Comments by "Seven Proxies" (@sevenproxies4255) on "TRUMP CALLS IMMIGRANTS "ANIMALS" 😲" video.

Andrew Hartmann: In what way is Satan evil? Read the bible. Who killed the most people? Who killed the most infant children? Satan or God?
2
planechump: Every evil person in history reasoned the exact same way. Every evil action in history has been justified with supremacy and dictators not being accountable to anyone. If God actually existed, I'd shoot the evil fucker. God is the most immoral and evil force described in the Bible.
2
Gojirawars 03: So as long as you fuck and impregnate a woman without a physical form, it's not rape? Sounds legit...
2
Gojirawars 03: Are you saying Satan can oppose Gods will? Isn't God supposed to be omnipotent?
2
t3llur1de: Only humans were created with free will. Angels however, were not. Satan is a fallen angel. He might not have gods favor anymore but he's still an angel without free will. How can Satan oppose God's will then, if A. He doesn't have free will like humans do. And B. God is supposedly omnipotent. Also, what about all the children born with birth defects and skeletal cancer? What "choices" did they make to deserve being born into a short and painful existence? Why does your supposedly "good" god allow infants to be born with such hideous and painful deformities? That's not the actions of a just or moral god. That's the action of an evil and immoral entity.
2
Lucky: This is the reasoning that every religious terrorist in history has used to justify murder. What is some bad actions ans caused suffering in "this life" when the "soul is eternal"? All religious people are just one spat of moral panic away from resorting to terrorism. You people basically treat life as some sort of temporary "simulation". A game where the goal is to score as many divine favor points as possible. And if some religious leader comes along and convince you that you'll score the most divinity points by murdering your fellow man, then you will have no problem doing it. That's how "solid" your morality is. And as for "god does not micromanage creation" if your god created everything then he also created cancer and disease. This was not created by mistake but on purpose. Even painful diseases afflicting children. A being that purposefully creates such things, afflicting the most innocent individuals in society (the children) with the reasoning "oh but what do I care? The soul is eternal anyway." is not a moral or just god. That being is a monster that needs to be destroyed.
2
t3llur1de: The fact that the angels were offered volition in ONE issue does not prove they were created with "free will". Free will implies volition in EVERY issue, not just a singular event. Saying that angels then have free will because they were allowed to make a choice if they wanted to side with god or with Satan is like saying that a slave has freedom because his master ONCE allowed him to choose if he wanted to eat stale bread or sloppy gruel for dinner. Every Biblical source and interpretation claims that man was distincr from the angels because man was created with free will by default, whereas the angels were not. Humans are gods personal little lab rat experiment, forcing humans to run through mazes for his own amusement. Angels are purposefully designed beasts of burden. Humans did not create cancer. Human beings as well as other animal species were afflicted with cancer long before industries creating carcinogenic pollutants even existed. And even if you were to argue that humans are "responsible" for cancer because of pollution, then if God really didn't want humans to suffer from cancer he could've just appeared and said "Hey you know that crude oil you burn in vehicles and industries? Don't do that, because the pollutants will give you cancer. You are my children so I don't want to see you accidentally cause suffering to one another due to ignorance of the world and it's chemical compounds that I created" But did your god bother doing that? No, because he enjoys seeing humans suffer and die to cancer. Because he is an immoral and unethical monster. I damn sure wouldn't want to spend eternity with a god like that. In fact all I'd like to do is put a bullet through God's skull and splatter his brains all over the pearly gates. A just reward and fitting end for an unethical and immoral monster.
2
t3llur1de: Do you mean to imply then that God made a "mistake" when he supposedly created the microorganisms and cellular processes that give rise to disease and cancer? How can an omnipotent being possibly make mistakes? Either god wilfully implemented the processes of cancer and disease into microorganisms and human cells (making him evil and immoral) or he made a mistake, which negates any possibility of him being omnipotent since the very concept of omnipotence excludes the possibility of making mistakes or creating unforseen consequences. If he is omnipotent, he is also ultimately responsible for everything. Including the actions of humans, because as an omnipotent being, he would also be able to predict all possible futures of all human actions and be able to tell, even before individuals are born what they will end up doing in life. So the whole argument that "humans have free will" and are "responsible" for their actions becomes utter bullshit when you throw an omnipotent creator into the mix. Also, regarding your comment about god being the author of morality: first of all that's not true because morality existed long before your christian cult did. Second, a god that cannot live up to it's own moral standards and frequently violates the ten commandments himself is in no position to judge others for doing so.
2
t3llur1de: You still fail to account for the fact that god gives innocent babies cancer and painful diseases, and have no explanation for it. Your argument might've worked if disease only afflicted people guilty of sin. But in the real world, disease does not discrimimate based on personal virtues of the individual afflicted. They strike at both the most evil and most virtuous people alike. And this is all designed by your supposedly "omnipotent creator". It has to have been designed, because omnipotent beings do not make mistakes or accidents. It is impossible for them to do so. Why does your god hate infant children so much? They haven't done anything to anyone. They haven't broken any commandments. They haven't been able to live a life of sin, because they were just born. Yet your god designed disease that afflict them and does nothing to stop disease from afflicting them. This is the behaviour of an evil and immoral being. And you are just as evil and immoral for worshipping and praising such a being.
2
Lucky: No i'm not asking for any kind of world. I'm claiming that your god is both evil and a hypocrite. His teachings supposedly claim that us humans are forbidden from being evil against oneanother, or we will be punished in the afterlife. We're supposedly not allowed to kill eachother (except people of other religions and races, those are perfectly fine to enslave and murder according to the bible), yet god kills us as he pleases both directly, through agents and through sheer neglect. And he doesn't even bother to ensure that the really wicked people get killed or subjected to a torturous existence. He, his agents and his biological mechanicsms kills completely arbitrarily and indiscriminately. He has the power to ensure that our existence doesn't have go be so miserable. It wouldn't cost him anything to end disease, starvation, thirst and the other maladies plaguing billions of people. Yet he choose not to. So not only is he uncaring towards all the suffering, he is also extrwmely uncharitable because he has ultimate power and has to pay no price to fix exactly everything, yet he refuses. An entity behaving this way, and then presumes to tell me that I can't break his "commandments" or live in sin, is a fucking hypocrite and he can frankly take his commandments and rules about sin and shove them up his ass. If he refuse to lead by example regarding all his rules, laws and commandments, then he can expect no loyalty or devotion from me. I'd sooner kill him than follow the teachings of his enslaved sheep.
2
Lucky: No I don't demand a specific world or a "perfect world" out of hand. Being atheist I realize that the world is not designed but created by a long chain of chemical processes following the laws of physics that has no intent or design behind it. So trying to "demand" a better world would be completely pointless. It would be like demanding that the ocean spits me right back up on safe land instead of drowning me if the ship I sail across the atlantic sinks for some reason. The ocean will not hearken to my demands, because the ocean is not an intelligent being with any "intent" to drown me. If I drown I do so as a matter of natural consequence of ending up in the water far from land. What I am saying however is that IF you religious people are right, and there is "intelligent design" behind the world and some sort of sentient creator made the world, then I do DEMAND that the world be made more merciful to people by this omnipotent creator, if I am also expected to accept your claims that this creator is a morally "good" being. The problem with you religious people is that you want to have the cake and eat it too. On the one hand you want to claim that the world is not evolved, it is designed by an omnipotent creator. But even though it's logically impossible for this creator to be morally "good" considering all the manifestations of evil and suffering in the world (that is the specific evil and suffering that mankind cannot be blamed for, because mankind did not decide that volcanoes should erupt, tsunamis or earthquakes to form or lethal diseases to spread and killing innocent people or animals). I'll buy the argument that we humans are responsible for things like wars and oppression in pursuit of wealth and power. The suffering stemming from that is our responsibility and cannot be blamed on God from a moral or ethical perspective since this specific death and suffering stem from the choices we make as individuals and as a species. But when it comes to natural disasters and the evolution and spread of harmful diseases, then you can no longer blame mankind for that because we didn't create natural disasters like earthquakes, volcano eruptions, tsunamis, tornadoes etc. We also didn't create disease like cancer, ebola, malaria etc. These diseases and natural disasters are NOT our responsibility. We didn't design the system that cause these things to happen. YOUR GOD DID! (according to your beliefs, not mine) In fact, almost all humans across the world will agree that if we could stop natural disasters and diseases from happening, then we would take the necessary steps to do so. But as it is, it is entirely out of our hands. Nothing we do or refrain from doing will stop earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, cancer and virulent diseases from causing us and other species pain, suffering and death. Your god is to blame. Your god created this system. Your god as well as you also claim that god is "perfect". That his power is absolute. That he is omnipotent and can literally do ANYTHING. So following pure logic, only two conclusions about God can be reached on this matter: Either you and the religious people are wrong when you assume that God is omnipotent. He created these death-causing natural disasters and diseases by mistake. He didn't think things through and couldn't forsee or stop the consequences. Ergo he is NOT omnipotent, but flawed. OR He is omnipotent. He could forsee all consequences. He didn't make any mistakes but the system he created is working just as intended. Which means: he derive pleasure or entertainment from seeing us humans suffer and die at the hands of his system. His creation. He laughs at our misery when volcanoes erupt and spew molten lava and poisonous gasses over human beings. He finds it entertaining when a plague sweeps over a human society killing innocent and guilty alike. There are no other possibilities to this equation, no matter how much you religious people may want there to be. Either god is a sadist, or he is not omnipotent. Therefore I say: if God doesn't make the world better when he should have the power to do so (if he is omnipotent), then he's just an evil douchebag for refusing. Or he CAN'T make the world better, because his powers are limited, in which case he's just incompetent. Evil sadist, or incompetent doofus. Take your pick which assesment you like the most, because frankly I don't care which.
2
Lucky: It's not a matter of opinion but logic as well as established standards and definitions for our perceptions of evil, incompetence and omnipotence. Sure, your God if he existed might not think that he himself is evil. But according to the standards of the human race, he is evil OR incompetent. Also according to so called "christian values" and "christian morality" god is evil as well. If a human behaved towards his fellow man the way God behave towards humans, then that human would be branded a wicked sinner according to "the good book".
2
Lucky: No I said ask him if my statements are logical or not. If they follow logical reasoning or not. There can't be any "facts" about God because god does not even exist. I can say that i'm honestly embarassed every day for supposed "adults" who haven't yet given up the practice of having imaginary friends (that normal children usually give up during childhood).
2
Lucky: Actually it is a fact that god does not exist. Look up the definition of facts and how they are established, and you'll see for yourself. The establishment of a fact is based solely around what can be proven. Since no one has been able to present proof of God's existence then his non-existence is completely factual. And no, your typical and expected religious defense in the form of "well no one has proved that he DOESN'T exist!" doesn't work either, because the scientific principle of establishing facts does not revolve around provin things that DOESN'T exist or DOESN'T happen. The establishment of facts only concern what does exist and does happen. As far as our current knowledge goes, it is a fact that god does not exist. Your "belief" that he does is inconsequential and irrelevant because it doesn't change the facts. But if you can present superior proof that invalidates the current model of his non existence and actually does prove that he exist, then the facts would change. But you'll forgive me if I don't sit here holding my breath in the meantime as you look for that proof...
2
Lucky: It's easy to prove that the colour blue exists, even to a blind person. Even if a person is blind, they can still be informed about the scientific principles of wavelengths of light and how those wavelengths interact with the human eye. The colour blue is a result of light of a particular wavelength being reflected of a surface with very specific reflective properties that reflect blue light while it absorbs the wavelengths of light that represents other colours of the visible light spectrum. It doesn't matter if you're blind or not, or actually know what the coloyr blue "looks" like. You can still learn what "blue" means through scientific methods. I mean how the fuck do you think human beings learned about light in the infrared and ultra violet spectrum? We are essentially blind to infrared and ultra violet light. Our eyes can't percieve them at all. Yet we know light in these wavelengths exist, and we also know what properties they have and how they interact with the world around us. So your example is fucking stupid and proof of your ignorance of the scientific method. Not uncommon in religious morons who stuff their small heads with religious fairytales instead of facts, because the fairytales doesn't require any thinking or reflection, only "faith". And for the hundreth time: what I have said here is not "opinions", I have stated FACTS.
2
Lucky: Like I said. I would present the science that confirms that the colour blue is an observable phenomenon. It might be difficult to study optics for a blind person, but not impossible. Present me with a logical and evidence-based scientific model that proves that god exist. OH THAT'S RIGHT! YOU CAN'T! :D
2
Lucky: The dense and IGNORANT person here is you. It doesn't matter if you're blind from birth or not. Like I've already said: ALL HUMANS ARE BLIND to ultra violet and infra red light. Blind since birth. We CAN'T see it at all. Yet we know light in this spectrum exists, because we've proven it exists through the scientific method. The existence of ultra violet and infra red light is not a matter of "faith", it's a fact, established by science. The same applies to all othet colours, regardless if you're diseased or injured in some way that doesn't allow you to percieve a particular colour with your eyes. You can still determine scientifically that something exists, even if you can't see it. Atoms, bacteria and viruses are also far too small for humans to see. But you don't just take it on "faith" that bacteria, viruses and atoms exist now do you?
2
Lucky: If you can explain to a normal person what infra red and ultra violet light is despite the fact that no living human can see these colours, then of course you can explain and prove colour in general to a blind person. That's my point. I've presented the scientific arguments. The only reason you resist is because you are an ignorant religitard who can't admit to being wrong because admitting that you're wrong about the existence of god means questioning your very religion. You are biased. You NEED to believe that reality is a certain way (even to the point of being completely wrong about reality). I have no such needs whatsoever. I'm only interested in knowing what reality is like. If it doesn't contain gods, then that's fine be me. If it does, then that's fine by me too. But the only way determining what reality contains, is through the method of evidence. No evidence exist to support the idea that gods do. That's a fact and not an "opinion". Regarfless if you want to acknowledge reality or not.
2
Lucky: No atoms are not a "model", they have also been proven to exist through scientific experiments. But being the ignorant religitard you are, i'm not surprised that this would be news to you. How the hell do you think nuclear fission works?
2
Lucky: You don't have an emotional impact on me. I think you're reading a bit too much into it. :) I actually indulge in name calling and insults even among friends. If you were really getting on my nerves I would punch you in your face, because that's what I do to people that really annoy me. But you don't. You're just squiriming yourself in order to hide your ignorance. As to your question: I've already answered it. Read my earlier posts.
2
Lucky: There is no contradiction whatsoever. As an atheist I advocate living in real life and NOT treating life like some religious fairytale or letting your actions in real life to be governed by by fairytales. You only get one life. There is no "afterlife" so you better treat yours seriously and respect the lives of others as much as possible. But religious people are extremely flippant in their attitude towards the lives of other people on account of all religiously motivated terrorism, holy wars, witch burnings etc.
1
Lucky: No, you're entirely wrong. It doesn'r matter if some people "don't see" God as evil, because people, especialky the religious ones aren't very logical. They've also been indoctrinated, often since birth to practice Orwellian doublethink (the practice of holding two entirely conflicting ideas in their heads at the same time and accepting both as truth). You can ask any aithority on logic and how it's practices. Ask a mathematics professor for instance about how I posit my statements and he'll confirm the logic in my reasoning.
1
t3llur1de: No he did not create "potential" for disease. Disease must have been put in place by design. Otherwise he wouldn't be omnipotent. I don't think you understand the concept of omnipotence. Like most religious people.
1
Lucky: No they don't you dimwit, because they can use the equipment themselves. Are you trying to say that blind people can't absorb any information at all because they're blind?
1
Lucky: Nope. In fact I wish I had more self-restraint than I do. Punching people I've found annoying has landed me in a lot of trouble during my lifetime (arrests, fighting, a few knife cuts both to me and by me). Nothing "bad ass" about it at all. I'm not in the business of repeating myself to wilfully ignorant religitards. Like I said: I've already answered your question. If you're too ignorant to understand it, then that's not my problem is it?
1
Lucky: I was born in 1987. I'm probably older than you are, so you might wanna get off my lawn. Also, I seriously doubt you've met a lot of bad asses in your short lifetime. :)
1
Lucky: Oh yeah? Well i'm a navy seal spec ops veteran of Afghanistan. I've personally killed 300 jihadi warriors. 100 of them with my bare hands! Top that! :D See how easy it is to just spout unverifiable credentials behind anonymity on the internet?
1