I'm merely seeking to place blame accurately.
For someone who mentioned the "Nazi Vatican Concordant" to not realize that the Nazi party made such arrangements with the major Protestant churches of Germany as well is kind of sad. This is pretty basic information obtainable easily from Wikipedia.
Jermbot15 2 years ago
im a amazing atheist fan but just cause i like him doesn't mean i cant laugh at him
sinslin 2 years ago
Godless and Free song was very funny and true ^_^
UnrealSlayer92 2 years ago
Thanks for putting this collage together. I especially liked the song at the end.
RonDeKiller 2 years ago
Hi FfreeThinker,
Thanks so much for including the "Godless & Free" song ... just a minor correction: in the description box, you listed the piano playing as coming from the "ToddAllenGates" channel. But I reserve that channel only for discussions about religion: all my piano accompaniments for Gisburne's "Blasphemy!" book are on this separate "BlasphemyPiano" channel.
Thanks for the promotion---hope that more singers join in!
- Todd
BlasphemyPiano 2 years ago
who the fooks is dis guy?
nestorrfortuna 2 years ago
Religion kills humanity, the religious are living in a altered state, a state where the target is unreachable... pure delusion fueled by selfishness and gread.. with a dash of fear
DoctorE0 2 years ago
5:53 so true.
r33fermadness 2 years ago
nice song:)
kvj1989 2 years ago
some morons no matter they're religious or non-religious.
that's just it..
your religious inclination doesn't make you a better person..
gabikzan 2 years ago
"religion has started more wars and killed more people than blah blah ..."
That is bullshit. Dogma, greed, jealousy and blood lust are the causes of these things. This 'religion started more wars..' idea is a dogma I see frequently used by naiive inexperienced atheists, and while one could be tempted to live with such a dogma for the betterment of humanity it is nonetheless a false dogma, similar to the 'Jews are responsible for ....", and look what that did. Think about it.
artyfarty2 2 years ago
Religious organisations have been responsible for a lot of death, and religion has been used to justify a lot of death, you can't deny that. Dogma, greed, jealousy and blood lust may have been motivations, sure, but you can't blame abstract concepts for peoples choices, choices to follow religious leaders or interpret beliefs to justify immoral actions.
satanicmoose 2 years ago
religion are dogma. period
6unt3r 2 years ago
"Dogma, greed, jealousy and blood lust are the causes of these things."
I understand your point but it's not that simple. When you start a war with greed, blood lust, jealousy, you have to convince people to share your greed, blood lust, jealousy unless you throw a religion in there.
Add a religion and you can make good people do horrible things, and that is why people give religions credit for killing people.
Jermbot15 2 years ago
"When you start a war with greed, blood lust, jealousy, you have to convince people to share your greed, blood lust, jealousy unless you throw a religion in there."
Stalin managed it, and possibly Hitler (the Germans weren't an overtly religious nation from what I can tell).
artyfarty2 2 years ago
artyfary2, that is one of the most wrong things I've seen. Look at 'Mein Kampf' and see how many references you can find that point to the bible. Look at Hitler's speeches where he mentions god a hell of a lot. You cannot just ignore parts of History because you do not like them. If you ignore them you will repeat them.
SudokuSky 2 years ago
"Stalin managed it, and possibly Hitler (the Germans weren't an overtly religious nation from what I can tell)."
That's true... but to be fair Stalin and Hitler had a lot more going for them in terms of opportunity and positioning than your average extremist cleric.
It's not that religion is to blame solely, it's that religion makes it easier and so religion will inevitably end up being the tipping point for an atrocity that almost didn't happen.
Jermbot15 2 years ago
That's bullshit. Every war is a religious war. It's the only justification for war. Does an argument that ends in a brawl mean whoever won the fight was right in there opinion? No, it just means they were more brute than whoever took the contrary. It's the same with war. The people in power think that they're right and God is going to be on their side to remove those who disagree. It's all crap and if you don't believe it then you're naive.
mikech78 2 years ago 2
"he people in power think that they're right and God is going to be on their side "
Stalin didn't
artyfarty2 2 years ago
Nice balanced intro you got there FFreethink *hack* ahemm...
anthonzi 2 years ago
try to keep the volume at ~75% while at normal speech. your peaking your ass off.
oldarney 2 years ago
There is no right to not be offended by what someone else says no mater how hateful or because of multiple uses of the wonderful word fuck. freedom of speech means just that there are NO restrictions on it even if our fucked up gov. tries to trample on our rights or weak individuals try to hide behind religion. free speech was meant to help an honest debate on any topic if that is to much for someone to handle waaaaaah they need to grow up and stop being such a little bitch.
wanabyastick 2 years ago
A better analogy for our social group might have been "why does religion get the +5 steel shield with hp and mana boosts, while every other topic gets the crappy +1 copper?"
moshe88 2 years ago
Free speech is limited you dumb shit
You can't just threaten somebody's life, start a fight, intimidate people etc
...free speech is justifiably limited.
funincluded 2 years ago
Agreed, that's why Alex Jones was taken off youtube. Free Speech is free to a point, its stops being free when you voice leads to harm of others. Preaching hateful stuff is fine, horrible but allowed. Preaching for hateful acts is not.
SudokuSky 2 years ago
People don't really understand what free speech is in a legal sense
As far as US law goes, it only protects people from actions by the government, not other people... as in stopping an otherwise legal protest and the like
your boss can fire you for saying "Vote Obama"
funincluded 2 years ago
It differs slightly here in that it protects people from hate preachers that incite acts. I'd be surprised if you didn't have a similar law in place. It stops most notable stops religious extremists preachers from preaching people to perform acts that will lead to the harm of others. For me you breach free speech when you voice such things. Your country is their to protect all its citizens. A persons right to life out weights whatever feelings your have to voice bad acts. But your also right.
SudokuSky 2 years ago
There are other laws, but the right to free speech isn't the issue.
example:
-I say "I hope McCain wins the election"
-My boss fires me for it
...I can't sue him for breaching my free speech
However, I can sue the government for taking action against me for saying the same thing.
Tort law comes into play when threating someone's life, slandering them etc... not constitutional law
funincluded 2 years ago
When I think of Free Speech of think of this. Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation. That's the definition I have when I think of it. I'm not sure if what I said falls into your definition as Criminal speech or Hate speech. We have three laws here that are restriction on Free Speech that I can think of, Public Order Act and Racial, Religious Hatred Act and Terrorism Act. All are restrictions and limitations on what you can say or write.
SudokuSky 2 years ago
There are two different issues here:
Limits on my speech, what I cannot say (hate speech, threats)
-This means the government can stop me from saying them
And the idea that actions others take to limit my speech is not a part of the above ideas
-When an individual takes action to limit my speech, this is NOT an issue of free speech
...this is because the bill of rights only applies to actions of the government
I'm pretty sure the same goes for you, just
funincluded 2 years ago
I'm not sure if I completely understood what you said. Freedom of speech, expression and thought is to my definition without censorship or limitation. Except there is limitation and censorship from laws by my Gov. What I'm trying to say it doesn't matter if its the Gov acting to limit them or someone else, there's still a limit there. If someone other than the Gov tries to limit them, then they are breaking my Human Rights. That's what I am trying to say, sorry if I never said it clearly.
SudokuSky 2 years ago
What I am saying is that under US law you'd be wrong.
funincluded 2 years ago
So what you are saying there is nothing you cannot say. That you voice and/or words will NOT be censored no matter what the subject. Even if that subject is terror related? Or are you saying that US law labels that as something else entirely and that my definition in US law terms is wrong. I'm just wondering since if I don't ask I'll never know.
SudokuSky 2 years ago
The Bill of Rights doesn't just apply to the actions of the government, it's about the individual. There's a reason the Bill constantly uses the phrase "the right of the people". Freedom is a concept of personal liberty, to be enforced and protected *by* a government.
VolatileChemical 2 years ago
I'm sorry, but you're an idiot haha
Yes, the BOR protects individuals.... FROM ACTIONS BY THE GOVERNMENT
that's what it is.
No offense, but what you said was wrong in several ways
funincluded 2 years ago
DEVTAGAMI FOR PRESIDENT. Just picture this guy in a suit and a tie; standing behind the president seal.
franksaninocencio 2 years ago
"Why does religion get a blow job, when everything else gets the hand job?"
Best. Statement. Ever. That guy got my sub.
Khronofox 2 years ago
for the win ..these vids rawk
CiphersSon 2 years ago 2
thank, its about time someone told theamazingatheist that!!!
FAKEBC 2 years ago 3
I have no idea what's going on.
DeadFishFactory 2 years ago 2
thedefendingchamps vid was pretty stupid. Fucking captain obvious....
btw Traxx01's song was cool !
sureup 2 years ago
Yea, what a jerk he was!
thedefendingchamp 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
fuck salman rushdie
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
The U.N can't prevent genocide so I see them regulating hate speech against religions with equal skill.
ectogambit 2 years ago 4
5:27 [citation needed]
clt1113 2 years ago
What if you couldn't criticise a political party?
What if you couldn't criticise a political party based on religion?
"What is freedom of speech? - Without the freedom to offend it isn't free speech" - Salman Rushdie
RebelRadius 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
fuck salman rushdie
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Are you a woman or gay? lol
HumanStrategy 2 years ago
that was a bad joke.
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
Thankfully my joke doesn't require your endorsement. Also, I find it ironic that someone who initially used obscenities in such a crude manner could be so sensitive to the subversion of it.
Enjoy your aids.^^
HumanStrategy 2 years ago
How is calling a joke bad a sign of sensitivity?
Your joke was very cliche and unfunny and look at your comment: 3 thumbs down.
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
"How is calling a joke bad a sign of sensitivity?"
You must not be familiar with the English language.^^
"Your joke was very cliche and unfunny"
I supposed I will have to repeat myself. As I said before, "Thankfully my joke doesn't require your endorsement"
Have a nice day, faggot. lol
HumanStrategy 2 years ago
English happens to be my second language - still, I can assure you my grasp of the English language surpasses yours, as you remain unaware of the meaning of the word "sensitivity."
You replied to my comment with a joke, you wanted to see what I thought of it, otherwise you wouldn't have posted it as a reply.
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
"I can assure you my grasp of the English language surpasses yours"
Bald assertion. If you think this provides strength to yoru argument then you are just fooling yourself. Make a vlid point, son.
"you wanted to see what I thought of it"
Umm no. You are mistaken. Also, you have shown your arrogance in the supposed ability to read someones' mind. You make this all too easy to enjoy.
HumanStrategy 2 years ago
richard loves going to war with people... if they attacked magibon, for example, or any other person here whom arent trying to fight with people or be annoying even... that would piss me off, but i think richard can hold his own im sure..... i dont even kinow what the arguement was about, so i might change my opinion after seeing it, but grown men, whom THRIVE on arguing and debate, doing just that... i cant get pissed.
publicdrunkeness 2 years ago
reason only works for the reasonable
bajorjor1 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
freaking hate people who apologize for couhlan that buthurt little bitch. he could have stopped it any time he wanted but he continued to post and got his just response from tj. Now Tj's friend Bill Gates look alike was also a but hurt little bitch.
disturbed119 2 years ago
I agree with Dev. Some of you don't see the flip side of trying to limit someone else's speech. What happens when someone says the things that you say are hate speech? Do you the slippery slope that leads us towards?
maverik713 2 years ago 2
to Devtamagi.
hate speech of lets say 'racists' is often not expresing opinions. its convincing young and unevolved people that beating/killing someone is a good thing.
free speech is very important for freedom, but dont confuse freedom with bullying/harrasment.
its no problem if someone says stupid things, its not ok when someone attacks you with words, or learns children to kill people of other skin colour.
just my 2c
logoth80 2 years ago
I disagree with alot of these people this week. Especially Devtamagi. Its easy for you to say you want people to express their beliefs when you arent the one getting attacked. If you were black and a group of people insulted you and your family and called you a nigger or if you were a homosexual and they called you a cocksucking faggot. You dont understand the pain because its not directed at you. Its unrealistic to want people saying terrible things to keep on saying them simply for free speech
InfiniteGXT 2 years ago
I agree with you, however it's entirely possible that he grew into his opinion because he has been attacked in the past...
CyberSword13 2 years ago
I agree. I love this "week" thing because it lets me hear about the little guys like NoelPlum99 (whom I just subscribed to).
I only compared them because they have comparable numbers, not content.
jacobromu 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
All these Coughlin whiners. He's a GROWN MAN. He WANTED to beef. Bullying? This isn't 3rd grade.
If you can't take the heat...
bleunt 2 years ago
Awesome to get a 'call out' on one of these videos, just feel it a *slight* shame it wasn't for my 'root of our morality' vid for which I was infinitely prouder (although i suppose to most people it's infinitely more boring as well hehe).
Still, lovely to see a few new subs :)
noelplum99 2 years ago
people are overrated.
everyone will not always get along.
BNnoddy 2 years ago
Psychiatrists diagnose a delusional disorder if the patient is excessively pre-occupied by the belief, especially if the person is subsequently unswayed in that belief by counter-evidence or reasonable arguments.
I would rather hang with nondelusional folks. At least, I can expect them to use sense and reason.
saxmanchiro 2 years ago
I like how this doesn't use the stereotypical AronRa Thunderf00t and TAA. The little guys get their shoutout!
jacobromu 2 years ago
you shouldn't put TAA with Tf00t and AronRa
TAA is NOT like the rest, he is a douchebag, and gives us a bad name
BodybuildingMike 2 years ago 7
TAA shouldn't be compared to Tf00t because TAA is an ENTERTAINER, not an educator.
Comparing TAA to Tf00t is like comparing The Daily Show with BBC news.
BlackstarSirius 2 years ago 4
Excellent!
Darwinsgift 2 years ago
Yay Devtamagi!
EosBronze 2 years ago
As for Devtamagi,I would say religion gets the blow job while everything else gets a swift kick in the dick.
Atrocitas6 2 years ago
Sure, I'd rather be friends with someone with different religious beliefs but is a great person (in fact I have plenty of those friends) than an atheist who is a total douche bag.
however, of the "main" Christian youtubers, how many actually fit that bill? The problem is Christian people are very good at presenting hateful views under the guise of soft-spoken speech. I don't wish any pain on people like Jesusfreek or Venomfang, but do I think they are vile, pathetic, ignorant fuckheads? YES
photekxl 2 years ago
And, to add, do i think they should be mocked when they present their childish, shallow, already-debunked arguments from perspectives of natural and social sciences, two topics neither of them have ANY fucking clue about? Yes, I do. Organized religion should be mocked in whole. It is the corruption of human spirituality, and it deserves to be treated like astrology and alchemy.
photekxl 2 years ago
Obvious trolls are obvious.
AtheistChase 2 years ago
I was glad to see Traxx01 featured - he has under 100 subs and deserves much more!
- Todd
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
devtamagi: He says just what every other atheist says but I still subscribe to him because he has character!
How superficial am I?
TheRealBladeRunner 2 years ago