I don’t deny animals adapt to their environment, I deny evolution being able to prove where life and the universe came from.

Domesticated live stock are present in the bible.

The national academy of science reject the idea of a higher power, but I would also like to point out it is taboo in the science world to be a christian or of any religion other then religious-atheism.  To be religious in the scientific community will get you and your research/findings mocked and dismissed — so some hide their religious beliefs and others become atheist from influence of their colleagues.

1. “Carbon Dating”
For Creationism: www.answersingenesis.org/artic…
Against Creationism: ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-cr…

There is also Gap-creationism and Day-age creationism.

2.  “You can’t prove evolution”

Taking a Beta fish out of a ditch in Thailand and placing it in the Florida Everglades, then thousands of years later documenting changesThailand in the fish does not disprove creationism.  It doesn’t prove anything other then animals adapt to environments.  It doesn’t explain the creation of the universe nor does it explain how the first single celled organism even came to exist.

Might I also add recently two scientists from Kazakhstan observed a genetic signature on DNA, which is not proven but did make headlines recently. news.discovery.com/space/alien…

Then there is the theory the universe is a computer simulation created using intelligent design.

Is Time Real?Science can not even prove the numbers on your clock are real. Time is not proven, nor is the universe, nor is reality. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, scientific communty!
Some physicists argue that there is no such thing as time. Others think time ought to be promoted rather than demoted. In between these two positions is the fascinating idea that time exists but is not fundamental. A static world somehow gives rise to the time we perceive.

3. “If man came from monkeys why do we still have monkeys”

That is a stupid argument, I am not defending that.

4. “The human eye is to complex”

I don’t use this argument.

But something of note, the narrator makes a comment “Did god care more about the design of a great horned owl or octopus then he did his own children.”  That comment is philosophically defunct and idiotic, and even if half-sarcastic, it is a half-serious remark towards creationism.  Which is fine, until you reach #10 on the list when the narrator brings up others bringing up Hitler, or non relevant arguments.

5.  “Atheism as a religion”

I have never seen a non-stamp collector build a non-stamp collecting monument or church.  I have seen atheists build atheist monuments and churches though.

6. “Scientist X believed in God”

Philosophers StoneThe APA is one accepted institutions on that list. It is also very corrupt and publishes psuedo-scienceseattletimes.com/html/nationwo….  Grief is considered a psychological disorder www.medscape.com/viewarticle/7….  Pharmaceutical companies buy seats on panels that advise the FDA. www.pharmatimes.com/article/13…

The scientific community is as corrupt as the Vatican.  The APA is not reputable and I am just going to say there is a lot of science in this world that is completely corrupted and political…Science is not above politics, the scientific community is not ‘science’ they are a group of narcissistic geeks( I of course generalize)  trying to gain affection from the community for ego boost while sticking to the status-quo science holds them to.  Many of the best scientists have/are considered kooks and rejected by the scientific community like Alfred Wegener who came up with continental drift which acted as a basis for plate tectonics. He was laughed and mocked by science for years and continental drift wasn’t even accepted until the 50’s.

Science LAUGHS and MOCKS ideas that it later accepts.

I never want science to accept creationism or a higher power, it is better if it doesn’t — all religion needs is more politics and corruption added to it, which is what the scientific community would bring.  Religion and religious philosophies are built on faith and loyalty to the creator so to prove a higher power would be a paradox and would take away many peoples free will.  We have free will on this earth for a reason we have the right to chose to be good, evil, agnostic, atheist, whatever and I want that right to stay.  The only thing I don’t like is how much reverence science is accredited with when it comes to religious topics.
I am not saying science is bad, I am not saying science is wrong on everything, I am simply saying science should stop pretending to know the biggest questions of life — like, life after death,  the topic of creationism, and the sort — And stick to building patios and rockets.  Science and the scientific community are completely out of their element on the higher power debate and remind me of a 4 year old who says “I am going to run away and live on my own” except a lot less cute and far more annoying.

The video also brings up how some of the greatest scientific minds of the past like Newton who practiced Alchemy — They paint this in a negative light.  There was a belief Philosophers Stoneof turning lead into gold, the philosophers stone.  The thing about that is, it is not only possible but a reality to transmute lead(or mercury) into gold, it just isn’t practical.  The video says scientific minds like Copernicus believed in god and that is an argument creationists use(which it is and it’s a good one) The video then goes on to say Copernicus believed in metals having magical powers…I think to some degree mementos do have “magical powers”(I use “magical powers” as that’s the nomenclature the video uses) but not “magial powers” that can be used and manipulated for good but more so, in that they radiate some kind of energy–  picked up by the third eye, or our souls.
I also believe weapons used by serial killers radiate that “magical energy.” On this account I do think “magical energy” radiated can be used and manipulated but it comes at a price; Your soul.   I don’t know if many people would feel comfortable sleeping in a room where a series of violent murders took place, and I would like to do some kind of a metaphysical study where you have a series of people sleep in such a room — without telling them what happened in the room(highly unethical so for that I wouldn’t want to do it) and then observe and study their dreams.  The test subjects would wake up and their dreams would be immediately documented then a second questionaire would take place later on in the day, possibly at night, to see if any anomalies in their waking day — Also,  re-ask them if they remembered anything else from their dreams the night prior.

Another study could be simply placing weapons/objects used by serial killers in a room.  These objects would best be placed without the test subjects knowledge, but I suppose another study group could be aware an object was placed in the room.  To make them aware of what the object was used for could dilute the study — to not tell them would be highly unethical so I wouldn’t want to do it.  Because of this lack of ethnics is such a study, a study trying to show “the supernatural” at work, manipulating someone by not telling them the full scope of such an experiment could have a affect on the study as well, as it would be an experiment about “”magic powers” resonating in objects.  It would be affected in the same way quantum mechanical superposition is affected when a scientist observes their experiment.

7.  “Everything happened by chance”

Survival of the Fittest and Natural selection are not regarded as the same thing even if both act as a silver tongued method of saying “What is, is; Because it is that way.”  For one survival of the fittest is crap and does not take into account meteors, poachers, and bioweapons.  Science is rolling away from survival of the fittest and mustering up more crap like “survival of the sexiest”

Then you have Richard Dawkins saying things like this:
“”Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.”

I don’t even know what the hell they are trying to say with #7.  I don’t think creationists belief in chance as the video denotes, they belief a creator created everything, and since this is the universe creating something will leave signatures of that process.

8. “America is a Christian nation”

Benjamin Franklin TheistThe declaration of independence does mention god We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-  Also Benjamin Franklin became less deist and more theist later on in his life, that is completely left out.  The video also mentions how creationists cherry pick and I am seeing a lot of cherry picking from this video.

America is not a christian nation, but rather influenced heavily by Deism, Christianity, and the Age Of Enlightenment. To say because America was not meant to be a theocracy nor has it ever been one does not diminish the influence of religion more specifically Christianity had on the founding of America — This video would leave you to believe it does.  That is cherry picking.

9. The second law of thermodynamics

I don’t use this argument against evolution, and by evolution once again let me reiterate I do not deny animals adapt, but this video goes behind a evolutionary discussion, it is a creationism vs evolution debate….Evolution in an atheistic sense.

10. “Hitler was an atheist”

Hitler was no more a catholic then Mussolini.  This sounds more like a response from a creationist to an atheist after an atheist claimed Hitler was a Catholic. Hitler used Catholicism as a mask to gain control a German nation with a large Christian population.  The churches were some of the only voices speaking out against Hitler, especially in response to his T4 program.  Some churches collapsed to the power of Hitler, nonetheless churches were speaking out against Hitler, and he was no Catholic.

Corrupt clergy get sadistic joy from judging people while they engage in dispicable behavior — Atheist evolutionists who act as priests simply promote evolution get sadistic joy from calling creationists stupid and jack off to science that does not disprove anything.  They are one and the same.

This is a proposal of how Atheism has become a religion.  I am speaking of a specific kind of atheist, not a buddhist atheist, but an atheist who has faith in science, the scientific method, and worships these entities.  Simply being an Atheist does not make one a religious-atheist according to this proposal.

Some religions have worshiped statues and objects as their god. I am proposing Atheism is not impervious to Idolatry.

Religious-Atheist: An Atheist that goes beyond the claim of being atheist is to supersede the dictionary definition. Atheism has left its dictionary definition and become a practice   When atheism leaps from its dictionary definition into real life to become a practice, an ideal, a faith in those ideals, it has become a religion.  Evolution then takes place and it grows symbols, principles, behavioral traits, a faith in technology, and a faith in the scientific method for answering questions, more specifically life’s most difficult questions.

below is an image from the first Atheist Church in London.

– Symbols
– the constant pursuit of scientific configuration/grooming
– the story of evolution
– machines, gadgets, transhumanism, technocracy
– Qausi-Humanism, “Atheist-Humanist”
– Anything non-secular is considered heretical
- Faith in science
- Atheist Churches, as well as Atheist conventions that act as churches to preach the doctrines of atheism
- A spiteful and sadistic dogma towards anything non-atheist.

The prophet of atheism is the scientific method, which is intertwined with the atheist-humanist practitioners.  Without the atheist-humanist, the pursuit of constant scientific configuration is non-existent. Without the scientific method the atheist has no prophet.  Without science the atheist-humanist loses his/her/their religion.

Any claims of a higher being, a creator,  is deemed an encroachment on the Atheist-Humanist’s religion/prophet.  Where in some religions, a direct show of disrespect is to be attributed to the religion before accusations of heresy can be made, by not believing in Atheism to the atheist is thus heretical, thus paving way in the means of absolute intolerance of all other religion not atheist. The absolute religious intolerance of all other religions is engaged by the radical atheist-humanist practitioners. This is whats known as the “formal atheist debater.”   These are the equivalent of a priest, pastor, rabi, Imam of other religions.

Atheism is a religion built on secular subjectivism while claiming objectivity.  It gathers its principles from a circumscribed philosophical heterogeneity while asserting what can’t be used, rather then what can.   The eclectic paradox given by atheism is intertwined within the religion, as this gives it it’s axiom.

Not all atheists are Religious-Atheists.