For someone presumably big on logic, I think the John Lennon song makes for highly inappropriate background music. He said no religion while practicing several different religious traditions; all trendy eastern ones of course. He said nothing to kill or die for yet had property with armed guards; and also endorsed numerous radical leftist causes, like the Black Panthers, who espoused and practiced deadly violence.
I love how share their testimonies as if they're irrefutable proof of the existence of a God. Way to call this guy out.
There's just one argument that I thought didn't stand on its own. The thought that God should just forgive us rather than send someone to suffer for us has been answered by many Christians. We have knowingly made bad choices, and Christ came to accept the consequences for us. Because of some eternal laws, I suppose that these debts have to be paid by someone who is perfect.
Sorry I don't see how you can defend saying certain political ideologies like communism are religions. Debunking other peoples myths while perpetuating your own, how ironic.
@angeltears87 I defend nothing, I'm stating a popular social theory. Ideologies differ from scientific theories in that they are based on faith not evidence. Faith based beleifs have similar effects. The purges in the soviet union are very similar to the purges of heretics in the catholic church. They are sociologically the same process. Please explain how this widely held (and evidenced) scientific theory is a myth? It may be untrue and be replaced when new evidence comes in, but a myth?
If you are referring to stalin as a communist then perhaps that is your first mistake. A dictatorship has nothing to do with socialism, it was the socialists that stalin was "purging".
Widely held? By whom? People who don't know the difference between democracy and dictatorship?
@angeltears87 Communism certainly has religious aspects. Among believers it functions like a religion. It has its practices, dogma, heroes, martyrs, saints. It even has a paradise, admittedly a secular one that is attainable through work- the socialist workers paradise. It excommunicates those who fail to toe the party line. Instead of a god there is the central committee. Still sounds a lot like a religion to me.
The similarities of communism to religion can be found in any political movement or structure. Including capitalism, western democracy, the tea party, right wing politics in general, left wing politics in general, feminism, men's rights activism, etc.
what use does it serve to compare politics to religion?
@angeltears87 That is true. However most forms of government do not inspirethe level of fanatacism that communism does. I believe that for many true believers, Communisim fills the need that other people get out of religion. That is why debating a hard core commie is usually as pointless as debating a hard core fundalmentlist. If you should succede in convincing him that his beliefs are wrong,; you will take away his reason for living. He is not going to let that happen.
"do not inspirethe level of fanatacism that communism does"
Please provide evidence. "Communisim fills the need that other people get out of religion."
Being a communist I disagree. If you convinced me or anyone within my socialist organisation that communism is incorrect we would change political view and continue trying to fix the shoddy governments :)
@angeltears87 Comminism has left over 100 million dead bodys in its wake. No other group of people in recorded history have anything close to those kind of numbers. Pol Pot's boys and girls (literaly) wiped out almost 20% of Cambodia's population. Journalists in cuba have done 20 years in prison becuase they published an article that Castro or one of his friends found offensive. I could go on for quite a while.
sorry neither pol pot nor castro are communists. Their countries are/were capitalist countries.
Capitalism btw has left far more then 100million dead bodies behind it, and far more to come. By that definition capitalism is a more fanatical concept then communism :)
@angeltears87 One can play with definitions all day. the fact is that Casto and Pol Pot where schooled in marxist theory (Both in western schools) and went back home to start thier glorious revelutions in their prospective countries. They both had the full support of all the major commie groups in the US and in Europe. Even after it became an established fact, many marxist academics like Noam Choamsky refused to acknowledge the bloodbath the Kemer Ruge for the bloodbath that it was. .
@angeltears87 One can play with definitions all day. the fact is that Casto and Pol Pot where schooled in marxist theory (Both in western schools) and went back home to start thier glorious revelutions in their prospective countries. They both had the full support of all the major commie groups in the US and in Europe. Even after it became an established fact, many marxist academics like Noam Choamsky refused to acknowledge the Kemer Ruge for the bloodbath that it was. .
Perhaps it would be best before we argue about communism if you provide your working definition of what communism is, it clearly does not fit how I would define it.
My definition would include the basics, such as a government of the working class, which would mean workers councils (and would also proclude dictators such as castro and pol pot). Secondly a communist state would not run on profit, the economy would be based on need rather than capital.
@angeltears87 I'm not defining communism by the actions of anyone who claims to be a commie. I am going by the actions of many of the people who are acknowledged by the general population, who present themselves as, and carry the title of communist. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Kim all qualify on all three counts. As I understand it, Mark wasn't real clear on the nuts and bolts issues on how to bring about his utopia. It was Lenin who filled in much of that part of it.
What actions are you defining as communist though? Lenin was a communist at least :) I fail to see the problem with that though...
Mark wasn't clear? You don't even know who wrote about the alternative of communism and you are trying to tell me who a communist is
As you understand it? Maybe read something about what communism is before displaying your ignorance and accusing dictators of communism. MARX sure did write about how communism could come about.
@angeltears87 i don't know how many years I have left. I sure don't want to waste two or three of them taking the time to really get to know all about communism. I've seen enough of it to feel very confident in my conviction that it is crap. The US is not perfect; but compared to any modern communist state it is. Besides Marx was; an alchollic, notorius for his body oder, a man who neglected the basic needs of his family, and created the single worst political ideology ever.
No modern state is communist. Please present evidence that it is.
You feel the need to vilify an ideology and the people who follow that ideology but can provide no support for your argument.
You are as much a waste of my time as the creationists who vilify the theory of evolution without knowing what it is. At least they can present me a definition of their god so I can discuss it with them though. You can't even define for me what you think communism is.
@angeltears87 "read the science, look at the evidence"
LOL! what evidence supports a few drawings on paper? u know one of the many things has screwed up evolution? the fact that scientists have found bones of a supposed "ancestor", but the carbon dating put it in the "wrong" spot on the timeline from ape to man. explain how, if we were on the last step towards modern-day man, how sum of our ancestors suddenly had their heads shrunk. i assure u that our modern-day evolutionists cannot.
Interesting that you think stalin was a communist. Even though he had death camps called gulags where he executed all the communists. They went to their deaths singining the internationale. Those were true and proud commies. Not the murderous dictator who killed them and many others.
The bible tells people to kill anyone who tries to convert them to another religion. Also, Jesus was the original anarchist; he almost brought down the Roman empire without the use of physical violence and Moses was a military mastermind. Point is, don't mess with Christians, they're just too powerful.
Thanks for the video! you've said the things that were on my mind watching that video! its funny how religious videos don't open up their comments however, most atheists videos are. Just goes to show that religious people love the "im right your wrong" agurment i guess. anyways, great work!
Also.. not all atheists are hateful or what ever, you are just generalizing and discriminating, but this is something the Bible encourages so I guess it should be expected.
If atheism has more blood on itgs hands then christianity, I'll shoot myself right now. Hitler believed he was doing gods work, killing 6000000 jews, and countless gypsies blacks gays and other non aryan groups. Then add to that the crusade and I don't think atheism come close to having the most blood on its hands. And no its not a religion. Thanks for the vid man.
It should also be pointed out that the teaching of the Bible in schools has not been removed(not in Britain anyway). What has happened is they have added it to RME and put it in with as many other religions as they can fit, so that people can choose a faith that they believe in, or pick and mix principles that they like rather than being force fed someone else's viewpoint at a young age.
In my primary school we were all made to say the Lords Prayer every Friday, regardless of religious belief
@tj4234 In what country? Britain? Do you not think that religious beliefs should be removed form schools or at the very least, teach religion form multiple perspectives including an atheist and empirical one?
@SkepticSage Yup, we have that here (Netherlands) for ages. When you read all holy books you start to understand that they can not all be true but they can all be false. Maybe that's why about 50% of the people here do not follow a religion.
God does not accept us the way we are, he accepts only the ones that worship him (into heaven) the rest are sent into hell. That's not accepting. Or loving.
Jesus did not gave his life for us, he knew he'd go to heaven being immortal etc. He sacrificed nothing. A day of pain means nothing to an immortal. His love is not endless, it ends with our rejection of his undeserved demand for love which he punishes with eternal hell. That's not graceful. That's horrid, spiteful, evil...
all those Christian and creationist videos have the option for comments disables, proving that they know they can be contradicted and proven false, but don't want to be embarassed. They want to keep spreading their lies without people questioning their false logic and ignorant assumptions.
Holding back science, brainwashing children, socially banning people who don't share their beliefs, racism, sexism, homophobia, occasional killings for religous beliefs, keeps people from use of condoms and birth control, wars, child molestation (just one example of religous leaders abusing power), a lack of effort to improve things because people think prayer works, etc.
@syahhammet Examples??? The point of my statement is the lack of examples. First, complexity has never been defined so what do people mean when they say "complex"? Second, if complexity is in the universe, then the universe is capable of it. It would be just as logical to say the universe has beauty. The universe is not capable of beauty on it sown. Therefore, god create the universe and gave it beauty. What makes the universe incapable of "complexity"? (whatever that means).
theres nothing magic about god. he just uses physics in a way we cant understand or comprehend. he didnt create stuff out of nothing. he used stuff that was already there. were all so used to our worldly existence which makes it difficault to believe in a god, but the thing is you cant easily prove whether god exists or doesnt. so live youre life and be nice to people whether youre an atheist or a theist.
@100bml But not being able to prove the existence of something is evidence it does NOT exist. How does something exist within the matrix of the space-time continuum and yet avoid detection? We are not talking about a some obscure subatomic particle, we are talking about the biggest thing ever proposed, something that created everything, is intimately involved in everything, and interferes with matter and even the laws of physics to answer prayers. How can a huge pervasive god not leave evidence?
you could also say the reason atheists try to be a little aggressive is because theists are usually extremely ignorant. you can't truly be diplomatic and ignorant. in ignorance, you are always right. you choose not to accept the other ideas, so no matter the argument weather its valid or unexplainable through religion dosn't matter. god is right always in their minds
@velardur Youa re msitaken. Original, Taoism, Confucianism, and even Buddhism had no gods. In European history religion was the state ideology with philosophy being relegated to universities. In China, religion was mostly relegated to private families and the state ideologies were philosophies. Imagine if the holy men of Athens were Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, and the acropolis had statues of them, with Zeus being relegated to small figurines and traditional figures to decorate houses.
first: buddhism, taoism and confucianism still dont have any gods,..but thats not the point. Its not because a religion doenst have any gods it is atheistic, for atheism is against any form of 'oppressive' reiligion and yes, buddhism, taosim and cunfucianism are religions.
the base of every religion is phylosophical,...even the Europeans ones.
@velardur Buddhism does have 'Gods', although not in the sense of an all powerful Christian God. The word Deva in Sanskrit translates loosely to God or Angelic being. Unlike the Gods of any other religion I know of, Deva's have very little power(although they do have a wee bit of power, it just depends on the Deva).
@tj4234 I depends on which Buddhism your talking about. In the early 1900's, Theravada Buddhists came to the US and stated that atheism was a fundamental part of Buddhist theory. It was stated this way: no soul, no mind, no person, no god. This is radical ignorance born of radical humility in which one realizes that any use of language to imagine anything beyond the observed is hollow and that not much can be said of the observed save that we encounter it, even that which we see is mysterious.
@SkepticSage Really what that means is that nothing exists in the way that we think it does. To say you do not exist is contradictory because you have to exist to actually say the phrase.
What is meant by the no person thing is no self. It's different. It doesn't mean there is no person. Also the no god thing is correct, they are talking about an almighty God. No soul is actually wrong. It's impermanent soul. Christians believe the Soul is permanent.
Bullshit. One cannot prove the existence of something that is invisible and leaves no evidence in the real world. God, by definition, is beyond proof or even evidence. To say that anything in the world is "evidence" for god is redefining the word evidence. Evidence for god would require showing that the world was IMPOSSIBLE without god. Since the world can be shown to exist without the need for a god, the world cannot be evidence for god. The god concept is believed based on faith.
The universe is contingent and requires a first cause to exist. That Cause must be uncaused as Aristotle explained. That cause must also be spirit (if if was in the dimensions of space and time- it would material and thus have had a previous cause), eternal (not have a beginning or end), infinitely powerful (the gap between nothing and something is infinite; needing infinite power to be created), self-existent
The Cosmos does not require a first cause because it may be eternal (scientists believe time preceded the big bang). If it did begin, there is no reason an entity had to do it, it could have been caused by a non- conscious force. Even if it was a conscious force, there would be nothing we could know about this force. There would be no need for the force to be eternal, it could exist in another dimension. Your arguments were debunked centuries ago and lack empirical evidence.
Eternal means existing outside of time and space... Something existing inside time and space is contingent, it cannot go back infinitely in time otherwise we could never get to any point in time.
If what caused this universe was a contingent force, that force would still need to have a being with the qualities of self-existence, eternal, infinitely powerful, spirit.
You are defining words for both of us. I mean by eternal that the cosmos may have no beginning. Nothing has to move through all of time for time in the present to occur. In a scientific sense, everything that happens in an infinite amount of time is all happening at once. I may not be able to move across an infinite amount of space, this does not mean that there are not people existing somewhere billions of light years away. They do not require my capacity to get to them. Time is similar.
If the cosmos had no beginning or did have a beginning but that came from another cosmos and so on... That would require an infinite amount of previous time, which would mean that we could never any point in time. But we are at a point in time, which means time did have a beginning and the universe had a beginning.
You've forgotten that time is a dimension. There may be creatures living on a planet many light years away. If space were infinite, this would not keep them from existing. I would not need to move through space for them to exist. There existence is independent of me. Time is a dimension with different objects existing in different parts of it. Nothing has to traverse the entire length of time in order for us or anyone else to be here. Your understanding of time is unscientific and pre-Einstein.
The universe requires no first cause since it may never have begun. Even if it did begin, the "uncaused cause" as you call it may not be a conscious entity at all but some "eternal" process. Even it were an entity, there is no evidence it has any of the qualities attributed to most gods. Even if it were a god, it would not necessarily be Yahweh or Allah. Being out of space time does not require "spirit." (whatever that means). You make multiple assumptions and your god is self contradictory.
Aristotle explained that is "un-caused cause" (God) could only be spirit.
The force that caused the universe or the cause of the universe must be spirit, eternal (outside of time and space), self-existent (something or Someone else could not have caused it), infinitely powerful to create something out of nothing.
A spirit is an imaginary entity created by the mind of man and has been defined in an almost infinite number of ways. Spirit means whatever the person speaking wants it to mean. An uncaused cause does not have to be spirit- why can't material objects exist forever? You are also leaving out the possibility of a caused cause with a series of causes going back infinitely. Again you make multiple assumptions without evidence and create phony conditions on the cosmos based on nothing.
By disproving an infinite regress of what you're trying to say is actually can be possible, it shows that time and space (by which material things exist) must have been caused something or some being that was infinitely powerful (to create time and space from nothing requires infinite power to bridge the infinite gap of nothing to something), spirit (independent of matter), eternal (existing outside of space and time), and self-existent (not relying upon any matter or form of matter). Doweagree?
The God of the Jews, Yahweh, revealed himself as, "I am", meaning He was self-existent and eternal. This was a 1000 years before the Hellenistic thinkers, Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates were born.
This is enough proof to me to see that the God of the Jews is the most logical: he matches the qualities needed to be God. The mythological gods, Saturn, Zeus, etc. all came from the darkness, meaning they cannot be the true gods (or God).
You are not actually saying that because someone wrote down that a "spirit" spoke and said something that that proves the "spirit" exists? If that is all the evidence you need (which is to say NONE) than I do not know how we can have a conversation. If you do not see the almost laughable holes in your reasoning- I don't know what to tell you. Your naivete is astonishing!!
Confucianism is more of a way of life following the natural law, which was instituted by God, not atheism.
Atheism teaches of no Higher Authority, therefore, anyone can commit atrocities without having to answer to the justice of God rather than man made government.
Confucius does not emphasize any theology at all. We have no way of knowing weather he believed in a god or gods or none. His philosophy lead to an obedient society without the need for fear of a god. This is evidence that Yahweh is not necessary for a moral life. While Confucian China was at peace, Christian Europe was in constant war. Belief in god is not required to be moral and belief in god does not guarantee a moral life either. China was no less moral than Europe.
Why does Confucianism believe in the afterlife then? Surely they believe in the Higher Being (God).
If there is no God, then what is morality? Basically a person's opinion.
China may have been at peace for a few years but it's unhistorical to say no wars happened after Confucianism. Every country, not concerning a certain religion, will have wars.
Belief in an afterlife does not require a god. The Chinese believed that the afterlife was a natural functioning of nature and the cosmos. This is true of many religions. Buddhists beleive in reincarnation and Karma, even when they do not believe in gods. Morality was created by man in the same way god was created. I never said no wars happened after Confucianism- you should read more carefully. In the world, Atheist/agnostic societies are not more immoral, in fact, the opposite seems true.
Morality was created by man? That doesn't seem true. People naturally know certain things are wrong from the existence of their conscience. Who created that conscience? The Chinese also believed in a higher power (God) if you look into their folklore.
Communist Russia was a completely atheist society, as was Communist China. The leaders thought, "Hey, there's no God to punish us, we can do what we want." That's were millions of people lost their lives to pave the way to materialism (atheism.
How do you know that people naturally know things are wrong? Children left to fend for themselves on an island frequently revert to savagery. The Chinese believed in many gods, but there ethical systems did not originate with gods but with famous philosophers who frequently said little or nothing about gods. What was done in Russia and China occurred everywhere, especially deeply religious societies. Societies that are ideologically or religiously based tend to have repressive governments.
Ah, Lord of the Flies, was it not true that a few of those kids remained sane and followed their natural conscience and killed no one?
Nothing that monstrous occurred in a religious society than that which occurred in an atheist society such as Russia and China and what is continuing to happen in godless societies through abortion.
The history of ideology is filled with monstrous events. The issue is not theism verses atheism but dogma verses rationality/empiricism. Communism and Fascism are as irrational as Christianity and Islam- and for the same reason. These four philosophies are based on assumptions without evidence and are totalitarian and authoritarian, allowing no disagreement. Both Jesus, Marx, and Hitler all claimed to be THE way not A way. Utopian visions lead to the justification of violence to non-believers.
True, but Hitler and Marx did not imply force and their was nothing but materialism. They also did not prove themselves to be "the Way".
Christianity teaches that, in this life, a utopia (which means "no-place" in Greek) is not possible. Only in heaven will there be a utopia, so we try to make the best outta this life for we know we will be in a God-made "utopia". It is an atheistic ideology to form man-made utopia since there will be none after we die.
I don't doubt China had very high morals back then, the teachings of Confucious were sublime. However, he was only a precursor to Christ. Christ taught many values of what Confucious also taught plus self-sacrifice, brotherly love, and charity; virtues much deeper than the laws of Confucious.
Values ignored by Christians for centuries and never realized on a mass scale until the advent of modern secular democracies. Which democracies are the most Christ like in their brotherly love? Those inhabited mostly by atheists. (e.g. Holland) Rather ironic don't you think? Christ's followers have caused just as much murder and wars as brotherly love. Whereas atheist practice brotherly love with no need for a deity. Worship of gods has never been correlated with moral behavior.
Values ignored? I as well as many Christians practice these values. In fact, the most charitable organization in the world is the Catholic Church. Every corner of the world, Catholic organizations have come to help the poor, needy, and disabled. We have also stood strong in countering the violence in the world and being a voice for the voiceless. We have spoken out against abortion (which has taken billions of preborn chilren's lives), saved countless lives during the holocaust, etc.
I am afraid you need to look up your facts. I looked at 16 different websites with lists of largest charities. They all are very similar and none of them mention the catholic church. If the catholic church is giving that much money away, they are keeping it a secret. If so, how are you so knowledgeable of how much they give when no one else seems to know? Admit it my friend, you pulled that one out of your fanny. The church takes in a lot more than it gives. That's why it is so rich.
Examples: Missionaries of Charity founded by mother Theresa is active in over 130 countries, thousands of Catholic orphanages are run by dioceses throughout the world as well.
The Catholic Church manages it's treasury giving money to missionary work which includes building churches, inveterating charitable organizations, etc.
How would know that the Church takes in a lot more than it gives?
The Bible or New Testament teaches to turn the other cheek, self-sacrificing for others, giving charity to your enemies, love, tough love, the most noble of virtues.
"Christians" who practice just the opposite are doing so in the name of Christianity but of evil.
This is were we can differ from The Qu'ran which practices charity only to those in its religion, and Hinduism which practices the caste system (a lack of charity to poor, meek, disabled).
But Christians have primarily ignored these values historically. What good is a set of values without the apparatus to make them possible in the world? Religious organizations have failed to bring Christ's true message and behavioral guidance to the people in a convincing way. In this way they have failed. The dark ages and ancient times when Christianity flourished were some of our most immoral. Modern secular democracies have been far more successful.
you did this much better then i could have. i would have started it by playing SLAYER (not that i dont like johnn lennon but because i thought some REAL metal would be good to put in the response to his video) and then i would have said "YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT I CANT TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY DID YOU THINK BEFORE YOU MADE THIS?!" all in red before i would continue to "argue" his video...
ahaha, I loved this video. Not exactly the most concrete stuff I've read over the subject, but it's good to see someone with an intellectual performance past middle school.
I've been doing some multiple regression analysis for a sustainability topic recently and for some reason this kept popping up as something that would be fun to cover.
I love your work SkepticSage, especially your responses to philos71 in another video. I'm surprised you even dignified this video with a response, because it is just such unfounded nonsense. At least philos71 founded the basis of a half decent argument, simply for the fact that in order to argue for intelligent design, your points have to be somewhat more aligned to Evolution than absolute fundamentalist thinking.
Yeah, this is more like it. Congrats on your points, some christians are retarded to the point you think they could be joking, and debating their remarks logically is a tough job.
in my opinion this "God loves you exactly the way you are" thing is just something said by Christians to make little kids with mental problems or ugly kids or w/e you want to call it to feel good about themselves and not beeing sad about their body or w/e... in my school aactually if you are not a Christian you have to face racism.. so we are FORCED to be Christians... i am "Christian" just for my parents but i dont really believe in God or anything related to Christians...
Everybody, please stop arguing about if God is real or not. Don't care where others believe in or not, just be happy with what you believ in, don't assault others on thier believe. I believe in God, not the bible. God is love. Love eachother.
Sounds wonderful accept for one thing. That is usually not how it happens. When people become religious they usually become judgmental of those form other faiths or of those who don't beleive. Also, people usually attempt to impose their values on others.
Just as you wouldn't want a single (ignorant) atheist to become the poster-child for your cause, I ask you not to use one Christian's lack of logical reasoning (in all 10) to fight Christianity as a whole. The creator of the video went awry when he used the word "atheist". He picked the fight and I realize that. He should've said "Why I believe in God" or something along those lines, then your video response would make you an ass-hole. Oh well. I hope more Christians would think before they act.
I consider any critique made with malicious intent asinine. Illogical argumentation manifests itself far beyond the bounds of religion idealism as well. And while I don't agree with "tibbeer"'s assessment of God, I do agree that the debate should be serious, not sarcastic or disdainful. "God" is a very touchy topic for most people and this is a very aggressive post, whether you believe it is or not.
3. I'll give you that. 2. It proves the Bible being a correct source. 1. If you spent more time seeking him and less time relying on creationists to prove, you would be saved. He don't forgive because you have to mean it and be willing to forgive those who wronged you.
10. I'll give you that. 9. I'll give you the destructive nature on Religion. I don't see how that justifies the attitudes of some atheists, granted some Xtians are whacked. 8. You offer no alternative explanation. 7. This argument is true, however, those countries are less reproductive and will eventually deline in population. 6. Matter of opinion. 5. How do you blame God when you claim there is none? 4. Wow, talk to a younger person. YOu'll see the dumbing down. cont.
I have to agree with this video, the only thing I don't agree with is you saying atheism is not a religion, religion is a set of beliefs and atheism relives there is no god thus by definition it is a religion, btw I'm agnostic.
Ok, then by your logic, you have several religions. You don't believe in Zeus, Odin, Allah, etc.. Disbelief in something is not the same as a belief. So no, atheism is not a religion.
If I don't beleive in astrology, I do so due to LACK of evidence. (i.e. no evidence of correlations between star movements and human events) That does not make me a believer of an organized belief system let alone a religion, it simply means I think astrology is bullshit. The same is true for theism.
You're right SkepticSage. I think that every religion (not only Christianism) must be eliminated because they're due to fear and superstition. Our god should be our brain not a mythological being that no one has seen and that makes people suffer and at the same time says he is good and merciful
Yes we are. We are losers of ignorance, dominance by others, close-mindedness, irrationality, scientific stupidity, guilty fables, shame producing lies, excuses to murder people while believing we are pious, and annoying moralizing ingrates. Though, I must admit, we have not lost the last one completely yet. Your response is evidence of that.
As usual, religious people making stupid statements about science they know nothing about. Evolution does not say we came form monkeys, it says that we and monkeys share a common ancestor millions of years back and that we share 98% of our DNA. Yes we are related to monkeys but we did not come from them. Also, this is not an opinion or belief, it is a fact. You are ignoring facts simply becuase the facts contradict your false religion, now that's retarded.
Evolution started with tiny cells growing in water. Water provides an environment for life from a scientific viewpoint. Those cells developed creatures eventually into reptiles which evolved further into other creatures that were able to walk on land, to smaller monkeys then chimps and apes and humans... we so far haven't evolved since due to technology making us lazy and therefore no need to evolve further.
In addition this doesn't mean there is no God, but it doesn't mean there is. You cannot prove or disprove that god exists. You can read the stories and the lessons that the bible teaches, but you cannot definately say he exists or not. Without science there is no religion and without religion there is no science.
If I went back to the time of jesus with scientific experiments of today and technology of today, I might have been considered the messiah! Was Jesus a scientist? Who knows!?
God as defined by the majority of western scholars as someone who CANNOT exist. His definition contradicts itself. Either the definition must change or we must decide god is not possible. If we change the definition to the extent that god is even possible, we end up with a god that no theologian (or average theist) would recognize as worthy of worship. There is evidence against the Judea-christian definition of god. To keep such an idea in the running is done for purely emotional reasons.
Here is an example everyone knows. The definition of God says that he is all mighty and can do anything. In the definition he is both at the same time (I'm sure you know where this is going). You could ask "Can god create a boulder so large even he cannot life it?" If he can he is not almighty, if he cannot he cannot do anything. Thus, one of these attributes must go. But which one?, who decides?, and based on what? Since god is not visible to be tested in order to determine this what do we do?
So you use a paradox. but at the base of your argument you equate physical strength to being "almighty". He could make that boulder and (while being unable to lift it) make it dissolve, or fall apart, etc. Please define terms
At the core of it all, God cannot be scientifically proven or disproven. But he may be discussed at a philosophical level. Some of the most intelligent scholars in the world have boiled their definition of God into the element of cohesion that hold the universe together.
This is not a paradox, just badly stated. God should not need a trick to do something within his limitations. God is described as having unlimited strength and unlimited ability to create. But the example shows he cannot be both at the same time. Thus, the definition must be wrong. SO we have a god whose power to lift is limited or power to create is limited. He is limited either way. But God, by Christian definition, is supposed to have NO limits. A limited God is a theological problem.
God, as defined by Christians, does not need to be scientifically disproved, since the example disproves him by logical argument. Either God is not as Christians say he is, or he does not exist. Again, who is to decide this? By what method is this decision to be made? How would we test the method to know it is a reliable method?
IF such questions were asked to begin with (before we decided on what religion to beleive) , and we suspended judgment until such questions were reasonably answered, no one would beleive any religion.
This is my third response; I feel annoying. I was just wondering why you believe evolution (which is an EXTREMELY broad term, unbeknownst to most Christians) is FACT. Most of the "evidence" is calculated and not observable. Also, what is your belief on the origin of all and purpose in life. Why does this substance (or matter) we see around exist. How? From what origin? I'll even accept an intelligent response on the quantum level. Indulge my fancy :)
Your acting like the lack of answers for questions means a god exists. We might not be able to answer any of your questions, and that would not prove a god's existence one bit. In fact we can answer many of your questions quite easily and have good theories for the rest. The world is not as unexplainable as you suggest. By the way, evolution is an observable fact. Both in rock strata and in our DNA.
I sincerely hope that isn't the way I came across. I don't believe (Correction: I KNOW) that God cannot be proven. And I'm sorry, I don't think I understand you post. What were my questions? I don't recall asking anything but why you constitute evolution as fact. Evolution (on a level that is used to posit God as unnecessary) can't be observed because it takes far to long. I would rather not have a debate over evolution on youtube because I am restricted to 500 words and honestly don't have time
evolution can't be directly observed but there's a mountain of evidence to support it. I suggest you watch some of aronraa's or thunderfoot's videos on the subject of speciation being observed.
Go investigate what evolution is as a whole and then try and make someone sound stupid. Evolution as a whole makes more sense than some big dude with a long beard making light on one day and then 4 days later making stars. Stars = light. The Blible contradicts itself.
I cant see how you chistians can protect the bible this hard.... the bible is supid... it says god is almighty, and then there should be no reason he coundn't fre us from our sins without making jesus suffer... and they say he loves everyone... and then he kills everyone but Noah and his wife with a tidal wave...
And why in the hell does he make Moses kill the Egyptians when he could have just snapped with his fingers and it would be done already... also, why does he care to kill the Egyptians to rescue the jews? i mean, he didn't seem to have a problem with Adolf Hitler almost instingting them a few thousand years later..:P
You should remember that most athiests are more scientifically and logically minded. Science and religion actually go hand in hand. So by slating atheism just remember that God uses people to become doctors etc and works through medicines apparantly and who are these treatments given by? Oh yes, the scientifically minded logical people who most of which could claim to be athiests!
And teachers have very little power these days in schools as kids have more rights and discipline has therefore decreased and give a kid an inch they will take a mile. Any religion or walk of life has blood on its hands for a variety of reasons. Does God exist? There is no proof only faith exists. If God loves you as you are then why do many so called christians believe gay people will go to hell & therefore persecuted for loving someone when we are meant to love one another as God loves us?
In addition... You are saying that most athiest countries have created some of the most peaceful and giving societies so I guess that a good point to make on athiests especially when you consider the priests who have sexually abused chior boys. The bible being removed from schools has not had an impact on immorality as bullying and under age pregnancies etc occur in catholic and many other schools and has done since the start of education. There will always be a bully in a school etc...
In his defense, he lists 10 reasons why he's not an Atheist. He doesn't list 10 irrefutable reasons why Christianity is the 1 and only religion in the world and Atheists will burn in hell for eternity for not believing in it. In other words, that's just his opinion. Besides, didn't "The God Delusion" beat the Holy Bible as a best seller in English speaking countries?
I am not criticizing this person for making an argument that we should all be Christians. I am simply pointing out the complete lack of logic in his arguments.
The monarchy is for show it has no power and is secular not religious. The majority of the population are deists, atheists, and agnostics. Even those who are theists have only a vague concept of god.
Communism is not compatible with modern scientific atheism. Communists are ideological not scientific. They come to their beleifs they way that religious people do, through faith in a belief system. A communist does not beleive in God becuase doing so would make him part of another ideology- Christianity for instance. A scientist is an atheist becuase it is by far the most likely conclusion. An atheist countries have a common folkway to rely on logic and observation rather than faith.
Sage, You have not progress with your thinking and wisdom over the last few months. Still same logical presentations of your own mind at still. At this point, you are merely a manifestation of individual freedom of expression, which means basically whatever you want to say, and [what you are saying] is merely presenting your stories no different than those that you disagree. Perhaps that is all that is to it but may be not, but you have to jump out of your own circular and circular.
Atheism requires no belief and is defined by it. A lack of something is not the same thing as something. A lack of belief is what happens when an utter lack of evidence is acknowledged. When there is a lack of evidence for something the odds that that something is real is very low since something must give off evidence of itself as a matter of its existence. When given a hypothesis we should assume it is wrong until it is proved right. The world is filled with hypothesi that didn't pan out.
I know, it was a mere joke, I don't think Atheist believe in jokes either? Also you're very wrong to taking Science into this, all Science is based off assumptions that are then proven later on. Science, like Newton (greatest scientist) said:
'No great discovery was ever made without a bold guess
I also doubt you understand Science, especially if you try and relate it to the God argument. Also God is more than just a hypothesis, modern science is based off the belief in God.
Your statement is absurd. The vast majority of scientists are atheists. How can science be based on a myth? Science is based off of data not assumptions. The assumption that a god exists because the idea makes you feel good when you have absolutely no evidence is not like making an assumption that gravity will make something fall since it has in the past. "The God hypothesis" is a book. In it the scientist shows that scientifically, the God hypotheses has failed the test of science.
No, in fact 40% of all scientists are believers in a personal God, and Agnostics outnumber Atheists by alot. No one said Science was based off myth, but I loved that ad hominem.
The idea of the exiatnce of God does not make me feel good, I'm just realistic. I'm not trusting a novel, the exiatnce of God is no mere hypothesis, you're acting a little childhish trying to reccomend me a biased book and using that as evidence, we don't have bias in Science.
You said that modern science is "based off the belief in god." (Which is laughably absurd) Since gods are myths, you effectively said that science is based on myths. An ad hominem fallacy is not the misrepresentation of another person's statement. It is arguing that someone is wrong due to their personal characteristics rather than their argument. I have not attacked you personally, only your shoddy argumetns.
"The God Hypothesis" was a reference to the book "The God Delusion" by R. Dawkins. He is a biologist and critiques God from a scientific perspective. Not only is that not a biased approach, it is the exact opposite. An unsubstantiated conjectural being is a hypothesis by definition. If you beleive
P.S. I get along with athist alot better then my fellow christians.
LueyLuvaexthe13th 8 months ago
I'm a christian, but this video is much better. RIP John Lennon.
LueyLuvaexthe13th 8 months ago
For someone presumably big on logic, I think the John Lennon song makes for highly inappropriate background music. He said no religion while practicing several different religious traditions; all trendy eastern ones of course. He said nothing to kill or die for yet had property with armed guards; and also endorsed numerous radical leftist causes, like the Black Panthers, who espoused and practiced deadly violence.
MSPEL 11 months ago
I love how share their testimonies as if they're irrefutable proof of the existence of a God. Way to call this guy out.
There's just one argument that I thought didn't stand on its own. The thought that God should just forgive us rather than send someone to suffer for us has been answered by many Christians. We have knowingly made bad choices, and Christ came to accept the consequences for us. Because of some eternal laws, I suppose that these debts have to be paid by someone who is perfect.
pocketocrisps 1 year ago
Well.. This was dumb..
Bygdablantskog 1 year ago
Sorry I don't see how you can defend saying certain political ideologies like communism are religions. Debunking other peoples myths while perpetuating your own, how ironic.
angeltears87 1 year ago
@angeltears87 I defend nothing, I'm stating a popular social theory. Ideologies differ from scientific theories in that they are based on faith not evidence. Faith based beleifs have similar effects. The purges in the soviet union are very similar to the purges of heretics in the catholic church. They are sociologically the same process. Please explain how this widely held (and evidenced) scientific theory is a myth? It may be untrue and be replaced when new evidence comes in, but a myth?
SkepticSage 1 year ago
@SkepticSage
If you are referring to stalin as a communist then perhaps that is your first mistake. A dictatorship has nothing to do with socialism, it was the socialists that stalin was "purging".
Widely held? By whom? People who don't know the difference between democracy and dictatorship?
Also religion suggests something spiritual.
angeltears87 1 year ago
@angeltears87 Communism certainly has religious aspects. Among believers it functions like a religion. It has its practices, dogma, heroes, martyrs, saints. It even has a paradise, admittedly a secular one that is attainable through work- the socialist workers paradise. It excommunicates those who fail to toe the party line. Instead of a god there is the central committee. Still sounds a lot like a religion to me.
MSPEL 11 months ago
@MSPEL
The similarities of communism to religion can be found in any political movement or structure. Including capitalism, western democracy, the tea party, right wing politics in general, left wing politics in general, feminism, men's rights activism, etc.
what use does it serve to compare politics to religion?
angeltears87 11 months ago
@angeltears87 That is true. However most forms of government do not inspirethe level of fanatacism that communism does. I believe that for many true believers, Communisim fills the need that other people get out of religion. That is why debating a hard core commie is usually as pointless as debating a hard core fundalmentlist. If you should succede in convincing him that his beliefs are wrong,; you will take away his reason for living. He is not going to let that happen.
MSPEL 11 months ago
@MSPEL
"do not inspirethe level of fanatacism that communism does"
Please provide evidence. "Communisim fills the need that other people get out of religion."
Being a communist I disagree. If you convinced me or anyone within my socialist organisation that communism is incorrect we would change political view and continue trying to fix the shoddy governments :)
You speak on what you don't know it seems.
angeltears87 11 months ago
@angeltears87 Comminism has left over 100 million dead bodys in its wake. No other group of people in recorded history have anything close to those kind of numbers. Pol Pot's boys and girls (literaly) wiped out almost 20% of Cambodia's population. Journalists in cuba have done 20 years in prison becuase they published an article that Castro or one of his friends found offensive. I could go on for quite a while.
MSPEL 11 months ago
@MSPEL
sorry neither pol pot nor castro are communists. Their countries are/were capitalist countries.
Capitalism btw has left far more then 100million dead bodies behind it, and far more to come. By that definition capitalism is a more fanatical concept then communism :)
angeltears87 11 months ago
@angeltears87 One can play with definitions all day. the fact is that Casto and Pol Pot where schooled in marxist theory (Both in western schools) and went back home to start thier glorious revelutions in their prospective countries. They both had the full support of all the major commie groups in the US and in Europe. Even after it became an established fact, many marxist academics like Noam Choamsky refused to acknowledge the bloodbath the Kemer Ruge for the bloodbath that it was. .
MSPEL 11 months ago
@MSPEL
I am not playing with definitions. It just helps to know what we are actually discussing or we are just talking past each other.
Let me get this straight your definition of a communist is pretty much someone who claims to be such? That is absurd.
No wonder the commies you speak to aren't convinced they are wrong.
Get back to me when you want an honest discussion and will provide a definition of communism.
angeltears87 11 months ago
@angeltears87 One can play with definitions all day. the fact is that Casto and Pol Pot where schooled in marxist theory (Both in western schools) and went back home to start thier glorious revelutions in their prospective countries. They both had the full support of all the major commie groups in the US and in Europe. Even after it became an established fact, many marxist academics like Noam Choamsky refused to acknowledge the Kemer Ruge for the bloodbath that it was. .
MSPEL 11 months ago
@MSPEL
Perhaps it would be best before we argue about communism if you provide your working definition of what communism is, it clearly does not fit how I would define it.
My definition would include the basics, such as a government of the working class, which would mean workers councils (and would also proclude dictators such as castro and pol pot). Secondly a communist state would not run on profit, the economy would be based on need rather than capital.
That is a basic summary.
angeltears87 11 months ago
@angeltears87 I'm not defining communism by the actions of anyone who claims to be a commie. I am going by the actions of many of the people who are acknowledged by the general population, who present themselves as, and carry the title of communist. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Kim all qualify on all three counts. As I understand it, Mark wasn't real clear on the nuts and bolts issues on how to bring about his utopia. It was Lenin who filled in much of that part of it.
MSPEL 11 months ago
@MSPEL
What actions are you defining as communist though? Lenin was a communist at least :) I fail to see the problem with that though...
Mark wasn't clear? You don't even know who wrote about the alternative of communism and you are trying to tell me who a communist is
As you understand it? Maybe read something about what communism is before displaying your ignorance and accusing dictators of communism. MARX sure did write about how communism could come about.
angeltears87 11 months ago
@angeltears87 i don't know how many years I have left. I sure don't want to waste two or three of them taking the time to really get to know all about communism. I've seen enough of it to feel very confident in my conviction that it is crap. The US is not perfect; but compared to any modern communist state it is. Besides Marx was; an alchollic, notorius for his body oder, a man who neglected the basic needs of his family, and created the single worst political ideology ever.
MSPEL 11 months ago
@MSPEL
No modern state is communist. Please present evidence that it is.
You feel the need to vilify an ideology and the people who follow that ideology but can provide no support for your argument.
You are as much a waste of my time as the creationists who vilify the theory of evolution without knowing what it is. At least they can present me a definition of their god so I can discuss it with them though. You can't even define for me what you think communism is.
Farewell.
angeltears87 11 months ago
@angeltears87 "You are as much a waste of my time as the creationists who vilify the theory of evolution without knowing what it is."
explain that piece of crap to me then. it has so much evidence now against it im surprised its still standing.
sk1ll3tfr34k 10 months ago
@sk1ll3tfr34k
Explain evolution to you?
If you deny it, read the science, look at the evidence, I don't waste my time with conspiracy theorists.
angeltears87 10 months ago
@angeltears87 "read the science, look at the evidence"
LOL! what evidence supports a few drawings on paper? u know one of the many things has screwed up evolution? the fact that scientists have found bones of a supposed "ancestor", but the carbon dating put it in the "wrong" spot on the timeline from ape to man. explain how, if we were on the last step towards modern-day man, how sum of our ancestors suddenly had their heads shrunk. i assure u that our modern-day evolutionists cannot.
sk1ll3tfr34k 10 months ago
@sk1ll3tfr34k
"what evidence supports a few drawings on paper"
The actual fossils...
angeltears87 10 months ago
@angeltears87 and wat's the carbon dating on those fossils, preferrably the fossils that "say" that we evolved?
sk1ll3tfr34k 10 months ago
@MSPEL
Interesting that you think stalin was a communist. Even though he had death camps called gulags where he executed all the communists. They went to their deaths singining the internationale. Those were true and proud commies. Not the murderous dictator who killed them and many others.
angeltears87 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What candidate doesn't participate in the, "Who is the best Christian contest?"
Christian, Ron Paul, who won the Values Summit poll 2012!
Want safety in America, protect Israel, wipe out Muslims?
MUST SEE VIDEO /watch?v=BHrkc6EB6h0
Gay marriage? Ron Paul says "Yes" /watch?v=l1gzs27HswQ
Ron Paul re: pot and black/Latino Americans and racism:
/watch?v=nhP5PwG5Sks
vechorik 4 months ago
finally a GOOD video
anonymousebb23 1 year ago
The bible tells people to kill anyone who tries to convert them to another religion. Also, Jesus was the original anarchist; he almost brought down the Roman empire without the use of physical violence and Moses was a military mastermind. Point is, don't mess with Christians, they're just too powerful.
blackyblackblack505 1 year ago
another reason to fight hard: CHRISTIANS ARE AS STUBBORN AS JESSICA ALBA IS HOT!!!!! whos with me on that? (either one, u pick)
Roqy96 1 year ago
@lilsoulkid is this comment directed to me? if so i dont listen to one satan worshipping band but u wouldnt kno tht i guess.
GHeroandRScape 1 year ago
@lilsoulkid and this is why we are atheists : D u fucking spreaders of hate if anyone is evil it would be you!!!
GHeroandRScape 1 year ago
Atheïsm is the only way!
GHeroandRScape 1 year ago 5
@GHeroandRScape if atheism means that u dnt believe in god or anythin then your DEFINETLY VVRONG!!!!!!
theres is evidence everyvvhere in the vvorld to prove that there is GOD!!!1
nvrmind3 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nvrmind3 name me one..
GHeroandRScape 1 year ago
@nvrmind3
Please provide any.
angeltears87 1 year ago
Have you noticed that the general Christian attitude is to think everything is bad and is anyway becoming worst?
"The decision of Christianity to see the world as bad and evil...has made the world bad and evil." (my dear Nietzsche)
ysurfer 1 year ago
Dude, you took the words right out of my mouth! and of course the christian won't let people comment
JrakonaDeath 1 year ago
Thanks for the video! you've said the things that were on my mind watching that video! its funny how religious videos don't open up their comments however, most atheists videos are. Just goes to show that religious people love the "im right your wrong" agurment i guess. anyways, great work!
TheFightingRebel 1 year ago
Also.. not all atheists are hateful or what ever, you are just generalizing and discriminating, but this is something the Bible encourages so I guess it should be expected.
Xzilhery 1 year ago
If atheism has more blood on itgs hands then christianity, I'll shoot myself right now. Hitler believed he was doing gods work, killing 6000000 jews, and countless gypsies blacks gays and other non aryan groups. Then add to that the crusade and I don't think atheism come close to having the most blood on its hands. And no its not a religion. Thanks for the vid man.
Undeaddittohead 1 year ago
It should also be pointed out that the teaching of the Bible in schools has not been removed(not in Britain anyway). What has happened is they have added it to RME and put it in with as many other religions as they can fit, so that people can choose a faith that they believe in, or pick and mix principles that they like rather than being force fed someone else's viewpoint at a young age.
In my primary school we were all made to say the Lords Prayer every Friday, regardless of religious belief
tj4234 1 year ago
@tj4234 In what country? Britain? Do you not think that religious beliefs should be removed form schools or at the very least, teach religion form multiple perspectives including an atheist and empirical one?
SkepticSage 1 year ago
@SkepticSage Yup, we have that here (Netherlands) for ages. When you read all holy books you start to understand that they can not all be true but they can all be false. Maybe that's why about 50% of the people here do not follow a religion.
Plopkap 1 year ago
God does not accept us the way we are, he accepts only the ones that worship him (into heaven) the rest are sent into hell. That's not accepting. Or loving.
Jesus did not gave his life for us, he knew he'd go to heaven being immortal etc. He sacrificed nothing. A day of pain means nothing to an immortal. His love is not endless, it ends with our rejection of his undeserved demand for love which he punishes with eternal hell. That's not graceful. That's horrid, spiteful, evil...
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
all those Christian and creationist videos have the option for comments disables, proving that they know they can be contradicted and proven false, but don't want to be embarassed. They want to keep spreading their lies without people questioning their false logic and ignorant assumptions.
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
The single best response for #1 and a summation of what you said:
PROVE IT!
AIReject 1 year ago
Excellent response, though talking about rational arguments to a christian fundamentalist is like talking about the sky to a pig.
QPSFratt 1 year ago
Does every atheist believe they live in the times of the Crusades?
I think every atheist believes that every Christian is as corrupt as the Catholic church was during the dark ages.
"The destructive nature of Christianity"...Explain that please.
Nitros65 1 year ago
@Nitros65
Holding back science, brainwashing children, socially banning people who don't share their beliefs, racism, sexism, homophobia, occasional killings for religous beliefs, keeps people from use of condoms and birth control, wars, child molestation (just one example of religous leaders abusing power), a lack of effort to improve things because people think prayer works, etc.
Want me to go on?
lucariofan508 1 year ago
"There is nothing that we know about the universe that should make it incapable of complexity on its own"..???...can you give some examples..
syahhammet 1 year ago
@syahhammet Examples??? The point of my statement is the lack of examples. First, complexity has never been defined so what do people mean when they say "complex"? Second, if complexity is in the universe, then the universe is capable of it. It would be just as logical to say the universe has beauty. The universe is not capable of beauty on it sown. Therefore, god create the universe and gave it beauty. What makes the universe incapable of "complexity"? (whatever that means).
SkepticSage 1 year ago
"There is nothing that we know about the universe that should make it incapable of complexity on its own"..???...can you give some examples..
syahhammet 1 year ago
religion is dumb
cheekanuble 1 year ago
What about all the lives changed by Santa Claus?
FuckItSnoopy 1 year ago
@FuckItSnoopy LOL, good point
SkepticSage 1 year ago
theres nothing magic about god. he just uses physics in a way we cant understand or comprehend. he didnt create stuff out of nothing. he used stuff that was already there. were all so used to our worldly existence which makes it difficault to believe in a god, but the thing is you cant easily prove whether god exists or doesnt. so live youre life and be nice to people whether youre an atheist or a theist.
100bml 1 year ago
@100bml But not being able to prove the existence of something is evidence it does NOT exist. How does something exist within the matrix of the space-time continuum and yet avoid detection? We are not talking about a some obscure subatomic particle, we are talking about the biggest thing ever proposed, something that created everything, is intimately involved in everything, and interferes with matter and even the laws of physics to answer prayers. How can a huge pervasive god not leave evidence?
SkepticSage 1 year ago
you could also say the reason atheists try to be a little aggressive is because theists are usually extremely ignorant. you can't truly be diplomatic and ignorant. in ignorance, you are always right. you choose not to accept the other ideas, so no matter the argument weather its valid or unexplainable through religion dosn't matter. god is right always in their minds
meistermeist 1 year ago
taoism and confucianism (and boeddishm,....) are not atheistic,..An atheist - like me - is against religion, thus also against taoism,etc,....
velardur 2 years ago
@velardur Youa re msitaken. Original, Taoism, Confucianism, and even Buddhism had no gods. In European history religion was the state ideology with philosophy being relegated to universities. In China, religion was mostly relegated to private families and the state ideologies were philosophies. Imagine if the holy men of Athens were Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, and the acropolis had statues of them, with Zeus being relegated to small figurines and traditional figures to decorate houses.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
@SkepticSage no, i'm not mistaken:
first: buddhism, taoism and confucianism still dont have any gods,..but thats not the point. Its not because a religion doenst have any gods it is atheistic, for atheism is against any form of 'oppressive' reiligion and yes, buddhism, taosim and cunfucianism are religions.
the base of every religion is phylosophical,...even the Europeans ones.
velardur 1 year ago
@SkepticSage you sir, are the first Non-eastern-person who get it right that i've ever known.For that,I salut you!
ericon52168 1 year ago
@velardur Buddhism does have 'Gods', although not in the sense of an all powerful Christian God. The word Deva in Sanskrit translates loosely to God or Angelic being. Unlike the Gods of any other religion I know of, Deva's have very little power(although they do have a wee bit of power, it just depends on the Deva).
tj4234 1 year ago
@tj4234 I depends on which Buddhism your talking about. In the early 1900's, Theravada Buddhists came to the US and stated that atheism was a fundamental part of Buddhist theory. It was stated this way: no soul, no mind, no person, no god. This is radical ignorance born of radical humility in which one realizes that any use of language to imagine anything beyond the observed is hollow and that not much can be said of the observed save that we encounter it, even that which we see is mysterious.
SkepticSage 1 year ago 3
@SkepticSage Really what that means is that nothing exists in the way that we think it does. To say you do not exist is contradictory because you have to exist to actually say the phrase.
What is meant by the no person thing is no self. It's different. It doesn't mean there is no person. Also the no god thing is correct, they are talking about an almighty God. No soul is actually wrong. It's impermanent soul. Christians believe the Soul is permanent.
The mind one I'm not sure about.
tj4234 1 year ago
Nice vid man. I sensed your increasing frustration as you addressed one nonsensical "argument" after another with conspicuous logic. Made me laugh!
thabood 2 years ago
God can be proven through philosophy.
ItalianSEAL 2 years ago
Bullshit. One cannot prove the existence of something that is invisible and leaves no evidence in the real world. God, by definition, is beyond proof or even evidence. To say that anything in the world is "evidence" for god is redefining the word evidence. Evidence for god would require showing that the world was IMPOSSIBLE without god. Since the world can be shown to exist without the need for a god, the world cannot be evidence for god. The god concept is believed based on faith.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
The universe cannot exist without God.
The universe is contingent and requires a first cause to exist. That Cause must be uncaused as Aristotle explained. That cause must also be spirit (if if was in the dimensions of space and time- it would material and thus have had a previous cause), eternal (not have a beginning or end), infinitely powerful (the gap between nothing and something is infinite; needing infinite power to be created), self-existent
ItalianSEAL 2 years ago
The Cosmos does not require a first cause because it may be eternal (scientists believe time preceded the big bang). If it did begin, there is no reason an entity had to do it, it could have been caused by a non- conscious force. Even if it was a conscious force, there would be nothing we could know about this force. There would be no need for the force to be eternal, it could exist in another dimension. Your arguments were debunked centuries ago and lack empirical evidence.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Eternal means existing outside of time and space... Something existing inside time and space is contingent, it cannot go back infinitely in time otherwise we could never get to any point in time.
If what caused this universe was a contingent force, that force would still need to have a being with the qualities of self-existence, eternal, infinitely powerful, spirit.
ItalianSEAL 2 years ago
You are defining words for both of us. I mean by eternal that the cosmos may have no beginning. Nothing has to move through all of time for time in the present to occur. In a scientific sense, everything that happens in an infinite amount of time is all happening at once. I may not be able to move across an infinite amount of space, this does not mean that there are not people existing somewhere billions of light years away. They do not require my capacity to get to them. Time is similar.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
If the cosmos had no beginning or did have a beginning but that came from another cosmos and so on... That would require an infinite amount of previous time, which would mean that we could never any point in time. But we are at a point in time, which means time did have a beginning and the universe had a beginning.
ItalianSEAL 2 years ago
You've forgotten that time is a dimension. There may be creatures living on a planet many light years away. If space were infinite, this would not keep them from existing. I would not need to move through space for them to exist. There existence is independent of me. Time is a dimension with different objects existing in different parts of it. Nothing has to traverse the entire length of time in order for us or anyone else to be here. Your understanding of time is unscientific and pre-Einstein.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
The universe requires no first cause since it may never have begun. Even if it did begin, the "uncaused cause" as you call it may not be a conscious entity at all but some "eternal" process. Even it were an entity, there is no evidence it has any of the qualities attributed to most gods. Even if it were a god, it would not necessarily be Yahweh or Allah. Being out of space time does not require "spirit." (whatever that means). You make multiple assumptions and your god is self contradictory.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
A spirit is an entity outside of time and space.
Aristotle explained that is "un-caused cause" (God) could only be spirit.
The force that caused the universe or the cause of the universe must be spirit, eternal (outside of time and space), self-existent (something or Someone else could not have caused it), infinitely powerful to create something out of nothing.
ItalianSEAL 2 years ago
A spirit is an imaginary entity created by the mind of man and has been defined in an almost infinite number of ways. Spirit means whatever the person speaking wants it to mean. An uncaused cause does not have to be spirit- why can't material objects exist forever? You are also leaving out the possibility of a caused cause with a series of causes going back infinitely. Again you make multiple assumptions without evidence and create phony conditions on the cosmos based on nothing.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
By disproving an infinite regress of what you're trying to say is actually can be possible, it shows that time and space (by which material things exist) must have been caused something or some being that was infinitely powerful (to create time and space from nothing requires infinite power to bridge the infinite gap of nothing to something), spirit (independent of matter), eternal (existing outside of space and time), and self-existent (not relying upon any matter or form of matter). Doweagree?
ItalianSEAL 2 years ago
The God of the Jews, Yahweh, revealed himself as, "I am", meaning He was self-existent and eternal. This was a 1000 years before the Hellenistic thinkers, Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates were born.
This is enough proof to me to see that the God of the Jews is the most logical: he matches the qualities needed to be God. The mythological gods, Saturn, Zeus, etc. all came from the darkness, meaning they cannot be the true gods (or God).
ItalianSEAL 2 years ago
You are not actually saying that because someone wrote down that a "spirit" spoke and said something that that proves the "spirit" exists? If that is all the evidence you need (which is to say NONE) than I do not know how we can have a conversation. If you do not see the almost laughable holes in your reasoning- I don't know what to tell you. Your naivete is astonishing!!
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Confucianism is more of a way of life following the natural law, which was instituted by God, not atheism.
Atheism teaches of no Higher Authority, therefore, anyone can commit atrocities without having to answer to the justice of God rather than man made government.
ItalianSEAL 2 years ago
Confucius does not emphasize any theology at all. We have no way of knowing weather he believed in a god or gods or none. His philosophy lead to an obedient society without the need for fear of a god. This is evidence that Yahweh is not necessary for a moral life. While Confucian China was at peace, Christian Europe was in constant war. Belief in god is not required to be moral and belief in god does not guarantee a moral life either. China was no less moral than Europe.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Why does Confucianism believe in the afterlife then? Surely they believe in the Higher Being (God).
If there is no God, then what is morality? Basically a person's opinion.
China may have been at peace for a few years but it's unhistorical to say no wars happened after Confucianism. Every country, not concerning a certain religion, will have wars.
ItalianSEAL 2 years ago
Belief in an afterlife does not require a god. The Chinese believed that the afterlife was a natural functioning of nature and the cosmos. This is true of many religions. Buddhists beleive in reincarnation and Karma, even when they do not believe in gods. Morality was created by man in the same way god was created. I never said no wars happened after Confucianism- you should read more carefully. In the world, Atheist/agnostic societies are not more immoral, in fact, the opposite seems true.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Morality was created by man? That doesn't seem true. People naturally know certain things are wrong from the existence of their conscience. Who created that conscience? The Chinese also believed in a higher power (God) if you look into their folklore.
Communist Russia was a completely atheist society, as was Communist China. The leaders thought, "Hey, there's no God to punish us, we can do what we want." That's were millions of people lost their lives to pave the way to materialism (atheism.
ItalianSEAL 2 years ago
How do you know that people naturally know things are wrong? Children left to fend for themselves on an island frequently revert to savagery. The Chinese believed in many gods, but there ethical systems did not originate with gods but with famous philosophers who frequently said little or nothing about gods. What was done in Russia and China occurred everywhere, especially deeply religious societies. Societies that are ideologically or religiously based tend to have repressive governments.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Ah, Lord of the Flies, was it not true that a few of those kids remained sane and followed their natural conscience and killed no one?
Nothing that monstrous occurred in a religious society than that which occurred in an atheist society such as Russia and China and what is continuing to happen in godless societies through abortion.
ItalianSEAL 2 years ago
The history of ideology is filled with monstrous events. The issue is not theism verses atheism but dogma verses rationality/empiricism. Communism and Fascism are as irrational as Christianity and Islam- and for the same reason. These four philosophies are based on assumptions without evidence and are totalitarian and authoritarian, allowing no disagreement. Both Jesus, Marx, and Hitler all claimed to be THE way not A way. Utopian visions lead to the justification of violence to non-believers.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
True, but Hitler and Marx did not imply force and their was nothing but materialism. They also did not prove themselves to be "the Way".
Christianity teaches that, in this life, a utopia (which means "no-place" in Greek) is not possible. Only in heaven will there be a utopia, so we try to make the best outta this life for we know we will be in a God-made "utopia". It is an atheistic ideology to form man-made utopia since there will be none after we die.
ItalianSEAL 2 years ago
I don't doubt China had very high morals back then, the teachings of Confucious were sublime. However, he was only a precursor to Christ. Christ taught many values of what Confucious also taught plus self-sacrifice, brotherly love, and charity; virtues much deeper than the laws of Confucious.
ItalianSEAL 2 years ago
Values ignored by Christians for centuries and never realized on a mass scale until the advent of modern secular democracies. Which democracies are the most Christ like in their brotherly love? Those inhabited mostly by atheists. (e.g. Holland) Rather ironic don't you think? Christ's followers have caused just as much murder and wars as brotherly love. Whereas atheist practice brotherly love with no need for a deity. Worship of gods has never been correlated with moral behavior.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Values ignored? I as well as many Christians practice these values. In fact, the most charitable organization in the world is the Catholic Church. Every corner of the world, Catholic organizations have come to help the poor, needy, and disabled. We have also stood strong in countering the violence in the world and being a voice for the voiceless. We have spoken out against abortion (which has taken billions of preborn chilren's lives), saved countless lives during the holocaust, etc.
ItalianSEAL 2 years ago
I am afraid you need to look up your facts. I looked at 16 different websites with lists of largest charities. They all are very similar and none of them mention the catholic church. If the catholic church is giving that much money away, they are keeping it a secret. If so, how are you so knowledgeable of how much they give when no one else seems to know? Admit it my friend, you pulled that one out of your fanny. The church takes in a lot more than it gives. That's why it is so rich.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Examples: Missionaries of Charity founded by mother Theresa is active in over 130 countries, thousands of Catholic orphanages are run by dioceses throughout the world as well.
The Catholic Church manages it's treasury giving money to missionary work which includes building churches, inveterating charitable organizations, etc.
How would know that the Church takes in a lot more than it gives?
ItalianSEAL 2 years ago
If it gave out a lot more than it gets, it would not be rich? Even for Christians the laws of math apply.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
@SkepticSage You actually think the church is rich? do some research brah, the catholic church is among the most charitable groups on earth.
DangleSnipe93 1 year ago
The Bible or New Testament teaches to turn the other cheek, self-sacrificing for others, giving charity to your enemies, love, tough love, the most noble of virtues.
"Christians" who practice just the opposite are doing so in the name of Christianity but of evil.
This is were we can differ from The Qu'ran which practices charity only to those in its religion, and Hinduism which practices the caste system (a lack of charity to poor, meek, disabled).
ItalianSEAL 2 years ago
But Christians have primarily ignored these values historically. What good is a set of values without the apparatus to make them possible in the world? Religious organizations have failed to bring Christ's true message and behavioral guidance to the people in a convincing way. In this way they have failed. The dark ages and ancient times when Christianity flourished were some of our most immoral. Modern secular democracies have been far more successful.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
you did this much better then i could have. i would have started it by playing SLAYER (not that i dont like johnn lennon but because i thought some REAL metal would be good to put in the response to his video) and then i would have said "YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT I CANT TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY DID YOU THINK BEFORE YOU MADE THIS?!" all in red before i would continue to "argue" his video...
this is why im not in the debateclub....
anyways great video \m/ XD \m/
sio42 2 years ago
ahaha, I loved this video. Not exactly the most concrete stuff I've read over the subject, but it's good to see someone with an intellectual performance past middle school.
I've been doing some multiple regression analysis for a sustainability topic recently and for some reason this kept popping up as something that would be fun to cover.
Xoda000 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I love your work SkepticSage, especially your responses to philos71 in another video. I'm surprised you even dignified this video with a response, because it is just such unfounded nonsense. At least philos71 founded the basis of a half decent argument, simply for the fact that in order to argue for intelligent design, your points have to be somewhat more aligned to Evolution than absolute fundamentalist thinking.
Cats0709 2 years ago
Yeah, this is more like it. Congrats on your points, some christians are retarded to the point you think they could be joking, and debating their remarks logically is a tough job.
simone86deviant 2 years ago
in my opinion this "God loves you exactly the way you are" thing is just something said by Christians to make little kids with mental problems or ugly kids or w/e you want to call it to feel good about themselves and not beeing sad about their body or w/e... in my school aactually if you are not a Christian you have to face racism.. so we are FORCED to be Christians... i am "Christian" just for my parents but i dont really believe in God or anything related to Christians...
heind1993 2 years ago
Everybody, please stop arguing about if God is real or not. Don't care where others believe in or not, just be happy with what you believ in, don't assault others on thier believe. I believe in God, not the bible. God is love. Love eachother.
and don't you dare call me a hippie! ;)
tibbeer 2 years ago
Sounds wonderful accept for one thing. That is usually not how it happens. When people become religious they usually become judgmental of those form other faiths or of those who don't beleive. Also, people usually attempt to impose their values on others.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Just as you wouldn't want a single (ignorant) atheist to become the poster-child for your cause, I ask you not to use one Christian's lack of logical reasoning (in all 10) to fight Christianity as a whole. The creator of the video went awry when he used the word "atheist". He picked the fight and I realize that. He should've said "Why I believe in God" or something along those lines, then your video response would make you an ass-hole. Oh well. I hope more Christians would think before they act.
hennaruji 2 years ago
If a video "why I beleive in god" were made and it was filled with illogical arguments. Criticizing it would make no on an "ass-hole."
SkepticSage 2 years ago
I consider any critique made with malicious intent asinine. Illogical argumentation manifests itself far beyond the bounds of religion idealism as well. And while I don't agree with "tibbeer"'s assessment of God, I do agree that the debate should be serious, not sarcastic or disdainful. "God" is a very touchy topic for most people and this is a very aggressive post, whether you believe it is or not.
hennaruji 2 years ago
God is not true. I believe there is something after death, but I don't' believe all that god bullshit, and heaven, and hell. Stupid lies.
whereshitrise90 2 years ago
3. I'll give you that. 2. It proves the Bible being a correct source. 1. If you spent more time seeking him and less time relying on creationists to prove, you would be saved. He don't forgive because you have to mean it and be willing to forgive those who wronged you.
jeremyoyer 2 years ago
10. I'll give you that. 9. I'll give you the destructive nature on Religion. I don't see how that justifies the attitudes of some atheists, granted some Xtians are whacked. 8. You offer no alternative explanation. 7. This argument is true, however, those countries are less reproductive and will eventually deline in population. 6. Matter of opinion. 5. How do you blame God when you claim there is none? 4. Wow, talk to a younger person. YOu'll see the dumbing down. cont.
jeremyoyer 2 years ago
I have to agree with this video, the only thing I don't agree with is you saying atheism is not a religion, religion is a set of beliefs and atheism relives there is no god thus by definition it is a religion, btw I'm agnostic.
PX6DEVASTATER 2 years ago
Ok, then by your logic, you have several religions. You don't believe in Zeus, Odin, Allah, etc.. Disbelief in something is not the same as a belief. So no, atheism is not a religion.
robbocox1981 2 years ago
disbelief is simply the belief that something does not exist or is not real.
PX6DEVASTATER 2 years ago
If I don't beleive in astrology, I do so due to LACK of evidence. (i.e. no evidence of correlations between star movements and human events) That does not make me a believer of an organized belief system let alone a religion, it simply means I think astrology is bullshit. The same is true for theism.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
good job
Kenneth1238 2 years ago
You're right SkepticSage. I think that every religion (not only Christianism) must be eliminated because they're due to fear and superstition. Our god should be our brain not a mythological being that no one has seen and that makes people suffer and at the same time says he is good and merciful
DiodelMetallo1 2 years ago
Atheist Amen to SkepticSage
xoxhugsandkissesxoxx 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Atheist are losers...
Turpy7777 2 years ago
Yes we are. We are losers of ignorance, dominance by others, close-mindedness, irrationality, scientific stupidity, guilty fables, shame producing lies, excuses to murder people while believing we are pious, and annoying moralizing ingrates. Though, I must admit, we have not lost the last one completely yet. Your response is evidence of that.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
you believe you come from monkeys...I rest my case...retardo
Turpy7777 2 years ago
As usual, religious people making stupid statements about science they know nothing about. Evolution does not say we came form monkeys, it says that we and monkeys share a common ancestor millions of years back and that we share 98% of our DNA. Yes we are related to monkeys but we did not come from them. Also, this is not an opinion or belief, it is a fact. You are ignoring facts simply becuase the facts contradict your false religion, now that's retarded.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Evolution started with tiny cells growing in water. Water provides an environment for life from a scientific viewpoint. Those cells developed creatures eventually into reptiles which evolved further into other creatures that were able to walk on land, to smaller monkeys then chimps and apes and humans... we so far haven't evolved since due to technology making us lazy and therefore no need to evolve further.
littlemissnutjob 2 years ago
In addition this doesn't mean there is no God, but it doesn't mean there is. You cannot prove or disprove that god exists. You can read the stories and the lessons that the bible teaches, but you cannot definately say he exists or not. Without science there is no religion and without religion there is no science.
If I went back to the time of jesus with scientific experiments of today and technology of today, I might have been considered the messiah! Was Jesus a scientist? Who knows!?
littlemissnutjob 2 years ago
God as defined by the majority of western scholars as someone who CANNOT exist. His definition contradicts itself. Either the definition must change or we must decide god is not possible. If we change the definition to the extent that god is even possible, we end up with a god that no theologian (or average theist) would recognize as worthy of worship. There is evidence against the Judea-christian definition of god. To keep such an idea in the running is done for purely emotional reasons.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Here is an example everyone knows. The definition of God says that he is all mighty and can do anything. In the definition he is both at the same time (I'm sure you know where this is going). You could ask "Can god create a boulder so large even he cannot life it?" If he can he is not almighty, if he cannot he cannot do anything. Thus, one of these attributes must go. But which one?, who decides?, and based on what? Since god is not visible to be tested in order to determine this what do we do?
SkepticSage 2 years ago
So you use a paradox. but at the base of your argument you equate physical strength to being "almighty". He could make that boulder and (while being unable to lift it) make it dissolve, or fall apart, etc. Please define terms
At the core of it all, God cannot be scientifically proven or disproven. But he may be discussed at a philosophical level. Some of the most intelligent scholars in the world have boiled their definition of God into the element of cohesion that hold the universe together.
hennaruji 2 years ago
This is not a paradox, just badly stated. God should not need a trick to do something within his limitations. God is described as having unlimited strength and unlimited ability to create. But the example shows he cannot be both at the same time. Thus, the definition must be wrong. SO we have a god whose power to lift is limited or power to create is limited. He is limited either way. But God, by Christian definition, is supposed to have NO limits. A limited God is a theological problem.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
God, as defined by Christians, does not need to be scientifically disproved, since the example disproves him by logical argument. Either God is not as Christians say he is, or he does not exist. Again, who is to decide this? By what method is this decision to be made? How would we test the method to know it is a reliable method?
SkepticSage 2 years ago
IF such questions were asked to begin with (before we decided on what religion to beleive) , and we suspended judgment until such questions were reasonably answered, no one would beleive any religion.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Kudos to you sir!!! You showed that turpy!!! OUT WITH THE INVISIBLE SKY DADDY!!!
robbocox1981 2 years ago
This is my third response; I feel annoying. I was just wondering why you believe evolution (which is an EXTREMELY broad term, unbeknownst to most Christians) is FACT. Most of the "evidence" is calculated and not observable. Also, what is your belief on the origin of all and purpose in life. Why does this substance (or matter) we see around exist. How? From what origin? I'll even accept an intelligent response on the quantum level. Indulge my fancy :)
hennaruji 2 years ago
Your acting like the lack of answers for questions means a god exists. We might not be able to answer any of your questions, and that would not prove a god's existence one bit. In fact we can answer many of your questions quite easily and have good theories for the rest. The world is not as unexplainable as you suggest. By the way, evolution is an observable fact. Both in rock strata and in our DNA.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
I sincerely hope that isn't the way I came across. I don't believe (Correction: I KNOW) that God cannot be proven. And I'm sorry, I don't think I understand you post. What were my questions? I don't recall asking anything but why you constitute evolution as fact. Evolution (on a level that is used to posit God as unnecessary) can't be observed because it takes far to long. I would rather not have a debate over evolution on youtube because I am restricted to 500 words and honestly don't have time
hennaruji 2 years ago
evolution can't be directly observed but there's a mountain of evidence to support it. I suggest you watch some of aronraa's or thunderfoot's videos on the subject of speciation being observed.
dapanzy 2 years ago
and you believe you came from a floating invisible old man that sits in the sky all day and somehow watches all of us at the same time.
kemmorin 2 years ago 2
Go investigate what evolution is as a whole and then try and make someone sound stupid. Evolution as a whole makes more sense than some big dude with a long beard making light on one day and then 4 days later making stars. Stars = light. The Blible contradicts itself.
IGDogFighter 2 years ago
I cant see how you chistians can protect the bible this hard.... the bible is supid... it says god is almighty, and then there should be no reason he coundn't fre us from our sins without making jesus suffer... and they say he loves everyone... and then he kills everyone but Noah and his wife with a tidal wave...
lasseottesen 2 years ago
And why in the hell does he make Moses kill the Egyptians when he could have just snapped with his fingers and it would be done already... also, why does he care to kill the Egyptians to rescue the jews? i mean, he didn't seem to have a problem with Adolf Hitler almost instingting them a few thousand years later..:P
lasseottesen 2 years ago
You should remember that most athiests are more scientifically and logically minded. Science and religion actually go hand in hand. So by slating atheism just remember that God uses people to become doctors etc and works through medicines apparantly and who are these treatments given by? Oh yes, the scientifically minded logical people who most of which could claim to be athiests!
littlemissnutjob 2 years ago
But no God is necessary in the equation. Scientists do nicely on their won, they do not require the help of imaginary space daddy's in the sky.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
littlenutcase, why are most of you christtards more or less illiterate? Wtf is an "athiest"? Is "atheist" the word you're looking for, perhaps?:)
winterstellar 2 years ago
God only works through doctors if you believe in Myths. If you don't, god is nowhere>
SkepticSage 2 years ago
And teachers have very little power these days in schools as kids have more rights and discipline has therefore decreased and give a kid an inch they will take a mile. Any religion or walk of life has blood on its hands for a variety of reasons. Does God exist? There is no proof only faith exists. If God loves you as you are then why do many so called christians believe gay people will go to hell & therefore persecuted for loving someone when we are meant to love one another as God loves us?
littlemissnutjob 2 years ago
In addition... You are saying that most athiest countries have created some of the most peaceful and giving societies so I guess that a good point to make on athiests especially when you consider the priests who have sexually abused chior boys. The bible being removed from schools has not had an impact on immorality as bullying and under age pregnancies etc occur in catholic and many other schools and has done since the start of education. There will always be a bully in a school etc...
littlemissnutjob 2 years ago
If you say an athiests views are flawed you need to say how they are flawed. You can't just make a statement and not back it up.
littlemissnutjob 2 years ago
Thank you for this video. All the answers given echo my own opinions. At least you had thoughtful, reasonable arguments. *High fives
theendsnipe 2 years ago
In his defense, he lists 10 reasons why he's not an Atheist. He doesn't list 10 irrefutable reasons why Christianity is the 1 and only religion in the world and Atheists will burn in hell for eternity for not believing in it. In other words, that's just his opinion. Besides, didn't "The God Delusion" beat the Holy Bible as a best seller in English speaking countries?
Ripley747 2 years ago
I am not criticizing this person for making an argument that we should all be Christians. I am simply pointing out the complete lack of logic in his arguments.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
lol, Holland has a Christian monarchy... how is that an atheist country?
Isn't communist also another name for "atheist country" ?
RoyalRipper88 2 years ago
The monarchy is for show it has no power and is secular not religious. The majority of the population are deists, atheists, and agnostics. Even those who are theists have only a vague concept of god.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Communism is not compatible with modern scientific atheism. Communists are ideological not scientific. They come to their beleifs they way that religious people do, through faith in a belief system. A communist does not beleive in God becuase doing so would make him part of another ideology- Christianity for instance. A scientist is an atheist becuase it is by far the most likely conclusion. An atheist countries have a common folkway to rely on logic and observation rather than faith.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Sage, You have not progress with your thinking and wisdom over the last few months. Still same logical presentations of your own mind at still. At this point, you are merely a manifestation of individual freedom of expression, which means basically whatever you want to say, and [what you are saying] is merely presenting your stories no different than those that you disagree. Perhaps that is all that is to it but may be not, but you have to jump out of your own circular and circular.
nancyfive 2 years ago
I don't believe in Atheism, I'm a Theist because I simply lack the belief in disbelief.
ogirv101 2 years ago
Atheism requires no belief and is defined by it. A lack of something is not the same thing as something. A lack of belief is what happens when an utter lack of evidence is acknowledged. When there is a lack of evidence for something the odds that that something is real is very low since something must give off evidence of itself as a matter of its existence. When given a hypothesis we should assume it is wrong until it is proved right. The world is filled with hypothesi that didn't pan out.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
I know, it was a mere joke, I don't think Atheist believe in jokes either? Also you're very wrong to taking Science into this, all Science is based off assumptions that are then proven later on. Science, like Newton (greatest scientist) said:
'No great discovery was ever made without a bold guess
I also doubt you understand Science, especially if you try and relate it to the God argument. Also God is more than just a hypothesis, modern science is based off the belief in God.
ogirv101 2 years ago
Your statement is absurd. The vast majority of scientists are atheists. How can science be based on a myth? Science is based off of data not assumptions. The assumption that a god exists because the idea makes you feel good when you have absolutely no evidence is not like making an assumption that gravity will make something fall since it has in the past. "The God hypothesis" is a book. In it the scientist shows that scientifically, the God hypotheses has failed the test of science.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
No, in fact 40% of all scientists are believers in a personal God, and Agnostics outnumber Atheists by alot. No one said Science was based off myth, but I loved that ad hominem.
The idea of the exiatnce of God does not make me feel good, I'm just realistic. I'm not trusting a novel, the exiatnce of God is no mere hypothesis, you're acting a little childhish trying to reccomend me a biased book and using that as evidence, we don't have bias in Science.
ogirv101 2 years ago
You said that modern science is "based off the belief in god." (Which is laughably absurd) Since gods are myths, you effectively said that science is based on myths. An ad hominem fallacy is not the misrepresentation of another person's statement. It is arguing that someone is wrong due to their personal characteristics rather than their argument. I have not attacked you personally, only your shoddy argumetns.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
"The God Hypothesis" was a reference to the book "The God Delusion" by R. Dawkins. He is a biologist and critiques God from a scientific perspective. Not only is that not a biased approach, it is the exact opposite. An unsubstantiated conjectural being is a hypothesis by definition. If you beleive