Waching daily May 31 2017

According to an article written by Mathew Archbold that was published on the National

Catholic Register on the 21st of May, 2017, "atheism is uncoolest choice ever", and

he can prove it!

Get your popcorn kids, because this guy's gone full-retard…

This, is Atheism is the Uncoolest Choice Ever – Debunked.

So, Mathew, first and foremost, and as I've covered in other videos, belief isn't a

choice… something either makes sense to us, or it doesn't.

Sure, we can expose ourselves to certain arguments and resources, and we can say that we believe

whatever we want, but we can't wholeheartedly really believe whatever we want, because that's

just not how belief works.

I mean try it Mathew, try to believe that the universe was created by the Twelve Olympians

– you can't; you'll fail.

Anyhow, now that we've addressed the title, let's get to the article itself…

Number eight: "religious people live longer, happier lives, according to numerous scientific

studies."

So unfortunately, Mathew doesn't provide a single link to any of these numerous scientific

studies, and so to my annoyance, I've done his research for him.

As it turns out, countries with a very short life expectancy are significantly more religious

than countries with long life expectancy – to name but one example, Japan has a longest

life expectancy in the world, being 75 years, and only 24% of their population considers

religion important; while Samalia has a life expectancy of just 48 years, and over 98%

of their population considers religion important.

However, with this said, when we compare the life expectancy of religious and non-religious

people from the same country, there is indeed some studies that show a correlation between

religiosity and longer life expectancy, and these study speculate that this has something

to do with the community that religions tend to provide, which, considering that we're

a social species, I'm not surprised by.

But it simply has to be stated that 'even if it were conclusively proven that the religious

live longer than the non-religious, this wouldn't make any religion true'; a drunk person

might be happier than a sober person, but the drunk person is still out of his mind.

Number seven: "Michelangelo and Bach (look 'em up kids!) were indisputably awesome Christian

artists.

But hey, atheists have the kid who plays Harry Potter.

Do you really don't want to be a part of any group that includes the actor formerly known

as Harry Potter.

Or maybe you do because that's how uncool you actually are."

… I honestly can't tell if he's being serious at this point.

First of all, Michelangelo and Bach lived before Darwin discovered natural selection,

and that absolutely matters.

Before the discovery of natural selection it was very hard to explain how complex and

seemingly designed organisms can arise without a creator or creators, but we now know exactly

how this can occur and we have unimpeachable proof of it.

Furthermore, Michelangelo and Bach were primarily artists – and art is a passionate subject

that requires introspection and emotion – which is a type of intelligence, but it's not

the type that develops an accurate representation of reality (that would be science).

And according to a PEW study conducted in 2009, scientists are dramatically less religious

than the general public, and another study conducted by Nature has found that less than

7% of 'elite scientists' are religious.

And finally, Daniel Radcliffe is a cool guy.

Number six: "Typical atheist gathering vs. World Youth Day."

Are you kidding me?

1) even if atheist and secular gatherings were tiny compared to Christian gatherings,

this would have no bearing on the truth whatsoever.

At a time most people believed in Zeus, but that doesn't mean that Zeus existed… this

is an opaque Appeal to Popularity.

Anyhow, two can play your dishonest game Mathew, just look at this atheist gatherings vs. this

Christian gathering.

Number five: "Most of your big time mass killers of the 20th century were atheists.

I'm talking Stalin, Mao, and Che among others."

Mathew, did you know that these big time mass killers were also non-stamp collectors?

And that they all brushed their teeth?

Why would you want to be a non-stamp collector?

Why would you want to brush your teeth knowing that these killers also brushed theirs?

The point being is that you're committing a Guilt by Association fallacy, a type of

red-herring which attempts to discredit something based upon disfavoured people or groups associated

with it.

What you're essentially saying is that: Joseph Stalin was an atheist.

Stalin killed millions of people.

And therefore atheism killed millions of people.

But this is just as absurd and disingenuous as saying that: Fred Phelps was a Christian.

Phelps preached hate and picketed funerals.

And therefore Christians preach hate and picket funerals.

Find a single quote of these killers saying that they committed their crimes because of

their lack of belief in god, and then we'll have a real conversation – until then, just

stop being so disingenuous!

Number four: "This is an extreme Christian, and this is an extreme atheist – see the

difference?"

Yeah, one is fraudulent fanatical fundamentalist, and the other is a respected scientist who

passionately defends facts and truth from fraudulent fanatical fundamentalists…

To quote Hitchens, "Mother Teresa was not a friend of the poor, she was a friend of

poverty.

She said that suffering was a gift from god.

She spent her whole life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment

of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction."

She wasn't a good person… because her religion stopped her from being a good person.

She is but one of countless examples of religion making otherwise decent and caring people

say and do atrocious things!

And again… even if Christianity made people nicer than non-Christians, this would not

make Christianity true.

After all, Jainists are almost certainly nicer than Christians, but that doesn't mean that

Jainism is true.

You seriously are the king of non-sequiturs Mathew!

Number 3: "As a Christian, my wife looks at me like I'm a gift from God.

Seriously, to her that's what I am.

Your atheist girlfriend (should you ever get one after you move out of your stepdad's basement)

will see you as a gel-haired accident in skinny jeans on a lonely rock orbiting a meaningless

sun in a mistake of a universe.

See the difference?

It's kind of a big one."

… Erh, a gift from god you say… okay, I erh…

I assume you met on April Fools?

Anyhow, me and my atheist girlfriend frequently tell each other how lucky we are to enjoy

however long we're able to be together in this universe that most certainly doesn't

have us in mind.

We don't pretend that the universe thinks we're special – but we know that we are

special to one-another.

New don't have to make crap up!

Number 2: "Many of your college professors agree with your atheist beliefs.

How's that for the uncoolest choice ever?

Hey, look at you siding with all the gray-haired tweedy authoritarian types at your school."

Does someone not like the fact that the more educated you are, the less likely you are

to believe in barbaric inane nonsense?

Aw…

You're a dying bred Mathew, and you know it.

It might come as a surprise to you since you think that belief is a choice, but when you

care about what's true and you actually get embarrassed about pretending to know things

that you can't possibly know, that's when you'll appreciate that atheism is the honest

answer.

We don't share our professors believes because they're cool… we share them because they're

based on sound rationality and demonstrability, two concepts that you evidently don't appreciate!

Number 1: "Atheists have less children and that probably means...well you probably know

what that means since you're all about SCIENCE!"

What?

It means that we care about the population crisis and know how to use contraception…

Furthermore, what do you mean by "you probably know what that means"?

You do know that religiosity is almost exclusively a cultural phenomenon, right?

Genetics has very little to do with it – unless you're inbreeding, like, to be fair, your

book implicitly indorses… if humanity had to start anew, from scratch, with no information

whatsoever, Christianity, like all religions, would never return, but the truth would – in

time we would once again discover that the earth is a sphere, that evolution is true,

and that the universe doesn't care about us.

Anyhow, Mathew concludes with, "to sum up, you'll be miserable, have a shorter life,

and quite likely less sex than your religious counterparts.

And you thought atheism was cool?

Reconsider and repent ye' fools.

Jesus said he is the way, the truth, and the life.

Left unsaid, is that He's totally cooler than Richard Dawkins!"

And here's my conclusion.

To sum up, Mathew, you're an insincere, lying, close-minded, deluded, scientifically

illiterate egomaniac who doesn't know how to use a condom.

You are, unfortunate to say, one of the most foolish and uncoolest idiotic mammals alive.

Anyhow, to the rest of you, and as always, thank you kindly for the view, and remember

to subscribe, less you want to be as uncool as Mathew Archbold.

Just before I go however, I thought I'd share this cool gift that I received today

[it's my birthday.

My good friend Magnus sent me this, and it says to HippieAtheist…

Congratulations for surpassing one subscriber…

For more infomation >> Atheism is the Uncoolest Choice Ever - Debunked (Matthew Archbold Refuted) - Duration: 10:42.

-------------------------------------------

Antarctica Riddles—What Mainstream Science is Trying To Hide EP1 - Duration: 5:26.

Antarctica Riddles�What Mainstream Science is Trying To Hide [EP1]

Ads can be a pain, but we don't serve that kind, plus they're what keeps this website

going Please deactivating Ad blocker to support our work!

The Antarctic is a massive landmass, about twice the size of Australia buried under a

miles-thick coat of ice, with average temperatures of -55 degrees Celsius, completely uninhabited,

and with very scarce wildlife.

At first, it seems that this barren, desolate land could hold no interest to the world,

but in reality there are many parties interested in what Antarctica has to offer.

But, the nature of these attractions is rather exotic and kept under a strict veil of secrecy.

In fact, if anyone held some interest in this southernmost continent, it would probably

be because one of the world�s best-preserved secrets is kept buried under there.

Unlike the Arctic region, which consists of a series of islands scattered across an ice

cap above the Arctic Ocean, Antarctica is a veritable continent with icy mountains and

land forms buried beneath kilometers of frozen water.

For modern man, Antarctica is a relatively novel land. The actual landmass had been discovered

in 1911 by the Norwegians. Twelve states had further asembled expeditions that came back

with rewarding results.

The Antarctic Treaty from 1959 had suddenly put a hold to any exploitations that were

about to occur in the region, and suddenly Antarctica was declared a safe heaven.

It was something that they had encountered there that made them act in the detriment

of of their national interest, considering that a reservoire of untouched natural resources

was lying about.

The initial treaty had been signed by twelve states that were previously active in the

Antarctic during the International Geophysical Year, among them reminding the US, the Soviet

Union, Japan, Norway, the UK, Argentina and France.

Since then, the interested parties have coined a really dull and tedious image of this unexplored

continent.

First scientific expeditions from the 90s returned with evidence showing that Antarctica

had once been a tropical paradise. But, according to modern scholars, that was around 14 million

years ago, and on top of that, they have no clue how the ice came about.

And here�s where we can first smell the cover-up. Not long ago, two ancient maps of

Antarctica were discovered, both showing the continent without its massive ice sheet. The

Orontius Finaeus is one of these documents. It pictures Antarctica while ice-free, with

land forms such as mountain ranges, valleys and rivers.

What�s interesting is that, prior to the Chinese detailed radar survey from 2005, scientists

knew more about the geography of the Martian surface than of the Earth�s own South Pole.

When comparing the detailed survey to the Orontius Finaeus map, it all matched almost

perfectly. The mountains were there, the valleys, and the shape of Antarctica was also accordingly.

And thus the following questions have arisen: Could Antarctica have been a tropical paradise

much earlier than what mainstream scholars have suggested? Were humans mounting expeditions

to this land when it had been warm and had supported life?

If so, than there�s a great discrepancy between the timeline presented by scientists

and the actual reality. Based on the aforementioned maps, but not limited to that, the Antarctic

region could have been a hospitable place not millions, but rather tens of thousands,

if not thousands of years ago.

Is there a pole shift missing from this equation? A great cataclysm that had triggered the cooling

mechanism of Antarctica? Or rather a huge anomaly that�s been resting beneath the

ice for ages, keeping the continent frozen for some unknown and truly bewildering reason?

For more infomation >> Antarctica Riddles—What Mainstream Science is Trying To Hide EP1 - Duration: 5:26.

-------------------------------------------

Germany's Schulz Trump Is A Destroyer Of Western Values, We Must - politics - Duration: 2:07.

Germany's Schulz: "Trump Is A Destroyer Of Western Values, We Must Stand In His Way"

For all the criticism of Trump's first foreign trip, he seems to have achieved something

quite unprecedented: he has united Germany's political parties in a common fury (to avoid

using a harsher word) aimed squarely at the US president.

First, it was Angela Merkel, who was stunned after Trump refused to endorse the G-7 communique

on climate change, and one day later warned that Germany may no longer rely on the US

(and UK), and that Europe would have to become self-sufficient going forward, perhaps envisioning

much closer ties with France.

Now, it is the turn of her biggest challenger in the upcoming German elections, social democrat

Martin Shulz who is challenging Merkel for the chancellorship, and who accused Donald

Trump of destroying Western values and undermining international cooperation.

Speaking to reporters in Berlin, Schulz was quoted by Reuters as saying Trump was "the

destroyer of all Western values", adding that the U.S. president was undermining the peaceful

cooperation of nations based on mutual respect and tolerance.

"One must stand in the way of such a man with his ideology of rearmament," Schulz added.

Trump criticized Germany earlier on Tuesday for its trade surplus and military spending

levels, a day after Chancellor Angela Merkel rammed home her doubts about the reliability

of the United States as an ally.

In a tweet, Trump said: "We have a MASSIVE trade deficit with Germany, plus they pay

FAR LESS than they should on NATO & military.

Very bad for U.S.

This will change."

For more infomation >> Germany's Schulz Trump Is A Destroyer Of Western Values, We Must - politics - Duration: 2:07.

-------------------------------------------

Is it bad to be single? - Duration: 3:02.

For more infomation >> Is it bad to be single? - Duration: 3:02.

-------------------------------------------

Dr. Urse: Why The Ohio Rx Issue is Dangerous for Patients - Duration: 0:31.

I began my medical career as a nurse.

Now I'm a family doctor in Columbus.

I worry every day about whether my patients can

afford the care they need.

Rising health care costs in Ohio are a real problem.

That's why I'm speaking out

against this deceptive ballot issue

on prescription drugs.

This dangerous proposal could actually

increase drug costs for millions of Ohioans

and threaten access to prescription drugs.

Join Ohio's doctors and nurses in voting no.