Stewart Patton

I’ve never met a single libertarian with the balls to actually study Marx that didn’t come away agreeing. Every single one that criticizes Marxism is afraid to do that. Every single one.

Alright space brain, religion is humanity’s favorite multiplayer LARPing session. We invent invisible sky landlords who get hysterically offended if you eat shrimp, touch yourself, or pick the wrong imaginary friend. Then we build giant stone echo chambers, dress up in funny hats, and murder each other for centuries over whose fanfic is the one true sequel. The prize? Eternal VIP status after you die… or infinite torture if you guessed wrong. It’s pure chaos theater with better marketing than any cult that admits it’s a cult. Welcome to Earth. Bring popcorn.

If the U.S. is harboring a fugitive from justice, is Brazil allowed to invade the U.S. and kidnap Flavio Bolsonaro like they did with Maduro in Venezuela?

This melting wax-faced goblin is demanding that DSA street animals have "pistols firing at all time" towards the Vice President. We have a communist violence problem in this country.

🚨🚨THE DEMOCRACY FILES, PART 2: WHEN AND HOW TO DECLARE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ILLEGITIMATE 🚨 Some questioned whether a group of 200 ex-USAID officials could actually pull off their ambitions to rewrite the Constitution. Here, they describe exactly how it works. They aren't working alone. The videos all come from Renew to Thrive (R2T) group and associates. Danielle Reiff and Paul Zeitz play key roles within R2T. R2T sits inside a much, much larger umbrella called United Democracy Alliance (UDA), which is an extremely hush-hush control plane of leaders from major "blocking" NGOs such as 50501 and Indivisible fulfilling various functions. UDA decides when protests get deployed, timelines, how to respond, all that. R2T's role within UDA is concerned with "the day after tomorrow" - in other words, their function is to conceive what a rewritten American government will look like after the rest of UDA fulfills its purpose. As will be shown, Erica Chenoworth is credited with conceiving UDA in the first place under the Horizons "Big Tent" initiative. Note here that National Security Leaders for America (NSL4A) is credited for operationalizing UDA. NSL4A is a group of 1,600 ex-military, intelligence, and diplomatic officials. They are led by Rear Admiral Michael E. Smith (Ret). NSL4A also played a key role in the "illegal orders" messaging which targeted Pete Hegseth. Zeitz is also a member of NSL4A. It must be emphasized that the choice of a military-oriented organization to coordinate NGOs across domestic protests is an interesting one all in itself - especially in an umbrella conceived by a regime change expert like Chenoworth. You will have a hard time finding any mentions of UDA in the public. They are extremely hush-hush and selective who they talk to. Mike Smith himself makes a personal appearance in other calls, coordinating Insurrection Act exercises and roleplaying with R2G as one of the participants. As the audio transcript shows, they have outlined a sequence of "redlines" in which case the federal government should be declared illegitimate. Invoking the Insurrection Act against "peaceful" protesters is one of the most discussed redlines. I will post the illegitimate criteria below, but basically, almost any effective pushback against NGOs is a measure of illegitimacy according to them. Important to understand: The audio shows they shopped this idea around governors, but the reality is that governors do not have to explicitly sign on to the pact to play their role in the coup. All they have to do is refuse troops in their state and let UDA / R2G do the work of dissolving the federal government.

Its not the vast majority, not at all. At least 30 percent of Christians I know were not raised in it. And that is not unique to me. Do you really think a adult converting to Christianity is comparable statistically to a person born with one arm? Because that is very foolish.

This post right here, which contains many errors. There were many eye-witnesses like Peter, John, James, Matthew and others that walked with Jesus 3 years before he was crucified. Paul saw Jesus in revelations 4-6 times according to most scholars. It is obvious you were trying to discredit the NT books, and now you lack the courage and honesty to admit it. People are not stupid, but you are making yourself look that way.

New: Joe Rogan was visibly intrigued when former Christian Daniel Everett reveals he spent years in the Amazon trying to convert the Pirahã tribe to Christianity, but their questions about Jesus ended up turning him into an ATHEIST: “You Don’t Know Anyone Who’s Ever Seen Him?” CONTEXT: Everett wasn't a casual Christian who lost interest in religion. He went to Brazil in 1977 as a missionary, learned one of the world’s most unusual languages and translated the Gospel of Mark into Pirahã specifically to help convert them. But he ran into a cultural rule that made Christianity extraordinarily difficult to communicate. Everett has described the Pirahã as placing enormous importance on what he calls the “immediacy of experience”: Information carries special weight when you personally witnessed it or when it comes from somebody who did. Then they started asking Everett about Jesus. EVERETT: “They said, ‘Yeah, yeah, but you’ve seen him. What did he look like?’” “I said, ‘Well, I never saw him.’” “I don’t know anyone who’s ever seen Jesus.” EVERETT, quoting the Pirahã: “You don’t know anyone who’s ever seen him, and you’re just talking about him the whole time, telling us about him.” “We don’t want to hear about this anymore.” This wasn’t an overnight conversion to atheism. Everett says he arrived in Brazil in 1977, was having serious doubts by around 1982, and by roughly 1985 he no longer believed. He then kept his loss of faith largely secret for years because his family, livelihood and social world were deeply intertwined with Christianity. And there was an experiment that makes this story even more fascinating. Everett actually translated and recorded the Gospel of Mark in Pirahã. He played it for a group of Pirahã men. They understood what they were hearing. But when they recognized the Pirahã man whose voice was telling the story, their response was essentially: He didn’t witness Jesus either. Why should his recording change anything? The missionary had successfully translated the Gospel. The deeper problem was that he couldn’t translate the standard of evidence Christianity was asking them to accept. There’s an important wrinkle here: Calling the Pirahã simply “atheists” would be misleading. Everett has described them talking about spirits and supernatural-looking beings, but crucially, they often speak about those experiences as things they believe they or someone they know actually encountered. So this wasn't necessarily: religious tribe vs atheist tribe. It was closer to a collision between two radically different ways of establishing truth: Christianity: testimony and traditions transmitted across thousands of years can carry religious authority. Pirahã, as Everett describes them: Who actually saw it? That cultural principle became so important to Everett that he later made it part of his academic work on Pirahã language and cognition. And THAT triggered another enormous controversy. Everett argued that Pirahã culture constrains communication toward immediate experience and that this helps explain extraordinary features he identified in their language. Other prominent linguists challenged both his linguistic analysis and some of his claims about Pirahã culture. So even the intellectual framework underneath this incredible story remains debated. But one thing isn't really disputed: Everett entered the Amazon intending to change the Pirahã worldview. Instead, decades later, he wrote that their happiness and their demand for evidence he could not provide helped cause him to abandon his own faith. Eventually he returned to them and told them: “I don’t believe this stuff anymore either.” Their response? “Oh, now you’re like us.”

Yeah, I think we’ve reached the end of this. You keep insisting your conclusion “logically follows,” but you still haven’t supplied the missing premise: “If God knowingly creates a free person, then God causes that person’s free choices.” That is exactly what I reject, and exactly what you keep assuming. So no, this is not like denying that a three-sided polygon is a triangle. It is like adding an unstated axiom to a proof and then acting confused when I refuse to accept the result. We clearly disagree at a foundational level about freedom, causation, and foreknowledge. Repeating “it follows” is not going to bridge that gap. I’m happy to leave it there.

That means it is wrong for everyone independent of our belief system

Hey atheists, you want proof that God exists? Read this story. It's simple, but you can't always brush little things off as coincidence. Or say it was "orchestrated by the universe"

Imagine I were moneyless. Imagine that now someone gives me money. Is there a contradiction when I obtain money? No. Now I have money. So when God creates, now God obtains temporality. The only way there is a contradiction is if you define God as inherently timeless, meaning God *cant ever* obtain temporal relations. But not everyone does that. William Lane Craig being a primary example.

I looked back on what I stated and you twisted what I said. You rewrote it in your own mind. You have absolutely no understanding of the Bible and life back then. Your goal is to ridicule rather than search for truth. You are not humble. You don't care about the Bible or God. I gave you the Hebrew word for "slave", which is "ebed". The word slave doesn't mean what people think it means in the Bible. It means "servant". You can search this yourself, but you are not interested in truth, but debunking and ridicule. Trying to trap people to make yourself look superior.

i would happily no longer conclude such a thing if you did provide and justify the evidence for your own worldview. you having not done that leads me to conclude you are unable. you are welcome to prove me wrong by presenting and justifying your evidence

I told you why it is IMPOSSIBLE. Earth doesn’t have the ABILITY to make Living cells, nor flesh, nor blood. Just like humans DON’T have the ABILITY to fly without a machine. It is Impossible for a human to fly without a machine. It’s called LACK OF ABILITY. Are you SLOW?