The Problems With Atheists and Atheism

[Winston]

@Gali,
You are not discussing anything. You are not answering anything. All you do is slap labels onto everything like "bullshido" or "primitive superstition". One cannot discuss with such a closed mind as yours. All you do is deny everything outside your box and you assume that if something doesn't fit your materialistic atheist paradigm then it's "superstition". It's impossible to discuss anything with you. Your mind is not open and you are obviously NOT a truth seeker. You are a DOGMATIST.

You don't ever present any logical arguments like I do. For example, you say religion is "bullshido and superstition", but you present ZERO logical arguments for that. In contrast, look at my big thread on Tough Questions Christians Have Never Answered and you will see the BIG DIFFERENCE between you and me. In that thread I have 15 VERY POWERFUL arguments with mini essays under each for why Christian dogmas and theology cannot be true. You have ZERO! Very big difference. So obviously you cannot discuss with me and you know it since you never present logical arguments, only denial and simple labels like "bulldshido" and "superstition" and "science based" which mean nothing. It's like you have no ability to reason or make reasoned intellectual valid arguments. No offense but true and obvious. So we are not in the same league. And it's a fallacy for you to assume that you know everything and if someone knows something you don't, then they are BSing. Total fallacy.

So this discussion is hopeless obviously and a waste of time. You cannot address any questions or arguments at all. And you cannot support your claims with any good arguments either like I can. So we are not on the same level obviously. No offense, but true. As Mark Twain said "Don't argue with a fool. People might not know the difference." lol

[Gali]

@Gali,
You are not discussing anything. You are not answering anything. All you do is slap labels onto everything like "bullshido" or "primitive superstition". One cannot discuss with such a closed mind as yours. All you do is deny everything outside your box and you assume that if something doesn't fit your materialistic atheist paradigm then it's "superstition". It's impossible to discuss anything with you. Your mind is not open and you are obviously NOT a truth seeker. You are a DOGMATIST.

You don't ever present any logical arguments like I do. For example, you say religion is "bullshido and superstition", but you present ZERO logical arguments for that. In contrast, look at my big thread on Tough Questions Christians Have Never Answered and you will see the BIG DIFFERENCE between you and me. In that thread I have 15 VERY POWERFUL arguments with mini essays under each for why Christian dogmas and theology cannot be true. You have ZERO! Very big difference. So obviously you cannot discuss with me and you know it since you never present logical arguments, only denial and simple labels like "bulldshido" and "superstition" and "science based" which mean nothing. It's like you have no ability to reason or make reasoned intellectual valid arguments. No offense but true and obvious. So we are not in the same league. And it's a fallacy for you to assume that you know everything and if someone knows something you don't, then they are BSing. Total fallacy.

So this discussion is hopeless obviously and a waste of time. You cannot address any questions or arguments at all. And you cannot support your claims with any good arguments either like I can. So we are not on the same level obviously. No offense, but true. As Mark Twain said "Don't argue with a fool. People might not know the difference." lol

"Don't argue with a fool. People might not know the difference." lol

I agree with that. That is why this is not a discussion. Like you said it is a waste of time to argue with a Flat Earther (one time Flat Earther always Flat Earther)

[MrMan]

The only problem I see with atheism, is that the people of religion have no domination or control over them, and that's what people of religion don't like about them! I find it interesting that of all the people who have done the most terrible things of the world there's not a one I heard of that was a devote atheist! Devil worshippers yes, but not atheist!

The video in the OP is dead, and I haven't followed the thread, but I saw this comment.

I have heard the argument, with numbers, that some of the bloodiest regimes in world history have been atheist. Ghenghis Khan might have out-killed Chinese communists at an estimated 40 million, but if the Communist atheist regime is at the high estimate of 42 million, then they could have outkilled Ghengkis Khan. It should count more in a way if you kill your own people than if you kill people in warfare, right?

I have read '100 million dead' to refer to the results of Russian atheist Communism. I am not sure if that includes foolish food management. I hear the Communists stirred up the disenfranchised against tiny farm owners who were a generation or so away from being surfs who'd managed to put together efficient prosperous farms. They shipped these families out to Siberia where there was not nearly enough food or shelter, leaving the country without the efficient farmers to grow food.

A problem with atheism is the idea that someone would be bold enough and adamant about the topic to actually label themselves as atheists. How can any human claim to know that there is _not_ a God. You could claim evidence for God existing. There are a lot of mysteries that astrophysicists run up against like fine tuning.

Then the aggressive new atheist types are worse. We have to be careful as an electorate not to allow adamant atheists into office and not allow them to institute atheism (further) as the state religion. Secularism is not neutral and it is already treated almost like a state religion. If they combine atheism with some of the 'woke' radicalism of antifa... if that took over...it could be another Bolshevik type situation. But the US is a little different from Russia. I don't think they had as many country boy veterans with full gun racks in the back window of their pick-up trucks in Russia back then.

[Tsar]

But the US is a little different from Russia. I don't think they had as many country boy veterans with full gun racks in the back window of their pick-up trucks in Russia back then.

Actually, the United States isn't any different. Back in 1917, almost everyone owned rifles to hunt. Buying meat wasn't easy and expensive, and if refrigeration existed it was a luxury. Transportation was also slower.

The major Jewish banking families of New York City, the United States and London, the British Empire funded the Bolsheviks.

Russia in 1917 was one of the most Christian nations in the world.

The Imperial Family was killed to prevent a clear successor and to break some of the morale of the White Army, and any chance of a restoration of the monarchy or a government in exile.

Wealth inequality and the possible unpopularity of WWI because of Russia's military failures were other trigger points that allowed ordinary Russians and others to collaborate with the Bolshevik Jews, despite Russia being on the verge of victory because of their affiliation with the Allied Powers.

Today, the United States is essentially a police state, has the highest prison population per 100,000 people second only to North Korea, massive wealth inequality, massive poverty, hedonism to the extreme, a Jewish elite more powerful and wealthy than any other group in the history of human civilization, and superficial appeasements like Wokeness to distract people from realizing America's problems won't get solved with giving feminists greater rights, atheists more influence, or LGBTQ+ more rights. All that's needed is the right trigger event or false flag and the United States can more easily go full on Bolshevik Dictatorship with "camps." Add in the racial tensions, political tensions, and the mass poverty then it's a recipe for violent upheaval.

Any Bolshevik Revolution in the United States would be government sponsored because America has been entirely subverted for at least a few decades.

[Winston]

MrMan,
Good point. But how come atheist countries such as Sweden and Norway are civilized and not very violent? I think religion or atheism are just excuses. They do not cause bad people to be bad. They are just tools used as excuses for carrying out some agenda that bad people like Stalin or Mao wanted to carry out. Atheism didn't make them evil, they merely used Atheism and Socialism as justification for an agenda they already wanted to carry out. If they didn't have that, they would have found another excuse. It was all about seizing all assets and destroying the middle class, and any excuse would have sufficed, whether it was atheism or any other religion.

There's also a saying that "The Bible is a good book for good people and a bad book for bad people." This indicates that the Bible doesn't cause one to become good or bad. It's just a tool that they can use for whatever agenda they have. Of course, those who are broken and bad who want to be helped or saved, and need a crutch, can also lean on the Bible to help save them too. That's why the Gospel and Bible are popular with those in prison who are broken and badly in need of repair.

[Winston]

Why Atheism is the WEAKEST paradigm of all and has ZERO value

The Atheist model explains nothing and cannot prove anything and does not even fit the data. It's just a lazy dismissal for those who just want to dismiss all religion in general as bunk without thinking. The obvious CORE problem with the atheist model is that chance and unguided processes can never create intelligent design or complex machinery or complexity, like human anatomy or DNA. No amount of time can allow that, not even an eternity. Many Creationists and Theists have proven that mathematically with the anthropic princple and fine tuned universe argument. By definition, design, pattern and structure negates randomness, so this is self-refuting and impossible. Moreover, life cannot come from non-life. Life can only come from life, as we all know. So again the atheist claim that life came from non-ilfe is impossible and nonsensical. Furthermore, the atheist model cannot explain consciousness or how it arose, since it is not necessary for evolution. All it can do is dismiss consciousness as an illusion, which is an assumption based on prejudice, bias and personal philosophy, not logic or science. Sorry but that just doesn't suffice for the real truth seeker.

In my opinion, this is the WEAKEST model because it explains nothing and offers nothing and is self-refuting in many ways and impossible and against natural common sense as well. Look up Dr. Frank Turek, a Christian apologist, who explains why Atheism is self-refuting in many ways in his books and lectures. I don't agree with his Christian views, but he does a good job of pointing out the flaws and contradictions of Atheism which are self-refuting.

Unfortunately, the scientific establishment and academia/universities in Western countries have adopted this Atheist/Materialist model as their dominant paradigm and are very DOGMATIC and hard-nosed about it, to the point where it has become their religion almost. Despite the fact that it CANNOT be proven using the Scientific Method in any laboratory experiment. That is very sad, illogical, and dishonest, and strongly indicates that their motive for doing so is based on prejudice, personal philosophy, bias, and agendas perhaps, not logic or science or neutrality or out of a desire for truth seeking.

For the best exposes against the Atheist/Materialist model and why it is heavily flawed and cannot be true, see the works, books, and lectures of Dr. Rupert Sheldrake and Dr. Dean Radin, author of "The Conscious Universe". Both are highly credible and renowned and debunk the materialist paradigm with sheer logic. Sheldrake's website is www.sheldrake.org.

In the Atheist model of course, suffering has no purpose or reason for existence. It merely is, and that's all. Like I said, it's the WEAKEST paradigm and offers NOTHING. Basically, Atheism is an intellectually lazy way to not even think about the issue and dismiss it out of hand. It's a form of denial, not truth seeking, so it's definitely not for those with a passion to seek truth. That's for sure. The average Atheist does NOT base his beliefs on logic or reason, it's just an excuse to hate and dismiss all religions as a whole, because they don't wanna deal with it. That's why the average Atheist has ZERO logical arguments or reasons or evidence to support their Atheism philosophy. It's merely a cheap way to dismiss anything outside of their material paradigm and is also a hate movement against Christianity. Hence it is NOT an intellectual or rational movement at all, but one of hate and denial.

For example, the books by the most popular authors of militant Atheism such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, contain ZERO arguments that God does not exist and does not even try to give any. Obviously because they have NONE, which speaks volumes! And basically means that they have NOTHING to stand on, and hence is the WEAKEST paradigm of all! All they do is bash Christianity for its flaws and blabs about why religion is all bad and nothing good and has only caused wars and so therefore should be abolished, which is not true or balanced and way too one sided. Obviously there is good and bad in all religions but they are too blind and hateful and one sided to see that, so they only point out the bad and ignore the good. In doing so, they throw the baby out with the bath water and try to insinuate that since Christianity is bad and absurd, then all religions are bad and therefore no God can possibly exist. That's the only card they have, but it falsely connects things which are not the same. Because disproving Christianity is NOT the same as proving that no God or Creator exists at all. They can disprove Christianity all they want, but it still does NOT prove their contention that God does not exist in any shape or form at all! But they hope you are dumb enough not to realize that of course, and that you don't think for yourself, but blindly believe their BS fallacies.

In contrast, Christian apologetics books by Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. JP Moreland, Dr. Frank Turek, and Lee Strobel do contain some valid logical arguments for the existence of God, such as the intelligent design argument, the anthropic principle, the prime mover argument, etc. So there is no question which side has more valid arguments. Theism wins hands down and the Atheists have been nothing but sore losers.

Essentially, Atheism is a HATE movement against Christianity, and that's why it always targets Christianity with disdain and ridicule, and not other religions. In doing so though, they throw the baby out with the bathwater, and presume that since the Christian religion is absurd and ridiculous and has caused wars, that therefore no God exists at all. That's an obvious fallacy, but since Atheism is a hate movement, you cannot expect rationality or logic from them. I do agree that Christianity is highly problematic and absurd, as I explained earlier, however creating a hate religion against it and using that to prove that no God exists at all is also absurd, and mentally unhealthy as well, since hate is never good for one's soul (even if they don't believe in the soul).

What Atheists don't realize is that they have no ground to stand on, because none of their heros and idols were Atheists like them. For example, their idols such as Isaac Newton, Galileo, Charles Darwin, etc. but those men were NOT Atheists. They all believed in God in some form, even if they were Deists and did not believe that God intervened in the world. But they were theists and believed in a divine Creator. So none of the Atheists' idols were Atheists, which is ironic and funny and only goes to show that none of the great minds of history were Atheists, hence they have no ground to stand on. In fact, the greatest geniuses in the world, such as Einstein, Tesla, Newton, DaVinci, Ben Franklin, Thomas Edison, Plato, Socrates, etc. were neither Atheists/Materialists nor religious fundamentalists. This means of course that the smarter and wiser one is, the more they see through the folly of both dogmatic Atheism and religion, and ascribe to neither, because both models stifle freethought and are authoritarian based, not reason based, which great thinkers cannot accept or align with.

All this shows just how foolish and empty and devoid of value Atheism really is. Hence why I say it is the WEAKEST paradigm of all with ZERO value. All it is is a HATE movement against Christianity and is guilty of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, which is intellectually lazy.

[MrMan]

But the US is a little different from Russia. I don't think they had as many country boy veterans with full gun racks in the back window of their pick-up trucks in Russia back then.

Actually, the United States isn't any different. Back in 1917, almost everyone owned rifles to hunt. Buying meat wasn't easy and expensive, and if refrigeration existed it was a luxury. Transportation was also slower.

The major Jewish banking families of New York City, the United States and London, the British Empire funded the Bolsheviks.

I haven't deeply researched this, but I am suspicious of such theories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism

The reason is that a nation turning Communist is at odds with many of the financial interests of banking families. It would also be extremely high risk, and a lot of bankers and financial types like to control risks.

[Tsar]

But the US is a little different from Russia. I don't think they had as many country boy veterans with full gun racks in the back window of their pick-up trucks in Russia back then.

Actually, the United States isn't any different. Back in 1917, almost everyone owned rifles to hunt. Buying meat wasn't easy and expensive, and if refrigeration existed it was a luxury. Transportation was also slower.

The major Jewish banking families of New York City, the United States and London, the British Empire funded the Bolsheviks.

I haven't deeply researched this, but I am suspicious of such theories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism

The reason is that a nation turning Communist is at odds with many of the financial interests of banking families. It would also be extremely high risk, and a lot of bankers and financial types like to control risks.

It's not high risk if someone was playing a long game. It's not like the Rothschilds expected to fall, and hypothetically, even Britain wasn't likely to fall to communism. Britain was under the Rothschild's complete control since the Battle of Waterloo.

The Russian Empire was set to retake Constantinople for Christianity, expand their borders, gain influence over the Holy Land (essentially making Christianity the 2nd most dominant influencer in the Middle East), and the monarchist system was anti-Jewish because monarchs remain pure-ethnicity almost all the time because they're symbols of culture and nationalism (assuming they're absolute monarchs).

Monarchs and dictators typically love their nations even if they do some "bad things" because to hate their nation or support globalism or being anti-culture or anti-nationalistic is incompatible and would bring their own downfall.

We can see just by historic example that all Republics even if they begin with "good intentions" turn into hell because they're corrupted by money, self-interest, and political dysfunction.

Read "Under the Sign of the Scorpion" if you want to read about World War I.

Even Kaiser Wilhelm II said that his greatest mistake was granting the Jews equal rights as Germans. Napoleon Bonaparte did the same in France about 100 years earlier. That leaves me another question. Why was Adolf Hitler and National Socialist Germany able to have Germany exit the Great Depression, reach full employment, and achieve things in ten years that made it the most advanced nation in the world but then was destroyed by the British Empire, France, the Soviet Union, and the United States? All of which failed to achieve anything and even then, the United States achieved it's prosperity because almost all the entire world was in ruins. It was the last nation left standing after World War II.

Atheism is largely a byproduct of Zionists and Globalists trying to destroy moral codes and traditions, as part of a process to dismantle a society. They did that in nations where Christianity was dominant. They did that with Buddhism, Confucianism, and other Eastern Religions without a deity but with moral codes. It's because to dismantle a society, everything needs to be destroyed and replaced with someone else and something emptier.

[Winston]

SCIENTIST of the GAPS (MINDSHOCK LOGIC, LOGICAL FALLACIES, and PSYCHOLOGY PODCAST)

How hypocritical is it of atheists promoting scientism to call out "God of the Gaps" arguments to theists? Religion vs Science? A logical look...

[Winston]

But the US is a little different from Russia. I don't think they had as many country boy veterans with full gun racks in the back window of their pick-up trucks in Russia back then.

Actually, the United States isn't any different. Back in 1917, almost everyone owned rifles to hunt. Buying meat wasn't easy and expensive, and if refrigeration existed it was a luxury. Transportation was also slower.

The major Jewish banking families of New York City, the United States and London, the British Empire funded the Bolsheviks.

I haven't deeply researched this, but I am suspicious of such theories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism

The reason is that a nation turning Communist is at odds with many of the financial interests of banking families. It would also be extremely high risk, and a lot of bankers and financial types like to control risks.

You obviously haven't done your research. It is historically well documented and a proven fact that the elite and banking cartel sponsor and fund socialism and communism under the guise of "democracy" and "social justice". This great documentary below by G. Edward Griffin explains why. Everything in this documentary is historically documented and factual, not theories. Also see the groundbreaking book from 1972 by Gary Allen called "None Dare Call It Conspiracy", which you can find PDF copies of online if you Google it.



Btw here's a PDF copy of "None Dare Call It Conspiracy" by Gary Allen. It explains it all in layman's terms and is easy to understand.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... TQ2NTI0NjA

[suprmon]

The only problem I see with atheism, is that the people of religion have no domination or control over them, and that's what people of religion don't like about them! I find it interesting that of all the people who have done the most terrible things of the world there's not a one I heard of that was a devote atheist! Devil worshippers yes, but not atheist!

The video in the OP is dead, and I haven't followed the thread, but I saw this comment.

I have heard the argument, with numbers, that some of the bloodiest regimes in world history have been atheist. Ghenghis Khan might have out-killed Chinese communists at an estimated 40 million, but if the Communist atheist regime is at the high estimate of 42 million, then they could have outkilled Ghengkis Khan. It should count more in a way if you kill your own people than if you kill people in warfare, right?

I have read '100 million dead' to refer to the results of Russian atheist Communism. I am not sure if that includes foolish food management. I hear the Communists stirred up the disenfranchised against tiny farm owners who were a generation or so away from being surfs who'd managed to put together efficient prosperous farms. They shipped these families out to Siberia where there was not nearly enough food or shelter, leaving the country without the efficient farmers to grow food.

A problem with atheism is the idea that someone would be bold enough and adamant about the topic to actually label themselves as atheists. How can any human claim to know that there is _not_ a God. You could claim evidence for God existing. There are a lot of mysteries that astrophysicists run up against like fine tuning.

Then the aggressive new atheist types are worse. We have to be careful as an electorate not to allow adamant atheists into office and not allow them to institute atheism (further) as the state religion. Secularism is not neutral and it is already treated almost like a state religion. If they combine atheism with some of the 'woke' radicalism of antifa... if that took over...it could be another Bolshevik type situation. But the US is a little different from Russia. I don't think they had as many country boy veterans with full gun racks in the back window of their pick-up trucks in Russia back then.

My point is to not say atheists are better than anyone else. Good and evil exists in all humans weather you believe in god or not. My problem is when people who judge others who don't identify with their narrative and this is especially common with people of religion. However in my experiences I have not heard an atheist critique people of their religions, again this is MY experience! As far as the statement you made "How can any human claim to know that there is _not_ a God", well I don't rely on "secular science" as you may put it to prove weather god exists or not: It's COMMON SENSE!!! I can't understand why if there is a god and he wants his children to be so good why does he lets bad things happen to them so (he) can make a point? I mean if you were a father, would you let horrible things happen to your children because you wanted to make a point? Everyone is entitled to believe in what what works best for them provided it doesn't infringe on the liberty of others.

[MrMan]

My point is to not say atheists are better than anyone else. Good and evil exists in all humans weather you believe in god or not. My problem is when people who judge others who don't identify with their narrative and this is especially common with people of religion. However in my experiences I have not heard an atheist critique people of their religions, again this is MY experience! As far as the statement you made "How can any human claim to know that there is _not_ a God", well I don't rely on "secular science" as you may put it to prove weather god exists or not: It's COMMON SENSE!!! I can't understand why if there is a god and he wants his children to be so good why does he lets bad things happen to them so (he) can make a point? I mean if you were a father, would you let horrible things happen to your children because you wanted to make a point? Everyone is entitled to believe in what what works best for them provided it doesn't infringe on the liberty of others.

I spent some time on an atheist forum before, and there are a lot of smart alec atheists that don't have much of quality to say who insult and post memes of piles of poo or people looking crazy. There were a bunch of 'new atheists' years ago with a nasty snobby attitude toward religion. The idea that science could prove anything (no matter what science says) gets treated like religion.

[Winston]

The only problem I see with atheism, is that the people of religion have no domination or control over them, and that's what people of religion don't like about them! I find it interesting that of all the people who have done the most terrible things of the world there's not a one I heard of that was a devote atheist! Devil worshippers yes, but not atheist!

The video in the OP is dead, and I haven't followed the thread, but I saw this comment.

I have heard the argument, with numbers, that some of the bloodiest regimes in world history have been atheist. Ghenghis Khan might have out-killed Chinese communists at an estimated 40 million, but if the Communist atheist regime is at the high estimate of 42 million, then they could have outkilled Ghengkis Khan. It should count more in a way if you kill your own people than if you kill people in warfare, right?

I have read '100 million dead' to refer to the results of Russian atheist Communism. I am not sure if that includes foolish food management. I hear the Communists stirred up the disenfranchised against tiny farm owners who were a generation or so away from being surfs who'd managed to put together efficient prosperous farms. They shipped these families out to Siberia where there was not nearly enough food or shelter, leaving the country without the efficient farmers to grow food.

A problem with atheism is the idea that someone would be bold enough and adamant about the topic to actually label themselves as atheists. How can any human claim to know that there is _not_ a God. You could claim evidence for God existing. There are a lot of mysteries that astrophysicists run up against like fine tuning.

Then the aggressive new atheist types are worse. We have to be careful as an electorate not to allow adamant atheists into office and not allow them to institute atheism (further) as the state religion. Secularism is not neutral and it is already treated almost like a state religion. If they combine atheism with some of the 'woke' radicalism of antifa... if that took over...it could be another Bolshevik type situation. But the US is a little different from Russia. I don't think they had as many country boy veterans with full gun racks in the back window of their pick-up trucks in Russia back then.

My point is to not say atheists are better than anyone else. Good and evil exists in all humans weather you believe in god or not. My problem is when people who judge others who don't identify with their narrative and this is especially common with people of religion. However in my experiences I have not heard an atheist critique people of their religions, again this is MY experience! As far as the statement you made "How can any human claim to know that there is _not_ a God", well I don't rely on "secular science" as you may put it to prove weather god exists or not: It's COMMON SENSE!!! I can't understand why if there is a god and he wants his children to be so good why does he lets bad things happen to them so (he) can make a point? I mean if you were a father, would you let horrible things happen to your children because you wanted to make a point? Everyone is entitled to believe in what what works best for them provided it doesn't infringe on the liberty of others.

What do you mean? Atheists have done bad things before too. Wasn't Stalin and Mao an atheist? They said "religion is poison" too like modern atheists say. You gotta understand atheism is a philosophy, not a science. The scientific establishment in western cultures have embraced atheism, but that doesn't make atheism scientific. Intelligent design and complexity cannot come from randomness. So atheism fails. Plain and simple. Look at human anatomy or the anatomy of animals. It's more complicated than any supercomputer. We all know that computers and machines do not come from random or unguided processes. So atheism fails.

You are right that a good God would allow bad things to happen to his children. But that doesn't mean no God exists at all and that everything is random and there is no soul or spirit world. That's a HUGE fallacy and unwarranted jump that the establishment TRICKS you into. You gotta be smart and look beyond that. Remember no genius in history was ever an atheist or religious fundamentalist. All geniuses have gone beyond both false religions. Anyone can see that we are not here by random accident. That's an absurd fantasy, even less credible than Genesis. Even Darwin didn't believe his own theories, he was just playing a role and agenda to promote atheism in academia, as part of the agenda.

The key to understanding everything is that everything is a MIXTURE of TRUTH and LIES. This includes religion and science too. The best SOLUTION is NOT to choose between religion and science but to separate the wheat from the chaff. This means you take the good and true parts of religion and science, and reject the bad corrupted parts. That's the REAL solution which the establishment doesn't want you to do, because they don't want you to think. They want you to adopt one of their prepackaged systems that contain both truths and lies, so that either way, you will be corrupted and swallow their poison.

Most people fall for this clever scam, because most people cannot think and separate the wheat from the chaff and have no ability for critical thinking. They are binary in their mindset and sees every theory as being true or false, rather than a mix of truth and lies. So the majority get duped by the establishment approved belief systems. This is why the establishment wants you to choose between Christianity and Atheism, because both contain truths and lies and both make you swallow poison and corrupt you and make you an authoritarian which seeks truth OUTSIDE of you rather than INSIDE of you like you were meant to.

Keep in mind that if something is unimportant, science will tell you the truth, such as how birds mate and migrate or the boiling temperature of water, etc. But if something is important such as consciousness or the origin of life, etc then they will lie to you and mislead you. That's the KEY to understanding misinformation in Wikipedia and establishment media and websites. Everything follows that KEY PATTERN.

[Winston]

My point is to not say atheists are better than anyone else. Good and evil exists in all humans weather you believe in god or not. My problem is when people who judge others who don't identify with their narrative and this is especially common with people of religion. However in my experiences I have not heard an atheist critique people of their religions, again this is MY experience! As far as the statement you made "How can any human claim to know that there is _not_ a God", well I don't rely on "secular science" as you may put it to prove weather god exists or not: It's COMMON SENSE!!! I can't understand why if there is a god and he wants his children to be so good why does he lets bad things happen to them so (he) can make a point? I mean if you were a father, would you let horrible things happen to your children because you wanted to make a point? Everyone is entitled to believe in what what works best for them provided it doesn't infringe on the liberty of others.

I spent some time on an atheist forum before, and there are a lot of smart alec atheists that don't have much of quality to say who insult and post memes of piles of poo or people looking crazy. There were a bunch of 'new atheists' years ago with a nasty snobby attitude toward religion. The idea that science could prove anything (no matter what science says) gets treated like religion.

True, that's because atheism isn't a true philosophy. It's a HATE movement. That's why they always have disdain and anger in their attitude and words toward religion. That's why they rely on ridicule and ad hominem attacks. They don't win on reason or logic or evidence. Because they have none. They are a hate movement, plain and simple. Look at their disdain they always project in their tone of voice and you can see this.

One of their fallacies is that they assume that if some of the Bible is false, then all of it is false, which isn't true. The Bible like science, is a mix of truths and lies. It has to be. Keep in mind that the Bible has been in the hands of Roman and British governments and monarchies so of course it's going to be corrupted for their agenda. By rejecting all of the Bible, atheists reject the GOOD and TRUE parts of it, hence making them corrupted. That's the KEY to understanding how the system corrupts us with its pre-packaged belief systems on both sides. It's how they control both sides and infiltrate both sides.

Another fallacy of atheism is to mix the scientific method with evolution and the Big Bang and atheism. They are not related, but atheists tend to tie them together into one package. In reality, you cannot use the scientific method to prove evolution or the Big Bang of course, they are not repeatable or replicable or testable or demonstratable. So this is another major atheist fallacy.

Another atheist fallacy is to assume that because some things in science are true - such as how computers work or the ability to predict eclipses - then EVERYTHING science says must be true. Total fallacy of course since everything contains both truth and lies today and has been corrupted. Science is NOT exempt from that. But most atheists are dumb and buy into such obvious fallacies. It seems most people are NPCs today who cannot think or see obvious fallacies. Christians are dumb too and assume that if some of the Bible is true, then all of it must be true. Both sides are deceived and corrupted with such fallacies. That's why the establishment wants you to choose between two corrupted systems.

[MrMan]

@Winston

The issue is not your idea that the Bible is not true. Some people misinterpret parts and do not get what it is trying to say, or cannot accept what it says because they do not like it.

I think the New Atheism does have a lot of that 'hate movement' characteristic you talk about. A lot of other atheists not into the 'New Atheism' are like that. It's a foolish movement of course. Foolish in the Bible can have a sense of immoral foolishness. Some atheists are polite and 'nice', too.

Something I found that looked stupid was reading a thread where someone posted about healing through the laying on of hands in Mozambique. They pray for these people, their hearing improves on a simple medical test. Same with the eyes. You know that chart they have you read? The guy who posted it had a PhD in something. I studied some of those research methods in grad school.

Anyway, there were atheists who would say the peer reviewed article wasn't peer reviewed, even though it was in a peer reviewed journal. You get memes of stupid stuff. They'd cuss at the research, and then throw objections to the research based on rigid ideas of research they learned in middle school science laboratory or undergrad college courses or whatever. They insisted on a control group, even though the control would be making sure that no one's eyes or ears improved for no reason at all. Any kind of field research or natural experiment type stuff is going to have some weaknesses. Experimental research can have weaknesses. Either writers are supposed to point out weaknesses or trained readers pick up on it. A lot of researchers think in terms of psychological and medical research not 'proving' anything, but providing evidence up to an agreed-upon standard. Proofs are for math.

These atheists treat science like it answers everything. I've read this is called this scientism. But then the vast majority do not understand the research methods of the scientific method or how to interpret them. They treat it like a religion, but don't know much about their religion.

In another thread, there was an atheist who thought God had to have created evil. He doesn't even believe in God. The idea of creating beings with the ability too choose, who make bad choices that lead to calamity, even righteous judgment from God in some cases. He insisted on logical argument from presuppositions they don't even know they have made,

Then they don't believe in God, but want to blame Him angrily for sick kids and famines. They don't understand collective guilt and getting out from under that by reconciliation with God. They don't understand there can be good reasons for suffering, or allowing suffering, that we do not always understand.

There were lots of close minded mockers cussing at ideas they didn't like.