My religion is altered by science, when something is proven it's accepted, when something is not proven it's not. Religious myths are just not proven, so they are fluid and should change to fit reality, they should only be used as a method for hope of something "else" ... and no one myth should ever be claimed to be fact, unless science can prove it. Also, I hate organized religion, it's stupid and dominating, and abusive.
0:32 "after wasting those days in conversation back and forth with them.." hahah i know what you mean, its the most useless thing to do. You could have a monologe with a piece of bread and probably learn more
"There is a man that lives right now in your lifetime named Sai Baba." Actually he died this past spring and there have been allegations of malfeasance within his organization since his passing. There are also some very fundamental differences that cannot be bridged concerning the lives of Jesus and Sai Baba.
@rationalwarrior pt2. I grant that you have been on a journey. You must have an interesting life story. I lived life as if there was no God. I was also a hopeless and helpless alcoholic invested in rejecting the Christian experience of my youth. Master of my own destiny! I rightly should not be alive. I bet a bible study with you would be interesting. You have reason for what you now believe. Or like Pharaoh you have hardened your heart. I hope you keep seeking truth.
@rusty2029 Thank you my friend. You sound like a thoughtful guy. Our personal histories are not the same so maybe that's why we came to different conclusions. I am open for evidence. But in a world where nearly everyone is claiming some sort of connection to a supernatural force and all of those claims are inconsistent, vaguely defined, and subjective I shall remain skeptical.
@rationalwarrior Yes the science of semiotics and meaning of words can cause us all to see thru the glass darkly. I would posit there are basic things that you are far less skeptical of. I would also encourage you to look up the Münchhausen Trilemma. What you may categorize as the natural realm may have a problem of inconsistent or incoherent definition given the newer understanding of our quantum entangled cosmology. Yet we do seek greater understanding / thirst for knowledge.
@rusty2029 You would be correct in assuming that there are things that I am far less skeptical of. Those things are usually things for which I have a reference for. In other words, the same reason I am skeptical of gnomes and fairies are essentially the same for deities. It seems that deities only exist in that dark murky realm of things we haven't got answers for yet. In the past people assumed they were everywhere. Throwing lightening bolts, making the sun go across the sky, etc.
So your hypothesis is to test theists with certain questions so that you get indicators for your theory about wither they are worthy of having further conversation with amiright? Oh and the only thing in the Bible that was written in God's own hand was the tablets known as the Ten Commandments. The Bible even notes this. Yet if someone inspires you so as you wright a book about it I guess your book can be discounted like the bits Plato wrote in regards to parts about Socrates amiright?
@rusty2029 Not even that complicated. It's not about being worthy. It's screening people to decide if they need to be talking to me or to be taking a science course. I cannot repair the understanding of someone who doesn't even have basic knowledge of a subject How can we even converse? Secondly, the bible saying that the 10 commandments was written by the hand of god is not proof of this. Especially when there is another rational explanation of how they could have been written.
@rationalwarrior I understand the religious-like authority atheists give to science. I love the tool of science myself. Do you feel that if more Christians studied science they would then replace God's authority with scientism? The Decalog stands out as the only document God produced to hand to man. Not the levitical laws or any other things. God could even harden your heart like Pharaoh's so that a good work will be done in you. Not all is black&white to the easiest rational explanation.
@rusty2029 I feel if more Christians studied science they wouldn't misinterpret and misrepresent basic terms. Even if they disagree with what the science says they could disagree on what it REALLY says. Not on what their untrained pastors tell them it says. I find that Christians, not unlike many theists, don't give any authority to a god. They give it to men. Primitive men that died ages ago. Men who understood less about the nature of how the world works then my 14 year old.
@rationalwarrior Can I intuit that your 14yr old must be wise in spiritual discernment or that your genetic fallacy about primitive men falls off the mark. Consider this quote: People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive. --BLAISE PASCAL Given the study of epistemology and metaphysics we can only grasp a little of how the world works. But a presuppositional block against certain ways to find truth is an issue.
@rusty2029 "Spiritual". Good sir. You, or anyone else for that matter, hasn't even proved that "spirits" even exists yet. Also the quote you used cuts the very branch you're sitting on. What would more people find attractive? The belief that there is some cosmic father figure listening to your prayers and protecting you or that there ISN'T one so you have to take responsibility for our own life? We are talking pass each other. My comment wasn't about "spiritual" matters. Nice strawman.
@rationalwarrior Sir it cuts both ways does it not? Do you know who Pascal was? He was a great scientist and mathematician of his day. Also a Christian. It also cuts both ways if you can't prove the negation of God. What is attractive about the death and privation of atheism with no transcendent purpose in an amoral world. I will tell you the attraction. A godless world means no accountability beyond death and also no pleasure is sinful or wrong. Methinks you don't ? your presupositions
@rusty2029 I would direct you to my other video about that very topic of scientists from the past being religious. And you error in thinking that my first presupposition was to NOT believe. I was religious for 30 years of my life. I was raised pentecostal and converted to Islam. It was only after questioning my presuppositions did I abandon belief in myths. My question to you is without fear of judgement would you abandon your morality? I would like to think that you wouldn't. Am I wrong?
@rationalwarrior Judgement? Given a godless amoral worldview what else is there other then subjective judgement? The same goes for objective morality. No objective morality if this is not a sinful world and we are born with wicked hearts in conflict with our God given moral compass. I was once an atheist and would embrace Nietzsche where I to become a salt that has lost its savor. Why do you embrace morality? Share with me my fallen brother how you have proven God a myth? cont...
@rusty2029 Once again we are talking past one another. The judgement I am speaking of is your assertion that a god judges us after death. As far as the concept of subjective morality versus objective I would direct you to my videos on that topic as well. I will say this however, how do you get objective reality from a subjective god concept? None of you agree on what he wants, how he feels, or what he says. It would appear that theists morality is subjective to the god they believe in.
@rusty2029 Share with me how you have disproved Zeus. Thor. Odin. God is a title not a name. Yahweh is no different then any of these other gods. Don't argue for the existence of a deist version of god. Argue for the Christian theist version which is the one you believe exists. Share with me how someone has proven to you that Yahweh exist. Tell me why the same arguments that previously were unconvincing to you as a former atheist are now somehow convincing enough to try on me?
@rationalwarrior If one accepts so as to believe in one God then I hope you understand that other god/s concepts are meaningless and already negated. Faith in the Greek means warrant or trust and thus faith is given from God and not any man. I have a personal testimony augmented by circumstantial evidence (what I witness) as well as a philosophical basis for what gives us warrant to have properly basic belief. Yet I alone can convince no one of truth.
@rusty2029 They are negated because you are unconvinced that they exist. Certainly not based on empirical evidence against their existence. Basically you have said "I disbelief in many gods because I only believe in one." Could it be said that you hardened your heart? Your personal testimony is convincing to you but I cannot base my viewpoint solely on the testimony of others. Nor on their philosophical understanding. In other words I cannot fake and act as though I believe when I do not.
@rationalwarrior Do you grant that empiricism is limited? You do know the failure of verificationism as that puts great blinders on what we can know. One can show the negation of God by inductive arguments but deductive ones are problematic. If you believe that you have a mind then that does not entail that you are unconvinced of some other explanation. You also may not be able to empirically show that the data from an FMRI proves your conscious mind (law of identity). See the issues?
@rusty2029 Most certainly empiricism does have limits. We can not verify what we cannot yet detect. But our tools of observation have improved so much more today as opposed to in the past. We can detect and verify much more. Shouldn't we continue that method? We can demonstrate what we have gained from that method. What do we have to gain by making "truth" claims about things that cannot be verified and using methods that yield questionable results?
@rationalwarrior The laws of logic are insuperable and not subject to empiricism. Take the law of the excluded middle as example. A proposition can not be both true (in the same sense) and false. When the middle is rightly excluded this makes agnosticism moot. One has to be on one side or the other of this kind of truth claim. To be atheist is to say the proposition is false while the Theist makes the opposite truth claim. Logic is a verification method or do you not accept those laws?
@rusty2029 An agnostic says he doesn't know if a deity exists or not. An agnostic is basically saying I don't believe you have presented enough evidence to convince me either way. To be an atheist is to say I don't believe your claims that a god exist. These labels are very restricting because there are always nuances to people's positions. Logic has it's uses and limits. For an argument can be valid but not sound.
@rationalwarrior Yet some words have no nuance if they are to have meaning that is to be considered orthodox or near universally accepted. The agnostic can not speak beyond saying they personally do not know. Even to try and say God is not knowable should not be an allowable statement for agnosticism as it claims to Know something is unknowable. Logic is the PRIME means for axioms that are the basis for both Philosophy and Science. Yes the irrational atheist is not interested in WHY atheism
@rusty2029 Some words have no nuance but most people and their positions do. It makes no sense to restrict one's understanding of another's position based on the fact that there may not be an accurate label for it. It makes more sense to confront what the person is actually saying their position is. With that being said is it your contention that you can logically prove Jesus' resurrection and his divinity? For miracles? Don't make an argument for deism because you aren't a deist. Correct?
@rationalwarrior I get the accurate meaning of words like asymmetry and the basic construct of that word is not changeable. Not changeable unless some people try to promote a dogmatic insistence by tautology that it means something else. Even then like gay it can be an additional meaning but does not have to be accepted as such. There is a WEALTH of evidence for Jesus. No credible historian denies it. The fact that the universe exists is the greatest miracle so I tend to start there.
pt 2. You where once a part of the Ummah amiright? You had beliefs that you tried to defend or you would not have held them. The arguments for the resurrection and divinity of Christ are straightforward enough and sufficient for Christians so that it is beyond reasonable doubt for them. Call it a rational evidence based truth claim. I grant that it can be denied and effort to disprove it has gone on for hundreds of years. If Christs is not Lord but rather lair or lunatic where the proof?
@rusty2029 Hey my friend it's been nice talking to you but I have to get ready to go to school. I appreciate the fact that you are courteous and respectful. But I got to be honest. Unless I see or hear god for myself it all sounds like man conjuring up things to control each other. I see no reason why your version of god is more valid the anyone else. Why doesn't any of them ever show up? Coming through for 33 years 2000yrs ago and leaving instructions doesn't seem productive.
Why dont you stop conversations before they begin. Without any tests.
If you agree to "debates" with religious folk, it means that you consider their superstitions worthy of discussion. It's like a geologist agrees to a "scientific discussion" with an adherent of "flat Earth theory".
@rusty2029 I feel that I should flesh out my position on the atheist label. An atheist does not believe in the existence of gods or gods. What isn't present in that definition is WHY the atheist doesn't believe. It merely seeks to date the persons position so it doesn't matter why he doesn't believe. The reason I don't believe in a god's existence is because I have never seen or heard any evidence that convinces me as of yet. I think it's more likely he is an invention of man.
@rationalwarrior This 'position' has no warrant or pretends to be a rational position as it needs no evidence and is a tautology promulgated on YT but is one I don't recognize as meaningful. A mere physiological position = YT redefinition of atheism is repeated so as to become a dogma but is logically self refuting. For instance pleading there is no evidence for Theism fails without contravening evidence for atheism. No intellectually sound truth statements for YT-a = irrational position.
@rusty2029 Your lack of recognition for their position is irrelevant. Is it not? And don't you think that pretending that the meaning of words don't evolve over time a little intellectually disingenuous? "Atheism" has evolved. Much like the word "gay" has evolved. And couldn't someone say the same of your position? Christian means follower of Christ. Does this mean that if you don't do everything and live your life exactly like he told you to that you're not a Christian? I
@rationalwarrior To be Christian is to Believe in Christ but you know this. You also know that the entailment's are to love and if love follow God's commandments but no salvation by works. On tries to follow Christ but we are all sinners and fall short do we not? Greek 'a' without 'theos' Deity means the truth claim that this world is without any deities. Has the word asymmetric changed meaning? Atheist means godless as in a worldview without god/s. Can 'irrelevant' change meaning?
@rusty2029 Good sir I think that there can be no evidence you can give that proves that Jesus resurrected from the dead. There may be evidence that he existed. I do not argue that. What I contend is that he did not come back from the dead. He did not do miracles (which by definition is the least possible thing that could happen). I do not accept a virgin birth. These claims fly in the face of accepted reality and are science claims as well.
@rationalwarrior So if testimony by eyewitnesses that are recorded in a forty year window of living witnesses around to refute this is not enough what would be? Again a wealth of scholarly effort is out there. If you where to witness with cognitively average faculties a miracle would you give testimony to this? If blind from birth would you then deny your new ability in front of the pharisees questioning you along with your parents? Miracles are noted as a change in accepted reality.
@rusty2029 There is a man that lives right now in your lifetime named Sai Baba. Sai Baba is not a Christian. He does not follow Christian teaching or claim Jesus as his lord. Yet Sai Baba is said to perform miracles. There are numerous witnesses to his feats. Just like Jesus he was persecuted by people who thought he was a fraud. Do you believe it based on that? Then why should anyone believe 2000 year old witnesses? You can't get 2 people now to agree on certain events they witnessed.
@rationalwarrior We have a master of this earth. Adam's sin abdicated his authority to Satan and Satan was once a perfect creation that is now fallen yet can perform acts that I would classify as miracles. One of the names of Allah is AL-JABBÂR who can compel into deception. Also MÂLIK-UL-MULK the owner of the kingdom of earth. So genetic fallacy about old witnesses does not abrogate the testimony that stands as evidence. This also entails a deceiver who also has powers to act as if God.
@rusty2029 And yet Jesus couldn't have been a deceiver? Because the book said he was the good guy? So if years from now someone writes a book making Sai Baba the good guy.........? The whole Satan as master of Earth thing just doesn't fly my friend. It's an fictitious excuse to blame some supernatural force for the actions of man. If you want to know who "Satan" is all one needs to do is look in the mirror. Same thing with god. This is why they seem to reflect man's dual nature.
Great video! I had to laugh when you spoke about the guy saying that God had written the bible. I've heard people who thought that Jesus wrote the bible, and some that thought it was written in King James English! You just can't win when someone thinks like that!
One of the biggest litmus tests proving to me that the Bible was inspired by and written by man is the that three of the 10 Commandments has to with God's petty insecurities and jealousies. A God would be forward thinking, cutting edge and controversial, not just reflecting man's views of the day. He would not have condoned slavery and child abuse. "Thou shalt not commit slavery and child abuse." Those words would have saved many.
I have read books that its possible that some people are born without a consious. I also understand that there things such as addiction that can obscure the conscious. I beleive that an atheist can have a conscious and can be a decent human being. And a religious person can be an unconscionable person.
I want to tell you this I am a recovering alcoholic. In AA i was told that only a power greater than myself could restore my sanity. This I felt was a sticking point for me because I am a atheist. But I said ok an I called it God for lack of anthing else I could think of. This thing I call God is now known to me as my conscious. When I pray I am merely praying to a better part of myself.
Regarding absolute knowledge, I am absolutely certain that I don't know much of anything. Practically nothing in relationship to what there is to know.
...then why would one pridefully (chemical response) state that he has decided (chemical response) that he will impose an exclusivist (chemical response) set of strictures upon any theists who seeks to have a conversation with him?
@Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 At the risk of answering a question with a question...who, in their right mind, would waste valuable time beating their head against a brick wall? Going back and forth with someone who repeatedly misrepresents your position by ignoring definitions of certain words even after it has been explained to them? People have to agree to the meaning of words to even converse. There are theists that are educated and sincerely want to hear different points of view. I'll talk to them.
The entire premise of this video is invalidated by materialism. If the poster claims to be a materialist, then he should be aware as to what that point of view entails. To expound upon this, one's will, tendencies, emotions, etc., have no place within the life of a materialist, due to the fact that the materialist beleives he/she "knows" that these are the product of meaningless biochemical responses. To follow the chemicals' lead, if one believes this to be the source of all willed action,...
@Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 And you sir are making this way more complicated then it has to be. I see this many times. Someone will have their own agenda and try to apply it to what I'm saying. This is simple stuff. Discussions are dialogs between people in which the participants are willing to to alter their position if it makes sense to. People tend to confuse "discussion" with "sermon" or "lecture". This is a waste of time and will have people talking past one another. Much like now.
@rationalwarrior With all due respect, if one is going to state that his/her position is thus, then that person should speak and act in accordance with the implications thereof if he/she seeks to be taken seriously, with the matter of anyone taking he/she seriously being of no consequence to a materialist anyway, given that this response would also be a product of biochemical activity.
Furthermore, materialists have no place asserting anything at all...ever, according to the strictures of their own paradigm. To do so would mean being completely dishonest and self-deceptive, while claiming to be the voice of reason.
...wound up in the oral stories before the point at which they were crystallized and written, such as, for example, the nonsense about the peeled stalks affecting the color pattern of the offspring of domestic animals, and the addition of the "prophecy", often cited by Christians as Messianic, regarding the relationship between man and snake, to the likely allegorical story of the Garden of Eden, and its possible reference to the brotherhood of the snake as a corrupting influence.
First off, the fact that the Torah is comprised of various source documents, with the Yahwist and Elohist sources, with the Elohist containing the priestly source, which is differentiated, is one reason why the Torah would contain information which could not have been the product of the Supreme Being. For another thing, the fact that the information was transmitted orally before ever having been committed to writing, in the case of the Yahwist source, means that additions were likely to have...
Theory: a hypothesis or educated guess based on limited information. Scientific: A model, a considered, rational explanation based on carefully accumulated data; the most likely scenario based on all relevant
very good idea. I also get very irritated with theists when i argue with them over religion. Very useful litmus test i think ill adopt it. Keep up the good work my brother.
Just subscribed to you. Good sir, rationals like you on Youtube are the ONLY thing that keeps me on this site; it helps counter the fundamentalist videos. You also seem like an intelligent person, the kind I would want to have an honest conversation with. Being a theist (not in the way of organized religion, in fact I agree with atheists more often than with religious folk) I'll go ahead and answer your litmus test right now xD (see above post; I'm running out of character space on this one)
@finalsmasher (continued from below/above) answer to test 1: a theory is the highest title given to a scientific concept. Essentially, it is a hypothesis that has been confirmed by experimentation and collected data. It is not called a "scientific fact" because such things cannot exist; as our understanding of the world improves, theories become debunked and changed.
answer to test 2: Have you considered the possibility that women wrote the Bible? :o xD of course IK men wrote it. I'm not stupid.
My litmus test follows. When a passage of your holy text is in conflict with peer reviewed physical evidence, what would you do? A. Dismiss the evidence without investigation or B. Admit that the doctrine is incorrect. If religious doctrine has more validity than observable physical reality, then I just stop the conversation.
I agree with the need for a litmus test to ferret out those who would deliberately - waste your time, but I would be wary of branding those who express ignorance or difficulty understanding as being intellectually dishonest. I understand time and patience being limited, but I would rather suffer a little dishonesty from some than abandon someone who is earnestly mistaken and could have been made to understand.
Well said. I will use both of those tests as starting points in the future. Its really a test of objective rationality. A fundamentalist with zero ability to de-program themselves will never pass this.
One cant even begin to have a conversation about science in general, or evolution in particular if they don't pass test 1.
Most of 'em, R being intellectually dishonest. There's no excuse 4 them not understanding what a Scientific Theory actually means. IMO, they simply refuse to consider it. They have to live in denial of so many things. This is a must, if they're going to deny that Evolution is true and that we all have common ancestry with the apes. They can't handle that concept as reality b/c it puts their Adam & Eve (O.Sin) into serious question.
I've had many debates with them too & they're all in denial.
before discussing religious matters with a theist, i want to understand their standard of evidence. in many religions, divine inspiration (voices in your head) is the strongest possible evidence that something is true.
also many religious people only entertain evidence when they think its in their favor. when backed into a corner they admit that evidence is not important to them. you have to admit that up front.
The total ignorance of the scientific definition of a theory shows the person is twisting things for there religious ends or maybe they are just being wilfully stupid.
Those really are two very good tests that let you know ahead of time whether a person will be able to intellectually understand the arguments that you're making instead of just saying "That's wrong because God. I win."
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Great Vid! But the "Christians" that you had discussions with are the kind of people that make ME look bad because I am NOT like this, I used to be Athiest,Agnostic, and Now Im a Christian. But Biblicly "sorry if I spelt that wrong, didnt take keyboarding" God is more Logical then we know it, we don't know logic as an understanding as God does, and thats in the Bible ALOT, Especially Ezekial. You have to take it into contex from both sides. NOTHING can be scientific factual. God is more logical
@waitandbleed1464 Thanks. But these are assertions based on no evidence. The only reason why you and others say those things about god is because the bible says it. But atheists do not accept the bible as fact. There is no way to know if any of those things are true. As far as your assertion that nothing scientific can be factual...by what do you base that on? It's a fact that scientists invented the very computer you are using. Guess how?
@rationalwarrior hmmm true, but do we TRUELY know whats factual? NO. honestly i dont go by facts, because their are some weird facts that arent logical.
@waitandbleed1464 Sure we do. We know things are facts because they are demonstrable and consistent. For instance, isn't it a fact that you and I are having this conversation? Isn't it a fact that if you step off of a 20 story building the forces of gravity will cause you to fall to the street? If we accept the idea that there no facts then we open ourselves up to believe any and everything. Some things are still up for debate...somethings aren't.
Asking religious people to think in scientific terms is like asking an athiest why he can't simply FEEL that god is real. Two completely different realities I think.
As I said, it was just a throwaway comment. I was drawing attention to the fact that I'm not from the same place as you are but that I still agree with what you're saying.
It may seem that my comment was moany because I questioned something, it wasn't though. There is no point listing the things I agree with you on, there are lots on this topic. There is merit in clarifying the things we differ on; especially when it turns out we really agree.
About being able to define "Theory," I agree. However, as a Christian, if you want to get into any sort of discussion about Christianity with me, I have two litmus tests of my own.
First, you must be able to define/understand the meaning of "exegesis." You can't talk about an ancient text without knowing how to evaluate it in a scholarly manner.
Second, you must have at least a rudimentary understanding of ANE culture - or be willing to learn about it. And understand the idea of PRACTICALITY.
@rationalwarrior That... is a profoundly awesome word. And I definitely agree that people should understand that term, and be able to differentiate between the two terms. And also have a sense of humility and the capacity to say, "hey, you could be right, I definitely need to research this topic more thoroughly and be more informed about it."
@Skavar4000 Actually, I do. In examining any religion I generally look to the history of the founding documents, as well as attempt to find scholarly exegesis and interpretation of said texts. Not to mention examining the fruits of the religion, and whether or not it has a positive impact, the works of the religions' "priests/prophets/holy men," etc.
And this, children, is EXACTLY why blindly accusing a man of double standards is a very, very unintelligent thing to do.
The only thing I will pick you up on is your comment that, "an all knowing god would not say that". An all knowing god can say whatever the radish it wants to; an all caring god, on the other hand, cannot. Other than that distinction, and that my Britishness is dismayed by "aks", we're in agreement.
@D3viouz1 wif? Like a "whiff" of something, as in smelling it? Can't say I've ever heard it pronounced like that, "wiv" is what my peers and I say. But that would be a difference in pronunciation, no problem with that. I don't burn Northerners for saying grass (like gr-ass rather gr-arse).
Aks and ask you use the same letters but change the order. Weird and I don't see the point/why it's happened. I'm not seriously moaning, it was more of a throwaway comment about how odd it sounds to me.
@kurupt23987 wiv, wif, who cares? either way it sounds weird to me too. my point being, who cares? personally i consider this sort of thing nothing more than accent related. and if you think aks is bad you should hear some of the fruitcakes down south in the US. "diffrnt vs different" "dooweeunn vs doing" "drer vs drawer"
@kurupt23987 I beg to differ. An all knowing god would not refer to a mustard seed as the least of all seeds because he would know that it is not. An orchid seed is smaller. And it does not grow into the greatest of all trees. Nor would an all knowing god refer to the moon as a lesser light. the moon is non-luminous and merely reflects light from the sun. However a post bronze age desert sheep-herder observing it under Earth's atmospheric conditions wouldn't know this.
@rationalwarrior Ah, you were talking about truth claims. Fair cop, you're bang on then. I was thinking of things like endorsing slavery and other moral claims, which is why I brought up the all caring god.
@kurupt23987 As fat as my dialect is concerned..do you have the same feelings of dismay over the accent of southern Americans. How about people from Boston? Or is it just.....mine?
@rationalwarrior Oh, I've got no problem with your dialect. It's just my sense of spelling has been needled; aks =! ask. The word isn't being said differently, a different word is being said. I guess if "aks" continues in common usage it'll become like arse and ass.
It's not really important but, like you've no doubt guessed, I'm a bit of a 'Grammar Nazi'.
I argued with a Christian once, but stopped early and said I could not continue the conversation if he could not agree with me that honesty was the most important thing. If he valued his religious dogma or just "winning" the argument above honesty, I knew there would be no point. He seemed sincere, but got confused and said he'd like to go talk to his pastor about some things I said. I never heard from him again.
Excellent points. I am always willing to engage in an open conversation with a theist, however it has almost always been my experience that most of them, not all, are irrational when it comes to discussions that challenge a cherished belief system. Someone once said, "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people".
You have alot of patience to even give a test. I have found that discussing religion (with believers) is usually pointless and ends in bitter feelings. They can not pass this test.
As far as believers and science, they seem to believe in it when it's convenient for them. Except for Christian Scientists, when they get sick, they seek medical help. That's believing in science.
Dude, this is totally right. And for you people saying that it discolors opinion, that's like getting into a debate with a cook and first asking them to define "stove" and "edible." If they can't do that, then they don't know enough about the basics of cooking to have a meaningful, level conversation on making a cake.
And if they think that the recipe was written by the Great Cake in the Sky, you should visit another bakery.
I'm currently trying to convince a christian that evolution is correct. I'm having a hard time and I sure understand your frustration. Whatever argument I give he keeps ignoring it. He keeps repeating the same previously-debunked things.
Lol -- I do this all the time when I'm arguing with a fundie on Youtube. As soon as we hit a brick wall on evolution or the big bang, I ask them to define 'theory.' Invariably I get an answer like this -- "A theory is your guess at what the truth is when you don't really know." I then tell them what theory actually means in the context of science, to which they reply with some variant of "nuh-uh!" At that point, the conversation is OVER..
@revelwoodie when you're up brought to believe in creation as fact, knowledge of the meaning of the word 'theory' is non-existent. i only found out the true meaning about 7 years ago after dismissing any notion of a deity. sad, but better late than never.
The main reason I didn't respond to onceforgivenowfree's 2nd response to me was when he claimed that the actual meaning of the word evolution was unimportant. I'm still coming to grips with how stupid or dishonest you have to be to say something like that. I agree, it's impossible (and pointless) to argue with someone who refuses to agree on a mutually acceptable set of definitions at the outset. I think creationists do this so they can argue linguistic semantics, because that's all they've got.
I think that even in common usage of the term theory it is still only as strong as the facts and data that form it. Say that someone tells you that they have a theory about your best friend stealing money behind your back. You are not going to just take that by word value only. Just like in science you would demand the data and evidence that formed the theory. Yes, Scientific Theory has a rigorous structer, as it should, but going around saying theory is empty without evidence to back it.
Asking for two litmus tests builds up a system within yourself automatically coloring the opinion of the viewpoint you hold as part of a dictum. This will automatically make the believer in question faith grow stronger by not allowing the discussion to go further. The "your to stupid to talk to" approach is a good one to take to save from personal headaches yet it will just cause that believer to go back & tell other believers how intolerant you are. Their word of mouth spreads faster than yours
@Unworshipediety That's a valid point. However what purpose does it serve to go around in circles with someone who refuses to even acknowledge what you're saying? It's not my job to re-educate someone from the ground up about basic things. If I spent my time doing that, I'd do nothing else. Especially people who continue to misrepresent the meaning of words right after your attempt to repair their understanding of it. We have to agree on the meaning of the words we are using to converse.
@rationalwarrior Agreed. After all there will always be people who will repeat the same arguments long after we are gone. I suppose if the discussions continue with others by others perhaps with the growth of industry and technology the holes that religion seems to fill will evaporate.
@Unworshipediety One can only hope. I must admit to being somewhat pessimistic about how long it will take. And everyday my patience for it wears more and more thin. These recent conversations have me a bit jaded. Fortunately I have run across some very well read and open-minded theists in the past. This shows me that it's not all of them. I'd rather talk with them then the fundies.
@rationalwarrior I'm in my pessimistic phase as well. I was frustrated and I ran across your video then felt the need to write something thankfully it was well worded. I'll be at the point I'm sure your at some point but thanks for the reply I was getting very angry at people giving me rather...anger filled responses to my simple questions or comments so I was sort of acting out some. Thanks for taking the time to give me something useful to think about.
@rationalwarrior That's one of the first things I do now when I debate. I will define my use of the terms and cite the source from which I'm using the definition. I even do the same when I show them logical fallacies. I state the fallacy and I cite the source from where I got it from. I've noticed my debates gotten much shorter and very one sided since I started doing that.
I have to add another very important question for fundamentalists: You have to ask them if they think a scientific conspiracy is intentionally spreading lies to the people! Perhaps because they "hate god" or "worship satan", whatever, you always need to check if they have a basic trust for the scientific community. Many don't :(
@Anonymous247n This is a VERY good point. I have run across this mindset MANY times. They believe that the scientists are out to get them. That somehow they are in league with "lucifer". As a result they dismiss any scientific research that doesn't support their claim.
@rationalwarrior this mindset seems most prominent in muslims some of which think that the whole of science/scientists is/are actively against them. Its funny that they don't have any problem going to the doctors though.
Wilfull ignorance is the worst kind of ingnorance. The roots of Racisism, Nationalism and prejiduces of many faces. Don´t waste your time on the energy vampires dude. They need you, but you don´t need them. As appealing as it is sometimes to argue with them:-D
My religion is altered by science, when something is proven it's accepted, when something is not proven it's not. Religious myths are just not proven, so they are fluid and should change to fit reality, they should only be used as a method for hope of something "else" ... and no one myth should ever be claimed to be fact, unless science can prove it. Also, I hate organized religion, it's stupid and dominating, and abusive.
KittenKoder 1 week ago
How come I never thought of this? Oh well, subscribed
1Lanavis1 2 months ago
"God wrote the bible" HAHA! I actually laughed.
eastgoast 3 months ago in playlist More videos from rationalwarrior
He's like the anti-Tony48219.
TNTacdc 4 months ago
0:32 "after wasting those days in conversation back and forth with them.." hahah i know what you mean, its the most useless thing to do. You could have a monologe with a piece of bread and probably learn more
Serpico261 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"There is a man that lives right now in your lifetime named Sai Baba." Actually he died this past spring and there have been allegations of malfeasance within his organization since his passing. There are also some very fundamental differences that cannot be bridged concerning the lives of Jesus and Sai Baba.
theabiotictheory 6 months ago
@rationalwarrior pt2. I grant that you have been on a journey. You must have an interesting life story. I lived life as if there was no God. I was also a hopeless and helpless alcoholic invested in rejecting the Christian experience of my youth. Master of my own destiny! I rightly should not be alive. I bet a bible study with you would be interesting. You have reason for what you now believe. Or like Pharaoh you have hardened your heart. I hope you keep seeking truth.
rusty2029 6 months ago
@rusty2029 Thank you my friend. You sound like a thoughtful guy. Our personal histories are not the same so maybe that's why we came to different conclusions. I am open for evidence. But in a world where nearly everyone is claiming some sort of connection to a supernatural force and all of those claims are inconsistent, vaguely defined, and subjective I shall remain skeptical.
rationalwarrior 6 months ago
@rationalwarrior Yes the science of semiotics and meaning of words can cause us all to see thru the glass darkly. I would posit there are basic things that you are far less skeptical of. I would also encourage you to look up the Münchhausen Trilemma. What you may categorize as the natural realm may have a problem of inconsistent or incoherent definition given the newer understanding of our quantum entangled cosmology. Yet we do seek greater understanding / thirst for knowledge.
rusty2029 6 months ago
@rusty2029 You would be correct in assuming that there are things that I am far less skeptical of. Those things are usually things for which I have a reference for. In other words, the same reason I am skeptical of gnomes and fairies are essentially the same for deities. It seems that deities only exist in that dark murky realm of things we haven't got answers for yet. In the past people assumed they were everywhere. Throwing lightening bolts, making the sun go across the sky, etc.
rationalwarrior 6 months ago
So your hypothesis is to test theists with certain questions so that you get indicators for your theory about wither they are worthy of having further conversation with amiright? Oh and the only thing in the Bible that was written in God's own hand was the tablets known as the Ten Commandments. The Bible even notes this. Yet if someone inspires you so as you wright a book about it I guess your book can be discounted like the bits Plato wrote in regards to parts about Socrates amiright?
rusty2029 6 months ago
@rusty2029 Not even that complicated. It's not about being worthy. It's screening people to decide if they need to be talking to me or to be taking a science course. I cannot repair the understanding of someone who doesn't even have basic knowledge of a subject How can we even converse? Secondly, the bible saying that the 10 commandments was written by the hand of god is not proof of this. Especially when there is another rational explanation of how they could have been written.
rationalwarrior 6 months ago
@rationalwarrior I understand the religious-like authority atheists give to science. I love the tool of science myself. Do you feel that if more Christians studied science they would then replace God's authority with scientism? The Decalog stands out as the only document God produced to hand to man. Not the levitical laws or any other things. God could even harden your heart like Pharaoh's so that a good work will be done in you. Not all is black&white to the easiest rational explanation.
rusty2029 6 months ago
@rusty2029 I feel if more Christians studied science they wouldn't misinterpret and misrepresent basic terms. Even if they disagree with what the science says they could disagree on what it REALLY says. Not on what their untrained pastors tell them it says. I find that Christians, not unlike many theists, don't give any authority to a god. They give it to men. Primitive men that died ages ago. Men who understood less about the nature of how the world works then my 14 year old.
rationalwarrior 6 months ago
@rationalwarrior Can I intuit that your 14yr old must be wise in spiritual discernment or that your genetic fallacy about primitive men falls off the mark. Consider this quote: People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive. --BLAISE PASCAL Given the study of epistemology and metaphysics we can only grasp a little of how the world works. But a presuppositional block against certain ways to find truth is an issue.
rusty2029 6 months ago
@rusty2029 "Spiritual". Good sir. You, or anyone else for that matter, hasn't even proved that "spirits" even exists yet. Also the quote you used cuts the very branch you're sitting on. What would more people find attractive? The belief that there is some cosmic father figure listening to your prayers and protecting you or that there ISN'T one so you have to take responsibility for our own life? We are talking pass each other. My comment wasn't about "spiritual" matters. Nice strawman.
rationalwarrior 6 months ago
@rationalwarrior Sir it cuts both ways does it not? Do you know who Pascal was? He was a great scientist and mathematician of his day. Also a Christian. It also cuts both ways if you can't prove the negation of God. What is attractive about the death and privation of atheism with no transcendent purpose in an amoral world. I will tell you the attraction. A godless world means no accountability beyond death and also no pleasure is sinful or wrong. Methinks you don't ? your presupositions
rusty2029 6 months ago
@rusty2029 I would direct you to my other video about that very topic of scientists from the past being religious. And you error in thinking that my first presupposition was to NOT believe. I was religious for 30 years of my life. I was raised pentecostal and converted to Islam. It was only after questioning my presuppositions did I abandon belief in myths. My question to you is without fear of judgement would you abandon your morality? I would like to think that you wouldn't. Am I wrong?
rationalwarrior 6 months ago
@rationalwarrior Judgement? Given a godless amoral worldview what else is there other then subjective judgement? The same goes for objective morality. No objective morality if this is not a sinful world and we are born with wicked hearts in conflict with our God given moral compass. I was once an atheist and would embrace Nietzsche where I to become a salt that has lost its savor. Why do you embrace morality? Share with me my fallen brother how you have proven God a myth? cont...
rusty2029 6 months ago
@rusty2029 Once again we are talking past one another. The judgement I am speaking of is your assertion that a god judges us after death. As far as the concept of subjective morality versus objective I would direct you to my videos on that topic as well. I will say this however, how do you get objective reality from a subjective god concept? None of you agree on what he wants, how he feels, or what he says. It would appear that theists morality is subjective to the god they believe in.
rationalwarrior 6 months ago
@rusty2029 Share with me how you have disproved Zeus. Thor. Odin. God is a title not a name. Yahweh is no different then any of these other gods. Don't argue for the existence of a deist version of god. Argue for the Christian theist version which is the one you believe exists. Share with me how someone has proven to you that Yahweh exist. Tell me why the same arguments that previously were unconvincing to you as a former atheist are now somehow convincing enough to try on me?
rationalwarrior 6 months ago
@rationalwarrior If one accepts so as to believe in one God then I hope you understand that other god/s concepts are meaningless and already negated. Faith in the Greek means warrant or trust and thus faith is given from God and not any man. I have a personal testimony augmented by circumstantial evidence (what I witness) as well as a philosophical basis for what gives us warrant to have properly basic belief. Yet I alone can convince no one of truth.
rusty2029 6 months ago
@rusty2029 They are negated because you are unconvinced that they exist. Certainly not based on empirical evidence against their existence. Basically you have said "I disbelief in many gods because I only believe in one." Could it be said that you hardened your heart? Your personal testimony is convincing to you but I cannot base my viewpoint solely on the testimony of others. Nor on their philosophical understanding. In other words I cannot fake and act as though I believe when I do not.
rationalwarrior 6 months ago
@rationalwarrior Do you grant that empiricism is limited? You do know the failure of verificationism as that puts great blinders on what we can know. One can show the negation of God by inductive arguments but deductive ones are problematic. If you believe that you have a mind then that does not entail that you are unconvinced of some other explanation. You also may not be able to empirically show that the data from an FMRI proves your conscious mind (law of identity). See the issues?
rusty2029 6 months ago
@rusty2029 Most certainly empiricism does have limits. We can not verify what we cannot yet detect. But our tools of observation have improved so much more today as opposed to in the past. We can detect and verify much more. Shouldn't we continue that method? We can demonstrate what we have gained from that method. What do we have to gain by making "truth" claims about things that cannot be verified and using methods that yield questionable results?
rationalwarrior 6 months ago
@rationalwarrior The laws of logic are insuperable and not subject to empiricism. Take the law of the excluded middle as example. A proposition can not be both true (in the same sense) and false. When the middle is rightly excluded this makes agnosticism moot. One has to be on one side or the other of this kind of truth claim. To be atheist is to say the proposition is false while the Theist makes the opposite truth claim. Logic is a verification method or do you not accept those laws?
rusty2029 6 months ago
@rusty2029 An agnostic says he doesn't know if a deity exists or not. An agnostic is basically saying I don't believe you have presented enough evidence to convince me either way. To be an atheist is to say I don't believe your claims that a god exist. These labels are very restricting because there are always nuances to people's positions. Logic has it's uses and limits. For an argument can be valid but not sound.
rationalwarrior 6 months ago
@rationalwarrior Yet some words have no nuance if they are to have meaning that is to be considered orthodox or near universally accepted. The agnostic can not speak beyond saying they personally do not know. Even to try and say God is not knowable should not be an allowable statement for agnosticism as it claims to Know something is unknowable. Logic is the PRIME means for axioms that are the basis for both Philosophy and Science. Yes the irrational atheist is not interested in WHY atheism
rusty2029 6 months ago
@rusty2029 Some words have no nuance but most people and their positions do. It makes no sense to restrict one's understanding of another's position based on the fact that there may not be an accurate label for it. It makes more sense to confront what the person is actually saying their position is. With that being said is it your contention that you can logically prove Jesus' resurrection and his divinity? For miracles? Don't make an argument for deism because you aren't a deist. Correct?
rationalwarrior 6 months ago
@rationalwarrior I get the accurate meaning of words like asymmetry and the basic construct of that word is not changeable. Not changeable unless some people try to promote a dogmatic insistence by tautology that it means something else. Even then like gay it can be an additional meaning but does not have to be accepted as such. There is a WEALTH of evidence for Jesus. No credible historian denies it. The fact that the universe exists is the greatest miracle so I tend to start there.
rusty2029 6 months ago
pt 2. You where once a part of the Ummah amiright? You had beliefs that you tried to defend or you would not have held them. The arguments for the resurrection and divinity of Christ are straightforward enough and sufficient for Christians so that it is beyond reasonable doubt for them. Call it a rational evidence based truth claim. I grant that it can be denied and effort to disprove it has gone on for hundreds of years. If Christs is not Lord but rather lair or lunatic where the proof?
rusty2029 6 months ago
@rusty2029 Have you ever read any of Bart Ehrman's work?
rationalwarrior 6 months ago
@rationalwarrior Yes I am familiar with Ehrman.
/watch?v=RfekyreNuJo
/watch?v=uXSVRkKD3FM
rusty2029 6 months ago
@rusty2029 Hey my friend it's been nice talking to you but I have to get ready to go to school. I appreciate the fact that you are courteous and respectful. But I got to be honest. Unless I see or hear god for myself it all sounds like man conjuring up things to control each other. I see no reason why your version of god is more valid the anyone else. Why doesn't any of them ever show up? Coming through for 33 years 2000yrs ago and leaving instructions doesn't seem productive.
rationalwarrior 6 months ago
Why dont you stop conversations before they begin. Without any tests.
If you agree to "debates" with religious folk, it means that you consider their superstitions worthy of discussion. It's like a geologist agrees to a "scientific discussion" with an adherent of "flat Earth theory".
Grey13Human 5 months ago
@rationalwarrior Just send them to Not Just a Theory.com. It's an excellent breakdown of the word.
Pantera4LifeXTX 5 months ago
@rusty2029 Just send them to Not Just a Theory.com. It's an excellent breakdown of the word.
Pantera4LifeXTX 5 months ago
@rusty2029 I feel that I should flesh out my position on the atheist label. An atheist does not believe in the existence of gods or gods. What isn't present in that definition is WHY the atheist doesn't believe. It merely seeks to date the persons position so it doesn't matter why he doesn't believe. The reason I don't believe in a god's existence is because I have never seen or heard any evidence that convinces me as of yet. I think it's more likely he is an invention of man.
rationalwarrior 6 months ago
@rationalwarrior This 'position' has no warrant or pretends to be a rational position as it needs no evidence and is a tautology promulgated on YT but is one I don't recognize as meaningful. A mere physiological position = YT redefinition of atheism is repeated so as to become a dogma but is logically self refuting. For instance pleading there is no evidence for Theism fails without contravening evidence for atheism. No intellectually sound truth statements for YT-a = irrational position.
rusty2029 6 months ago
@rusty2029 Your lack of recognition for their position is irrelevant. Is it not? And don't you think that pretending that the meaning of words don't evolve over time a little intellectually disingenuous? "Atheism" has evolved. Much like the word "gay" has evolved. And couldn't someone say the same of your position? Christian means follower of Christ. Does this mean that if you don't do everything and live your life exactly like he told you to that you're not a Christian? I
rationalwarrior 6 months ago
@rationalwarrior To be Christian is to Believe in Christ but you know this. You also know that the entailment's are to love and if love follow God's commandments but no salvation by works. On tries to follow Christ but we are all sinners and fall short do we not? Greek 'a' without 'theos' Deity means the truth claim that this world is without any deities. Has the word asymmetric changed meaning? Atheist means godless as in a worldview without god/s. Can 'irrelevant' change meaning?
rusty2029 6 months ago
@rusty2029 Good sir I think that there can be no evidence you can give that proves that Jesus resurrected from the dead. There may be evidence that he existed. I do not argue that. What I contend is that he did not come back from the dead. He did not do miracles (which by definition is the least possible thing that could happen). I do not accept a virgin birth. These claims fly in the face of accepted reality and are science claims as well.
rationalwarrior 6 months ago
@rationalwarrior So if testimony by eyewitnesses that are recorded in a forty year window of living witnesses around to refute this is not enough what would be? Again a wealth of scholarly effort is out there. If you where to witness with cognitively average faculties a miracle would you give testimony to this? If blind from birth would you then deny your new ability in front of the pharisees questioning you along with your parents? Miracles are noted as a change in accepted reality.
rusty2029 6 months ago
@rusty2029 There is a man that lives right now in your lifetime named Sai Baba. Sai Baba is not a Christian. He does not follow Christian teaching or claim Jesus as his lord. Yet Sai Baba is said to perform miracles. There are numerous witnesses to his feats. Just like Jesus he was persecuted by people who thought he was a fraud. Do you believe it based on that? Then why should anyone believe 2000 year old witnesses? You can't get 2 people now to agree on certain events they witnessed.
rationalwarrior 6 months ago
@rationalwarrior We have a master of this earth. Adam's sin abdicated his authority to Satan and Satan was once a perfect creation that is now fallen yet can perform acts that I would classify as miracles. One of the names of Allah is AL-JABBÂR who can compel into deception. Also MÂLIK-UL-MULK the owner of the kingdom of earth. So genetic fallacy about old witnesses does not abrogate the testimony that stands as evidence. This also entails a deceiver who also has powers to act as if God.
rusty2029 6 months ago
@rusty2029 And yet Jesus couldn't have been a deceiver? Because the book said he was the good guy? So if years from now someone writes a book making Sai Baba the good guy.........? The whole Satan as master of Earth thing just doesn't fly my friend. It's an fictitious excuse to blame some supernatural force for the actions of man. If you want to know who "Satan" is all one needs to do is look in the mirror. Same thing with god. This is why they seem to reflect man's dual nature.
rationalwarrior 6 months ago
Great video! I had to laugh when you spoke about the guy saying that God had written the bible. I've heard people who thought that Jesus wrote the bible, and some that thought it was written in King James English! You just can't win when someone thinks like that!
fordtruxdad 6 months ago
One of the biggest litmus tests proving to me that the Bible was inspired by and written by man is the that three of the 10 Commandments has to with God's petty insecurities and jealousies. A God would be forward thinking, cutting edge and controversial, not just reflecting man's views of the day. He would not have condoned slavery and child abuse. "Thou shalt not commit slavery and child abuse." Those words would have saved many.
MrWagman11 7 months ago
I hate when theists confuse a theory with a hypothesis.
SREproducciones 7 months ago
I have read books that its possible that some people are born without a consious. I also understand that there things such as addiction that can obscure the conscious. I beleive that an atheist can have a conscious and can be a decent human being. And a religious person can be an unconscionable person.
cynt123able 7 months ago
I want to tell you this I am a recovering alcoholic. In AA i was told that only a power greater than myself could restore my sanity. This I felt was a sticking point for me because I am a atheist. But I said ok an I called it God for lack of anthing else I could think of. This thing I call God is now known to me as my conscious. When I pray I am merely praying to a better part of myself.
cynt123able 7 months ago
My vote? Intellectually dishonest.
I think you're so awesome!
babelfishable 7 months ago 2
@babelfishable Thanks for watching my friend.
rationalwarrior 7 months ago
I don't mean to be rude, but you sir, being black, just makes you more awesome.
anglicantian 7 months ago 11
@anglicantian Hahaha! It's funny cause it's true! Thanks my friend!
rationalwarrior 7 months ago 11
I live in the UK and evolution acceptance is universal. BBC documentaries all take it as so, even chat shows.
I've never once heard it argued here, except once in 1980 by my (fundie) mother. I destroyed her by simple asking what she was taught at school.
calmreason 7 months ago
I have a test for anyone who wants to get in an argument regarding evolution with me. Here it is:
"Explain how evolution works without looking it up."
Mswordx23 7 months ago
Regarding absolute knowledge, I am absolutely certain that I don't know much of anything. Practically nothing in relationship to what there is to know.
MacNutz2 8 months ago 3
@MacNutz2 I'm right there with you Mac....
rationalwarrior 8 months ago
...then why would one pridefully (chemical response) state that he has decided (chemical response) that he will impose an exclusivist (chemical response) set of strictures upon any theists who seeks to have a conversation with him?
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 8 months ago
@Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 At the risk of answering a question with a question...who, in their right mind, would waste valuable time beating their head against a brick wall? Going back and forth with someone who repeatedly misrepresents your position by ignoring definitions of certain words even after it has been explained to them? People have to agree to the meaning of words to even converse. There are theists that are educated and sincerely want to hear different points of view. I'll talk to them.
rationalwarrior 8 months ago
The entire premise of this video is invalidated by materialism. If the poster claims to be a materialist, then he should be aware as to what that point of view entails. To expound upon this, one's will, tendencies, emotions, etc., have no place within the life of a materialist, due to the fact that the materialist beleives he/she "knows" that these are the product of meaningless biochemical responses. To follow the chemicals' lead, if one believes this to be the source of all willed action,...
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 8 months ago
@Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 And you sir are making this way more complicated then it has to be. I see this many times. Someone will have their own agenda and try to apply it to what I'm saying. This is simple stuff. Discussions are dialogs between people in which the participants are willing to to alter their position if it makes sense to. People tend to confuse "discussion" with "sermon" or "lecture". This is a waste of time and will have people talking past one another. Much like now.
rationalwarrior 8 months ago
@rationalwarrior With all due respect, if one is going to state that his/her position is thus, then that person should speak and act in accordance with the implications thereof if he/she seeks to be taken seriously, with the matter of anyone taking he/she seriously being of no consequence to a materialist anyway, given that this response would also be a product of biochemical activity.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 8 months ago
@Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 Don't underestimate the power of chemicals.
lizzand 7 months ago
Furthermore, materialists have no place asserting anything at all...ever, according to the strictures of their own paradigm. To do so would mean being completely dishonest and self-deceptive, while claiming to be the voice of reason.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 8 months ago
...wound up in the oral stories before the point at which they were crystallized and written, such as, for example, the nonsense about the peeled stalks affecting the color pattern of the offspring of domestic animals, and the addition of the "prophecy", often cited by Christians as Messianic, regarding the relationship between man and snake, to the likely allegorical story of the Garden of Eden, and its possible reference to the brotherhood of the snake as a corrupting influence.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 8 months ago
First off, the fact that the Torah is comprised of various source documents, with the Yahwist and Elohist sources, with the Elohist containing the priestly source, which is differentiated, is one reason why the Torah would contain information which could not have been the product of the Supreme Being. For another thing, the fact that the information was transmitted orally before ever having been committed to writing, in the case of the Yahwist source, means that additions were likely to have...
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 8 months ago
Theory: a hypothesis or educated guess based on limited information. Scientific: A model, a considered, rational explanation based on carefully accumulated data; the most likely scenario based on all relevant
, verifiable information.
PDelta41 8 months ago
very good idea. I also get very irritated with theists when i argue with them over religion. Very useful litmus test i think ill adopt it. Keep up the good work my brother.
timh1982 8 months ago
Just subscribed to you. Good sir, rationals like you on Youtube are the ONLY thing that keeps me on this site; it helps counter the fundamentalist videos. You also seem like an intelligent person, the kind I would want to have an honest conversation with. Being a theist (not in the way of organized religion, in fact I agree with atheists more often than with religious folk) I'll go ahead and answer your litmus test right now xD (see above post; I'm running out of character space on this one)
finalsmasher 8 months ago
@finalsmasher (continued from below/above) answer to test 1: a theory is the highest title given to a scientific concept. Essentially, it is a hypothesis that has been confirmed by experimentation and collected data. It is not called a "scientific fact" because such things cannot exist; as our understanding of the world improves, theories become debunked and changed.
answer to test 2: Have you considered the possibility that women wrote the Bible? :o xD of course IK men wrote it. I'm not stupid.
finalsmasher 8 months ago
@finalsmasher Excellent answers my friend. Glad to have a honest theists aboard. Your opinions are always welcome even if we disagree.
rationalwarrior 8 months ago
@rationalwarrior
My litmus test follows. When a passage of your holy text is in conflict with peer reviewed physical evidence, what would you do? A. Dismiss the evidence without investigation or B. Admit that the doctrine is incorrect. If religious doctrine has more validity than observable physical reality, then I just stop the conversation.
RakaTheTenacious 8 months ago
Comment removed
LukeShetler 8 months ago
Hey dude you made a lot of sense
DawnOfTheDead991 8 months ago
I like all your videos so much. You are one of the most rational and intelligent atheists I know. Thank you so much for all your work.
Meishayuri 8 months ago
The King James Bible was written by Jesus Christ.
TheMathLife 8 months ago
@TheMathLife Prove it.
BiffWhitebread13 8 months ago
@TheMathLife King James was born in 1566.
PrideSwine 8 months ago
@PrideSwine I know, it was a joke.
TheMathLife 8 months ago
Comment removed
LukeShetler 8 months ago
Its nice to hear from a rational dark man. No offense....just honestly does not happen much.
Jeffersonwazright 8 months ago 5
@Jeffersonwazright No offense taken friend.
rationalwarrior 8 months ago 8
@rationalwarrior Very good. To be honest hearing from a rational human does not happen much in general..... Glad you're out there.
Jeffersonwazright 8 months ago
Hey, my brother! Have you peeped that video by Anthony David? It's called "God Said." You may 'wanna check it out!!
maxproud 8 months ago
Here's another test, (only for fundamentalists). Ask them to describe evolution.
miggyback 8 months ago
Comment removed
LukeShetler 8 months ago
I agree with the need for a litmus test to ferret out those who would deliberately - waste your time, but I would be wary of branding those who express ignorance or difficulty understanding as being intellectually dishonest. I understand time and patience being limited, but I would rather suffer a little dishonesty from some than abandon someone who is earnestly mistaken and could have been made to understand.
TaborDL 8 months ago
Well said. I will use both of those tests as starting points in the future. Its really a test of objective rationality. A fundamentalist with zero ability to de-program themselves will never pass this.
One cant even begin to have a conversation about science in general, or evolution in particular if they don't pass test 1.
Neutronstar2171 8 months ago
You should ask them about the definition of evolution too.
godofimagination 8 months ago
Most of 'em, R being intellectually dishonest. There's no excuse 4 them not understanding what a Scientific Theory actually means. IMO, they simply refuse to consider it. They have to live in denial of so many things. This is a must, if they're going to deny that Evolution is true and that we all have common ancestry with the apes. They can't handle that concept as reality b/c it puts their Adam & Eve (O.Sin) into serious question.
I've had many debates with them too & they're all in denial.
Cootabux 8 months ago
before discussing religious matters with a theist, i want to understand their standard of evidence. in many religions, divine inspiration (voices in your head) is the strongest possible evidence that something is true.
also many religious people only entertain evidence when they think its in their favor. when backed into a corner they admit that evidence is not important to them. you have to admit that up front.
otherwise, you cant talk at the grown up table.
underweightHater 8 months ago
The total ignorance of the scientific definition of a theory shows the person is twisting things for there religious ends or maybe they are just being wilfully stupid.
angrywhenroused 8 months ago
This is why the christians on the texas school board want to rewrite history.
panterguy 8 months ago
Those really are two very good tests that let you know ahead of time whether a person will be able to intellectually understand the arguments that you're making instead of just saying "That's wrong because God. I win."
FrostdPoptart 8 months ago
new sub
MpowerdAPE 8 months ago
@MpowerdAPE Alright! Thanks!
rationalwarrior 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Great Vid! But the "Christians" that you had discussions with are the kind of people that make ME look bad because I am NOT like this, I used to be Athiest,Agnostic, and Now Im a Christian. But Biblicly "sorry if I spelt that wrong, didnt take keyboarding" God is more Logical then we know it, we don't know logic as an understanding as God does, and thats in the Bible ALOT, Especially Ezekial. You have to take it into contex from both sides. NOTHING can be scientific factual. God is more logical
waitandbleed1464 8 months ago
@waitandbleed1464 Thanks. But these are assertions based on no evidence. The only reason why you and others say those things about god is because the bible says it. But atheists do not accept the bible as fact. There is no way to know if any of those things are true. As far as your assertion that nothing scientific can be factual...by what do you base that on? It's a fact that scientists invented the very computer you are using. Guess how?
rationalwarrior 8 months ago 5
@rationalwarrior hmmm true, but do we TRUELY know whats factual? NO. honestly i dont go by facts, because their are some weird facts that arent logical.
waitandbleed1464 8 months ago
@waitandbleed1464 Sure we do. We know things are facts because they are demonstrable and consistent. For instance, isn't it a fact that you and I are having this conversation? Isn't it a fact that if you step off of a 20 story building the forces of gravity will cause you to fall to the street? If we accept the idea that there no facts then we open ourselves up to believe any and everything. Some things are still up for debate...somethings aren't.
rationalwarrior 8 months ago 13
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kayla50427
Quick bitch! close your account.. oh wait
jismthrower 8 months ago
Words can have different meanings. Such as the word "dude." It can mean city dweller, someone who dresses fancy, or an ingrown elephant hair.
OldeVampyr 8 months ago
Asking religious people to think in scientific terms is like asking an athiest why he can't simply FEEL that god is real. Two completely different realities I think.
motobecanlivecom 8 months ago
Theist: God wrote the bible.
Atheist: Wow. Your god is a really shitty writer.
dodgermutt 8 months ago 5
I seem to have caused offence? Not my intention.
As I said, it was just a throwaway comment. I was drawing attention to the fact that I'm not from the same place as you are but that I still agree with what you're saying.
It may seem that my comment was moany because I questioned something, it wasn't though. There is no point listing the things I agree with you on, there are lots on this topic. There is merit in clarifying the things we differ on; especially when it turns out we really agree.
kurupt23987 8 months ago
@kurupt23987 I'm not offended at all. It's a good discussion. I was just curious as to how far your irritation with grammer goes LOL. Cheers!
rationalwarrior 8 months ago
@rationalwarrior grammer? :p
kurupt23987 8 months ago
@kurupt23987 LOLOL There you go again!
rationalwarrior 8 months ago
oh, and thats Norf Kerlahna btw. as in North Carolina. only, not. =/
D3viouz1 8 months ago
About being able to define "Theory," I agree. However, as a Christian, if you want to get into any sort of discussion about Christianity with me, I have two litmus tests of my own.
First, you must be able to define/understand the meaning of "exegesis." You can't talk about an ancient text without knowing how to evaluate it in a scholarly manner.
Second, you must have at least a rudimentary understanding of ANE culture - or be willing to learn about it. And understand the idea of PRACTICALITY.
theflyingjbird 8 months ago
@theflyingjbird That's fair. Although I would probably add that they need to understand the word eisegesis as well.....just to be fair.
rationalwarrior 8 months ago
@rationalwarrior That... is a profoundly awesome word. And I definitely agree that people should understand that term, and be able to differentiate between the two terms. And also have a sense of humility and the capacity to say, "hey, you could be right, I definitely need to research this topic more thoroughly and be more informed about it."
theflyingjbird 8 months ago
@theflyingjbird Do you adhere to the same type of litmus test before you dismiss or discuss all other religions and gods? I thought not...
Skavar4000 8 months ago
@Skavar4000 Actually, I do. In examining any religion I generally look to the history of the founding documents, as well as attempt to find scholarly exegesis and interpretation of said texts. Not to mention examining the fruits of the religion, and whether or not it has a positive impact, the works of the religions' "priests/prophets/holy men," etc.
And this, children, is EXACTLY why blindly accusing a man of double standards is a very, very unintelligent thing to do.
theflyingjbird 8 months ago
When people tell me "Evolution is just a Theory". I tell them that Gravity is a Theory too. Then I ask them if they would jump off the Sears Tower.
ironearth701 8 months ago
@ironearth701 Hahaha! Good one.
rationalwarrior 8 months ago
Good idea. That's a fine way to keep from wasting your time.
Devilock07 8 months ago
right with you man, the litmus test would narrow it down to about, ok im guessing here, about 5-10% christians at best id say. thumbed up.
kram83au 8 months ago
holy shit man! you're epic
squeeker1992 8 months ago
The only thing I will pick you up on is your comment that, "an all knowing god would not say that". An all knowing god can say whatever the radish it wants to; an all caring god, on the other hand, cannot. Other than that distinction, and that my Britishness is dismayed by "aks", we're in agreement.
kurupt23987 8 months ago
@kurupt23987 how is that any different than brits saying "wif" instead of "with"?
D3viouz1 8 months ago
@D3viouz1 wif? Like a "whiff" of something, as in smelling it? Can't say I've ever heard it pronounced like that, "wiv" is what my peers and I say. But that would be a difference in pronunciation, no problem with that. I don't burn Northerners for saying grass (like gr-ass rather gr-arse).
Aks and ask you use the same letters but change the order. Weird and I don't see the point/why it's happened. I'm not seriously moaning, it was more of a throwaway comment about how odd it sounds to me.
kurupt23987 8 months ago
@kurupt23987 wiv, wif, who cares? either way it sounds weird to me too. my point being, who cares? personally i consider this sort of thing nothing more than accent related. and if you think aks is bad you should hear some of the fruitcakes down south in the US. "diffrnt vs different" "dooweeunn vs doing" "drer vs drawer"
example from NC -->watch?v=mz_fPpKrfZU
D3viouz1 8 months ago
@D3viouz1 Really good points !
rationalwarrior 8 months ago
@kurupt23987 I beg to differ. An all knowing god would not refer to a mustard seed as the least of all seeds because he would know that it is not. An orchid seed is smaller. And it does not grow into the greatest of all trees. Nor would an all knowing god refer to the moon as a lesser light. the moon is non-luminous and merely reflects light from the sun. However a post bronze age desert sheep-herder observing it under Earth's atmospheric conditions wouldn't know this.
rationalwarrior 8 months ago
@rationalwarrior Ah, you were talking about truth claims. Fair cop, you're bang on then. I was thinking of things like endorsing slavery and other moral claims, which is why I brought up the all caring god.
kurupt23987 8 months ago
@kurupt23987 As fat as my dialect is concerned..do you have the same feelings of dismay over the accent of southern Americans. How about people from Boston? Or is it just.....mine?
rationalwarrior 8 months ago
@rationalwarrior Oh, I've got no problem with your dialect. It's just my sense of spelling has been needled; aks =! ask. The word isn't being said differently, a different word is being said. I guess if "aks" continues in common usage it'll become like arse and ass.
It's not really important but, like you've no doubt guessed, I'm a bit of a 'Grammar Nazi'.
kurupt23987 8 months ago
Awesome video. I wish more people took your approach to debate.
todocambiara2 8 months ago 2
I argued with a Christian once, but stopped early and said I could not continue the conversation if he could not agree with me that honesty was the most important thing. If he valued his religious dogma or just "winning" the argument above honesty, I knew there would be no point. He seemed sincere, but got confused and said he'd like to go talk to his pastor about some things I said. I never heard from him again.
Crunchy68 8 months ago
Excellent points. I am always willing to engage in an open conversation with a theist, however it has almost always been my experience that most of them, not all, are irrational when it comes to discussions that challenge a cherished belief system. Someone once said, "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people".
ddoyle11 8 months ago
You have alot of patience to even give a test. I have found that discussing religion (with believers) is usually pointless and ends in bitter feelings. They can not pass this test.
As far as believers and science, they seem to believe in it when it's convenient for them. Except for Christian Scientists, when they get sick, they seek medical help. That's believing in science.
ShamelessNation 8 months ago
Dude, this is totally right. And for you people saying that it discolors opinion, that's like getting into a debate with a cook and first asking them to define "stove" and "edible." If they can't do that, then they don't know enough about the basics of cooking to have a meaningful, level conversation on making a cake.
And if they think that the recipe was written by the Great Cake in the Sky, you should visit another bakery.
spehizle 8 months ago
@spehizle Excellently stated!
rationalwarrior 8 months ago
WOW!!! This is the first black guy atheist ive ever seen!!! (no rasist it is purly an observation)
SturFriedBrains 8 months ago
Absolutely agree
ekhaat 8 months ago
I'm currently trying to convince a christian that evolution is correct. I'm having a hard time and I sure understand your frustration. Whatever argument I give he keeps ignoring it. He keeps repeating the same previously-debunked things.
AtheismTV 8 months ago
Lol -- I do this all the time when I'm arguing with a fundie on Youtube. As soon as we hit a brick wall on evolution or the big bang, I ask them to define 'theory.' Invariably I get an answer like this -- "A theory is your guess at what the truth is when you don't really know." I then tell them what theory actually means in the context of science, to which they reply with some variant of "nuh-uh!" At that point, the conversation is OVER..
revelwoodie 8 months ago
@revelwoodie when you're up brought to believe in creation as fact, knowledge of the meaning of the word 'theory' is non-existent. i only found out the true meaning about 7 years ago after dismissing any notion of a deity. sad, but better late than never.
fourbabies1 8 months ago
The main reason I didn't respond to onceforgivenowfree's 2nd response to me was when he claimed that the actual meaning of the word evolution was unimportant. I'm still coming to grips with how stupid or dishonest you have to be to say something like that. I agree, it's impossible (and pointless) to argue with someone who refuses to agree on a mutually acceptable set of definitions at the outset. I think creationists do this so they can argue linguistic semantics, because that's all they've got.
TheLivingDinosaur 8 months ago
I agree with you fully, but it's incredibly frustrating to consider that they might think they've won the debate if you just don't bother with them!
ajb12376 8 months ago
great video. ur walls r quite plain. perhaps get some posters or hit up the local target?
drinkycrow67 8 months ago
I think that even in common usage of the term theory it is still only as strong as the facts and data that form it. Say that someone tells you that they have a theory about your best friend stealing money behind your back. You are not going to just take that by word value only. Just like in science you would demand the data and evidence that formed the theory. Yes, Scientific Theory has a rigorous structer, as it should, but going around saying theory is empty without evidence to back it.
AManOfHope 8 months ago
Asking for two litmus tests builds up a system within yourself automatically coloring the opinion of the viewpoint you hold as part of a dictum. This will automatically make the believer in question faith grow stronger by not allowing the discussion to go further. The "your to stupid to talk to" approach is a good one to take to save from personal headaches yet it will just cause that believer to go back & tell other believers how intolerant you are. Their word of mouth spreads faster than yours
Unworshipediety 8 months ago
@Unworshipediety That's a valid point. However what purpose does it serve to go around in circles with someone who refuses to even acknowledge what you're saying? It's not my job to re-educate someone from the ground up about basic things. If I spent my time doing that, I'd do nothing else. Especially people who continue to misrepresent the meaning of words right after your attempt to repair their understanding of it. We have to agree on the meaning of the words we are using to converse.
rationalwarrior 8 months ago 28
@rationalwarrior Agreed. After all there will always be people who will repeat the same arguments long after we are gone. I suppose if the discussions continue with others by others perhaps with the growth of industry and technology the holes that religion seems to fill will evaporate.
Unworshipediety 8 months ago 2
@Unworshipediety One can only hope. I must admit to being somewhat pessimistic about how long it will take. And everyday my patience for it wears more and more thin. These recent conversations have me a bit jaded. Fortunately I have run across some very well read and open-minded theists in the past. This shows me that it's not all of them. I'd rather talk with them then the fundies.
rationalwarrior 8 months ago
@rationalwarrior I'm in my pessimistic phase as well. I was frustrated and I ran across your video then felt the need to write something thankfully it was well worded. I'll be at the point I'm sure your at some point but thanks for the reply I was getting very angry at people giving me rather...anger filled responses to my simple questions or comments so I was sort of acting out some. Thanks for taking the time to give me something useful to think about.
Unworshipediety 8 months ago
@rationalwarrior That's one of the first things I do now when I debate. I will define my use of the terms and cite the source from which I'm using the definition. I even do the same when I show them logical fallacies. I state the fallacy and I cite the source from where I got it from. I've noticed my debates gotten much shorter and very one sided since I started doing that.
Jahaison 8 months ago
@Unworshipediety *you're
jgrossman57 8 months ago
My theory is that god and the bible are bullsh1t.
dkleitsch 8 months ago
I have to add another very important question for fundamentalists: You have to ask them if they think a scientific conspiracy is intentionally spreading lies to the people! Perhaps because they "hate god" or "worship satan", whatever, you always need to check if they have a basic trust for the scientific community. Many don't :(
Anonymous247n 8 months ago 3
@Anonymous247n This is a VERY good point. I have run across this mindset MANY times. They believe that the scientists are out to get them. That somehow they are in league with "lucifer". As a result they dismiss any scientific research that doesn't support their claim.
rationalwarrior 8 months ago 6
@rationalwarrior this mindset seems most prominent in muslims some of which think that the whole of science/scientists is/are actively against them. Its funny that they don't have any problem going to the doctors though.
imadamjad1 8 months ago
@rationalwarrior The light bearer brings enlightenment to the people, the Christians don't like that.
ArsonistInUrFirewall 8 months ago
Of course they are profoundly ignorant. They are trying to make up for the tree of knowledge incident.
Samuraionthewall 8 months ago
Wilfull ignorance is the worst kind of ingnorance. The roots of Racisism, Nationalism and prejiduces of many faces. Don´t waste your time on the energy vampires dude. They need you, but you don´t need them. As appealing as it is sometimes to argue with them:-D
sstan1337 8 months ago
I don't know you, but if somehow our paths do cross, you can be sure that we. will. be. friends.
TheWiseCommenter 8 months ago
You're awesome. Subbed.
BigBagsForRent 8 months ago
Amen to that!
DomPusey 8 months ago
Talking to Theists often reminds stupid old joke:
- And now let's do IQ test.
- What's an IQ?
- Well... I guess that's the end of the test. 8D
SwineNahNah 8 months ago