Allfreedom99 wrote:
"Yes, we have the ability to understand the realities and processes by which our universe operates. If we have the ability to understand physics, mathematical equations and therefore that is what has led us to what we know and understand today about how the universe operates then one must address where we obtained the ability for that knowledge."

More precisely we have the ability to model based on observations of how our universe operates. The model is not the reality (hence the pipe reference). The axiom in science is that all models are wrong, but some are useful.

"In the beginning of the universe if one uses evolution as the basis then the calculations in order for our life forms to eventually have the ability to understand our universe and how it operates was surely present. If it wasn't then none of us in our current abilities would be here today. In the Science community's current explanation through mathematical calculations, energy, time, development of matter, ect everything we see now came about. But the very tool of mathematics must take intelligence to understand it."

A couple of problems here, mathematics is another model, an awesomely useful and logical one, but still not a part of the reality of things. Secondly the processes in the universe, like evolution are not deterministic, if you wind the clock backwards and replay time you will not get a duplicate of the universe as it exists now. Evolution in particular is random mutations with non random selection processes, it is unlikely ever to repeat the same way twice.

"Therefore, the ability for us to have intellect, knowledge and ability to understand the use of mathematics would mean that intelligence must have existed at the start of the universe in order for us to have the ability of thought process today. Intelligence can't be created by a mathematical process. Intelligence is what allows us to understand the use of mathematics/physics and therefore unlock the processes of our universe."

At the beginning of the Universe things were considerably different, In fact the formation of hydrogen was a big deal, after several solar birth death cycles you had more complex forms of matter. Which through planetary formation that was a byproduct of our sun's formation (the big planetary accretion disk) led to a primordial earth. (sorry for the 10 billion year fast forward) The evolving complexity of chemistry led to an RNA world in which chemical solutions to problems were heritable, which led to a DNA world with stored chemical solutions (random mutation selected for non randomly). Fast forward a few more billion years and you start to get multicelularity another long stretch and you get primordial nervous systems. That happened in the last 0.5 billion years. It is only in the last 350 million years that anything approaching animal levels of intelligence have existed, The reason is simple, intelligence is the ability to use electrochemical interconnections of neurons to store and evaluate data, to perceive more than just simple stimuli. The intelligence you are referring to is the painting of the pipe, not the pipe. It is a physical byproduct of really complex evolution of chemistry over very long times through non intelligent means. It is not the other way around.

We then went on to create math and other things like circular reasoning. Some things are more useful than others. ;-}

Health is a basic human right. As a society we have a duty to care for the sick, not to let them whither away and die. What harm did a child born with muscular dystrophy do that he doesn't deserve the same treatment as any other child.

There are plenty of business's that the government should not touch, but basic human care should never be a for profit business. There is a reason why our healthcare system is the most expensive in the world but we lag far behind most countries when it comes to major health indicators.

indeed, you should check out his other videos as well. A humorous way to waste a few hours.

Saying that is fine and well, but there are economic realities that that approach doesn't take into account. It is an emotional argument, not a logical one. There comes a point when governments have to say "no" just like insurance companies do, and I think more and more developed countries will face that problem as their demographic situations continue to deteriorate. How it's better to have that done by a government bureaucrat for the sake of a nation's finances instead of an assessor for the sake of his company's finances, I'm not really sure.

Assume for the sake of argument that a truly free, for profit health care market (which we don't have, as the health care system is up to its nuts in government intervention) could provide better services to more people. Would that still be immoral because it's for profit? Or, because health care is a "right", should a country be willing to spend a limitless amount of money on any sick child even if it brings financial ruin on everyone (including many more children, sick and healthy alike) because it's our duty? Is it maybe better to arrange help for such people through other means than the government?

American life expectancies skew lower on average than Europeans', not because of our health care system, but for a host of other reasons: lifestyles, obesity,  greater ethnic diversity, and so on. Americans were for a long time the heaviest smokers in the developed world, and removing smoking related deaths from the equation would move the US into the top half of developed countries for life expectancy. Now that Americans have stopped smoking at a faster rate than any other country, it is thought that the longevity gap might disappear altogether.

Are you illiterate??? I really dont know if its either because of your extreme hypocrisy or just ignorance that you choose not to understand what am i saying. I seriously cant make this more simple than it already is, but I'll try.

Lets take Soviet Union as an example. It was the biggest, strongest dictatorship country with communist and marxist orgins. All founders of Marxism hated religion. Religion was publicly opressed and persecuted in public. Soivet Union was an open atheist state. Now if someone or something opresses and persecutes religion and religious people, we can logically assume that a) he is an anti theist and b) is thus an atheist. You cant be an anti theist if you arent an atheist. And if someone kills in the name of anti-theism, it is again logical to assume,, they killed in them name of extreme atheism. Now, is your superior, free thinker, scientific, logical and reasonable mind able to comprehend these words so far? Lets take some sentences out of the artciles i linked, just in case it isn't.

''The Soviet Union was the first state to have, as an ideological objective, the elimination of religion^[1] and its replacement with universal atheism.^[2][3] The communist regime confiscated religious property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in schools.^[4] The confiscation of religious assets was often based on accusations of illegal accumulation of wealth.''

Marxism–Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and elimination of religion. Within about a year of the revolution, the state expropriated all church property, including the churches themselves, and in the period from 1922 to 1926, 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and more than 1,200 priests were killed. Many more were persecuted.^[6]

And theres waaay more where thhis came from...just if you care enough to do some research?.

The following sentence is very very very important , so please take your time to read it as a slowy and carefully as you can.

HOWEVER,  I AM NOT SAYING THAT ATHEISM, AS A BELIEF, PROMOTES KILLING OR PERSECUTION IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM !!!!! I WAS MERELY POINTING OUT THE FACT THAT ATHEIST ( AND ANTI THEIST REGIMES) PEOPLE HAVE KILLED RELIGIOUS PEOPLE IN IN THE PAST. I AM NOT TRYING TO SAY THAT ALL ATHEISTS ARE LIKE STALIN,POL POT OR ADOLF HITLER.

The difference is that the scientific method is MADE to describe the real world, while the bible is only really good for explaining what christians believe.

Fine, I'll give you those 1200 people and maybe some others who were killed by the soviets desire to eliminate religion.

But then don't EVER menton the total death toll of the Soviet Union and try to pin THAT on atheism again. Use the relevant numbers or you are deliberately misleading people.

I've only been here a few weeks and I can already tell Player1x3 or whatever his name is has a raging hateboner for Atheism and will do anything he can to disparge the (lack of) belief as best he can.  I've seen him arguing that being atheist is as bad as or in some cases worse than religious fundamentalism due to needing faith and being extremists, and he often cites 'atheists who killed people' as 'people who killed in the name of atheism.'

He's kind of delusional.  Best to not respond to him. 

User was warned for this post - Kantor

Yea, I've noticed that as well. But it's so tempting to point out when someone is blatantly wrong, it's like an addiction xD

People who say "of" instead of have and confuse "your" with "you're" used to drive me nuts, but I learned to tolerate it eventually. I guess this might be similar?

It's funny that, on a game website, someone makes claims like he does.  Saying "Atheism killed people" is like saying "Games killed people" becuase one psycho who just happened to be atheist/played games also killed someone.  they say correlation is not the same as causation, and this is true, but there isn't even a correlation here.