Latest videos by RasPesher - By global warming Videos

global warming Videos

Watching: Latest videos by RasPesher

Astronomy without a telescope. We are looking at the direction ...
Posted by: RasPesher

Video duration: 611 seconds

Astronomy without a telescope. We are looking at the direction of rotation of the Earth, determining the direction of orbit and the distance between the Earth and the Sun in units of Sun diameters. Revisiting Copernicus, the aim of this video is to allow school children to determine facts about the solar system for themselves.

Related: astronomy, bare-eyed, earth, sun, orbit, rotation, retrograde, solar-scope, similar trianges, copernicus, galileo, bruno, inquisition, galileo galilei

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

The tree of Life - Our Family
Posted by: RasPesher

Video duration: 1033 seconds

This video looks at our family tree going back half a billion years. It also looks at the discovery of Tiktaalik as evidence of the predictive nature of common descent. It also looks at the loss of vitamin C production in our and closely related species.

Related: family, creation, creationism, genesis, evolution, evolve, common descent, ancestor, concestor, vitamin c, adam, eve, pseudogenes, hereditory, phylogenetic, genetic, darwin, primates, dna

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Global Warming - Fact or Fiction.wmv
Posted by: RasPesher

Video duration: 893 seconds

Is man the cause of the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas? Is the climate warming? A brief look at black body radiation and the infrared spectrum.

Related: energy, heat, temperature, global warming, climate change, skeptic, solar, power, conspiracy, environment, atmosphere, hot topics, analysis, fossil fuel, carbon dioxide, methane, infrared, alarmist, hoax, lag, specific heat

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Latest comments made on this video:

BTW, how about a ...
By: goggycozzle. on 02 Feb 12, 08:22:52
BTW, how about a sub??

Mars has ...
By: goggycozzle. on 02 Feb 12, 08:22:11
Mars has intolerably potent electromagnetic fields of wild? variation. There are alien ruins there from when it was populated in the distant past, but now, for the human class of life it is ruined.

My dear friend, the ...
By: goggycozzle. on 02 Feb 12, 08:19:48
My dear friend, the melting polar ice caps? are contributing to the global water cycle, and are the reason why global rainfall has increased over the past few years. This rain is falling in the desert, amongst other places and greening and cooling those expanses where it now regularly rains.

The not on my ...
By: RasPesher. on 15 Jan 12, 23:46:38
The not on my planet attitude and the great race: Dukof1 has proposed a global warming? race between terraforming Mars using greenhouse gases to make it habitable, & the global warming induced Sea Level (SL) rise on Earth. He thinks that terraforming Mars would win. It seems to me that he is willing to accept that the greenhouse effect is real and capable of relatively fast results but only if it's not on this planet. Why does he think that the laws of Physics would act faster on another planet?

@dukof1 As for ...
By: RasPesher. on 15 Jan 12, 12:00:25
@dukof1 As for populating Mars, it needs to be terraformed first. Its absolutely freezing and could do with an atmosphere. Perhaps you could bottle your CO2 emissions and send them there, they'll need them. Good luck! I wonder what planet the scientists got the idea of using greenhouse gases to make another planet like Mars inhabitable. The idea is to? melt the ice caps on Mars to give it a sea and to obtain water to support life.

Sorry but the ...
By: RasPesher. on 15 Jan 12, 11:03:48
Sorry but the details do matter. At the end of the last 100 year period sea level rise increased to? 3.3 mm/yr. At the beginning of the 100 year period that you referred to, the rate was only 1.7mm/yr. If the rate were to double again in keeping with the last 100 years then the rate would be 6.6 mm/yr by the end of that period. However the situation may be worse than that as the rate of decline in Antarctica has increase 4 fold. This places your 1m increase in SL in range by 2100.

It doesn't matter ...
By: dukof1. on 15 Jan 12, 05:58:08
It doesn't matter if it's 10 or 20cm. The point is that any significant rise will take several hundred to thousands of years. Who cares about that? The society will be totally different. Our current buildings will only be pictures in a museum, made of materials we haven't yet invented. We will more likely populate Mars before the sea level has risen 1? meter. Let alone you talk about hundreds of feet in your video. And you give NO estimate to when, because you know it's ridiculously far out.

Thank you for ...
By: RasPesher. on 15 Jan 12, 01:29:42
Thank you for responding to my video that investigated the evidence regarding global warming. When you say that the sea level and temperature may be rising, you are on the right track; because it is. However, you may need to check your? data on the rate of sea level rise. The graph I posted in this video shows a rise of 20 cm not ten. Extrapolating the rise in sea level due to rising temps based on a historical period with 35 yrs of aerosol cooling does not make sense.

Complete nonsense ...
By: dukof1. on 14 Jan 12, 19:20:28
Complete nonsense scare propaganda. Sure the sea may? rise, and temperature, but it will take thousands of years for the ocean to rise even a meter. 10cm over last 100 years. And temperature about half a degree. How stupid can ppl get..

You have said that ...
By: RasPesher. on 06 Oct 11, 19:56:25
You have said that the recent temperature warming? is due to natural process and that perhaps 10 years into the future science will discover a hitherto unknown mechanism that will prove you right. This tells me that you don't have any evidence to claim that it is a natural process. I'm sorry but all claims require evidence. To say that you don't need top supply evidence but everyone else has to, is special pleading.

The stolen emails ...
By: RasPesher. on 28 Sep 11, 11:28:08
The stolen emails are yesterdays news. Since then East Anglia's climate research unit has had six committees investigate "the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct." -Wikipedia As I understand it, they resourced all the climate data� and reproduced the graphs. Note [1] The CRU obtains their data from the various meteorological bureaus around the world.?

When you call ...
By: RasPesher. on 26 Sep 11, 20:49:33
When you call mainstream scientists, "alarmists", this demonstrates a bias & an agenda. Scientists collect data, look for? trends and then make predictions based on these trends. You may find the predictions based on the data alarming but a true scientist will follow the data to its logical conclusion. I admit that there is a human element in this process in that most of the report predictions to date, tend to underestimated the change; scientists are conservative not alarmists.

"The 'silence the ...
By: RasPesher. on 26 Sep 11, 08:00:52
"The 'silence the critics' approach" I did not say that you were "not allowed to quote certain other? sites." I merely criticised you for the use of stolen emails and for misrepresenting the email by using it out of context. Use stolen emails if you want, but don't expect not to be criticised for doing it.

Parallel lines of ...
By: RasPesher. on 26 Sep 11, 07:44:34
Parallel lines of evidence is not circular reasoning as you allege. If a single block is supported by 9 columns, taking eight away still leaves the block supported. Furthermore the line of evidence that you are? attacking, I did not even use in the video. Its a bit like trying to take a support away that was not there. It seems to me that you are relying on an argument that you must have obtained from someone else because it does not apply here.

I will leave this ...
By: firepowerjohan. on 25 Sep 11, 14:09:25
I will leave this discussion. I now know that your choice of standpoint is not due to lack of information. Contrary, you seem to know all that I post already. The "silence the critics" approach you just expressed and that you claim I am not allowed to quote certain other sites on the Internet like you just did just? further solidifies my suspicion. There is a bias and an agenda among many of the alarmists.

This is a total red ...
By: RasPesher. on 25 Sep 11, 11:52:39
This is a total red herring, come back when you find a real decline in? temperatures. You have just published a person's personal Email. When you read a person's email you are reading half a conversation and in this case only a snippet of that; that snippet also being abbreviated. Let's be honest here, it is wrong to steal emails and you have published the stolen email out of context in an attempt to misrepresent Prof. Jones. Is the LCD the best you can do?

"Ozone Effect" ...
By: RasPesher. on 25 Sep 11, 10:32:37
"Ozone Effect" Herein lies your problem, according to the? core scientists that make up the Climate "Skeptics" there is no hole in the ozone layer because CFCs do not deplete the ozone layer. If you accept that ozone effects plant growth then you should not conclude that temperatures are declining especially when thermometers are showing a temp increase. The past actions of Climate "Skeptics" have led? to people to contract skin cancer & cateracts. Why trust these people now?

The book the " ...
By: RasPesher. on 25 Sep 11, 09:33:52
The book the "Merchants of Doubt" gives a historical look at the climate "skeptics" movement. It traces this small group of scientists in their campaigns of disinformation on the following topics: tobacco, acid rain, the ozone hole, global warming, and DDT. How a small group of scientests have made millions out of peddling doubt. According to the inner core of the climate "skeptics" movement there is no hole in the Ozone layer, tobacco doesn't cause cancer and? DDT is not poisonous.

An Atheist turns Clairvoyant
Posted by: RasPesher

Video duration: 273 seconds

RasPesher turns clairvoyant but finds a cross wired brain instead

Related: synaesthesia, atheist, clairvoyant, evolution, dawkins

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Freewill Explained by an Atheist
Posted by: RasPesher

Video duration: 567 seconds

We find that Libertarian freewill is mythical. As a consequence there is no foundation for a judgemental God to punish or reward. This disproves the Christian God.

Related: freewill, will, libertarian, determinism, causal, contra causal, god, empowerment, atheist, atheism, theist, christian

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Latest comments made on this video:

This video applies ...
By: Texmurphy51. on 03 Aug 11, 19:25:03
This video applies to man made religions. We have been discussing how the Universe? was Created so it is a non sequitor in relation to that subject. Bending the laws of physics has been tried by modern Religions to explain a young earth but we see now that Science is even doing it. To explain some events some Scientists say the laws of physics may not be consistent across the entire Universe, or they have changed since its beginning. Sounding more & more like Religion to me

The video was? a ...
By: RasPesher. on 02 Aug 11, 02:15:27
The video was? a comedy, calling it a non sequitor is rediculous. It played on the idea of faking the laws of physics. By implementing this idea to its full extent in the video, it demonstrated how absurd the idea actually was.

A? non sequitor is ...
By: Texmurphy51. on 30 Jul 11, 16:51:00
A? non sequitor is in the eyes of the beholder. I agree with the concept of the video. The Universe does not appear to be old by design to satisfy the Bible, or other Holy Books. This however is Non Sequitor to the argument of how our Universe was Created. It simply brings man made religions into question.

"The human ...
By: RasPesher. on 29 Jul 11, 21:24:55
"The human civilization? argument would be in question if PROOF of a thousands year old Universe came about" Boy have I got the video for you! You'll love it. It's call "The Origin of the Universe - Justnowism" by cdk007 and if you go to my channel, you'll find it listed there. btw a non sequitor is a non sequitor.You can't have half a non sequitor. Replacing one non sequitor with another non? sequitor does not fix the non sequitor problem.

A thousand year old ...
By: Texmurphy51. on 26 Jul 11, 16:16:55
A thousand year old universe would however bring current science to its knees. One would have to question all theories. Since Atheists try and use Science to disprove God it would compromise their Beliefs. So its not as non sequitor as you think. The human civilization argument? would be in question if PROOF of a thousands year old Universe came about. So changing laws of physics might prove God.

Even if the ...
By: RasPesher. on 26 Jul 11, 10:55:17
Even if the universe was "only thousands of years old" it would not prove the bible. Another non sequitor.At best you could say that it does not falsify one small section of the bible. However we know that human civilisation has existed longer than 6 thousand years, so that throws a spanner? into the works.

Perhaps I should ...
By: Texmurphy51. on 25 Jul 11, 15:27:47
Perhaps I should have said proof of the Bible, leading to God. The idea was that the bible implies a universe that is only thousands of years old. Christian Scientists have used varying physical constants to try and prove this. One is the speed of light to explain how stars appear to be very old when not. So you see, if you want me to accept changed laws of physics to explain the parmater problem, you must also accept the bible theory? as possible.

"the speed of light ...
By: RasPesher. on 25 Jul 11, 10:34:10
"the speed of light was not constant... Would you accept this as proof of God?" Even if the speed? of light was not constant, it does follow that God exists. Your argument is a non sequitor.

"HOWEVER 1 of the ...
By: RasPesher. on 25 Jul 11, 09:23:37
"HOWEVER 1 of the recent? theories does say the "laws of physics" have & R changing with time"- Yes I am quoting you, that is why it is in quotation marks! Your basing your claim on Christian Science?? They reject the germ theory of disease. Recently? a child died through lack of treatment for diabeties. The parents prayed trying to drive out non-existent demons rather than giving her insulin. Christian science does not prove god instead it is a warning of the dangers of religion.

"physics" have & ...
By: Texmurphy51. on 25 Jul 11, 03:32:42
"physics" have & are changing with time" Think I might have mentioned that to you. If all the laws of physics changed & there was enough time then perhaps that would solve it. Funny think, this theory came from a Christian Scientists. He used it to explain why Light appeared to be billions of years old, yet the Universe was only thousands. He hypothesized that the speed of light was? not constant. So this cuts both ways. Would you accept this as proof of God?

"HOWEVER one of the ...
By: RasPesher. on 24 Jul 11, 18:44:52
"HOWEVER one of the recent theories does say the the "laws of physics" have & are changing? with time" Would this resolve your alleged parameter problem?

@Tex Cont.. But ...
By: RasPesher. on 22 Jul 11, 22:39:18
@Tex Cont.. But alas we don't. When it comes to other universes I have already? proven that they are possible based on the principles of induction and conformity. When it comes to the proposition of the existence of a creator we have no proof or good reason to suspect that a Creator is indeed possible, only an abstract consideration of the? idea. It may well be that a Creator is not possible at all. The proposition of a Creator is not in the same ball park as Other Universes.

Whilst it is true ...
By: RasPesher. on 22 Jul 11, 22:25:28
Whilst it is true that I have previously said that both multiple universes and a Creator are possible, the two propositions are not equaly probable. For them to be equally probable you would? need to have a Creator of known existence and be speculating on the existence of additional Creators. Science is based on methodological naturalism. If we had an example of a Creator existing then it would be natural. Repetition of whatever natural process produced the 1st could make a 2nd.

"OTHER Univserse ...
By: RasPesher. on 22 Jul 11, 02:43:26
"OTHER Univserse are like a Creator, there is NO PROOF" Good, I'll take that as an admission that your "proof of Creator" was a crock! "NO PROOF." However as I have said before, analogies don't prove? a thing, but are used as explanatories. Your "perfect analogy" only serves to muddy the water. You could have more simply said, "There is no proof of other universes." The bit about them being "like a creator" is irrelevant.

"POOR ANALOGY' ...
By: Texmurphy51. on 21 Jul 11, 17:07:10
"POOR ANALOGY' Only? our Universe is know to exist. OTHER Univserse are like a Creator, there is NO PROOF. You see the parallel here. You cant see for forest for the trees. There is no more proof for Parallel Universes then for a Creator yet you willingly accept their possible existence. Think it thru, The two are perfect analogies.

"I would say that ...
By: RasPesher. on 21 Jul 11, 11:22:56
"I would say that other Universes? existing is like a Spaghetti Monster circling around Jupiter" POOR ANALOGY. A universe is known to exist, but NO Spaghetti Monsters. You should have picked something orbiting Jupiter that is known to exist, such as the moon Europa. Then your analogy would have read: ? I would say that other Universes existing is like finding other moons, in addition to Europa, orbiting Jupiter. Hey, Jackpot!? There are 63 other moons that orbit Jupiter.

U said, "I ...
By: RasPesher. on 20 Jul 11, 10:19:53
U said, "I Disbelieve in other Universes &? find no evidenct to convince me otherwise" See if I care. You? have posited other universes as a solution to a problem that I don't think exists. I think that it is silly to use in your argument for the existence of god, "logical steps" for which you don't believe. You are constructing a strawman argument, but what for? So you can knock it down? As much as you try you are not going to turn a weak atheist into a strong atheist with this argument.

Let me summarise ...
By: RasPesher. on 20 Jul 11, 09:09:49
Let me summarise your claim: 1) there is a parameter problem; hence the multiverse 2) Infinity, therefore god exists. Congratulations, that is the silliest proof of God that I've ever heard. Now you are telling me that I have to prove your argument. Youre as mad as a meat axe! 1) I don't accept the parameter problem 2) I don't accept the multiverse has to exist 3) I don't accept? infinity therefore god It is up to you to PROVE YOUR CLAIMS, not me.

If YOU dont have to ...
By: Texmurphy51. on 19 Jul 11, 17:00:30
If YOU dont have to prove your WILD assumptions then neither do I. Your idea that if 1 Universe exists then others must is pure speculation. Where would this Universe exists. Can you show that anything exists outside our spacetime? I would say that other Universes existing is? like a Spaghetti Monster circling around Jupiter. I Disbelieve in other Universes & find no evidenct to convince me otherwise. You need evidence to prove your claims.

"Why would you ...
By: RasPesher. on 18 Jul 11, 19:03:11
"Why would you Believe the multiverse assumption in the first place" I? don't assume it to be true. Why is it possible? Because we have empiracle evidence that at least one universe exists. The laws of physics that allowed that single universe to come into existence (if it came into existence) would allow others universes to come into existence. So it is possible based on what we know. However this stuff is irrelevant, YOU STILL need to prove your WILD assumptions.

"you would need to ...
By: Texmurphy51. on 18 Jul 11, 18:15:20
"you would need to prove this wild assumption" Lets see ... A No Proof claim of infinite Universes is not a wild assumtion? but mine is?? Really. Why would you Believe the multiverse assumption in the first place. There is absolutly NO mathmatical or observable proof of this. It is simply a hypothesis to explain the problem. However the idea of infinity,(if it exists, also unproven) says that ALL possibilities exists. Your simply cherry picking you hypothesis. They are ALL unproven

@Tex The question ...
By: RasPesher. on 17 Jul 11, 01:13:37
@Tex The question is: Are the parameters in the universe ? the way they are because of chance, or ? are they the way they are because that is the only way they can be? The 1st possibility leads to either the multiverse or dumb luck as an explanation. The 2nd possibility leads to our? universe being the way it is by necessity (not chance or dumb luck). The condition of zero net energy limits the possible parameter combos, perhaps to only one. If it has to be this way then it is 100% probable.

@Tex Re: Chances of ...
By: RasPesher. on 17 Jul 11, 00:29:13
@Tex Re: Chances of Sentient life... "from nothing, one time are next to impossible" [Don't forget that what you are calling "nothing" is actually something] Next to impossible is NOT impossible, so you are really saying that it is POSSIBLE! In fact we know its possible because WE ARE HERE. So not only could it happen "one time", but? we KNOW that it has.

"However, inherent ...
By: RasPesher. on 16 Jul 11, 23:57:29
"However, inherent multiverse is the god paradigm that anything becomes possible" If you were serious about? this argument you would need to prove this wild assumption. Given that your modus operandi is to make wild claims but never back them up, I don't suppose you will this time. btw the word "infinity" is not proof!

""One of those ...
By: Texmurphy51. on 14 Jul 11, 15:07:50
""One of those special conditions ..." Correct, HOWEVER Science has a problem with this because the Parameters in our Universe are so Special that the chances of it happening, from nothing, one time are next to impossible. This is why they came up with the Multiverse hypothesis. If you have an infinite number of Universes, than one of them? is bound to have just the right conditions. However, inherent multiverse is the god paradigm that anything becomes possible.(infinity)

$RE: Militant Atheism - the Worst Argument in all of Ever - There\$

RE: Militant Atheism - the Worst Argument in all of Ever - There's More!
Posted by: RasPesher

Video duration: 329 seconds

Dinesh D'Souza's argument goes awry when he tries to Argue that Hitler is an Atheist but when Izamen attempts to ape Dinesh's argument things go from bad to worse

Related: christ, christian, christianity, bible, dinesh, dsouza, izamen, worst argument, atheist, atheism, gospels, historicity, philosophy, pagan

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Latest comments made on this video:

"gospel churches ...
By: Texmurphy51. on 25 Jul 11, 03:03:27
"gospel churches encouraged.." Maybe a few but that didnt cause the problem. It wasnt churches but Acorn & Congress. Dont believe everything you read on Google, expecially from the Dems that caused the problem. See Barny Frank, Chris Dodd, Fanny May, Freddie Mac? for the main players. If you really want to know get the book Reckless Endangerment.

Ras: Various ...
By: RasPesher. on 22 Jul 11, 21:54:32
Ras: Various prosperity gospel churches encouraged their parishioners to purchase homes that they couldn't afford. Tex: Banks would only loan Minorities with no background check, not churches. Ras: My comments were about pasters spruiking loans to parishioners on behalf of the banks and receiving "donations" in return. Tex: Churches dont give out money, they just take it in, TRUST? ME Reply: No one said churches gave out money. Should I trust you?

"pasters spruking? ...
By: Texmurphy51. on 19 Jul 11, 17:28:16
"pasters spruking? loans to parishioners " Churches dont give out money, they just take it in, TRUST ME. The church loans went default when the parishioners lost their jobs & could not keep up their donation levels. I dont think you will find that church loans took down our finance system here It is Bad loans to people who could not afford them. Pushed by Democrats in Congress & Acorn. The Bailout went to large institutions that were friends of Obama like AGI, not small ones

"Banks would only ...
By: RasPesher. on 19 Jul 11, 00:18:47
"Banks would only loan Minorities ... , not churches" My comments were about pasters spruking loans to parishioners on behalf of the banks and receiving "donations" in return. I was not saying that the banks were seeking loans. However you raised an interesting question and it turned out? that lots of churches did in fact have loans and many defaulted. So many that they were were responsible for sending some loan authorities broke. Just goes to show that Google is mightier than God.

"They (Atheists) ...
By: RasPesher. on 17 Jul 11, 05:43:05
"They (Atheists) will argue just as much as Theists" Really??? If you do a search on YouTube for? "Die, Heretic" (watch?v=M0zIv2I37UU&NR=1) you'll find an interesting video story. The video is based on a joke; a joke deemed to be the funniest religious joke ever. Whilst a joke, it does have a serious side to it. Watch the video and then ask yourself if an atheist could ever argue so vehemently about which doctrine was the correct Southern Baptist Doctrine 1879 or 1912?

"But thats not ...
By: RasPesher. on 16 Jul 11, 00:35:05
"But thats not Religion" No, but that is not what you claimed: you said, "is caused by lack of faith in everything." You have a "lack of faith" in your President. Following on from what you have said, your lack of faith is causing your "insecurity." You said, "What makes a country great is when most of the people have? the same Goals." If you adopted the "same goals" as your President then logically, from what you have said, that would make your "country great."?

The president ...
By: Texmurphy51. on 15 Jul 11, 19:58:37
The president creates his own insecurity. But thats not Religion. What makes a country great is when most of the people have the same Goals. If you think that changing everyone to? Atheists will solve the worlds problems it will not. They will argue just as much as Theists. The housing problem is not due to churches. Banks would only loan Minorities with no background check, not churches. The crash was due to political correctness not Religion

"Our insecurity is ...
By: RasPesher. on 15 Jul 11, 09:34:37
"Our insecurity is caused by lack of faith in everything" Yes, a lack of faith in your president is causing the insecurity. I can see that. "No citizen is bankrupt by a hospital visit" But lots were already bankrupt. Various prosperity gospel churches encouraged their parishioners to purchase homes that they could? not afford. That along with the brokers that accepted their loan approvals caused the crash in 2008.

You need to be ...
By: RasPesher. on 15 Jul 11, 02:59:21
You need to be careful as to what question was asked in a census. eg. you quoted 16.1% in the US as believing in "no go" however the survey actualy asked about a persons religion. 16.1% answer "none". Further surveying of the Nones has revealed that 5% of them believe in? some sort of higher power leaving between 11 and 12% without a belief in God. On the other hand, in Australia many that were baptised as a baby will tick that religion on the census yet don't believe & never attend.

"both our countries ...
By: RasPesher. on 15 Jul 11, 01:32:02
"both our countries were more religous in the past" In a country town in Australia, a preacher came to set up a church. When the local residents heard they passed the hat around and bribed him to skip their town and to go and annoy some other hapless community. Early Australia was not that smitten with religious hocus pocus; and? we still aren't.

So you say? the ...
By: Texmurphy51. on 14 Jul 11, 15:16:05
So you say? the difference between 73% & 84% belief in a god is enough change a country to being socially sick? Well both our countries were more religous in the past, does that mean we are both getting better? You have the wrong impression of the US. Our insecurity is caused by lack of faith in everything. Its our president causing the instability. No citizen is bankrupt by a hospital visit. You get care & pay back as you can afford it. No one is starving unless they are on drugs.

@Tex Cont.. The? ...
By: RasPesher. on 14 Jul 11, 09:14:46
@Tex Cont.. The? study into societal health found: ?The U.S. also suffers from uniquely high adolescent? and adult syphilis infection rates ?Increasing adolescent abortion rates show positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a creator, and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of evolution. ?The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly.

@Tex Cont.. The? ...
By: RasPesher. on 14 Jul 11, 09:04:26
@Tex Cont.. The? study into societal health found: ?Life spans tend to decrease as rates of religiosity rise, especially as a function of absolute belief. ?higher rates of religious affiliation, attendance, and prayer do not result in lower juvenile-adult mortality rates on a? cross-national basis. ?rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three hundred times higher in the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution secular developed democracies

@Tex Cont.. The ...
By: RasPesher. on 14 Jul 11, 08:55:11
@Tex Cont.. The study into societal health found: ?the U.S. is the only prosperous democracy that retains high homicide rates, making it a strong outlier in this? regard (Beeghley; Doyle, 2000). ?theistic Portugal also has rates of homicides well above the secular developed democracy norm. ?the U.S. has experienced many more Mass Student Murders in schools (National School Safety Center) than all the secular developed democracies combined-secular used here to denote countries with low religiosity

"Not much of a ...
By: RasPesher. on 14 Jul 11, 04:23:51
"Not much of a difference" 68% different, yet you say not much??? I guess if someone offered you a 68% pay rise you'd turn it down because it is not much of a difference! "..yet you consider the US sick from Religion" No, religiosity is a measure of societal health not the prime determinant. By sick I mean that US citizens are insecure. Many Americans live in fear of? loosing their jobs, and/or health care. Most Americans are one hospital visit away from bankrupcy.

"The two sickest ...
By: RasPesher. on 14 Jul 11, 03:19:47
"The two sickest socities I can think of were under Stalin & Mao, in both Religion was banned" Your totally off track here. Two reasons: ? Remember what I said, "A scientific study in modern democracies has found the correlation...". Stalin's Russia and Mao's China are NOT MODERN DEMOCRACIES. ? Since you say religion is BANNED in both countries, the underlying? religiosity as a measure of societal health is being SUPPRESSED. This situation will not give a true picture of the trend.

"sicker the? ...
By: Texmurphy51. on 13 Jul 11, 16:57:03
"sicker the? society? the more religious" The two sickest socities I can think of were under Stalin & Mao, in both Religion was banned A pole says that 27% of the people in your country dont belief in a god so 73% are Religious. In the US 16.1% believe in no go Not much of a difference yet you consider the US sick from Religion Only 54% of French are Religious. Do you think France is great because of this? Christians beleve that if the whole world was Christians then all would be fine

"You say US society ...
By: RasPesher. on 13 Jul 11, 11:35:44
"You say US society is degrading because of Religion" What I said was two fold: 1) Religion is a measure of societal health. The sicker the society the more religious. 2) In some instances religion actually causes and maintains a sick society. Astute religious leaders support political parties that create and propagate a disfunctional? society. After all it is in their best interest. OR should I say it is in the best interest of the MEME to which they have befallen.

@Tex Cont.. Soros ...
By: RasPesher. on 13 Jul 11, 11:19:38
@Tex Cont.. Soros did however endorsed the Oregon Death with Dignity Act The blessed mother, the "virgin" Mary, assisted Jesus with his own suicide attempt. She laced the wine with bile (snake Venom) then offered it to Jesus whilst he was on the cross. At 1st he refused but later he asked for it by saying "I thirst"; a reference to Psalm 69:21 Sour Wine + Poison. So even Jesus believed in? Death with Dignity AND did NOT believe in the sanctity of life. Bristol's "ethics" are not in line with JCs.

"Soros & Obama Czar ...
By: RasPesher. on 13 Jul 11, 11:08:42
"Soros & Obama Czar who thing abortion of a child should be optional under the age of 2" You clearly do not think that "Thou shalt not? lie" is a commandment worth keeping.

@Tex cont.. "Her ...
By: RasPesher. on 13 Jul 11, 10:44:24
@Tex cont.. "Her ethics did not allow her to have an abortion" Don't confuse her religious taboos with ethics. The ethical consideration here is: respect for sentient life. A foetus in the first trimester is not sentient. Next you seemed to be saying that Bristols pregnancy was due to? a general lack of stigma attached to school children becoming pregnant, but now you seem to be arguing that it is alright so long as state welfare is not involved. Which is it?

"Miss Palin did not ...
By: RasPesher. on 13 Jul 11, 10:20:18
"Miss Palin did not quit? working to go on welfare to raise her child" No, she did not have a job to begin with, she quit school. I refered to her STATE COURT ORDER for SOLE custody, taking away the rights of? the biological father replacing him with the state as a surrogate father. Let me ask you, your own question: Do you think that 18 year olds (Bristol Palin included) leaving school to have babies makes society MORE functional?

Miss Palin did not ...
By: Texmurphy51. on 11 Jul 11, 04:31:52
Miss Palin did not quit working to go on welfare to raise her child. Her ethics did not allow her to have an abortion. There are some, Soros & Obama Czar who thing abortion of a child should be optional until the age of 2. This is not Religion but Atheism. Do you think this is good fo Society? This is an example of no absolute morallity. You say US society is degrading because? of Religion. The opposite is true. The less we have the worse our society gets. Ex Stalin's Russia

"There is no stigma ...
By: RasPesher. on 10 Jul 11, 02:32:38
"There is no stigma now for this which is why so many single mothers are on Welfare" After Miss Palin became pregnant she still had a choice between having an abortion or raising "a child with the State as the Father" (as you worded it). She chose what you implied led to a less functional society because of her RELIGION. Your defence actually proves my point; my point? as previously stated, "religion causes disfunction".

"Its been wrecked ...
By: RasPesher. on 09 Jul 11, 01:09:15
"Its been wrecked for years".."It started when we moved ... towards ... multiculturism" Now this is a little gem of yours. What are you suggesting? Hitler had a solution, the holocaust! Pavelic had a solution too. "Convert or Die" (and a priest with a machine gun). What is your solution? Will it be final? Personally I like being able to? choose between a Turkish, Greek, Italian, Chinese, Indian or Indonesian meal. ?? Where you see gloom, I see HOPE!

Christianist Explained by an Atheist - Who was the Apostle Simon? Pt 2
Posted by: RasPesher

Video duration: 516 seconds

We find the close ties between the Magi, the Zealots, the Simonians, and the Gnostics & we can equate The Apostle Simon to Simon Magus and Lazarus & God and we note a Squabble between between Peter & Paul

Related: christ, apostle simon, lazarus, simon magus, god, christian, christianity, atheism, atheist, gnostic, gnosticism, zealot, blind, nt

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Christianist Explained by an Atheist - Who was the Apostle Simon? Pt 1
Posted by: RasPesher

Video duration: 519 seconds

We look at what the gospels and early Christians comments to find that Simon was Simon Magus and worshipped as a God. Jesus was initially a follower of Simon.

Related: christ, christian, simon, simon magus, magi, magian, lazarus, leper, blind, samaritan, atheist, atheism, essenes, fig tree, god, jesus

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

$Christianity Explained by an Atheist - Jesus, Who\$

Christianity Explained by an Atheist - Jesus, Who's your father? Annex A
Posted by: RasPesher

Video duration: 383 seconds

Q & A to "Jesus who is your father?" The annointing of Jesus as heir to the Davidic throne

Related: virgin birth, holy spirit, joseph, mary, jesus, christ, christian, bible, atheist, atheism, miracle, son of god, biological, priest

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

$Christianity Explained by an Atheist - Jesus, Who\$

Christianity Explained by an Atheist - Jesus, Who's your father III ?
Posted by: RasPesher

Video duration: 541 seconds

The virgin birth is a parable. Joseph was the biological father of Jesus

Related: virgin birth, holy spirit, joseph, mary, jesus, christ, christian, bible, atheist, atheism, miracle, son of god, biological

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Latest comments made on this video:

"he (John the ...
By: RasPesher. on 13 Jan 11, 14:01:27
"he (John the Baptist) wasn't the high priest" Your correct that he (JB) was not the High Priest at the time that Jesus was annointed, however don't let looks deceive you. JB was a Zaddokite Priest and heir to be Chief Priest of? the Essenes. Johnathon Annus was High priest at the time Jesus was annointed, however Johnathon was replaced the following year by Ciaiphas. John didn't become the Essene High Priest till about 29CE. His tenure was only short lived, as he upset Herod.

The verse John 1:28 ...
By: RasPesher. on 13 Jan 11, 12:42:16
The verse John 1:28 was not a reference to Jesus baptism, nor was it a reference to the swearing in of Jesus as the heir to the Davidic throne. The verse in John 1:32 was a recollection of an event that had already occurred; the annointing of Jesus as Christ and heir to the Davidic throne. It would not have mattered if John the baptist was standing on the moon when he had the recollection. Jesus was still sworn in, at the temple.?

John 1:28 "This all ...
By: tuggleprentiss. on 13 Jan 11, 05:23:24
John 1:28 "This all happened at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John was baptizing." Not in some church. The story makes clear who John the Baptist was and what he did. He was out in the wilderness, baptizing in rivers, not in? the King''s cathedral. he wasn't the high priest, he wore rough clothes and ate wild food, like locusts. Your version is just not at all what is there in the gospels.

"I saw the Spirit " ...
By: RasPesher. on 10 Jan 11, 08:08:42
"I saw the Spirit " Theodotus an early Christian? tells us that Priests can be called "spirits" and "angels." So there is no impediment in identifying Johnathon Annus as the Spirit that descended from heaven. Also it was Theodotus that told us that it was admitted that everything in the scripture was written in parables.

@tuggleprentiss, ...
By: RasPesher. on 10 Jan 11, 08:01:27
@tuggleprentiss, the phrase? "and a voice came from heaven" requires an understanding of the Herodian Church. It was similar to a cathedral except that it had an extra platform above the standard dais. This platform was reserved for the High priest or the Herodian King to make announcements. So the voice from heaven came from the High priest standing on the upper dais, called "Heaven." So Johnathon Annus had to descend from the dais called "heaven" to annoint Jesus as heir to the Davidic throne.

"Grace, mercy and ...
By: RasPesher. on 10 Jan 11, 07:53:16
"Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father" Johnathon Annus was known as God the father. His doctrine of peace with Rome earnt him the nick name the Dove as follows: Luk? 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a DOVE upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. Jhn 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a DOVE, and it abode upon him. Everything's a parable!

@tuggleprentiss? " ...
By: RasPesher. on 10 Jan 11, 07:42:55
@tuggleprentiss? "because that God sent his only begotten Son into the? world" The swearing in ceremony for Davidic Kings is given in Psalm 2:7: Psa 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee Jesus was sworn in by the High Priest as identified in Hebrew 5:5. So it was the High priest, Johnathon Annus(called God) that made Jesus his begotten son. You have to read carefully as it's "been admitted that everything is in parables."

It? isn't told like ...
By: tuggleprentiss. on 09 Jan 11, 02:39:42
It? isn't told like it is a parable. It being a parable doesn't fit with the pronouncement that is made at Jesus baptism about him being his son. There are too many verses like: I John 4:9 "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." 2 John 1:3 "Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Father's Son, will be with us in truth and love." to think it is a parable.

$Christianity Explained by an Atheist - Jesus, Who\$

Christianity Explained by an Atheist - Jesus, Who's your father II ?
Posted by: RasPesher

Video duration: 387 seconds

This video examines the conflict by the two differring Lineages of Jesus

Related: virgin birth, genealogy, mary, joseph, jesus, christ, king, davidic, gabriel, christian, athist, atheism, dan brown, davinci code, nt

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Latest comments made on this video:

"I don't? know of? ...
By: RasPesher. on 21 Jan 11, 10:58:23
"I don't? know of? any other text from that era that mentions Mary's father." What about the Gospel of James you just mentioned? It is the only text we have that refers to the 1st century Jesus.

"Protevangelium of ...
By: RasPesher. on 21 Jan 11, 10:58:01
"Protevangelium of James has a lot of problems"!!!!!!! But at least it got the spelling of Jesus name? correct and the name of Jesus father right. Are you totally blind to the problems in the text from which you're quoting? And what about the date 100 years out?

The apocryphal ...
By: BattleshipTx. on 21 Jan 11, 05:29:25
The apocryphal Protevangelium of James has a lot of problems and was condemned. Can you name any others? Even if you count that as two sources, having one of the? sources, one even hostile to Christianity confirm Luke's lineage is through Mary and Heli is pretty impressive.

--To cherry pick? ...
By: BattleshipTx. on 21 Jan 11, 05:24:32
--To cherry pick? we would have to have some other ancient 1st or 2nd century texts using other names for Mary's father. I don't know of any other text from that era that mentions Mary's father.

Your argument is ...
By: RasPesher. on 18 Jan 11, 06:41:43
Your argument is flawed. cont... But in your argument we have not even established that it is the same Mary. Your Mary is claimed to be the mother of 100 BCE Yeshua and wife of Pappos. We have another ancient source that lists the parents of Mary the mother of the gospel Jesus? as Joachim and Anne (see "Genealogy of Jesus" - Wikipedia).

"an incredible ...
By: RasPesher. on 18 Jan 11, 05:49:03
"an incredible coincidence? in using the name "Eli" for Mary's father's name." I do not find the coincidence impressive since you have cherry picked the information. My own father's name translated to Dutch is equivalent to my father-in-law's name. If I listed my paternal descendents it would not mean that it was my wife's paternal descendents just because her father's name was equivalent to mine. Yet this is what you are attempting to claim for Mary. Your argument is flawed.

The Talmud is an ...
By: BattleshipTx. on 18 Jan 11, 01:03:33
The Talmud is an attack story deliberately trying to make Jesus look? bad & deny he was their messiah, but in doing so they can independently verify some facts that they did not know would be important to us later. Like Mary's father's name. The want to call her a whore & Jesus a bastard, but inadvertently corroborate Luke's account by what would have to be an incredible coincidence in using the name "Eli" for Mary's father's name. This helps make clear what Luke was doing with his genealogy.

@BattleshipTx If ...
By: RasPesher. on 17 Jan 11, 17:40:14
@BattleshipTx If you think that the Talmud text is about Mary the mother of Jesus then you would have to say? that the authors were deliberately messing with the facts. Born in the wrong century, crucified on the wrong day, why wouldn't the same author list her father in law as if he was her father? Since the author is deliberately mixing the facts up, it would be inconsistent of him to get a fact right. Good reason to think that Eli is not Mary's father.

"We have no other ...
By: RasPesher. on 17 Jan 11, 08:23:52
"We have no other ancient source for Mary's father's? name" Correction, you have no source for Mary's (the mother of the first century Jesus) father's name. Furthermore, the name Mary was commonly used as a religious title. We don't even know what Mary's real name would have been. Every Egyptian King and Pharoh claimed to be born of a virgin. Virgins were a dime a dozen back then. All you have done is to find a few similarities and then the details don't really match.

But it is the ...
By: BattleshipTx. on 17 Jan 11, 06:29:31
But it is the mother of someone who they are denouncing as a false messiah,? who had disciples, claimed to have a virgin birth, and was crucified. Yeshua is the Jewish pronunciation of Jesus. Miriam a long form of Mary. We have no other ancient source for Mary's father's name and this fits perfectly with Luke's account. The Jews tried to say Mary must have been impregnated by a Roman soldier, this is even more support for Joseph supporting her story he had not been with her sexually.

" in doing so ...
By: RasPesher. on 15 Jan 11, 14:23:47
" in doing so confirmed many facts about Jesus" You are assuming that the Mary of the Gospel's father's name is Eli and that that is a fact. Then you are using this fact to confirm your belief that the Mary in the talmud is the same Mary as the one in the gospels. This is circular reasoning. But? problems abound. The spelling of Jesus is different, spelling of Mary is different, the execution of yeshu is on a different day to that of Jesus. Yeshu's father's name is wrong. etc

The Talmud clearly ...
By: BattleshipTx. on 15 Jan 11, 05:09:06
The Talmud clearly was? talking about Jesus, they hated Christianity, believing Jesus was a false Messiah, and were trying to debunk Christianity, but in doing so confirmed many facts about Jesus, i.e. that he was crucified, was claimed to be born of a virgin, and that his mother's father was named "Eli". Instead of believing the father was Joseph, they insinuated a Roman soldier must have impregnated Jesus mother.

The Mary in the ...
By: RasPesher. on 13 Jan 11, 10:08:29
The Mary in the Yerushalmi was the mother of Yeshu; a Yeshu, who lived about 100 BCE. That's 100 years too early. The inclusion of "as was supposed" does not rule Joseph out, and it in no way rules Mary in, so far as the genealogy goes. It could have meant that Luke did not know, but I disagree. Luke would have been fully aware that everyone that? knew Jesus family knew that Joseph was the father. It's a literal device to keep the illusion of a miracle birth story, alive.

Luke excludes ...
By: BattleshipTx. on 13 Jan 11, 05:04:21
Luke excludes Joseph by saying "so it was thought". Your KJV version does it by saying "as was supposed" making clear Joseph was not included in the? genealogical line. Other ancient Jewish sources tell us Mary's father was named "Eli" or "Heli". It is in the Jewish Talmud. See the Chagigah (or Haggigah) 77:4 in the Yerushalami (Jerusalem Talmud) which names Eli (Greek: Heli) as Mary's father. That's a 2nd century source.

"But he (Luke in 3: ...
By: RasPesher. on 09 Jan 11, 05:52:55
"But he (Luke in 3:23) excludes Joseph and mentions Heli, Mary's father. Joseph's father was named? Jacob" Luke does not exclude Joseph ? nor does he say that Heli is Mary's father: Luk 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli," - KJV What it does say is that Joseph "was [the son] of Heli".

" Furthermore the ...
By: BattleshipTx. on 09 Jan 11, 00:58:51
" Furthermore the point of mentioning the genealogy is to establish credentials for Jesus; credentials in Jewish? customs" That is what Matthew was doing. Thus he went through Joseph and took the lineage to Abraham. Luke was writing mostly to gentiles that didn't care about that. He was showing Jesus was human. Thus taking the lineage to Adam. "By? the way Luke 3:23 does not mention Mary." But he excludes Joseph and mentions Heli, Mary's father. Joseph's father was named Jacob.

"Luke would have ...
By: BattleshipTx. on 09 Jan 11, 00:54:52
"Luke would have had no concept? of the genetic basis of sexual reproduction." So what? Luke relates that Joseph wasn't involved, the Holy Spirit was the father. So in showing Jesus humanity, Mary is his link to humanity. Thus he takes Jesus lineage through her back to Adam. he "bothers" to show Jesus was human. "The culture and practices of the gentiles would be irrelevant." Writing to a mostly gentile audience? Their expectations aren't? irrelevant.

"since the story ...
By: RasPesher. on 08 Jan 11, 11:35:19
"since the story makes clear god was the father, not Joseph" Obviously as an atheist I do not believe in God. However our discussion is not about what I believe but what the scripture supports. In saying that Joseph, an incarnation of the Holy Spirit, is the father of Jesus, I am saying that both Joseph and the Holy spirit are the father of Jesus. Judaism borrows from Egyptian religious customs. In Egypt all Pharohs are called the son of God? and all born of a virgin. Get it?

Luke would have had ...
By: RasPesher. on 08 Jan 11, 10:23:04
Luke would have had no concept of the genetic basis of sexual reproduction. As far as he was concerned a seed? was planted in the woman where it would grow. There is then no reason to think that a lineage could come through a woman. So why would he bother. The culture and practices of the gentiles would be irrelevant. Furthermore the point of mentioning the genealogy is to establish credentials for Jesus; credentials in Jewish customs. By the way Luke 3:23 does not mention Mary.

Matthew was ...
By: BattleshipTx. on 08 Jan 11, 06:09:10
Matthew was writing? to Jews, he assumes the reader knows obscure details of Jewish worship practices & laws. Thus he used the lineage through Joseph as you described Jews would do. Luke was writing to new Christians, mostly gentiles. He says so. Thus he has no reason to use the Jewish way of looking at things, so he gives the lineage through Mary, since the story makes clear god was the father, not Joseph. Luke was showing Jesus humanity thus traced to Adam. Matt his Jewishness, thus to Abraham.

$Christianity Explained by an Atheist - Jesus, Who\$

Christianity Explained by an Atheist - Jesus, Who's Your Father I?
Posted by: RasPesher

Video duration: 600 seconds

Here we investigate the claim of a virgin birth and find that Jesus was initially an illegitimate, conceived out of wedlock

Related: virgin birth, mary, joseph, christian, christ, jesus, yeshua, lord, king, dan brown, da vinci code, atheist, atheism, gospels, nt

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Christianity Explained by an Atheist - Was Christianity a Mystery Religion?
Posted by: RasPesher

Video duration: 597 seconds

This Video demonstrates that Christianity has hidden information that was originally given to its initiates making Christianity a Mystery Religion.

Related: christianity, pagan, mystery religion, jesus, mithra, eusebius, theodotus, philo, gospel of philip, therapeuts, wonders, pesher, atheist, atheism, christ, gnosticism

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Cosmology - When did the elements form?
Posted by: RasPesher

Video duration: 490 seconds

Here we look at a web page that provides the data for our conclusion

Related: cosmology, creationism, big bang, half-life, supernova, uranium, helium, hydrogen

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Christianity Explained by an Atheist - Did Jesus marriage end on the rocks
Posted by: RasPesher

Video duration: 599 seconds

This video looks at the grounds for the annulment of Jesus marriage to Mary

Related: christianity, christ, lord, jesus, mary magdalene, marriage, divorce, annulment, saul, paul, magian, atheist, atheism, relationships

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Christianity Explained by an Atheist - Did Jesus Marry?
Posted by: RasPesher

Video duration: 416 seconds

Evidence of Jesus marriage

Related: jesus, mary, magdalene, marry, josephus, christianity, atheism, atheist, bible

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Latest comments made on this video:

George Mallory, a ...
By: RasPesher. on 07 Apr 12, 15:01:53
George Mallory, a british climber, in 1924 was asked why he wanted to climb Mount Everest? He replied, "because it's there." Scholars of the Greek classics study and investigate the ancient Greek stories and myths, but? that does not form a requirement on them to believe in the Greek Gods. Similarly delving into Christian myths is possible because they are there! ... and delving does not require belief.

If you're an " ...
By: Rangastanga23. on 06 Apr 12, 21:05:00
If you're an "athiest" why are you exploring christianity so deeply??

The bible quotes ...
By: RasPesher. on 24 Sep 11, 02:22:05
The bible quotes Jesus, as saying, "...and come, take up the cross, and follow me." A great phrase but most scholars believe this quote to be false as it would have been anachronistic? unless it was stated post crucifixion. Even so, the phrase appears in multiple NT books. Could all the authors have got it wrong? If Jesus lived to old age, however, post crucifixion, the problem is resolved.

JESUS LIVeD TO OLD ...
By: RasPesher. on 21 Sep 11, 10:52:18
JESUS LIVeD TO OLD AGE according to early christian, St Irenaeus, in book II of Against heresy bkII, "....but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a? Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information."

Three of the 4 ...
By: RasPesher. on 19 Sep 11, 03:39:51
Three of the 4 gospels refer to Jesus as the "groom." They are not contradicting one another as you allege. Not on this matter; no gospel says that Jesus did not marry? Mary Magdalene (or Lydia for that matter). eg. Mark 2:20 But someday the groom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast. This sentence clearly identifies the man that will be taken away from them, namely Jesus as the Groom. Last time I checked a groom was a person that was entering a marriage. Jesus married!

iF 10 different ...
By: nbnf21. on 18 Sep 11, 03:14:58
iF 10 different news stations made a writing of what they found out at a scene and put it all in one big report there would be a contradiction along the lines?

Dude no disrespect ...
By: nbnf21. on 18 Sep 11, 03:14:10
Dude no disrespect you need to change the description to this to Assumption of Jesus marriage. This isnt evidence at all I agree that the bible contradicts itself but thats about it I cant agree with you on. If a book has many writers of course it would contradict itself and i accept that as a a fact. You told me Jesus got married and he died from old age if this is your proof then just like atheist like? you can't believe in God a believer in God like me cant believe this load of crap.

@74BobLilly ...
By: RasPesher. on 05 Jan 11, 11:16:38
@74BobLilly Hippolytus, a Christian leader about 150 years later believed that Jesus and Mary were married. Also Origen believed that Jesus and Mary were married. Were these early? Christians and the "Book of Revelation" just fantasizing too?

@74BobLilly " ...
By: RasPesher. on 05 Jan 11, 11:07:29
@74BobLilly "Nothing in the NT says he married or implies it." Regarding "the? marriage of the Lamb" do you think that the Book of Revelation is part of the NT?

@ 74 BobLilly In ...
By: RasPesher. on 05 Jan 11, 10:57:28
@ 74 BobLilly In the New Testament, who? was the Lamb? Or more specifically in Rev 19:7 (re: the marriage of the Lamb) whose marriage does it refer to?

With arguments like ...
By: RasPesher. on 05 Jan 11, 10:53:08
With arguments like the closer to the event we get the less they know, you would have to? think that Jesus didn't know anything about his own life!

You are just ...
By: 74BobLilly. on 05 Jan 11, 06:39:34
You are just fantasizing that there is any hint of a marriage ceremony or divorce between Jesus and anyone. Pope Gregory is 500 years? later, he knows less than we do.

@74BobLilly " ...
By: RasPesher. on 04 Jan 11, 02:46:56
@74BobLilly "wouldn't a wife be exalted? even more by the early church? Yet not a mention" Actually Mary Magdalene is mentioned by the early church but not in exalting terms. Due to her divorce to Jesus,? Pope Gregory refers to her as a sinner and an adulteress.

"Nothing in the NT ...
By: RasPesher. on 04 Jan 11, 02:45:25
"Nothing in the NT says he married or implies it" My advice is for you to watch this video again and the video on Jesus divorse.? Certainly a marriage ceremony and a divorce, implies? marriage.

@RasPesher-- ...
By: 74BobLilly. on 03 Jan 11, 05:31:41
@RasPesher-- Everything we know about Jesus life comes from the NT. Nothing in the NT says he married or implies it. His relationship with Mary Magdalene is shown as a non-marriage relationship. His nomadic existence with his 12 disciples implies an unmarried man. Given the reverence his apostles and mother were accorded, wouldn't a wife be exalted even more by the early church? Yet not a mention.?

That is an ...
By: RasPesher. on 02 Jan 11, 07:01:52
That is an assertion not an argument.? Anything asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

@Matur1n, Puting a ...
By: RasPesher. on 28 Dec 10, 07:42:32
@Matur1n, Puting a gold ring on a girls finger does not equal marriage either, yet when it happens in the context of our modern customs, it often indicates that a marriage ceremony is taking place. I strongly suspect that Jesus did not wash the apostles feet with spikenard; spikenard being part of an ancient marriage? ritual. As for Jesus status, it was always questionable.

I didn't hear any ...
By: Matur1n. on 28 Dec 10, 05:32:18
I didn't hear any evidence of marriage either. Washing feet does not equal marriage. Jesus washed the apostles feet, he didn't? marry them. That was something lower in status people did for higher status guests.

Jesus? never ...
By: 74BobLilly. on 28 Dec 10, 04:52:28
Jesus? never married.

Platypus Evolution or just another Crocoduck?
Posted by: RasPesher

Video duration: 471 seconds

This video compares the Platypus to the Crocoduck, looks at the evolution of the Platypus, and then we roll our sleaves up and look at the making of the Cyclops myth.

Related: platypus, crocoduck, cyclops, dimetrodon, evolution, myths, richard dawkins, mammoths

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Latest comments made on this video:

Oops, technically I ...
By: RasPesher. on 11 May 12, 23:38:35
Oops, technically I should not have referred to a concestor as a transition. But hopefully you understand what I meant. Mammals have not evolved into birds, nor have birds evolved into mammals. In evolution you can't have both a common ancestor and a transition, it's either one or the? other.

Pegasus is truely a ...
By: RasPesher. on 11 May 12, 23:03:14
Pegasus is truely a mythical creature and would probably be too heavy to fly, especially if its bones were mammalian. Birds having evolved from therapod dinosaurs have a lightweight bone structure. In birds it was the forelimbs that evolved into wings whereas in pegasus the wings are additional. We can't conclude that pegasus was a transition between birds and mammals. We can dream up all sorts of mythical creatures that cut across the branches of the evolutionary tree, but none have been found.?

When it comes to ...
By: RasPesher. on 11 May 12, 22:44:42
When it comes to evolution it's not just a case of saying that a set of bones looks like another set and therefore they are closely related. The location in time is also important. For? example, a human fossil found in the Cambrian would be highly problematic. Wrt pegasus being a transition between birds and mammals, we already know that the transition occured 310 Mya. The concestor would have probably resembled a tetrapod.

Great video, but ...
By: LeonMire. on 11 May 12, 09:24:24
Great video, but I'm not sure that you quite answered Sakura's question. I think she was saying, "Couldn't you explain away any bizarre animal by saying it was intermediate between two types?" Maybe a better example would be a pegasus. If a pegasus was found, would that disprove evolution? Or? would scientists merely say, "Aha! A transition between birds and mammals"? I don't quite understand why the platypus fits with evolution but not a crocoduck. Your video didn't really answer that.

Cool video. It's a ...
By: MetalHeadBorg. on 20 Jan 11, 18:13:31
Cool video. It's a shame that those who believe in evolution with plenty of evidence backing them, have to do the proving. Yet, those who only have one book as 'evidence', a book that has had? numerous additions in all sorts of languages, contains hundreds of contradictions, and was most probably written in the form of pesherism, get to sit back and scorn? (and I can safely say in the semitic way of speaking, we ALWAYS use stories and phrases rather than the direct romantic speech)

Big Heads and Undercooked Babies
Posted by: RasPesher

Video duration: 535 seconds

Why we are the way we are!

Related: cooked, undercooked, altricial young, cococial young, evolution, human, babies, bipedalism, natural selection, beauty

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Atheists, Naturally Good - Part II
Posted by: RasPesher

Video duration: 462 seconds

Part II - The Sociology of Morality

Related: atheism, atheist, morality, ethics, sociology

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Atheists, Naturally Good - Part I
Posted by: RasPesher

Video duration: 590 seconds

Part I - Evolution of the Golden Rule

Related: atheist, atheism, theist, theism, christianity, golden rule, moral, morals, ethics, good, evil

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Response to the Worst Argument in all of Ever - Annex A - The Vatican-Nazi relationship
Posted by: RasPesher

Video duration: 370 seconds

The Vatican Ratlines demonstrates the Vatican-Nazi relationship

Related: nazi, vatican, izamen, christianity, religion, ratlines, reformation, luther, atheism, jesus, calvin, wwii, war criminals

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Response to the Worst Argument in all of ever - Conclusion
Posted by: RasPesher

Video duration: 594 seconds

This is a response to Izamen's and to a lesser extent Dinesh D'Souza's argument

Related: hitler, christian, izamen, dsouza, problem of evil, proof of god, liars paradox, atheism, nazi, atheist, bible, christianity, philosophy

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Response to the Worst Argument in all of Ever - Part V - Communists: Kim Jong Il, Stalin and Jesus
Posted by: RasPesher

Video duration: 600 seconds

We look at the historical evidence showing that Jesus was a communist. Some Christians try to blame atheism for all the ills of communism, not realising that Jesus himself was a communist.

Related: kim jong il, stalin, jesus, communism, ebionites, communion, izamen, christianity, atheism, way, essenes

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

global warming Related Videos

global warming Videos

Watching: Latest videos by RasPesher