Wouldn't you agree it's a small price to pay for all this diversity?

When liberal Brits say, "The terrorists won't change our values!" what they mean is, "Attention Brits with common sense. Attention. We will be going full steam ahead importing more enemies like these into our country because diversity"

Our values = "We, the liberals of Britain, have committed ourselves to our idea of diversity and multiculturalism, and even though they are killing us, we are going to continue doing this because we are ignorant, stupid, foolish, pride filled liberals who would rather see your children blown to pieces that be like TRUMP!!"

Until the real men take over in Britain, these Islamic terror attacks are going to be their new day to day deal.

I haven't been on FB in literally years. When I click on your links to FB videos, they want me to log in.

I don't have an official FB vow of silence, but I do have a nice long streak of time going, without a log in. Maybe I'm just reluctant to break the streak.

When I click on your links to FB videos, they want me to log in.>

You dont get a

Blue <Log in>

Green <Sign up>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ2...

There you go. This is the short clip, 5 minutes. There are longer clips from this 1983 interview that are very interesting, but the short one is good to start with. If you are interested you can find the longer ones.

<Not now> option?>

Ah, my impatience.... Yes, you are right, <diceman>. Now that I take time to look at the entire page, I do see the not now option.

Apologies to <BP> for wasting his time going to youtube...

I looked at the blue & green boxes and stopped.

And not only do I believe that God wants me to be optimistic, I believe God wants me to be patient too. I wasn't, obviously.

Remember this is in 1983! He's so right on it's scary..>

OMG, I watched it and it was stunning.

Honestly, it makes me think of <Al Wazir> and <saffuna>.

The guy said that Americans had been so demoralized that you can bombard them with facts and they won't believe them.

Now I am going to say something, not to brag, but because I think it is truth. Everyone has certain gifts. LeBron James is gifted athletically. U2 are gifted artistically, specifically in music. Einstein was gifted intellectually, from the scientific side.

I am no Einstein, but I am gifted intellectually, from the scientific side. And I got the brainwashing, the radical feminism/militant leftist indoctrination.

At one point, I was an atheist. That is why <AW>'s replies to me are so easy to refute - I was in his shoes! I believed as he does now, about morals being relative.

But the weak points kept coming up in my mind. If there is no evil, then there is no difference between the terrorists and other people. But I could not accept that. It is prima facie not an equivalence So I think I was born to science, destined to be a scientist...

Hell, I would love to believe that I know everything and I can't be wrong. No one's gonna rain on my parade, etc. But my brain keeps analyzing, thinking, going over the possibilities. I was "demoralized". But my gift allowed me to be bombarded with facts <and accept them>.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btv...

And here is Ronald Reagan, narrating s video about General Patton:

Here' the rather short wiki page on Bezmenov, which is also interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_...

Isn't it interesting how, according to Bezmenov, morality is the secret sauce? The subversion is achieved by undermining the morality of the nation. It kind of ties in with the OMV debates currently happening on <rogoff>. People really underestimate the role that morality plays on a grand scale. They think it's only a matter of whether or not you think it's a big deal to cheat on your wife or whatever. There is so much more to it.

Fantastic for the enemies of America, isn't it? They have what they want in that Americans pay no attention to the importance of morality, so our enemies graze freely!

You'll notice that if you pay attention and remain aware of the fact that these people are brainwashed, and you remember what Bezmenov said about brainwashed people, you may become more and more convinced of the fact that they are indeed brainwashed. They don't know it. They think the unbrainwashed are the brainwashed! It's amazing. Facts do not persuade.

Reminds me of a Bible verse: "The fool says there is no God"

Despite having believed it myself for a time, the more I learn the more I accept the truth of this.

I've been cogitating about another strong point that is really going to make <AW> put on his thinking cap. Look for it in Rogoff sometime this holiday weekend, if not sooner.

Another thing I like about Bezmenov is his literal use of the word "demoralized".

Another thing to keep in mind is that when debating theism and atheism with an atheist, they invest a lot of pride into the argument which results in obstinacy beyond the bounds of reason. So one should never expect to debate an atheist and at the end of the debate expect him to say, "Gee, you're right an I was wrong! I'm a theist now".

Having said that, it's important to note that this is not always the case. The "Most Notorious Atheist in the Word", Antony Flew, who was the champion of all atheists throughout the 20th century, converted from atheism in later life to something of a deism, and this was the most stubborn guy you could ever imagine. In case you are wondering, it was the fine tuning of the universe for the existence of life, particularly new information that became available about DNA, that convinced him their must have been a creator.

If you are not familiar with Antony Flew then this example will not be so impressive, but if you are familiar with him it is shocking.

Another thing that happens is that people who are reading along or listening to a debate between a theist and an atheist are more persuaded than the person you are debating, because they do not have pride invested in the argument. I've seen these people ask questions from the atheist point of view and then sort of disappear, later to come back unsure of atheism and sometimes even switching to theism.

You should note that many atheists were actually brought up as Christians and left the faith later on, in high school or college, so switching to theism is really just a return-to theism. Often times its just these really lame, baseless platitudes that atheists latch on to that are easily refuted, yet people think they are convincing for many years until they hear the common sense refutation.

I'll take a shot at this: No. I'm sure they exist.

<To me it feels like talking to stones (stones that have not yet come alive by being rained on).>

Yes.

< Maybe I just don't have the patience for it, but to me it seems like wasted effort.>

God's word never returns void. As a human, I agree with you.

< However, I defer to your wealth of experience.>>

Have you ever encountered an atheist who can be swayed by any kind of argument? To me it feels like talking to stones (stones that have not yet come alive by being rained on). Maybe I just don't have the patience for it, but to me it seems like wasted effort. However, I defer to your wealth of experience.>

I think <Big Pawn> gives a very good reply to <pgp>'s question, but if I may also proffer an answer, I would like to suggest that simply telling the atheist that Christians are not obligated to believe the universe is only 6,000 years old, will go a long way towards removing any mental roadblocks they have against theism.

Our good friend <Big Pawn> gives a perfect example of this with Antony Flew!

Would Antony Flew have converted from atheism if he was told that to believe in God he would have to also believe the universe was only 6,000 years old?

Does anyone think the argument that clinched Antony Flew's 'conversion' was when he was told that atheists believe it rained on the rocks and the rocks came to life?

Hahaha

I believe that YEC is entirely plausible, but I do not see any reason to think it is so, just based on the bible.

The earth and universe could be very old while man could be relatively recent. I think the earth could be old based on Gen 1:2. <Jonathan Sarfati> said that if you pair it up with verses in Exodus it makes it clear that the whole creation is in one week, but I think all the information needed is in Gen 1:2.

<In none of my own conversations with atheists has that question come up. They seem much more interested in declaring that there is no God at all.>

Atheists are atheists because they don't want to answer to any God. They are atheists because they want to be.

However, when someone challenges their position, they don't want to say, "I'm an atheist just cuz I wanna be!" so they read up a little on what the intellectuals say.

This is when they discover the false dichotomy of science vs religion. Note, religion is not theism, but they swallow it whole anyways.

They frame questions of theism in a science vs religion context and say, "Religious people thought the earth was flat. They killed people for saying otherwise. Religious people thought that the universe revolved around the earth. They have been on the wrong side of everything. Now that we have science, a much more reliable way to discover truths, we no longer need religion".

And this is how the false dichotomy is set up. In this context, the atheists will pile on. "Oh, you think the earth is 6000 years old? Science proves it isn't and since it says so in your bible, you should now realize that your entire religion is bunk".

I think <optimal play> wants to take this away from them and deny them "easy" targets.

I think there are other ways to look at it.

1. It's easy to show that science vs religion is a false dichotomy.

2. It's easy to show that one makes a fundamental mistake in confusing religion for theism, the belief that God exists.

3. It's easy to show that belief that God exists does not appeal to or rely on biblical inerrancy.

If an atheist is simply 'declaring' that there is no God at all, then he's clearly not interested in a genuine search for the truth. It's no use trying to discuss the topic of God with a closed-minded atheist. As Jesus said, "Do not give what is holy to dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine" (Matt 7:6).

<Big Pawn: <playground player: <optimal play> I am not sure <Big Pawn> believes in Young Earth Creationism.> I believe that YEC is entirely plausible, but I do not see any reason to think it is so, just based on the bible.> You're contradicting yourself!? How can you think that YEC is entirely plausible but don't see any reason to think it is entirely plausible, regardless of the Bible!?

<The earth and universe could be very old while man could be relatively recent.> What's the point of that? Why would God create the earth and universe a relatively long time ago but then create man relatively recently? If you're going to believe in a fully-formed Adam & Eve six thousand years ago then you may as well believe the universe was created just one week prior! I mean, why purposely create the world, then wait a long time before creating man? Why not do one right after the other?

<Atheists are atheists because they don't want to answer to any God. They are atheists because they want to be.> You're right about that. Their "belief" is ideaological, not rational. Muslims are the same.

<this is how the false dichotomy is set up. In this context, the atheists will pile on. "Oh, you think the earth is 6000 years old? Science proves it isn't and since it says so in your bible, you should now realize that your entire religion is bunk". I think <optimal play> wants to take this away from them and deny them "easy" targets.> Exactly!

Your final four points are cogent, but I would just say that point (2) begs the question, "Once I believe in God, then what?"

What is the nature of this God? Is it a loving caring creative 'Being' as espoused by Christianity or a punishing intolerant destructive 'Entity' as evinced by Islam?

What does 'believing in God' mean?