-12 votes

Atheist Challenge


I would like to challenge any and all atheists on this site to watch this video, and refute it with evidence of course as this man does, and see what kind of discussion comes out of this. Let's see what you atheists can do with this one, it should be interesting. Watch the video or you are disqualified. I will hit you with more after this. Just curious to see how an atheist can deal with this evidence and am open minded to their opinions and evidence to refute this video.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Another divisive post pitting one human against another

This is a tactic of evil. Just because someone docent worship your book or your perception of God.

Truth is only available to those who dare to question all the have ever been taught.

"A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to keep things the same", Buckminster Fuller..
A choice for liberty is always a choice for liberty.

oh the wheat will be seperated from

the chaff, those aren't my words, they are God's words. The division that will come will be the one's who follow Christ and those that don't. I am just trying to gather as many souls as I can so I can hang out with you all in Heaven someday. This post is not to hurt, it is to help. I don't want anyone to burn, especially my awakened friends on Dailypaul.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

Leaving aside theory,

Leaving aside theory, metaphysical considerations, and being more practical.....

Noam Chomsky, an atheist, and Pope Francis - a Catholic, seem to me more Christian in their stance against war that many self proclaimed Christians. I have not seen a lot of protestant leaders make clear their position against the war in Syria. Chomsky and Francis have made it very clear that this is not the way to go.

Ah but the Catholic Church, and I believe to be the first

Jesuit Pope ever, of course the Catholic Church will want us to unite under peace, it says that would happen in the Bible. Any church that tells you that you have to confess to a priest, or a Father(there is only one Father) can't be following the Bible very well. How is it they offer up the body and blood of Christ every week as a sacrifice, when the sacrifice was already made in flesh and blood? Does the Catholic Church not say, this is the body of Christ, this is the blood of Christ, they sacrifice Him perpetually. Dig, dig, dig. The Antichrist is sitting in Rome. Anything the pope says I intend to do the opposite of.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

Again, leaving aside theory I

Again, leaving aside theory I can recognize the goodness in other people. I can understand the point of view of a sincere atheist and admire people as Sartre and others who were consistent with their beliefs even if they do not match my points of view. I can read and understand Ghandi - whose thought by the way had many commonalities with the Catholic dogma.

Leave your zeal and hate aside - that religion that you belong to - or your understanding of your religion (there are also a lot of Pseudo-Catholics) is devouring your insides. Resentment is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die.

Cheers mate..

I don't hate anyone

I am not judging the Pope, he will meet his Judge someday. It is so easy to see Bible prophecy unfolding right before our very eyes, it is so obvious that it is unobvious. I am not trying to push religion on anyone here, just trying to give a point of view and show some videos to people that really confirmed my faith. I am open to Atheist's opinions and have infact myself seen the movie Zeitgeist. I just think it would be very hard for an atheist to remain an atheist if they were to watch all the videos on ammazingdiscoveries.org, they have very compelling evidence.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

I am God

Just I case you were unclear.


For Freedom!
The World is my country, all mankind is my brethren, to do good is my religion.

I can guarantee you will pray

on your deathbed, it will be easy to do it then.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

Nice touch, but

Please don't attack my belief system. I assure you it is not weak and inconsistently applied.

I like your signature line from a great atheist, patriot and brave author of "The Age of Reason.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty" TJ

Just to be safe

I clicked on the "add as friend" link.


I believe in covering bases. For me it's a rabbit's foot dipped in holy water. Won't hurt, might help.

I found something in law that may concern athiests

I take no side between those who believe in God and those whose don't. I am simply a humble onlooker of what I observe in existence as facts with logic dictating my interpretation.

I would like to point out something very unique I found in my study of Law that has quantifiable disadvantage to one who totally rejects "God". Hang with me here because you have probably never heard this before.

I notice in all Government forms the government demands one to fill out that these forms all offer the signer criminal liability of perjury under statutory code. I have even seen this court and jury duty oaths. I always completely reject this offer to criminal liability. Intuitively, I have always thought to myself hey here I am doing my own thing and now some a$$hole$ are shoving a contract in my face demanding I except criminal liability which I did not have before.

How can this be lawful?

I looked into this question and found that Law had already resolved this conflict with the concept of "God". One use to take oaths under "God". Why take the oath under God? The answer I found is that in Law God=NULL literally. By signing or stating an oath under God one does not have to offer criminal liability in a contract and the signer is not required to accept criminal liability for their statements to be heard. This concept of God=NULL also shows up in some insurance contracts as "acts of God" which I have seen on a car insurance claim when a deer jumped in front of a car and destroyed the car this is in insurance "an act of God" as the cause of the claim.

When I looked into it how this oath under God was converted to contractually derived consent of the governed for criminal liability under statutory code I found that the alterations on the contracts and oaths was literally born of atheists stating in court that they do not recognize God. The statutes and rules of the court were altered to allow either one to be utilized but the default was converted to criminal perjury offered instead of God. This has caused big problems for those who demand the legal nullity of God because now most of the mindless "judges" and "Magistrates" along with most attorneys know nothing of this history and now have lost the concept that God=NULL in Law. HAving a NULL in law is literally as important as having 0 in mathematics. I could write voluminous books on the implications of not having a NULL set in Law. We literally broke the foundation of Law by removing the concept of God from Law.

The quantifiable disadvantage for those who reject God completely including from application in Law is because accepting this criminal liability to the statutory code of perjury ensures a court has consent of the governed hence just powers have been derived from the consent of the governed (by your own acceptance of the criminal liability)for the court to have subject matter jurisdiction in a criminal action against you. Singing under God does provide a fact that you would tell the truth or whatever else it is applicable to that particular oath but it does not pre-emptively provide signed proof of "consent of the governed" derived from you. This means another member of the governed (not you) would be required to consent to just powers of the court with a valid cause of action for the court to have properly derived "consent of the governed" and thus even have subject matter jurisdiction.

This is a quantifiable disadvantage for possible interpretations of law for those who completely reject the concept of "God" including the concept that in Law God simply means NULL.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

that is a very interesting take on it

no wonder they don't care if they swear on the Bible and break their oath of office.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

They don't care about breaking their oath

because We the People never bring them to justice. The oath presents the fact that can be recognized in a court of law once the valid cause of action is brought by the accusation against them by those they are contracting with; We the People. The accusation against them is the "consent of the governed" required for the lawful powers (just powers) to be executed.

We the People are on the other side of the contract (Constitution) but the People are so confused at this point that the People are not even capable of bringing the oath breaking criminals to justice. It is We the People's fault for allowing Breach of Duty to our contract to go unpunished. The oath is our fact in Law that we obtained through their voluntarily consent to be bound to the contractual duties and prohibitions that demonstrate to a Jury that indeed it is fact that they voluntarily bound themselves to the contract. They took duty without criminal liability consented by taking the oath under God which is exactly what everyone should want for upholding the rule of law. This oath is exactly the fact that gives us the fact needed in the case against those who Breach their Duty. It seems we are doomed to tyranny because the people do not want to hold the oath breakers accountable. An oath under God is exactly the right thing to do and does not limit their liability to the duty and prohibitions of the contract it only recognizes that self-incrimination (self-derived subject matter jurisdiction) inside of a contractual oath is not required for a contract to be totally valid as fact.

I see it as the scales of justice. If one signs for criminal liability then the scales of justice are not perfectly balanced (NULL) at the start of a case. The scales have been tilted because subject matter jurisdiction has already been obtained by consent of the governed through acceptance of the criminal liability offered in the contract. Under God maintains presumption of innocence and does not automatically grant the Government subject matter jurisdiction from the start because under our law just powers (lawful powers or powers of justice) can only be derived from consent of the governed NOT consent of the Government. God is the NULL set that makes all of this fit together and maintain balanced scales of justice. It gives a fact but does not do anything else. Everything else is dependent upon all elements in a valid cause of action by the governed to be presented for a court to have subject matter jurisdiction.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Couldn't one simply swear to

Couldn't one simply swear to "NULL"?
Just wondering?

That is a great question!

The courts changed it once in our history due to people rejecting God. When that change occurred the system made the decision because it was simply a rejection and no offer for what one desired to take an oath under. If enough people demanded that it be NULL there is some point where it would have to be accepted otherwise too many people demanding null would remove all time necessary to deal with this new understanding.

But here is the thing. In law, when you swear in under God you ARE swearing under NULL. Religions usurped the word to mean a vicious cloud riding sky daddy. Don't let religious usurpations of the word let it have an effect on its meaning in Law. That would be your loss due to their hocus pocus. This is the infowar. They want you to reject a word because they want you to not realize the NULL nature of God in law. If they can plant the seed of confusion at the root of law they can manipulate everyone within that confusion.

Would you reject the various meaning of the word "ass". It is a donkey in some cases, a butt in another, or all the other meanings and uses. It is simply a word with more than one meaning like many other words.

If you already have the ability to swear under God (NULL) recognized in law why would you want to add more confusion to the situation with something not recognized that means the exact same thing? Don't let them steal all the words and interpretations. If you do so that means you have acquiesced the protections of law to their interpretations. If you add even one more concept to law then you make it more complicated for other people to know. The goal should be simplicity and streamlined so that deceivers and usurpers cannot have a field day for control of the interpretation. Look at what happened from the rejection of God in Law already. They added criminal liability of perjury as an option and now people lost the concept of God=NULL. Look at how this confusion led to now people being their own accuser through explicitly consenting to criminal liability of perjury. IMHO it is best to not add confusion and not add more concepts than absolutely necessary.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

This is interesting.

Thanks for your insight.

This is really remarkable analysis and very insightful...

...now continue to connect the dots to the recent snoeden revelations about the agency that is recording everything you ever say or do.

They are building block on block to become that god.. in vain.. everyone knows what history teaches when governments attempt to do that.

In a spiritual sense, God lifts his veil of protection from that nation.

Think through what that means in a secular sense.

I thnk we are almost to the stage where noone

will any longer buy our goods, too tired to pull up the verse right now, but Babylon is about to fall down, and the world will watch America burn. I believe it is in Revelations and will look up the verse tomorrow, but we are getting close in my opinion. The pope will come in to restore peace for a short period of time, and all of the world will be deceived and follow his lead, and woolah, you have the Antichrist. I will be in the woods and hope to see you all on the other side after that happens.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

It wont be the pope.

But the pope may very well be deceived by the antichrist same as 2/3 of the rest of otherwise judeo/christian "believers".

If he does that that may be why so many will be deceived because they trust him.

But it wont be the pope himself.

The Bible says there will be a church that is THE MOTHER OF

ALL HARLOTS, I could be wrong but wasn't the Catholic Church the first church formed under Peter? In my understanding, the Bible speaks of the Antichrist as the little horn rising up from the ten horns, which I believe to be Europe when it broke up into ten countries, I will have to get the map for this to show you. Walter Veith has a very good video on this.



Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

How to Convert an Atheist ...

... is all the refutation you need.

Derren Brown produced a show called, "How to Convert an Atheist," in which he turned a woman who was an atheist into someone who believed in a spiritual power.

Then, he showed exactly which psychological techniques he used to do it, and explained the psychology of why a person becomes religious.

At the very least, atheists will find it extremely interesting because it answers the question most atheists cannot really explain: WHY are some people theists? The answer is basic, human psychology.

And no, I did not spend 90 minutes watching the OP video of a guy giving a boring lecture on what the Bible says in order to "prove" the Bible is right, since we all know the Bible claims it is right. Waste of time.

If OP wants to highlight the bullet points in the video, maybe a discussion can happen. I, on the other hand, do not expect theists to watch this video. But atheists will find it interesting as hell. (lol)



That was fascinating! I don't know that it would convince anyone of anything, but it raises a lot of relevant points about human psychology.

Why take a chance?

I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist.

Of all the gods that various religions have claimed

how many of them do you not believe in right now? Thousands, right? Is your faith sufficient to disbelieve in a thousand, but not to disbelieve in a thousand and one?

My god is Crom.

My god is Crom.
Crom, strong on his mountain, laughs at your thousand and one puny gods.
But I never pray to him.
He doesn't listen.



Have you ever been to heaven?

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

So hard to resist these threads

I'll try to keep it short.

Religions present metaphors for understanding that there is a "Spirit" within all of us. That the Source of all creation is "God".

Science and Physics now tell us that at the foundational core of all "Matter" there is a "Field" of energy with a "consciousness" intelligent enough to vibrate at frequencies that form into "particles" that form what we call the "physical world".

Both Religion and Science have come to the SAME conclusion. Everything is energy/spirit at its core. Religion says "The Kingdom of God is within You" and Physics says "All of the Universe is within you."

Therefore, we are ALL the "Universe" or "God" manifested into this "limited" human form and becoming aware of itself through our egotistical unique perspectives.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Science has now come upon its very own God..the multiverse

They will tell you there is sound basis to believe in the Multiverse. But that sound basis is in the nature of this universe ... the observable one, as opposed to the invisible friend multiverse.

Science has been secretly perplexed at how this universe actually came into being for some time now.
They have been no more willing to admit it than most climatologists are willing to admit the holes in the global warming religion.

They will tell you that the Intelligent design arguments are silly. But in fact, some elements of it have left them very troubled. But the Multiverse brings it all together for them. Just as we say, God created the universe. They in effect say, "The Multiverse created the universe."

Before you so totally rational skeptics vote this down, ask yourself if the Multiverse is observable. Of course, it is no more observable than "God". But it is far different. Because the multiverse is just an infinite number of cold, dumb universes, with no motive or feeling. But there none the less. And how do we know this? Because if they are not there, then this universe starts to make no sense. So they must be there.

That is basically the religion of physics. And those physicists who are dubious of the "Multiverse"have pointed this out and have been mercilessly ridiculed aka the climate experts.

They call it "Physic's Hail Mary". A desperate attempt at explaining what seems inexplicable through pure "science", uncorrupted by pesky loose ends. They have pulled out the game in the final seconds with one desperate heave to the end zone.

For years they were quite comfortable with the steady state universe. Some of you older dudes might remember when it was taught is schools. You were of course as dumb as a creationist is today if you challenged the steady state theory. Then a Jesuit priest came up with the big bang, which of course, today is largely accepted.

The truth is, Science never liked the Big Bang. It always made them uncomfortable. You can look any one of them in the eye, and he will unblinkingly tell you that you are so misguided if you see something peculiar in a eternal singularity expanding into a universe, in an instant in time. They will roll their eyes when you suggest that such a thing sounds like creation.

But all the while, they never liked the big bang. Unless... there were infinite big bangs, in far way places, or dimensions (???) , somewhat akin to what we might call fairyland or Oz.

And all it takes is a little faith.

See, ultimately it is not about rationality at all. It is about protecting one's own self identity.