LMAO.
Obviously, the good pastor hasn't read any of the books that he's arguing against.

I see that kind of stuff as pure bullshit. It's another way for them to evangelize by name-dropping to get people to look at them.

The movie 'Drop Dead Gorgeous' with Kirsten Dunst and Denise Richards referred to Montrose, MN.
If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it.

"I ain't gonna be in any pageant. Look what happened to that dork-ass farmgirl"
is one of my favorite parts of the movie.

This is a common strawman fallacy that fundies offer. He says that evolution believe that development/progress is a result of chance (somethimes they say accident). Another preacher did the same thing, this time it was said to Dawkins face and was caught on camera. Lets see what Dawkins response was to this fallicy:

Notice the irony in Haggart calling Dawkins "arrogrant".

first of all i would like to state that communism and atheism are 2 totally different things

Throughout its history, Russias people have always had strong mystical inclinations. Their mystical traditions extend far back in history, to the time of the first Slav settlements over a thousand years ago. In the year 988, due to the conversion of Vladimir 1, Russia became officially Christian. The Russian people lived and breathed religion, and it played a central role in their lives until the time of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917.

Stalin (1879-1953) was the product of a seminary, and learned its lessons of manipulation and mind control well. He knew that the best way to stifle dissent and to break the will of the people was to deprive them of that which they value the most. Religion, being so important to the lives of the Russian people, was the perfect target. By depriving the people of the crutch of religion, he knew he could crush their spirit.

There are no elements of freethought (the foundation of atheism) in Soviet philosophy. Stalin most certainly was unfamiliar with the humanistic underpinnings of atheism; his goal was to create a totalitarian state in which he became the new god, whose dictates were not to be questioned. Individual rights, so central to freethought, were unknown in Soviet Russia.

The massacres of Stalins reign were committed in the name of statism, not atheism, and statism is a by-product of the fundamentalist religious mindset.

Every religion since time immemorial has recognized the role religion plays in stifling dissent and keeping people quiet and submissive. Charles I of England, for example, once said "religion is the only firm foundation of power."

Stalin did not want to share that power with anyone. Recognizing the church as the only significan't rival to his supremacy, he attacked it. His attacks had nothing to do with ideological differences; it was a simple question of his stamping out a perceived threat.
Final proof that Stalin was not acting on atheistic principles could be seen during the opening salvos of the Barbarossa campaign during World War II. Things were not going well for the Russian armies at that point and Stalin, facing a possible revolution on the home front was searching for ways to amass a broad base of support for the war effort. To achieve this, he reinstated the Orthodox Church hierarchy to serve Mother Russia. This shows that Stalin was by no means averse to promoting religion if it suited his purposes to do so.

Clearly, Stalins tyranny was based on the totalitarian premises that he learned from religion: Unquestioning obedience, reverence for a deity-figure (in human form) as well as a pie-in-the-sky utopian vision. His government never tolerated freedom of thought. Stalins policies were the antithesis of atheist philosophy.

In fact, one can make a much more convincing historical case for equating Christianity with fascism than atheism with communism. Christianity has shown its totalitarian colors on countless occasions throughout history. Every time a country has based its government on fundamentalist Christian principles, that country has been a dictatorship. Such governments have never tolerated dissent or opposing viewpoints and have never hesitated to use violence to enforce their wills. This attitude can be traced back to the earliest history of the church and to the Bible itself. Biblical doctrines that despots have found to be invaluable include obedience to authority, the undermining of human reason, the view of humanity as being inherently evil, and the view that this life is of secondary importance to an imaginary next life. Doctrines such as this tend to weaken resistance and to render people more susceptible to political influence. This should be kept in mind when listening to the views of todays religious and political leaders. To be sure, they often speak of morality, love and compassion, but the fact remains that Christian love has historically always been a conditional love, applicable only toward fellow Christians; the unconverted were subjected to Crusades, Inquisitions, burnings, torture and death. In more enlightened times, thanks to the influence of humanistic principles from the Enlightenment, these have largely been eliminated, but social ostracism remains a powerful weapon against dissent.

as far as proving God exists,that lies upon the one making the claim of his supposed existence.