Comments by "tblbaby" (@tblbaby) on "My Thoughts on Religion | DIRECT MESSAGE | Rubin Report" video.

Atheists tend to judge religion against perfect, and ignore the condition of man kind in general at the same period. Very unscientific. Christianity in particular has made modern civilization possible & resulted in the best societies on earth, where most would rather live (even while they bring their shit with them & want to tear it down so it's like the shit hole they left). You can point out problems of course, as you can in any group & belief system. That's people, they come with that and bring that to religion which attempts to smooth that out. Of course religion is used for abuses & getting people together to commit them, but so is the current religious dynamic of Science. The Globalists are using a religious like approach to Science to push the idea of Anthropologically created Global Climate Change, which is a scam, so they can steal from the people in the abused name of "science" which has been remade as a sort of deity, that those people are lied to about. Anyone who actually understands the REAL Science behind the Gullible Warming scam, knows it's a scam. People who rant about it, use it as a religion, have no fucking idea about what's involved, except a couple of cherry picked phenomena & lies about the science.
13
Thomas Buchovecky Atheism is faith based, and more a popular fad where a bunch of fools use it to seem enlightened while following a crowd in group think. It's for the unthinking. Agnostics admit they don't know, the logical position when you have no evidence.
3
Einstein was an idiot, as well as genius. It usually goes hand in hand. High performance in one area, totally fucking forget that light we see is not time itself in another.
3
LOL ... there goes pretext of rationality. I said supreme power controlling things, not a developed religious doctrine. Fact is, without Theism Atheism would have never come up. Atheism isn't a lack of belief, it's an active belief to the contrary. You're going cheap on this because it points out that it's faith based, as there is no proof of no Supreme being, and that idea has been how people have always explained what is, and how it functions for life, and how life came to be, and no one has come up with anything more plausible. Where is the spark of life generated? We don't know. That's agnostic. To believe you know is theism. To believe that isn't true, Atheism. The logic is very simple. The arguments against have to break down to the silly & irrational.
2
umm, I'm actually agnostic. You made another knee jerk illogical assumption. No, they're focusing on favorable rhetoric, which they adopted after the glaring hole in their childish attacks were noticed, which they still are to anyone who follows the logic through. Their rhetoric, which they defy while speaking of it. It's a sophist bullshit move, which isn't based in logic. I get what it's for, it's just dishonest. It's misleading. You can't be Agnostic & Atheist. The rework of the definitions just doesn't cut it. Even if it were totally accepted (which is the goal, it's a technique of propaganda which Progressives pretty much laid out in the book, Propaganda. Ironically, or more in character I should say, Progressive itself is the same kind of double speak bullshit to mislead about a movement which was to move back to oppressive rule by a few elite & remove the individual rights centric philosophy & Constitutional set up the US had created which was actually inspired by Christian principles) anyone with a decent brain would see the glaring illogic of it.
2
Progressivism seeks to cloud thinking on certain issues, is exactly where your bullshit came from. I've obviously "done my research". Why is it always the people with their heads up their ass because they didn't question what they were taught, the ones telling people who thought it through "do your research"? What a fucking dildo! Look up the book "Propaganda" and the Progressive Fuck who wrote it, Edward Bernays. Nephew of Sigmund Freud. It's how to mind fuck masses effectively, and it's the mind fuck you are currently suffering from. Goebbels used it as well, Hitler asked for it, and the Progressives who damned near worshiped the man gave him Propaganda, and Eugenics, another progressive book advocating breeding people like live stock. Unless you knew this history, don't tell me to do my fucking research. I obviously have. K?
2
I'm saying things you haven't been taught, so your reaction is I must be nuts, but DO YOUR RESEARCH on what I've said. I told you why Progressives cloud language. I've shown you THAT they've clouded language. Think about what I've told you rather than supposing it can't be valid because it doesn't meet your paradigms. It follows facts. You're not understanding facts as true, doesn't mean they don't exist. I'll tell you a lil secret, you haven't been taught everything there is to know. Those things are not lunacy, they are foreign, and if you want to understand your world, a little pursuit of those things may be valuable.
2
They often believe in a perverted deist type version of science.
1
lol! just because someone told you something, even if it's in one of the shitbag colleges (especially) doesn't make it true. Atheist = you believe there is no God. Agnostic = You admit you don't know. Pan? Screw your stupid pan. Damn you people are getting ridiculous.
1
If there was no Theism there would be no Atheism. Atheism is a protest to Theism. Theism is really the default. All through history people have believed in a higher power. The lack of belief in a God is Agnostic. The active belief in no God is Atheism. A Theism. A is not passive, it's active. If you have no belief at all, you are Agnostic. You don't know.
1
You've obviously been fed a bad definition to mask the facts through semantics. You now can't see past the paradigm, assuming you're honest. You then called theism a universal negative, but you don't know it is, thus you are Atheist, and it's active. You demonstrated against your own attempted semantical block. Sorry man, you can get all academically nonsensical & huffy about it, but ... Check Mate.
1
What I'm saying is your definitions don't follow logic, and I laid the logic out for you. Your conclusions based on those definitions are based on faulty illogical foundation. You define a "God" as a universal negative, which is a necessarily a belief as there is no proof of that. To come up with a logical conclusion, you have to start from a logical starting point on which to base conclusions. It's a sound scientific principal. You sound like a fan of science, though I'm not sure what that means to you. Scientific principal dictates that you start on known fact, no matter how far back you have to go to gain that starting point, or the whole process is tainted, not based on a sound scientific process.
1
That is agnostic, not atheist. No one can prove there is no God so a designation for that is nonsensical, except it's a sophist move on rhetoric to cloud the reality. Deists can't prove there is a god, they believe. They are not Agnostic Deists. Agnostic defines one who doesn't know, so they don't invest belief. Atheist & Theist Both have FAITH in common. What the HELL is wrong with a clear syntax on the issue? Damned Progressives work to cloud every damned thing. Probably because they profit from people being clouded idiots. Language affects intelligent conception. Better delineation is better when we discuss ideas, for those who'd like to be clear about ideas, which is extremely valuable.
1
I'm getting impatient with this bullshit, but most of it isn't here. Sorry I was such an ornery bitch :))
1
Michael Newton ... NOPE this is a redo that obfuscates the perfectly working definition. Atheist means you believe there is no God. It wouldn't exist without Theism. Agnostic is a term that isn't part of the Theist A-Theist ridiculousness, it just means you don't know. Throw the rest of that tap dance bullshit in the trash. It just confuses the issue, which was the point of it's recent invention. You believe there is a God, Theist You believe there is no God, A-Theist You admittedly don't know, Agnostic Atheist is NOT the lack of faith in a god, because without the Theist Faith in a God or Gods it WOULD NOT EXIST. What is it with the logic drain in Academia to confuse the issue? A logical appraisal easily spots that it's bullshit, obfuscation, a tap dance in syntax.
1
You're Agnostic, not Atheist. The new definitions don't follow logic, they follow the Progressive line of obfuscation. Atheist always meant someone standing against Theism, saying they were wrong, that there was no God. Again, without Theism, there would be no Atheism, it's pretty simple. The Prog trend in Universities has been obfuscating this, trying to align Atheism with Science. They changed after the problematic situation of Atheist Faith without evidence was pointed out. I don't know why the label Atheist is so important, probably something to do with wanting to crush Christianity because Progressives come from a line of Socialism, Fabian Socialism, where they really want the State to replace a God. Christianity the focus because of it's individual rights centric principals which collide with the Socialist ideal societal paradigm. Those socialists are sophist and about obfuscation, not teaching logic and good foundation. I'm not going to convert to their reworked language. I oppose it, and them.
1
immoral means "not moral" lol. It's action, not so much philosophical or a stand. Amoral roughly the same, a lack of morals. You're not wrong in this example, but it's not universal. A as prefix can mean against. A-Theist basically means, because there could be no A-Theist without first being Theist, against, because of how it came to be used. Theism has been the default. Most people have objection to that fact, but people have always assumed a higher power. To say there wasn't a higher power was revolutionary. That's what Atheism was, a revolutionary stand against the normal, which was Theism. What gives me heartburn is the obfuscation of Agnostic Atheist and the other recently created designations which dance around syntax and create a lack of clarity. If you don't believe in God, that means you believe there is no God. No one has proof either way so the whole believing in having proof component is nonsensical.
1
Pale Moon, ok, but that ignores the component of faith / belief which is material to the situation. Without it we wouldn't have Theists, without Theists there would be no Atheists, no reason for that to be a thing. I don't think we can ignore the faith component, as it's so important to the dynamic of this situation.
1
Michael Newton ... I tend to agree, absent the issue (but it's very key to this) of how Atheists came to be. Without Theists, there would be no Atheists. No one is arguing over the flying spaghetti monster, not seriously, lol. No one believes in it. No reason to spend energy not believing in it or arguing against it's existence. So the anti to the Flying Spaghetti monster is non existent, as would be Atheism were no one touting Theistic philosophy, teachings of it's history (God telling people what they should do) or law springing from it. That logic is pretty clean, right?
1
Sure, but this redefining was motivated by a desire to mold the idea dishonestly, not to clear it up. The question of Proof is immaterial. There is no proof. As an ideas, it's an obfuscator. I seek clarity and accuracy. Without those we have a hard time understanding the dynamics & application of ideas. This is very important to building on ideas in ways that don't go way wrong and leave a mess which future contributors or those seeking knowledge won't understand as coming from bad foundation, and that line of philosophy is then destroyed, making advancement of it impossible. The faulty foundation effect. They should get deep into that in Universities, but they will not in the current main stream disaster we call higher learning, that would better apply to learning clouded by weed, than advanced learning.
1
Because there is no proof in either stance. You believe or not. The simple alternative for you don't believe one way or the other is "I don't know" Which is Agnostic. Of course there are different nuances as there is in EVERYTHING. Labeling them all won't work, and attempting results in obfuscation, in this case, that seems to be the goal. There is merit in what you say, I'll give you that. It's just pretty clear to me that there is more merit in clarity than an attempt at clarity which can't work because of all the options you need to add that are a given in about any subject anyway.
1
Well, there is no evidence, which is why the only logical variable is belief. Theism is about belief, not evidence. Atheism the same. Agnostic position acknowledges they don't know so they don't believe one way or another.
1
KSH strange more of that isn't going on in retaliation for Islamic atrocities which are constant. Every majority Muslim country is involved in Holocaust against all other religions right now. Every large Muslim population is pushing for power which is planned to result in majority & genocide against all others. Muslims are being used to disrupt the West and make the people accept totalitarian Big Brother surveillance by Globalists, who are also bribing officials in Western Governments to attack every Muslim country which protects religious minorities, like Libya, Egypt, Syria and all others.
1
You single out Christianity? Which has been in the forefront of Science for a long time. As opposed to Islam which is anti history & anti science ... and always has been, which has also been lied about. Christianity isn't perfect, it has been on the wrong side of many issues & those who would use it to control, as well as some extreme idiots have stifled and oppressed, but compared to a mean measure of mankind it is better on average. You've been indoctrinated against Christianity, you hate it. Christianity is individual rights centric, which is a problem for those who would rather use people as live stock. Those people who are the most wealthy in the world & their tools, fund & push teaching against Christianity & forms of government which lift up the individual and promote freedom. What you are is an unthinking idiot sheep who seems to have been easily indoctrinated without putting much thought into it. You have much company, and that's the biggest problem the world faces right now. Thinking people reject Islam and push back. Idiot sheep of those who oppose individual rights and so love and push Islam, which is anti individual & enlightenment is an excellent tool to wipe individual rights centric civilization from the earth.
1
Yeah Mario, did I insult your religion? lol. What you believe is garbage, it's not true. Christians didn't always get Scientific theory right, but they did engage in it and made significant gains from doing so that helped the world. You've got to learn that those teaching you are probably hateful idiots with an agenda which isn't making you smart, it's indoctrination. That's what things have slipped to.
1