https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4ac

Enjoy

quite similar to "how to bully - the athiest way".

What are the dangers to society (if any) of this so called brainwashing?

A_K_O:

What are the dangers to society (if any) of this so called brainwashing?

Lynching, witchhunts, inquisitions, bigotry, crashing planes into buildings, mental retardations, etc, etc, Need I say more?

Please give specific examples of how christianity (not religion) have caused all these.

What did christianity have to do with 9/11?

Otherwise I'm inclined to think that this is another baseless attack on christianity that will be dealt with shortly.

A_K_O:

Please give specific examples of how christianity (not religion) have caused all these.

What did christianity have to do with 9/11?

Otherwise I'm inclined to think that this is another baseless attack on christianity that will be dealt with shortly.

are you saying you are unfamiliar with the christian sponsored witchhunts?

check this out:

The hostility to women reached its peak in the witch-hunts. The biblical justification: Exodus 22:18, "Thou shall not permit a sorceress to live.

Deuteronomy 18:10, "There shall not be among you a witch." Galatians 5:19

The first witch trial by the Inquisition was in 1234 near Treves. The last witch was drowned 600 years later in 1836 near Danzig. (no doubt there were top level theological debates whether burning or drowning better saved souls.)

The real existence of devils, demons and evil spirits was presupposed in all the gospels and Paul: Luke 7:21, 8:2, Acts 19:12ff, Mark 3:14,15 "and he appointed twelve (disciples) and to have authority to cast out demons". At baptism, evil spirits are driven out in the name of Christ.

Aquinas taught that storms etc were caused by demons and Luther warned (1529) against bathing in lakes and rivers because the devil lived in them.

The 1484 Witches Bull by Pope Innocent 8th made the denial of the reality of witches heretical. Legal infallibility and irrefutability.

Witches had taken an oath to renounce Christ and give their souls to the Devil. Satan rewarded them with the power of magic. The Devil could make himself invisible to all but witches. More irrefutability like the invisible, in principle unobservable, fairies at the bottom of the garden or the invisible gremlins which cause radios to break down.

Witches were the cause of men becoming impotent, women infertile, miscarriages, bad harvests, cattle deaths, plagues, illness, storms etc. Ideal scapegoats for everything.

how about the burning of Geordano Bruno, the silencing and imprisonment Galileo, the burning of Servetus by Calvin?

The real existence of devils, demons and evil spirits was presupposed in all the gospels and Paul: Luke 7:21, 8:2, Acts 19:12ff, Mark 3:14,15 "and he appointed twelve (disciples) and to have authority to cast out demons". At baptism, evil spirits are driven out in the name of Christ.

And how does that make things worse?

A_K_O:

And how does that make things worse?

what the hell is this? you wanted examples of christian barbarism and savagery and i gave them to you. is that the best response you can muster?

That must be an indoctrination boot camp and the fat lady the seargent major. Imagine if they were muslim kids going through the same religious indoctrination routine they'd all be suicide bombers by now.

All your examples are in the past, waaay back then. How can you be whining about history today?

Where in the world is there hostility to witches today?

A_K_O:

All your examples are in the past, waaay back then. How can you be whining about history today?

Where in the world is there hostility today?

9/11 was in the past, wasn't it.

I havnt heard anybody blame christianity for 9/11.

More importantly the youtube video has no direct links to 9/11.

A_K_O:

I havnt heard anybody blame christianity for 9/11.

More importantly the youtube video has no direct links to 9/11.

my goodness. your thinking is all over the place. the problem discussed in the video is brainwashing and religoius indoctrination. the xians do it as much as the muslims. in boths cases, it is a danger to society and civilisation.

and they even teach how to speak in tongues.  i could have burst myself laughing   

huxley:

my goodness. your thinking is all over the place. the problem discussed in the video is brainwashing and religoius indoctrination. the xians do it as much as the muslims. in boths cases, it is a danger to society and civilisation.

It would be a valid argument that islam brainwashing is linked with 9/11. That is not a hate-statement, it is a statement of fact.

You havnt provided any recent examples of how this 'christian brain-washing' is a danger to society and civlisation.

A_K_O:

It would be a valid argument that islam brainwashing is linked with 9/11. That is not a hate-statement, it is a statement of fact.

You havnt provided any recent examples of how this 'christian brain-washing' is a danger to society and civlisation.

in modern era, there's a numerous;

1- the ban on the use of condoms
2- the prevention of stem-cell research on christian grounds
3- the refusal of some christian to seek medical attention
4- the attempt to ban the teaching of some scientific subjects in schools.

etc
etc

does any of the above bode well for the future of civilisation?

Can the poster tell me how rationalization has totally abode well for civilization?

@huxely
so teaching kids at school about evolution isnt brain washing?
telling kids that its ok to be gay isnt brainwashing?
telling ur kids huxley, that God (or in ur case god) doesnt exist isnt brainwashing?

u atheists are pathetic.

to be honest sha, religion produces fanaticsm. fanatics are people who blindly and stupidly follow rules without an iota of initiative. American evangelicals tend to make me sick with their narrowmindedness,  but again maybe its 4 their good,  its better to be safe than sorry. but seriously. we have here a Christian female adult teaching kids like she s teaching grown up men.

What the hell do these kids care about an army and living a life of purity? and 7 year olds they don't even know enough to know about girls yet!

kids at that age should be exposed to theology on their level. they should still be learning bible stories and general morals to make them well balanced adults,  not speaking in tongues and laying hands and all.
You re just confusing these kids. and then scaring them with hell you know how imaginative kids can be and you go on and on about sin and how they ll roast in hell excpet they repent. Modern day Xtians present God like He is some saddist or something.

I mean seriously, these are kids who should be out camping or playing ball or monkeyiong around like kids should and u have them locked up in a camp speaking in tongues and crying and b eing emotional!!!
i'm not saying God or the Holy Spirit can't work through kids but let God approach the kid himself or better still let the kid himslef show special interest in such matters. don't uneccesarilly prod kids into such unkidlike things.
Chrisitianity should be presented to kids in a funlike manner. good stories from the bible with a strong moral basis,  not all that serious repenting crap for kids barely old enough tp tie their own shoelaces, using words like radical, on fire, ARMY, WARFARE, break things in the heavenly, POWER OF THE ENEMY,etc.

the more i watched , the sicker i got
RIGHTOUS GOVERNMEMT WTF Breaking cups??
some Xtians should be totured to death, burdening kids with inaities and crap they shouldnt be burdend with until theyre emotionally mature to handle such stuff. you have kids crying over what they dont even half understand.
This service would have been ok and maybe even apt for an adult audience. i have nothing against teaching people about christ and being an agent of change in the society and all,,, but come on, CHILDREN its sickening! Xtians can be really stupid and overtly emotional.

simmy:

to be honest sha, religion produces fanaticsm. fanatics are people who blindly and stupidly follow rules without an iota of initiative. American evangelicals tend to make me sick with their narrowmindedness, but again maybe its 4 their good, its better to be safe than sorry. but seriously. we have here a Christian female adult teaching kids like she s teaching grown up men.

What the hell do these kids care about an army and living a life of purity? and 7 year olds they don't even know enough to know about girls yet!

kids at that age should be exposed to theology on their level. they should still be learning bible stories and general morals to make them well balanced adults, not speaking in tongues and laying hands and all.
You re just confusing these kids. and then scaring them with hell you know how imaginative kids can be and you go on and on about sin and how they ll roast in hell excpet they repent. Modern day Xtians present God like He is some saddist or something.

I mean seriously, these are kids who should be out camping or playing ball or monkeyiong around like kids should and u have them locked up in a camp speaking in tongues and crying and b eing emotional!!!
i'm not saying God or the Holy Spirit can't work through kids but let God approach the kid himself or better still let the kid himslef show special interest in such matters. don't uneccesarilly prod kids into such unkidlike things.
Chrisitianity should be presented to kids in a funlike manner. good stories from the bible with a strong moral basis, not all that serious repenting crap for kids barely old enough tp tie their own shoelaces, using words like radical, on fire, ARMY, WARFARE, break things in the heavenly, POWER OF THE ENEMY,etc.

the more i watched , the sicker i got
RIGHTOUS GOVERNMEMT WTF Breaking cups??
some Xtians should be totured to death, burdening kids with inaities and crap they shouldnt be burdend with until theyre emotionally mature to handle such stuff. you have kids crying over what they don't even half understand.
This service would have been ok and maybe even apt for an adult audience. i have nothing against teaching people about christ and being an agent of change in the society and all,,, but come on, CHILDREN its sickening! Xtians can be really stupid and overtly emotional.

the hebrew god is indeed a dangerous sadist, read the old testament and you will confirm that he is really a sadist. . . . by the way they all got their inspiration from the bible so they are not to blame. . . fanatics(christains/moslem alike) all get their inspirations from their holy books. . . . . .

mazaje:

the hebrew god is indeed a dangerous sadist, read the old testament and you will confirm that he is really a sadist. . . .

So you give [b]G[/b]od a nationality based on five out of several books?

I wonder

simmy:

@huxely
so teaching kids at school about evolution isnt brain washing?
telling kids that its ok to be gay isnt brainwashing?
telling your kids huxley, that God (or in your case god) doesnt exist isnt brainwashing?

u atheists are pathetic.

Is teaching kids at schools about gravity, electricity, germ theory, plate tectonic brainwashing?

A_K_O:

So you give [b]G[/b]od a nationality based on five out of several books?

I wonder

i believe he meant the God of the old testament.

bindex:

i believe he meant the God of the old testament.

God is the same yesterday, today and forever!!

A_K_O:

God is the same yesterday, today and forever!!

The old testament God is definately not the same with the new testament God, There is more than enough difference between them.

huxley:

Is teaching kids at schools about gravity, electricity, germ theory, plate tectonic brainwashing?

Lol. . . how do those compare with these:

simmy:

so teaching kids at school about evolution isnt brain washing?
telling kids that its ok to be gay isnt brainwashing?
telling your kids huxley, that God (or in your case god) doesnt exist isnt brainwashing?

thnks pilgrim!
answered 4 me

simmy:

answered 4 me

Lol. . . you already gave the answer: I was only reminding him just incase he might've missed it. Blessings bro.

pilgrim.1:

Lol. . . how do those compare with these:

Since you did not get i, the point I was making was that evolution is a well attested scientic fact, as much as plate tectonic, gravity, germ theory of disease, etc.  So if you call the teaching of the theory of evolution brainwashing, so too is the teaching of Newtonian gravity, germ theory of disease, geology etc.

Many people (not only creationist) do not really understand the meaning of he word theory in the scientific sense.  Simply said, a theory is an explantion of an observed fact.


So the theory of evolution explains the observed facts of generational change in living things.  That there is and have been change is indisputable.  Now how would you explain the change?

OK,  let me challenge you.  let me ask you the following questions;

1) Do you know what dinosaurs are and what became of them?

2)  Do you know what fossils are?  What is the geological column?

3)  Can you explain why the fossils of modern mammals are never found in the same rocks as those of dinosaurs

4) How come there are no fossils of multicellular animals before about 500 million years ago?


The answers to these questions are facts which are indisputable in the scientific community. Just like the facts of gravity, germs causing disease etc are not disputed.

So to explain these facts, scientist formulate a hypothesis and tes the hypothesis against the facts.  If the hypohesis continuously passes the test, then it is taken as a theory.  Hence, the theory of evolution (or the theory of the change of lifeforms)

OK, my challenge to you is this - Can you devise a theory that if tested against the facts (change of lifeform) would pass without a single violation?

Could we collaborate and write a scientific paper, refuting or amending the existing theory?



BTW, some of the best evolutionary biologist have been theists. Believing in evolution is NOT mutually exclusive with theism.  Check out these guys;

Dr. Francis Colins
Kenneth Miller
Daniel Fairbanks


and many more.

How do you think thet are able to accept the theory of evolution and still maintain a theistic belief?


My preciction is that you will not offer any answers to my questions above.  If that is the case, it will not be because you do not know, or are unable to answer them. It will almost invariably be because it will cause a dissonance in your worldview.   It is not untypical for people facing such dissonance to completely avoid the issues.    I KNOW thatt this is what will happen to you, alas.  BUT I woud love to be wrong.

@huxley
You have been trying hard to brainwash us the atheist way!

@huxley,

huxley:

Since you did not get i, the point I was making was that evolution is a well attested scientic fact, as much as plate tectonic, gravity, germ theory of disease, etc. So if you call the teaching of the theory of evolution brainwashing, so too is the teaching of Newtonian gravity, germ theory of disease, geology etc.

You missed it yet again, lol. None of those disciplines are to be interpreted as "atheism". Since you're fiercely polarized against the core values of theism (particularly the Christian faith), would it make sense to argue that atheism should be taught to anyone? Atheism is not science - rationalists who get these issues mixed up have many times assumed this mirage and that is why they are so restless in their campaigns against theism. To argue for atheism is clearly on par with the brainwashing you deploy.

huxley:

Many people (not only creationist) do not really understand the meaning of he word theory in the scientific sense. Simply said, a theory is an explantion of an observed fact.

Agreed, and we should understand that a theory does not necessarily pass for a fact. This distinction is what is often missed by those who allude that the "theory of evolution is a fact"; on the contrary, it is only an "explanation" of a set of principles.

huxley:

So the theory of evolution explains the observed facts of generational change in living things. That there is and have been change is indisputable. Now how would you explain the change?

Lol. . . huxley, you are mixing issues up here. No one is arguing here about "change". The point rather is that some people have built arguments round the theory of evolution to make it synonymous with atheism! That is the core issue here. When you pursue the implication of either worldviews (theism and atheism), you find that Christian theism does not argue against change in living organisms; whereas, we have often heard people argue that the theory of evolution "proves" the non-existence of God! That is the "brainwashing" that needs to be evaluated.

huxley:

OK, let me challenge you. let me ask you the following questions;

1) Do you know what dinosaurs are and what became of them?

2) Do you know what fossils are? What is the geological column?

3) Can you explain why the fossils of modern mammals are never found in the same rocks as those of dinosaurs

4) How come there are no fossils of multicellular animals before about 500 million years ago?

The answers to these questions are facts which are indisputable in the scientific community. Just like the facts of gravity, germs causing disease etc are not disputed.

I would not be so polarized if I were you. Just the 4th question already presents a huge problem for the atheistically inclined thinker - and that is: where did life come from?

However, rather than project answers which are held by some majority among scientists, it would wiser to understand two things:

(a) geological data are variously interpreted and there is no singularly held opinion across board on that;
(b) the arguments at the end of the day does not present atheism - rather, it leaves a basic question that rationalism has not answered: the question of creation - where did matter come from?

huxley:

So to explain these facts, scientist formulate a hypothesis and tes the hypothesis against the facts. If the hypohesis continuously passes the test, then it is taken as a theory. Hence, the theory of evolution (or the theory of the change of lifeforms)

Evolution is not to be mistaken for atheism. I constantly need to make that point very clear so that one may now understand why your highlighted query still mixes issues here:

huxley:

OK, my challenge to you is this - Can you devise a theory that if tested against the facts (change of lifeform) would pass without a single violation?

The facts do not "prove" atheism. If it does, then I'll give you my own model - well tested and something you may never have considered.

huxley:

Could we collaborate and write a scientific paper, refuting or amending the existing theory?

Possibly. Why? For the simple reason that these theories have often been amended. Let me drop you a few hints:

In the philosophy of evolutionary science(s), we all know that Darwin is today a household name in that field of enquiry. However, he was not the first to hold the evolutionary model of explaining our observable world. Meanwhile, several names were are worth mentioning as progenitors of the Darwinian model - people like Sir Julian Sorell Huxley. What is common among this school of evolutionary thinkers is the mechanism by which evolution is to be explained. That mechanism is kown as "natural selection".

However, there were also evolutionary biologists who had a different mechanism - an example is Richard Benedict Goldschmidt who was more inclined to advocate a model known as evolution by "saltation". Of course, his name rings a bell for his advanced model of macroevolution through macromutations that is popularly known as the "Hopeful Monster" hypothesis.

My dear huxley, I do not mean to pit these gentlemen against one another. But it is over to you now: which model are we going to argue for between these two:

* the hypothesis of evolution by natural selection?
* the Hopeful Monster hypothesis?

I only mentioned this to hint that theories are not facts. The facts may remain, and it is the theories that are often being amended. So, one cannot be so brash as to assume that one model is the same thing as a "fact" - theories should never be viewed as a "fact", but rather as models of explanations that can be amended as need be. Yes? Yes.