Learn all you can, Teach what you know and then and only then let the informed decide for that choice or decision will last them a life time as where.....if or when i should say they find the truth about what you have been "protecting " them from.....they will resent and dispise you for it but if u inform...they can decide and thats what our minds are for....do make choices to furthur our survival....not to censor others around us... i think we are all connected by entanglement theory.part 1/2
I was a christian when I was young and gullible but I started drifting away when my grandma and even my best friend tried to force their shit on me. As I got older and became old enough to think for myself, the whole concept of believing in some thing I can't see or hear became unsound. There is so much pain and chaos in this world. If there's a god, why is that? Thanks for your post. By the by, you're pretty sexy. Have a good godless day too.
My entire family is baptist, I went to church for 6 years, and I'm an athiest. Getting older, I became smarter, didn't just accept everything I was told, and actually questioned the world around me. The thing I can't stand about religion is that it doesn't require you to think, doesn't require you to question, just blindly accept what you're told.
we are stardust.. nothing more than the ice on a meteoroid, nothing less than the helium that fires a star. we are all and nothing. if you'd need a god, go look in the mirror.. there's your all powerfull, mercifull being.. if you dare!
@butobuto1 We're a little more than star dust. Sure, at our absolute most basic, broken down core that's all we are. But that simplification is insulting. You have a universe inside of you, son. From atomic to molecular functions. That's where you should look for God, that's how you should describe it.
@jreed136 of course it's an simplification, it was meant to be poetic and if it's insulting to you it's hardly as insulting as the notion of a god. and don't call me son, only my mom has that privelige
@butobuto1 I'll call you whatever I so choose. The notion of a god is NOT insulting. That's one of the problems with my fellow atheists. Hubris. The sum total of our true knowledge of the inner and outer verses amounts to exactly jack shit, we can't know the BIG things for certain. None of us can at our present state we lack the capability. But then, I'm actually more of a pantheist. Whatever.
and one more thing... The pain is what makes you appreciate the good, if there wasn't evil and suffering in the world that we each have to overcome, then how would you even recognize the good?? We each make mistakes which are sometimes evil; this breeds other evil... God will be coming back and He will smite the world, and the only way to survive that is to cling to the Truth, Yashuah Messiah, not the bible, for it was written by men, only trust the Spirit of Truth!!
I think that atheists tend to blame God for how religion is a failure. God created mankind perfect. It was our disobedience that placed us in a state separated from perfection. The problem is that people WILL NOT OBEY HIM. We inherently do things on our own and therefore we end up in failure. Science in itself is only man's imperfect way of solving problems that we produced in the first place. All these things you have listed that God will not change is because He knows that WE WILL NOT CHANGE.
@twowitnessesoftheson Yea people that don't believe in god blame him......right. Obey him? I'm no fucken slave. Never will be even if you crazy ass christians ever could prove him to be true. If god made me, he made me an atheist. So he purposely made me so that I would go to hell. Of course, half of the world will be there too because they happened to be born in the wrong country. Go fuck you sky daddy, delusional asshole.
Since atheism is a matter of logic and knowledge I'd always end up becoming an atheist. I'm just not stupid or naiv enough to believe in something like that. I don't see the point in making myself believe in something as silly as christianity just because it makes me feel better because I would lie to myself about death.
@PSNChrree - Atheism is related to a specific type of reasoning but so can deism and theism be. It's entirely possible to be a rationalist or logic and not be an atheist. Scientists who are atheists and scientists who are not simply look at the universe and draw different conclusions.
The point is that atheists rely on scientific facts and real evidence. To others their believes may sound logical but when it comes to objectivity atheism is the way to go.
@PSNChrree - Mmm....I would say their disbelief if similar to the scientific method of methodological naturalism, but atheism itself is still an unfalsifiable premise. Hence why science is neither atheistic nor theistic because neither premise can be investigated and falsified.
Neutral agnosticism is the most scientifically-safe view, hence why Science is agnostic.
i was born into Christianity and religious beliefs from all branches of my family, i became an atheists as soon as i started to tell what was going on around, and what a big fairy tale it was.
and all the rules,all the controlling by an invisible man,it almost left you with no free speech.
all of my family are Catholics and i dont believe in god and i wouldn't call my self an Atheist i believe every one can do what they want with there lives and believe in what they want i just do like people that keep trying to believe in a god and people like you are just fanning the flames we only get one life why can it be happy with out people fighting over who's right the only way your going to find out is if you die
To belive in GOD WITH ALL HEART MIND SOUL is needed direct interventiion of HOLY ETERNAL GOD YHWH-TRUE FAITH & BELIVE is different than corrupted religius experience that lied many astray to worship HOLY ETERNAL GOD in wrong way
I don't believe in God because their is no proof, but I do believe in a Goddess and the proof is in this video. Your hot, because your soft spoken and sound sincere.
Good video. I suspect that in the end all this god business will be a complete waste of time. The universe is totally indifferent and seems to behave as if there is no controlling superpower. Removing the concept of god from our lives makes more logical sense but unfortunately most people are not interested in the truth. Religion has evolved to become a very powerful socio-political game
If god created man...did he/she then create our needs to explore the universe to then "prove" that god doesn't exist?
Things like this makes ones head spin. ;) Maybe that's why people need something to believe in. To believe there is someone caring for us, instead of us taking care of our own.
Christians are upset with Hawking's suggestions. But why are they even threatned by it...? Do christians want to encourage the world that god exists, as atheists want to encourage the world that god does NOT exist?
Anyone is free to believe what they want
There is one thing Hawking would like to know. He would like to know why there is a universe at all. Why there rather is something, than nothing.
Even if I like...saw a ghost or something. Experienced a ner-deat-experience. Musn't we use sciense to "prove" that it really is possible?
Maybe scientists are way off, maybe they're not. But what christians believe or say is true cannot be proven.
I don't even think that science IS a way to prove something..
What is the fact behind us all asking questions about this? I think that only humans believe in things. I don't think animals do. Then why would humans have the ability to think that far
Not only did he not get RID of diseases, he made them in the first place. I'm more agnostic than atheist, but these are exactly the issues I struggled with as a christian. It's a painful thought.
From that angle I came to your video because I thought the end of the question was "if... do a blow job to you instead?" I could say "no" temporary for a BJ
Well..one Thing is, that this Lady definately is clever and intelligent, nd can make her Points clear. but I cant help but notice that she probably is among the most beautiful Women I have seen on this Planet.
I grew up in a lax Christian family, they went to church sometimes, they didn't force Christian beliefs, they taught me Christian beliefs, I was a Christian. I later found out that none of it made sense. That's why I'm agnostic, (meaning I don't have an answer, but I'm certain none of our bibles are true, or our religions). Nothing pushed me into it, not a bad situation or anything. I just found out stuff, and asked questions, and decided it was fake. Also, very good speech and points.
@duckcluck123 - If a god of some sort exists would it necessarily have to make humans on purpose? We create dead skin cells without doing so intentionally.
@neilswann80 We are born a- everything: a-doctor; a-engineer; a-psychologist; a-educated; a-knowing... but some evolve and learn something... 'to seem' and 'to be' are completely different verbs... The laws of logics and the laws of nature didn't come from nothing. From nothing, nothing comes. There is no law without a Lawgiver.
No, the universe does not require a law giver. The laws of society are prescreptive, whereas the laws of the universe are descriptive. They do not talk about what the universe can and cannot do, but rather, what it does. There is law without a lawgiver.
@synergyzer07 The laws of nature may just be eternal, or we may be in one of infinite universes and this universe happens to have these particular laws of nature set in their particular strengths.
@synergyzer07 Yeah yeah. The universe HAS to have an explanation, but your god is exempt from the same scrutiny. The total charge of the universe is zero. The total energy of the universe is zero. I'm betting the total mass of the universe will be found to be zero. It seems like everything adds up to a big zero. Quantum Physics allows for particles to pop in and out of existence. As Laplace said as regards a creator: "I had no need of that hypothesis".
Yes, I would be an atheist. When I turned 19, I could no longer reconcile theology with reasoned thought. Given modern knowledge of the universe, all religions are unfounded in observable truth. I paused your video at 1:36, because you strayed off topic. Write a script next time.
Reasoned thought has it's limits. Those who depend purely upon it, do things like Karl Marx and Hitler.
The cold, calculating logic that we have been gifted is incapable of even appreciating human life or value in it's truest sense. Nor can it see beyond it's own meager means.
You cannot reconcile God with your dark version of reality. This is good. You shouldn't be able to.
First off, if you actually take the chance to read the communist Manifesto, the ideals of communism are far different from those enacted in the soviet union or china. Secondly, Hitler was a christian, and wasnt going off reasoned thought at all.
Thirdly, logic has nothing to do with appreciating, or not appreciating life. YOu can easily construct a scenario where cold-calculating logic appreciates life, and vice versa, so your argument here is really moot.
No, its not an opinion, its a fact. Hitler wasnt logical and certainly wasnt an atheist, he was deeply religious and his actions reflect his beliefs. The communist manifesto is drastically different than communist russia. And you can construct scenarios where cold calculating logic can appreciate life.
Eugenics is not the same as genocide. Hitlers choice for who to be weeded out was religiously motivated, atleast for the jewish community. These arent opinions, these are facts.
Logic such as "Ok. Humans have infinite value". Let's build around this. One questions "Why?" "Because they do" (unsupportable).
Any logical network that is fully fleshed out and has no (apparent) contradictions, is invariably soulless.
If you disagree, provide proof. Show to me a logical network fully fleshed out and tangible in this carnal reality that exemplifies the value of human life to the same level as religion places it.
Yes, there is NO logical contradiction, or nothing logically unsound about such a comment. Which is why i said that logic NEITEHR supports NOR denies the value of human life, because you can construct a scenario, a logical syllogism that is both logically valid and logically sound that support BOTH.
Yes, but why? Just because you started you argument from the personal perspective, how does such a perspective get enacted? People want their beliefs and their actions, and their government to be sound.
While life may hold value to you, it will not to others. It certainly doesn't to those in power.
So now, you have to construct a basis for why you think that way (first argument) to get others to go with it.
No, i dont. A logical syllogism doesnt need to be explained at every step, and unless you can find fault, a faulty premise or contradiction that makes the syllogism unsound or invalid, the syllogism stands.
Yes, life may not hold value to some, but that does not dismiss the FACT that it holds value to others. This is why i said that a logical syllogism can be formed that support BOTH sides.
It doesnt matter if you dont give a damn that some human beings value life, the fact exists that the logical syllogism supported the value of human life.
Whether the syllogism convinces you is irrelevant to whether it is sound and valid without logical contradictions or flaws. The fact that you seem more bent on rejecting the syllogism based on personal opinion rather than actually pointing out a logical flaw, is proof of this.
Enough. Your syllogism was irrelevant, at least to what I desired from you. If you keep pressing it, you are basically telling me that you cannot, or will not perform what I asked.
Youre right, because youve shifted the argument you were making. Your original argument was "You cannot create a logical syllogism that supports the value of human life". Now you are saying "You cannot create a logical syllogism that CONVINCES ME that the value of human life is infinite."
Thanks for moving the goal post. This is the reason for your loss.
Again, this is a discussion, not a competition, and you're acting like an arrogant jackass.
You have 3 more posts past this, to actually answer what I asked. That no logical framework that values human life infinitely, formed in sound reason (as in, it gives sound reason to others) can be made. And I mean one that can't have holes poked in it. Clear logic that nobody could deny.
Pointing out whether someone lost or won doesnt make someone a jackass, no. However, since we are striving to outdo each other, yes, we are competing in that sense.
Ah, right. So, you admit that your wording was faulty and now you are putting an ultimatum on me as if i was the one who made the mistake and was going on about something that was irrelevant to our original discussion, with an added sarcastic bravo.
Pretending a competition exists is why you sounded like a jackass.
I don't engage in competitions with people. And when others do, they become incapable of taking anything away from my encounter. That's like making an investment in something with no future, not even an immediate one, and removes my reason for talking to people.
The fact that you are trying to produce counter arguments against mine, is the very DEFINITION of competing. I think you should look up what the word means. You are trying to produce counter arguments to invalidate mine, and i am doing the same to you.
Whatever conclusion happens to do it. I think you thought I was asking for a short little snippet. Like the Kalam Cosmological argument is only 3 statements.
I need, from the roots up, a logical flow of information that definitely, LOGICALLY persuades (at least according to one important factor of human existence, happiness, shelter, food, human needs, whatever) that we should value human life infinitely.
And I'm not going to lie, that might be hard, and take up space.
Again, what part of the syllogism i provided, not logically valid or sound? I still havent received any arguments against the syllogism itself. All you have done is critisize the fact that it would not compel, force people to value another human life, and my objection to that is below.
Society does not value human life infinitely. The things you state have to be founded in truth, not like an imaginary run.
Since society does not, it does not lead to the concluding line I wanted soundly. "Therefore, people should treat other people ( their sanctity of life) with infinite value."
Society DOES not do this. Therefor, using social values to arrive, simply because you (1 person) happen to believe it, is not at all compelling.
Society isnt a living entity, it is made of a group of humans. Society couldnt value human life, because only something that is sentient, could place value and meaning on something else. This is the part of your argument that doesnt pan out.
Secondly, when did i use a social value in my syllogism?
As another clarifier, it should be as if you were reading, say, Nietzsche. He explained why he thought the way he did, and by proxy, gave reasons for others.
Maybe that's a tall task, I don't know, but that's what I'm trying to get from you, or really anybody.
I admit that at first, my wording may have been faulty.
I worded myself perfectly the second time, however, and I believe the misunderstanding is now on your part. I don't know how to better ask, what I asked.
But, I'm going to leave, because either out of laziness you wont, or inability, and I'm not going to pretend you'll actually own up to all the bunk you keep typing.
I will say this.
The reason why Logic cannot, is because God is not of this world. God operates outside of our logic entirely, as the final glory of his being over us, the created. The "logic" that would fix our world can't be understood by a human brain, but the spirit of man only. And the spirit is a foreigner.
So youre running away, after ive just constructed a simple logical syllogism? Nice. Thanks for proving me right. Thanks for conceding, and admitting that youve lost.
Running away? More like walking away from a useless discussion. But since you tried, I'll stay. I pointed out a severe problem with the direction you took, as all it does is affirm some people value life. It does not cause them to want, however, or construct a framework solid enough to convince others, and that is what I meant.
"I think people are toilets."
"I am a human being."
"Therefore human beings use other human beings as toilets."
Ah, first you said youd leave because youd thought i couldnt come up with a syllogism, and now youre claiming youre walking away because the discussion is useless. Cant seem to make your decision on why youre leaving this discussion, huh?
Furthermore, no, the syllogism you provided is not sound because the premise is faulty. People are not toilets, because there is a contradiction in definition. So, please explain why my syllogism has the same faulty premise?
No, I wanted a persuasive argument. What you gave me is virtually in the opposite direction of what I wanted. You told me, basically, the obvious. "Some people value life" is NOT a good reason for valuing life, it is not a good reason to make decisions to value life, it is not a framework for endorsing, defending, or empowering that view.
And the end of my -pointless- syllogism, was that "some human beings USE other human beings as toilets" - which, sadly, some do.
What did i tell you? I told you to read my comments carefully. What i said is that a logical syllogism can be constructed that supports the value of human life. It is irrelevant as to whether it provides a good reason TO YOU to value human life is irrelevant to the fact that the logical syllogism is SOUND and shows that logic CAN value human life.
Tkubok, if you want me to read your comments carefully, you must give me a reason to. Still, I am reading them, but I am losing the reason with every one of your posts. I have rephrased my request from you. Please, if you can, give me the argument I am actually seeking, rather than punishing me for (possibly) misused words.
I couldnt care less if you read my comments carefully, because it only reflects poorly on you, not me. But sure, since im nice, ill give you a logical syllogism that is convincing to me that proves the value of human life.
I value my life.
Society adds to the value of my life.
I live in society.
More than one person must exist for a society to exist.
Alright. I would contest that society valuing your life does not COMPEL me value your life. While I'm not really seeking an argument ( you need more connecting points) of why I should value society's values, you need something compelling. Like, for instance, WHY does society value your life? That whole thing needs to be fleshed out as well. Eugenics, as I said before, is one part of society, that many people think should be enforced. IQ tests for presidency, etc. (c)
I value other peoples lives, am i not part of the society? I value your life, because i value my life, and id like you to value my life as well. This is why society adds value to my life, because being in a society of people who support each other means that we ALL benefit from it, and we ALL value each others lives.
If i go around killing people, placing no value on their lives, guess what happens to me? Society doesnt value my life in return.
You are part of it. You are not all of it, and just because you value human life infinitely, nothing persuasive has been given for why others should as well. Since it is known that not all people feel that way, Society must come up short of where you are. If you base your argument in that, it no longer follows "therefore, human life should be treated with infinite value by all."
As I said before. The mere existence of the..less humane ideas, in our society, makes your (c)
"I needed a persuasive argument for conditioned human behavior that leads to the regarding of human life in a limitless capacity, even one human being"
Something that is persuasive, does not mean that it will, without fail, convince every single person who reads it. That is not what persuasive means, nor is it even possible.
Yes, there are people who think otherwise. How does this change the fact that the syllogism is persuasive?
"I needed a persuasive argument for conditioned human behavior that leads to the regarding of human life in a limitless capacity, even one human being"
I remember what I said, Tkubok. We're having a massive communication failure.
Also, when I said "even one human being", I meant, that even one human being could be valued infinitely. His life, anyway, and the sanctity of it.
Well, its actually your second question, not mine. However, again, Persuasive does not mean Forcefully, against their will. That is not what a persuasive argument is.
Again, my logical syllogism would convince some, if not many, to value the life of another human being, whether it be one or many highly, if not infinitely(Not even sure how you could tell whether youve reached infinity or not).
approach unfeasible. Now, if you valued human life infinitely, and so did society, and this was a known, it would naturally follow. But it doesn't. You need another approach.
So, Society, at least parts of it, do NOT value human life infinitely.
If your argument is based on the reflection of currently existing attitudes (social attitudes) towards human life, you will come up short of arriving at the sound conclusion of "Therefor everyone should value human life infinitely."
I understand that may sound a tad messy, but you definitely can be inventive with the reasons. "Common good" "Common welfare" "morals". etc
However, i am curious, as you use the word compel, yet religion cannot compel you to do anything either, and certainly within the christian mythos, free will necessarily means that you cannot be compelled, forced against your will, to do anything. So please, explain your contention.
Ok, this is a REAL hack job, but I'm going to give an example, which does NOT stand up to scrutiny, but clearly attempts what I want you to attempt (but soundly.)
"There is a Hell."
"People who do not value human life infinitely exist."
"People who do not value human life infinitely will burn in hell."
"People should therefor value human life infinitely."
Except, it needs to be concrete. Hell is vanquished with "proof?" because it's (c)
not a tangible concept in our carnal world. Nobody can reasonably be expected to be motivated by that, but you understand what the argument was trying to accomplish. A reason (for all) to value human life infinitely. It was my original contention, that it cannot be done, our logic cannot reach that sound conclusion. Sound, because there are no contradictions, and no errors. It would follow naturally to anyone who read your argument.
If you are talking about a logical syllogism that FORCES people to believe, even AGAINST their will, to value all human life infinitely, then yes, that IS impossible.
However, yet again, this was not what you asked, in your second attempt. You asked whether there was a Persuasive argument that leads to valuing a human life. Not a logical syllogism that would force people against their will to value human life.
The threat of hell hasn't forced me to do only good. But, if you believe it, it offers a good reason. To the fearful, anyway. It's not a mind control thing lol. It just provides a strong reason, to at least ONE facet of human existence. Food, shelter, happiness, welfare, wealth.
I'd like to ask for ALL facets, but that's a tall order. I hope we're on the same page. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask.
to problems, such Euthanasia of the sick, elderly, or inferior. Why? To produce a better population of people who are healthy, young, and more lively. Eugenics too, to control breeding of people, why? For the value of life. So these things..
In an attempt to dissuade you from going on about your syllogism, in the event you read my request (which I cede, could have been read) as "You cannot give an argument which ends with humans respecting life infinitely without internal contradictions.", then you outwitted my un-intentional request, and proved what I wasn't trying to say wrong.
Bravo.
Now tackle the re-worded request. The one that actually matters, please.
Maybe the fault is with me for not wording my request correctly. I'll own fault for that, even if I rightly do not.
Let me rephrase.
I do not believe you can construct a logical framework, with no internal contradictions, or dead end points, that PERSUADES (that is, offers sound reason) to value human life infinitely.
I do not believe you can do this. Can you show me wrong?
You dont think debates or discussions cant have a clear winner or loser? You dont believe that someone who concedes a debate or discussion has lost the discussion?
Also, yes, youve threatened to leave twice, under different reasons. Id say that leaving a discussion without sufficiently countering an opponents arguments is forfeiting, and therefore is a loss.
The last point should be similar to something like this.
"Therefore, human life should be infinitely valued by all people who wish to be consistent."
Since the desire to weed out contradiction within one's mind is part of the pursuit of philosophy, it would be beneficial to all thinking people to review your argument. Remember, this is a persuasive argument. It must give reasons why ANYONE should do it.
Finally, a lot of people, I would like to say plenty of people, find what Hitler did to be sound. I do not. But their mere existence makes me question the authority you claim here. "It wasn't logical!"
Are you the arbiter of logic? Show me by answering my previous question.
@zenshinify If your an atheist why are you really watching this videos? i think your not sure what you believe in and so you look around different videos about this on YouTube searching for your answer, really sad your confused little boy. this goes for all other atheist or religions people. I am none of those i don't believe in the one god and i don't believe that there is no higher power, I believe all humans need to unite progress and focus on science and our future.
For you to be here, you must also have been going around looking at different videos. Yet, can the same be said of yourself? Are you confused, looking around youtube searching for your answer? No? Then dont presume that everyone else who isnt you is doing so.
Furthermore, you say you dont believe in God but you believe in a higher power. Many christians call that higher power God, so what makes you not call it God?
@Vid0vdan1389 lol. I'm not a boy, or sad, or confused, and I was brought here by a link from an unrelated video while I was wasting time at work. I was intrigued by such amazingly poor ratings, and then I broke my own rule by commenting on a video about religion, on Youtube.
Freewill= the churches excuse for god never stopping anything bad happening! And btw baseballbro1000, if you think there is some truth behind claims of virgin Mary pictures surviving destruction etc, there is even more compelling evidence that aliens are real! Does that mean they're true!? People will believe any story that seems to confirm their pre conceived beliefs! Even if they're highly improbable!
@girlpoet87 That depends on what you mean by something not having a life. If me not having faith in a god makes me lifeless than I suppose I'll take free and lifeless and sleep soundly at night. If my free will has to be given than it was never free to begin with. This shackling people to religion based on nothing is the opposite of free will. Being told you are a sinner and will burn in hell if you don't accept god into your life is not a choice. It is fear mongering.
I don't know. My Brain is that of a Human, so it is prone to indoctrination. I think it is possible to suppress the Development of the logical Capabilities or their Function even if fully developed by religious Indoctrination.
So i don't know if i'd be able to Question Concepts i was told time and again to not Question.
Life has no purpose beyond what we make it. We are this responsible God your talking about. It's our desire that causes the problem. Your desire for there not to be crib death causes you suffering needlessly and reality persists, your not going to change reality by judging it.
As someone who has had a great childhood, seriously, no complaints, I still have come to the conclusion of agnosticism based on what logic and reason leaves me with. I think abusive religion long enough can solidify the cult like teachings and they get passed down.
By the way, keep giving a shit, because you're right, god doesn't seem too.
I would also like to say, there is plenty of resources, blame corrupt and radical govt, ya know, greedy capitalists and horny Muslims. Disease? Talk to god eh
I think the only time that I seriously had a problem with religious people growing up was that I was born in Germany where religious education is part of the schooling.
We were studying exodus and all that stuff and me being like 8 years old drew a picture of a big battle against the Canaanites because that was the interesting part to me, and I got yelled at. It kind of clicked in my mind that my teacher didn't like the idea that god had ordered a genocide, and that god was actually pretty evil.
People who's atheism is derived from skepticism need no abusive religious experience to come to their conclusion.
My family was very loosely religious, my dad was always an atheist but didn't tell us that as children because he didn't want us to come to believe something just because we were told so, my mother would attend church on Christmas and Easter only. This stuff was simply never an issue in my family and I came to my own conclusions based on what evidence there is.
Suffering in the world? It starts in Genesis.Religion controlling masses? Everyone has freewill.God wouldnt send those to hell he created and loves? He doesnt,people make that choice.God gave each individual the option to believe or not.He isnt a dictator.God isnt there? Then good comes from where?.God didnt bring death, and dying, and sickness, and disease, into the world we live.Why doesnt God smite us..Really? He gave you the choice.Its that simple.If you were in a cult,it wasnt fundemental.
@Lutherblue2004 Then who causes sickness and suffering in the world? Satan? Who allows Satan to continue his dominion on earth? God. It says so in the bible. God allows it. he's also done some pretty awful things, like that Great Flood and banishing adam and eve from Eden just because of a single mistake. If we're in his image, then why aren't we all perfect? For a god that loves us so unconditionally he sure does have a lot of conditions.
@KillaTequilla83 wow...why dont you try to accept a little resposibility for your own actions instead of trying to blame God for everything you dont have an answer to? I m sure we all agree we would like things to be different.Themain point that is missed so much is that God doesnt tell you or me we HAVE TO believe what he says.He leaves the decision with us.You know,that little thing called freewill? .God ALLOWS things.You have Allow and cause a bit mixed up maybe.
Impossible, No atheist believes that God exists. It is impossible for us to blame something we do not even believe exists. We take responsibility for our actions, good or bad.
However, IF God exists, then yes, he is to blame. Much like, if you walk across someone being raped, and you have the power to stop the rapist, unless you were immoral or amoral, you have a responsibility to stop the rapist. Great power comes great responsibility.
@tkubok Your excuses sound sad and pathetic what's the point of living life if you can't see through the bullshit in the world if thats the case go hang your self cause you can't handle it
At the very least, he disbelieves a christian God, which still validates my objection. Someone who doesnt believe that a Christian God exists cannot blame that God for anything. Since youre talking about the God that gave us free will, i.e. the God of the christian/jewish mythos.
@tkubok god doesn't control us,he gives us free will.if i kill someone it's MY fault i'm the one who decided to do it,not god,i'm the one who would have to deal with the consequences.if he just controls everyone then their would be no purpose for life or anything.and god doesn't send anyone to hell,we send ourselves there based on our lives.
Lets say that i see someone who is about to rape a young girl. I have the power to prevent the girl from being raped, by stepping in and stopping the rapist.
Now, if i step in and prevent the rapist from raping the girl, would you say that i have violated the rapists free will, and controlled him?
If so, then should i stop myself from interfering because i might violate the rapists free will?
@tkubok wow dude i think its pretty obvious that you didn't CONTROL the rapist.there was no violation of free will.he had the free will to rape the girl and u had the free will to stop him.it's not that hard to figure out.if we were all just controllable people there would be no reason to live,we would basically be robots.and we're not robots.
Thats great. So, if its possible to prevent evil or wrongdoing from being done without violating free will or controlling someone, then why doesnt God do this? Why, whenever someone tries to point a gun at another person, does God not swoop in and turn the bullet into water? Surely its in his power to do so.
@tkubok and how do u expect physical proof of god,when god himself probably isn't physical?we live in a physical reailty we're limited to physical explanations.supernatural things are usually dismissed and avoided by scientists because they're not explainable by physics.
Can God not do physical manifestations like he did with Jesus? Can God not perform miracles and supernatural events infront of our eyes? Can God not talk to us, like he did with Abraham, Moses, etc? It might not be scientific proof, but it would be pretty undeniable as far as evidence, experiences go.
@tkubok he can do all of those things,but do you really expect him to solve everyone's problems?like i said twice already,that would defeat the purpose of us being here in the first place.we have to find our own way throught life but it will be god who judges us for what we did with our free will.
@tkubok science hasn't been able to explain the original virgin mary's image that appeared almost 500 years ago and to this day has not decayed or shown any signs of aging.man made copies of the image only last 8-20 years WITH glass protection enclosing them.the original image went 116 years before it was placed in glass casing in mexico's basilica.can you explain how it survived a bomb blast that destroyed everything around the image?....except the image.do some research on it.
If you are talking about the "Our Lady of Guadalupe" picture, then no. First off, the church has prevented any actual scientific study to be done, only allowing for visual analysis. Secondly, the most recent studies all agree that the picture has been touched up, with additions that were made and removed, and re-touched in certain places, so yes, it has shown signs of aging.
@lucky806 Thirdly, what exactly about a bomb that was small enough not to kill anyone or only destroyed its immediate surroundings, is found to be miraculous? Fourthly, no, the painting was covered with a white primer, which helps protect the cloth from degredation, but even then, flaking is present and the picture is aging.
And last but not least, what does any of this have to do with what we were discussing?
Since you seemed to have blocked me from replying to your message, ill just type it here.
No, i do not, nor ever have claimed that i am 100% certain that there is no God. I am certainly up to the possibility that God exsits. But until i see evidence or reasoned arguments, and until someone can adress and answer the problems and objections i have against the christian God, i cannot be convinced that it is probable God exists.
And no, supernatural events that occur in nature are not rejected by scientists because they are supernatural, they are rejected because they cannot be verified. You cannot repeat the event, with a high degree of consistency.
Once we have a supernatural event that transcends our knowledge of nature and physics, that is both repeatable and verifiable to all, then we have something we can discuss, and that is the time that scientists will accept that Supernatural events occur.
Suffering in the world? It started when God forgot to give us the ability to tell right from wrong. Everyone has freewill? Sure, but the existance of hell is no different than putting a gun to my head and telling me to convert. God sends people to hell? You betcha. God made hell, God made the rules that send people to hell, therefore God sends people to hell. God is a dictator, it is follow him or die.
I am glad you FINALLY admitted that there is a chance a God exists. But even if you had proof God existed, you would still hate God and still reject Him. We have been through this before in heaven, billions of Angels there and a third of them were unhappy and rebelled against God.
So even if you had PROOF that God exists and even if you had a free ticket to enter heaven, you would be very miserable there, it would not be a place you would like or want to be.
If this is true, then why isnt there proof that God exists? It seems as though you have no reason as to why God wouldnt simply reveal himself to everyone. Its counter-intuitive.
Also, youre right about heaven, cause its a high chance that people like Hitler, Mass murderers and rapists who accepted Jesus on their deathbeds, would be there.
@Barabus69er Will your science..? You act as if science doesnt relate to everybody, How was your computer created? How did people find out how to break down precious metals and make a computer.. Through science. And yes, Science has done all of those things already. For addicting its called, rehab and medication (science) Memory of Rape would be therapy and medication (science), And science tells us that the human mind morns naturally once a loved one dies, Science is used in everything.
This has been flagged as spam show
Learn all you can, Teach what you know and then and only then let the informed decide for that choice or decision will last them a life time as where.....if or when i should say they find the truth about what you have been "protecting " them from.....they will resent and dispise you for it but if u inform...they can decide and thats what our minds are for....do make choices to furthur our survival....not to censor others around us... i think we are all connected by entanglement theory.part 1/2
CynicalNuggit 1 hour ago
I was a christian when I was young and gullible but I started drifting away when my grandma and even my best friend tried to force their shit on me. As I got older and became old enough to think for myself, the whole concept of believing in some thing I can't see or hear became unsound. There is so much pain and chaos in this world. If there's a god, why is that? Thanks for your post. By the by, you're pretty sexy. Have a good godless day too.
weirdguy75 1 hour ago
Omg why cant i find a women like you anywhere
SeanTalksTooMuch 1 hour ago
how do you feel about Richard Dawkins? I think he's Brilliant...
FisherVictoria 1 hour ago
JESUS IS CUMMING OPEN YOUR MOUTH CHRISTIANS :P
damion223 1 hour ago 2
My entire family is baptist, I went to church for 6 years, and I'm an athiest. Getting older, I became smarter, didn't just accept everything I was told, and actually questioned the world around me. The thing I can't stand about religion is that it doesn't require you to think, doesn't require you to question, just blindly accept what you're told.
NubRusty 4 hours ago
we are stardust.. nothing more than the ice on a meteoroid, nothing less than the helium that fires a star. we are all and nothing. if you'd need a god, go look in the mirror.. there's your all powerfull, mercifull being.. if you dare!
thx! good post!
butobuto1 9 hours ago
@butobuto1 We're a little more than star dust. Sure, at our absolute most basic, broken down core that's all we are. But that simplification is insulting. You have a universe inside of you, son. From atomic to molecular functions. That's where you should look for God, that's how you should describe it.
jreed136 7 hours ago
@jreed136 of course it's an simplification, it was meant to be poetic and if it's insulting to you it's hardly as insulting as the notion of a god. and don't call me son, only my mom has that privelige
butobuto1 53 minutes ago
@butobuto1 I'll call you whatever I so choose. The notion of a god is NOT insulting. That's one of the problems with my fellow atheists. Hubris. The sum total of our true knowledge of the inner and outer verses amounts to exactly jack shit, we can't know the BIG things for certain. None of us can at our present state we lack the capability. But then, I'm actually more of a pantheist. Whatever.
jreed136 18 minutes ago
and one more thing... The pain is what makes you appreciate the good, if there wasn't evil and suffering in the world that we each have to overcome, then how would you even recognize the good?? We each make mistakes which are sometimes evil; this breeds other evil... God will be coming back and He will smite the world, and the only way to survive that is to cling to the Truth, Yashuah Messiah, not the bible, for it was written by men, only trust the Spirit of Truth!!
twowitnessesoftheson 13 hours ago
I think that atheists tend to blame God for how religion is a failure. God created mankind perfect. It was our disobedience that placed us in a state separated from perfection. The problem is that people WILL NOT OBEY HIM. We inherently do things on our own and therefore we end up in failure. Science in itself is only man's imperfect way of solving problems that we produced in the first place. All these things you have listed that God will not change is because He knows that WE WILL NOT CHANGE.
twowitnessesoftheson 13 hours ago
@twowitnessesoftheson Yea people that don't believe in god blame him......right. Obey him? I'm no fucken slave. Never will be even if you crazy ass christians ever could prove him to be true. If god made me, he made me an atheist. So he purposely made me so that I would go to hell. Of course, half of the world will be there too because they happened to be born in the wrong country. Go fuck you sky daddy, delusional asshole.
thinkboutit 12 hours ago
Since atheism is a matter of logic and knowledge I'd always end up becoming an atheist. I'm just not stupid or naiv enough to believe in something like that. I don't see the point in making myself believe in something as silly as christianity just because it makes me feel better because I would lie to myself about death.
PSNChrree 14 hours ago
@PSNChrree - Atheism is related to a specific type of reasoning but so can deism and theism be. It's entirely possible to be a rationalist or logic and not be an atheist. Scientists who are atheists and scientists who are not simply look at the universe and draw different conclusions.
A86 13 hours ago
@PSNChrree - Though of course I wouldn't call most religionists "rational".
A86 13 hours ago
@A86
The point is that atheists rely on scientific facts and real evidence. To others their believes may sound logical but when it comes to objectivity atheism is the way to go.
PSNChrree 13 hours ago
@PSNChrree - Mmm....I would say their disbelief if similar to the scientific method of methodological naturalism, but atheism itself is still an unfalsifiable premise. Hence why science is neither atheistic nor theistic because neither premise can be investigated and falsified.
Neutral agnosticism is the most scientifically-safe view, hence why Science is agnostic.
A86 12 hours ago
FAIL
AJA7784 15 hours ago
i was born into Christianity and religious beliefs from all branches of my family, i became an atheists as soon as i started to tell what was going on around, and what a big fairy tale it was.
and all the rules,all the controlling by an invisible man,it almost left you with no free speech.
adricollapse 15 hours ago 9
all of my family are Catholics and i dont believe in god and i wouldn't call my self an Atheist i believe every one can do what they want with there lives and believe in what they want i just do like people that keep trying to believe in a god and people like you are just fanning the flames we only get one life why can it be happy with out people fighting over who's right the only way your going to find out is if you die
darkshadow2341 19 hours ago
Eesh, I'm an atheist and my mother is a very faithful catholic.
MetalGearRaxis 19 hours ago
To belive in GOD WITH ALL HEART MIND SOUL is needed direct interventiion of HOLY ETERNAL GOD YHWH-TRUE FAITH & BELIVE is different than corrupted religius experience that lied many astray to worship HOLY ETERNAL GOD in wrong way
mRwhite298 21 hours ago
i paused at 5th second. And yes i would convert whatever you want me to be, if i receive a nice blowjob from you.
MrKilij 22 hours ago
Shes so fucking fine omg.I would pipe you all day! ; )
ShittnLikeAseaGul 22 hours ago
I don't believe in God because their is no proof, but I do believe in a Goddess and the proof is in this video. Your hot, because your soft spoken and sound sincere.
Osawsi 22 hours ago
Good video. I suspect that in the end all this god business will be a complete waste of time. The universe is totally indifferent and seems to behave as if there is no controlling superpower. Removing the concept of god from our lives makes more logical sense but unfortunately most people are not interested in the truth. Religion has evolved to become a very powerful socio-political game
rognad04 1 day ago
Well its good thing that I'm an atheist and an imperialist-(most of the time)
lordzac12255 1 day ago
If god created man...did he/she then create our needs to explore the universe to then "prove" that god doesn't exist?
Things like this makes ones head spin. ;) Maybe that's why people need something to believe in. To believe there is someone caring for us, instead of us taking care of our own.
Why do we hunt the answers all the time.
Ruttnas 1 day ago
when animals act on pure instinkts?
Christians are upset with Hawking's suggestions. But why are they even threatned by it...? Do christians want to encourage the world that god exists, as atheists want to encourage the world that god does NOT exist?
Anyone is free to believe what they want
There is one thing Hawking would like to know. He would like to know why there is a universe at all. Why there rather is something, than nothing.
Maybe no one will know anything for sure.
Ruttnas 1 day ago
Even if I like...saw a ghost or something. Experienced a ner-deat-experience. Musn't we use sciense to "prove" that it really is possible?
Maybe scientists are way off, maybe they're not. But what christians believe or say is true cannot be proven.
I don't even think that science IS a way to prove something..
What is the fact behind us all asking questions about this? I think that only humans believe in things. I don't think animals do. Then why would humans have the ability to think that far
Ruttnas 1 day ago
Not only did he not get RID of diseases, he made them in the first place. I'm more agnostic than atheist, but these are exactly the issues I struggled with as a christian. It's a painful thought.
thelaynie 1 day ago
borrrrrrrrrrring!!!
jacksonshakur 1 day ago
From that angle I came to your video because I thought the end of the question was "if... do a blow job to you instead?" I could say "no" temporary for a BJ
nicholasruiz777 1 day ago
Athiest or not, I would bang this woman.
difficultsyllables 1 day ago
Well..one Thing is, that this Lady definately is clever and intelligent, nd can make her Points clear. but I cant help but notice that she probably is among the most beautiful Women I have seen on this Planet.
LutzDerLurch 1 day ago
I grew up in a lax Christian family, they went to church sometimes, they didn't force Christian beliefs, they taught me Christian beliefs, I was a Christian. I later found out that none of it made sense. That's why I'm agnostic, (meaning I don't have an answer, but I'm certain none of our bibles are true, or our religions). Nothing pushed me into it, not a bad situation or anything. I just found out stuff, and asked questions, and decided it was fake. Also, very good speech and points.
bobbycathey 1 day ago
We are like less than an atom compared to the universe. Whats the point of making us
duckcluck123 1 day ago 5
@duckcluck123 Boredom.
faolan1313 1 day ago
@duckcluck123 - If a god of some sort exists would it necessarily have to make humans on purpose? We create dead skin cells without doing so intentionally.
A86 13 hours ago
My parents actually suported me to belive god alot, but as i grew up i actually changed my mind.
People around you can help you change your view, but they are not going to give the final decision for you, your the one that decides that.
TheBeastOfDarkcova 1 day ago
sexxxaayyyyy
vikjha07 2 days ago
@vikjha07 you're blind
Imakeplanesboom 1 day ago
how come atheists always have something wrong with the way they look? lol
trollornot2troll 2 days ago
you are very deep and very good looking
this video is pretty awesome
1wayleader 2 days ago
@neilswann80 We are born a- everything: a-doctor; a-engineer; a-psychologist; a-educated; a-knowing... but some evolve and learn something... 'to seem' and 'to be' are completely different verbs... The laws of logics and the laws of nature didn't come from nothing. From nothing, nothing comes. There is no law without a Lawgiver.
synergyzer07 2 days ago
@synergyzer07
No, the universe does not require a law giver. The laws of society are prescreptive, whereas the laws of the universe are descriptive. They do not talk about what the universe can and cannot do, but rather, what it does. There is law without a lawgiver.
tkubok 2 days ago
@tkubok How did the laws of nature arise? 'Descriptiveness' x 'Presciptiveness' is a comparison which different from 'unoriginated' x originated...
synergyzer07 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@synergyzer07 The laws of nature may just be eternal, or we may be in one of infinite universes and this universe happens to have these particular laws of nature set in their particular strengths.
steviej321 1 day ago
@synergyzer07 Yeah yeah. The universe HAS to have an explanation, but your god is exempt from the same scrutiny. The total charge of the universe is zero. The total energy of the universe is zero. I'm betting the total mass of the universe will be found to be zero. It seems like everything adds up to a big zero. Quantum Physics allows for particles to pop in and out of existence. As Laplace said as regards a creator: "I had no need of that hypothesis".
neilswann80 1 day ago
Yes, I would be an atheist. When I turned 19, I could no longer reconcile theology with reasoned thought. Given modern knowledge of the universe, all religions are unfounded in observable truth. I paused your video at 1:36, because you strayed off topic. Write a script next time.
zenshinify 2 days ago
@zenshinify
Reasoned thought has it's limits. Those who depend purely upon it, do things like Karl Marx and Hitler.
The cold, calculating logic that we have been gifted is incapable of even appreciating human life or value in it's truest sense. Nor can it see beyond it's own meager means.
You cannot reconcile God with your dark version of reality. This is good. You shouldn't be able to.
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@MorpheusOmikron
First off, if you actually take the chance to read the communist Manifesto, the ideals of communism are far different from those enacted in the soviet union or china. Secondly, Hitler was a christian, and wasnt going off reasoned thought at all.
Thirdly, logic has nothing to do with appreciating, or not appreciating life. YOu can easily construct a scenario where cold-calculating logic appreciates life, and vice versa, so your argument here is really moot.
tkubok 2 days ago
@tkubok
Well, that's just like, your opinion, man.
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@MorpheusOmikron
No, its not an opinion, its a fact. Hitler wasnt logical and certainly wasnt an atheist, he was deeply religious and his actions reflect his beliefs. The communist manifesto is drastically different than communist russia. And you can construct scenarios where cold calculating logic can appreciate life.
Sorry, but its just the simple facts.
tkubok 2 days ago
@tkubok
Eugenics is seen to be logical by plenty of people. Please leave your arrogance at the door.
You don't have facts. You have opinions.
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@MorpheusOmikron
Eugenics is not the same as genocide. Hitlers choice for who to be weeded out was religiously motivated, atleast for the jewish community. These arent opinions, these are facts.
tkubok 2 days ago
@tkubok
Eugenics is trying to control who gets to breed. Many people find that immoral, and soulless.
Yet many find it logical. And it is, isn't it?
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@MorpheusOmikron
What did you think arranged marriages are? Yet people did it often, and i dont think many today consider arranged marriages, immoral and soulless.
tkubok 2 days ago
@tkubok
Logic such as "Ok. Humans have infinite value". Let's build around this. One questions "Why?" "Because they do" (unsupportable).
Any logical network that is fully fleshed out and has no (apparent) contradictions, is invariably soulless.
If you disagree, provide proof. Show to me a logical network fully fleshed out and tangible in this carnal reality that exemplifies the value of human life to the same level as religion places it.
You will find, that you cannot.
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@MorpheusOmikron
Yes, there is NO logical contradiction, or nothing logically unsound about such a comment. Which is why i said that logic NEITEHR supports NOR denies the value of human life, because you can construct a scenario, a logical syllogism that is both logically valid and logically sound that support BOTH.
Please, read my comments carefully.
tkubok 2 days ago
@tkubok
You can construct a scenario, or logical syllogism that is both logically valid and sound that supports infinite value of human life?
I have argued that you cannot. Show me, if it can.
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@MorpheusOmikron
Life holds an infinite value to me.
I am a human being.
Therefore human beings place infinite value on life.
There. The simplest logical syllogism i could ever think of.
tkubok 2 days ago
@tkubok
Yes, but why? Just because you started you argument from the personal perspective, how does such a perspective get enacted? People want their beliefs and their actions, and their government to be sound.
While life may hold value to you, it will not to others. It certainly doesn't to those in power.
So now, you have to construct a basis for why you think that way (first argument) to get others to go with it.
I'm glad you're at least trying. So continue.
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@MorpheusOmikron
No, i dont. A logical syllogism doesnt need to be explained at every step, and unless you can find fault, a faulty premise or contradiction that makes the syllogism unsound or invalid, the syllogism stands.
Yes, life may not hold value to some, but that does not dismiss the FACT that it holds value to others. This is why i said that a logical syllogism can be formed that support BOTH sides.
tkubok 2 days ago
@tkubok
The syllogism is in the wrong direction, like I said.
I don't give a damn that some human beings value life.
I needed a persuasive argument for conditioned human behavior that leads to the regarding of human life in a limitless capacity, even one human being.
I do not care for what you gave me, because it was off topic.
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@MorpheusOmikron
It doesnt matter if you dont give a damn that some human beings value life, the fact exists that the logical syllogism supported the value of human life.
Whether the syllogism convinces you is irrelevant to whether it is sound and valid without logical contradictions or flaws. The fact that you seem more bent on rejecting the syllogism based on personal opinion rather than actually pointing out a logical flaw, is proof of this.
tkubok 2 days ago
@tkubok
Enough. Your syllogism was irrelevant, at least to what I desired from you. If you keep pressing it, you are basically telling me that you cannot, or will not perform what I asked.
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@MorpheusOmikron
Youre right, because youve shifted the argument you were making. Your original argument was "You cannot create a logical syllogism that supports the value of human life". Now you are saying "You cannot create a logical syllogism that CONVINCES ME that the value of human life is infinite."
Thanks for moving the goal post. This is the reason for your loss.
tkubok 2 days ago
@tkubok
"This is the reason for your loss."
"This is the reason for your loss."
Again, this is a discussion, not a competition, and you're acting like an arrogant jackass.
You have 3 more posts past this, to actually answer what I asked. That no logical framework that values human life infinitely, formed in sound reason (as in, it gives sound reason to others) can be made. And I mean one that can't have holes poked in it. Clear logic that nobody could deny.
Now, do you believe (c)
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@MorpheusOmikron
Pointing out whether someone lost or won doesnt make someone a jackass, no. However, since we are striving to outdo each other, yes, we are competing in that sense.
Ah, right. So, you admit that your wording was faulty and now you are putting an ultimatum on me as if i was the one who made the mistake and was going on about something that was irrelevant to our original discussion, with an added sarcastic bravo.
Now thats what an arrogant jackass would do.
tkubok 2 days ago
@tkubok
Pretending a competition exists is why you sounded like a jackass.
I don't engage in competitions with people. And when others do, they become incapable of taking anything away from my encounter. That's like making an investment in something with no future, not even an immediate one, and removes my reason for talking to people.
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@MorpheusOmikron
The fact that you are trying to produce counter arguments against mine, is the very DEFINITION of competing. I think you should look up what the word means. You are trying to produce counter arguments to invalidate mine, and i am doing the same to you.
tkubok 2 days ago
@tkubok
I am trying to help you reach the conclusion I desire. The conclusion, is where you actually do prove me wrong. If anything, I'm helping you.
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@MorpheusOmikron
And what conclusion, exactly, is that?
tkubok 2 days ago
@tkubok
Whatever conclusion happens to do it. I think you thought I was asking for a short little snippet. Like the Kalam Cosmological argument is only 3 statements.
I need, from the roots up, a logical flow of information that definitely, LOGICALLY persuades (at least according to one important factor of human existence, happiness, shelter, food, human needs, whatever) that we should value human life infinitely.
And I'm not going to lie, that might be hard, and take up space.
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@MorpheusOmikron
Again, what part of the syllogism i provided, not logically valid or sound? I still havent received any arguments against the syllogism itself. All you have done is critisize the fact that it would not compel, force people to value another human life, and my objection to that is below.
tkubok 2 days ago
@tkubok
The second one? Ok.
Society does not value human life infinitely. The things you state have to be founded in truth, not like an imaginary run.
Since society does not, it does not lead to the concluding line I wanted soundly. "Therefore, people should treat other people ( their sanctity of life) with infinite value."
Society DOES not do this. Therefor, using social values to arrive, simply because you (1 person) happen to believe it, is not at all compelling.
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@MorpheusOmikron
Society isnt a living entity, it is made of a group of humans. Society couldnt value human life, because only something that is sentient, could place value and meaning on something else. This is the part of your argument that doesnt pan out.
Secondly, when did i use a social value in my syllogism?
tkubok 2 days ago
@tkubok
I think we may be spamming this page at this point. I'm gonna go and enjoy the rest of my day. PM me so we can continue it later, if you want. :)
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@tkubok
As another clarifier, it should be as if you were reading, say, Nietzsche. He explained why he thought the way he did, and by proxy, gave reasons for others.
Maybe that's a tall task, I don't know, but that's what I'm trying to get from you, or really anybody.
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@tkubok
I admit that at first, my wording may have been faulty.
I worded myself perfectly the second time, however, and I believe the misunderstanding is now on your part. I don't know how to better ask, what I asked.
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@tkubok
(c)
that is possible or impossible? If you believe it is possible, I would ask you furnish proof by providing such an argument.
If you don't, I would be interested at least for why you share the same sentiment.
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@tkubok
But, I'm going to leave, because either out of laziness you wont, or inability, and I'm not going to pretend you'll actually own up to all the bunk you keep typing.
I will say this.
The reason why Logic cannot, is because God is not of this world. God operates outside of our logic entirely, as the final glory of his being over us, the created. The "logic" that would fix our world can't be understood by a human brain, but the spirit of man only. And the spirit is a foreigner.
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@MorpheusOmikron
So youre running away, after ive just constructed a simple logical syllogism? Nice. Thanks for proving me right. Thanks for conceding, and admitting that youve lost.
Bye.
tkubok 2 days ago
@tkubok
Running away? More like walking away from a useless discussion. But since you tried, I'll stay. I pointed out a severe problem with the direction you took, as all it does is affirm some people value life. It does not cause them to want, however, or construct a framework solid enough to convince others, and that is what I meant.
"I think people are toilets."
"I am a human being."
"Therefore human beings use other human beings as toilets."
Does not offer up anything sound. See?
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@MorpheusOmikron
Ah, first you said youd leave because youd thought i couldnt come up with a syllogism, and now youre claiming youre walking away because the discussion is useless. Cant seem to make your decision on why youre leaving this discussion, huh?
Furthermore, no, the syllogism you provided is not sound because the premise is faulty. People are not toilets, because there is a contradiction in definition. So, please explain why my syllogism has the same faulty premise?
tkubok 2 days ago
@tkubok
No, I wanted a persuasive argument. What you gave me is virtually in the opposite direction of what I wanted. You told me, basically, the obvious. "Some people value life" is NOT a good reason for valuing life, it is not a good reason to make decisions to value life, it is not a framework for endorsing, defending, or empowering that view.
And the end of my -pointless- syllogism, was that "some human beings USE other human beings as toilets" - which, sadly, some do.
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@MorpheusOmikron
What did i tell you? I told you to read my comments carefully. What i said is that a logical syllogism can be constructed that supports the value of human life. It is irrelevant as to whether it provides a good reason TO YOU to value human life is irrelevant to the fact that the logical syllogism is SOUND and shows that logic CAN value human life.
tkubok 2 days ago
@tkubok
Tkubok, if you want me to read your comments carefully, you must give me a reason to. Still, I am reading them, but I am losing the reason with every one of your posts. I have rephrased my request from you. Please, if you can, give me the argument I am actually seeking, rather than punishing me for (possibly) misused words.
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@MorpheusOmikron
I couldnt care less if you read my comments carefully, because it only reflects poorly on you, not me. But sure, since im nice, ill give you a logical syllogism that is convincing to me that proves the value of human life.
I value my life.
Society adds to the value of my life.
I live in society.
More than one person must exist for a society to exist.
Therefore i value other peoples lives.
Thats as simple as i could get it, i suppose.
tkubok 2 days ago
@tkubok
Alright. I would contest that society valuing your life does not COMPEL me value your life. While I'm not really seeking an argument ( you need more connecting points) of why I should value society's values, you need something compelling. Like, for instance, WHY does society value your life? That whole thing needs to be fleshed out as well. Eugenics, as I said before, is one part of society, that many people think should be enforced. IQ tests for presidency, etc. (c)
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@MorpheusOmikron
I value other peoples lives, am i not part of the society? I value your life, because i value my life, and id like you to value my life as well. This is why society adds value to my life, because being in a society of people who support each other means that we ALL benefit from it, and we ALL value each others lives.
If i go around killing people, placing no value on their lives, guess what happens to me? Society doesnt value my life in return.
tkubok 2 days ago
@tkubok
You are part of it. You are not all of it, and just because you value human life infinitely, nothing persuasive has been given for why others should as well. Since it is known that not all people feel that way, Society must come up short of where you are. If you base your argument in that, it no longer follows "therefore, human life should be treated with infinite value by all."
As I said before. The mere existence of the..less humane ideas, in our society, makes your (c)
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@MorpheusOmikron
Remember your second question:
"I needed a persuasive argument for conditioned human behavior that leads to the regarding of human life in a limitless capacity, even one human being"
Something that is persuasive, does not mean that it will, without fail, convince every single person who reads it. That is not what persuasive means, nor is it even possible.
Yes, there are people who think otherwise. How does this change the fact that the syllogism is persuasive?
tkubok 2 days ago
@tkubok
Remember your second question:
"I needed a persuasive argument for conditioned human behavior that leads to the regarding of human life in a limitless capacity, even one human being"
I remember what I said, Tkubok. We're having a massive communication failure.
Also, when I said "even one human being", I meant, that even one human being could be valued infinitely. His life, anyway, and the sanctity of it.
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@MorpheusOmikron
Well, its actually your second question, not mine. However, again, Persuasive does not mean Forcefully, against their will. That is not what a persuasive argument is.
Again, my logical syllogism would convince some, if not many, to value the life of another human being, whether it be one or many highly, if not infinitely(Not even sure how you could tell whether youve reached infinity or not).
tkubok 2 days ago
@tkubok my bad,didn't know i had blocked you,must've blocked u while i was clicking on "send message" is my guess.you're unblocked.
lucky806 1 day ago
@tkubok
(c)
approach unfeasible. Now, if you valued human life infinitely, and so did society, and this was a known, it would naturally follow. But it doesn't. You need another approach.
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@tkubok
(c)
So, Society, at least parts of it, do NOT value human life infinitely.
If your argument is based on the reflection of currently existing attitudes (social attitudes) towards human life, you will come up short of arriving at the sound conclusion of "Therefor everyone should value human life infinitely."
I understand that may sound a tad messy, but you definitely can be inventive with the reasons. "Common good" "Common welfare" "morals". etc
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@MorpheusOmikron
However, i am curious, as you use the word compel, yet religion cannot compel you to do anything either, and certainly within the christian mythos, free will necessarily means that you cannot be compelled, forced against your will, to do anything. So please, explain your contention.
tkubok 2 days ago
@tkubok
"So please, explain your contention. "
Ok, this is a REAL hack job, but I'm going to give an example, which does NOT stand up to scrutiny, but clearly attempts what I want you to attempt (but soundly.)
"There is a Hell."
"People who do not value human life infinitely exist."
"People who do not value human life infinitely will burn in hell."
"People should therefor value human life infinitely."
Except, it needs to be concrete. Hell is vanquished with "proof?" because it's (c)
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@tkubok
(c)
not a tangible concept in our carnal world. Nobody can reasonably be expected to be motivated by that, but you understand what the argument was trying to accomplish. A reason (for all) to value human life infinitely. It was my original contention, that it cannot be done, our logic cannot reach that sound conclusion. Sound, because there are no contradictions, and no errors. It would follow naturally to anyone who read your argument.
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@MorpheusOmikron
If you are talking about a logical syllogism that FORCES people to believe, even AGAINST their will, to value all human life infinitely, then yes, that IS impossible.
However, yet again, this was not what you asked, in your second attempt. You asked whether there was a Persuasive argument that leads to valuing a human life. Not a logical syllogism that would force people against their will to value human life.
So, some clarification on this would be nice.
tkubok 2 days ago
@tkubok
"So, some clarification on this would be nice."
The threat of hell hasn't forced me to do only good. But, if you believe it, it offers a good reason. To the fearful, anyway. It's not a mind control thing lol. It just provides a strong reason, to at least ONE facet of human existence. Food, shelter, happiness, welfare, wealth.
I'd like to ask for ALL facets, but that's a tall order. I hope we're on the same page. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask.
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@MorpheusOmikron
But the threat of hell doesnt always work, does it? So it doesnt definately always compel, persuade people into doing the right thing?
Yet you are asking me for an example of a logical syllogism that will, definately, always persuade and compel someone into valuing human life?
tkubok 2 days ago
@tkubok
Decided to give you one more, before I have to go again. After this I will talk to you in PM.
"I value my life. -given
Society adds to the value of my life. - dunno what you mean, but given.
I live in society. -given
More than one person must exist for a society to exist. - given
Therefore i value other peoples lives. - given
Ok. You achieved a logical construct for your value. However, infinite sanctity of life was not achieved, at all. You are still well open (c)
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@tkubok
(c)
to problems, such Euthanasia of the sick, elderly, or inferior. Why? To produce a better population of people who are healthy, young, and more lively. Eugenics too, to control breeding of people, why? For the value of life. So these things..
Anyway, if you could, respond to me in PM.
Peace.
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@tkubok
In an attempt to dissuade you from going on about your syllogism, in the event you read my request (which I cede, could have been read) as "You cannot give an argument which ends with humans respecting life infinitely without internal contradictions.", then you outwitted my un-intentional request, and proved what I wasn't trying to say wrong.
Bravo.
Now tackle the re-worded request. The one that actually matters, please.
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@tkubok
Maybe the fault is with me for not wording my request correctly. I'll own fault for that, even if I rightly do not.
Let me rephrase.
I do not believe you can construct a logical framework, with no internal contradictions, or dead end points, that PERSUADES (that is, offers sound reason) to value human life infinitely.
I do not believe you can do this. Can you show me wrong?
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@tkubok
"admitting that youve lost"
Don't go within 100 miles of that again if you want an inch of respect from me. This is a discussion, not a competition.
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@MorpheusOmikron
You dont think debates or discussions cant have a clear winner or loser? You dont believe that someone who concedes a debate or discussion has lost the discussion?
Also, yes, youve threatened to leave twice, under different reasons. Id say that leaving a discussion without sufficiently countering an opponents arguments is forfeiting, and therefore is a loss.
tkubok 2 days ago
@tkubok
I'll help you a bit.
The last point should be similar to something like this.
"Therefore, human life should be infinitely valued by all people who wish to be consistent."
Since the desire to weed out contradiction within one's mind is part of the pursuit of philosophy, it would be beneficial to all thinking people to review your argument. Remember, this is a persuasive argument. It must give reasons why ANYONE should do it.
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@tkubok
Correction.
'Why everyone should do it.'
So far, the only all encompassing persuasive arguments that were sound with themselves had horrifying conclusions, considering morality.
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@tkubok
Finally, a lot of people, I would like to say plenty of people, find what Hitler did to be sound. I do not. But their mere existence makes me question the authority you claim here. "It wasn't logical!"
Are you the arbiter of logic? Show me by answering my previous question.
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@MorpheusOmikron I'm sorry, I don't argue with stupid people. Just go with what some of the other responses you got.
zenshinify 2 days ago
@zenshinify
Lol, classic. "I don't argue with stupid people."
You're a closed minded mental midget. Woohoo, namecalling.
MorpheusOmikron 2 days ago
@zenshinify If your an atheist why are you really watching this videos? i think your not sure what you believe in and so you look around different videos about this on YouTube searching for your answer, really sad your confused little boy. this goes for all other atheist or religions people. I am none of those i don't believe in the one god and i don't believe that there is no higher power, I believe all humans need to unite progress and focus on science and our future.
Vid0vdan1389 2 days ago
@Vid0vdan1389
For you to be here, you must also have been going around looking at different videos. Yet, can the same be said of yourself? Are you confused, looking around youtube searching for your answer? No? Then dont presume that everyone else who isnt you is doing so.
Furthermore, you say you dont believe in God but you believe in a higher power. Many christians call that higher power God, so what makes you not call it God?
Also, this makes you an atheist, no?
tkubok 2 days ago
@Vid0vdan1389 lol. I'm not a boy, or sad, or confused, and I was brought here by a link from an unrelated video while I was wasting time at work. I was intrigued by such amazingly poor ratings, and then I broke my own rule by commenting on a video about religion, on Youtube.
zenshinify 2 days ago
Freewill= the churches excuse for god never stopping anything bad happening! And btw baseballbro1000, if you think there is some truth behind claims of virgin Mary pictures surviving destruction etc, there is even more compelling evidence that aliens are real! Does that mean they're true!? People will believe any story that seems to confirm their pre conceived beliefs! Even if they're highly improbable!
broomhall23 2 days ago
@baseballbro1000 sorry, your right, gooooooooooooddddddd ddddiiiiiddddd iiiiitttttttt! :-))
broomhall23 2 days ago
free will - is it not better to give life to something, and never own it, then own something that never has life?
girlpoet87 2 days ago
@girlpoet87 That depends on what you mean by something not having a life. If me not having faith in a god makes me lifeless than I suppose I'll take free and lifeless and sleep soundly at night. If my free will has to be given than it was never free to begin with. This shackling people to religion based on nothing is the opposite of free will. Being told you are a sinner and will burn in hell if you don't accept god into your life is not a choice. It is fear mongering.
appauled25 2 days ago
Im still an atheist..
KinyoWarrior 2 days ago
I don't know. My Brain is that of a Human, so it is prone to indoctrination. I think it is possible to suppress the Development of the logical Capabilities or their Function even if fully developed by religious Indoctrination.
So i don't know if i'd be able to Question Concepts i was told time and again to not Question.
madman123456 3 days ago
Life has no purpose beyond what we make it. We are this responsible God your talking about. It's our desire that causes the problem. Your desire for there not to be crib death causes you suffering needlessly and reality persists, your not going to change reality by judging it.
uilium 3 days ago
@madman123456 You always can ofcourse, reason is not something wich can be taken from somebody.
MrGoldenGothic 3 days ago
As someone who has had a great childhood, seriously, no complaints, I still have come to the conclusion of agnosticism based on what logic and reason leaves me with. I think abusive religion long enough can solidify the cult like teachings and they get passed down.
By the way, keep giving a shit, because you're right, god doesn't seem too.
I would also like to say, there is plenty of resources, blame corrupt and radical govt, ya know, greedy capitalists and horny Muslims. Disease? Talk to god eh
fuckifacation123 3 days ago
I noticed something about this URL
There is Porn in this Url it looks like this: PoRn look at the URL
Weird isn't it?
TheWezEffect 3 days ago
I think the only time that I seriously had a problem with religious people growing up was that I was born in Germany where religious education is part of the schooling.
We were studying exodus and all that stuff and me being like 8 years old drew a picture of a big battle against the Canaanites because that was the interesting part to me, and I got yelled at. It kind of clicked in my mind that my teacher didn't like the idea that god had ordered a genocide, and that god was actually pretty evil.
Aetrion 3 days ago
People who's atheism is derived from skepticism need no abusive religious experience to come to their conclusion.
My family was very loosely religious, my dad was always an atheist but didn't tell us that as children because he didn't want us to come to believe something just because we were told so, my mother would attend church on Christmas and Easter only. This stuff was simply never an issue in my family and I came to my own conclusions based on what evidence there is.
Aetrion 3 days ago
Suffering in the world? It starts in Genesis.Religion controlling masses? Everyone has freewill.God wouldnt send those to hell he created and loves? He doesnt,people make that choice.God gave each individual the option to believe or not.He isnt a dictator.God isnt there? Then good comes from where?.God didnt bring death, and dying, and sickness, and disease, into the world we live.Why doesnt God smite us..Really? He gave you the choice.Its that simple.If you were in a cult,it wasnt fundemental.
Lutherblue2004 3 days ago
@Lutherblue2004 Then who causes sickness and suffering in the world? Satan? Who allows Satan to continue his dominion on earth? God. It says so in the bible. God allows it. he's also done some pretty awful things, like that Great Flood and banishing adam and eve from Eden just because of a single mistake. If we're in his image, then why aren't we all perfect? For a god that loves us so unconditionally he sure does have a lot of conditions.
KillaTequilla83 3 days ago
@KillaTequilla83 wow...why dont you try to accept a little resposibility for your own actions instead of trying to blame God for everything you dont have an answer to? I m sure we all agree we would like things to be different.Themain point that is missed so much is that God doesnt tell you or me we HAVE TO believe what he says.He leaves the decision with us.You know,that little thing called freewill? .God ALLOWS things.You have Allow and cause a bit mixed up maybe.
Lutherblue2004 2 days ago
@Lutherblue2004
Impossible, No atheist believes that God exists. It is impossible for us to blame something we do not even believe exists. We take responsibility for our actions, good or bad.
However, IF God exists, then yes, he is to blame. Much like, if you walk across someone being raped, and you have the power to stop the rapist, unless you were immoral or amoral, you have a responsibility to stop the rapist. Great power comes great responsibility.
tkubok 2 days ago
@tkubok Your excuses sound sad and pathetic what's the point of living life if you can't see through the bullshit in the world if thats the case go hang your self cause you can't handle it
SIRHENNY1 2 days ago
@SIRHENNY1
What are you talking about? I can, and am, handling all the wrongdoing and evil in the world. I think you replied to the wrong person.
tkubok 2 days ago
Strange..... you said "Impossible, No atheist believes that God exists". I dont remeber Killa stating he was atheist.My bad if he did.
Lutherblue2004 2 days ago
@Lutherblue2004
At the very least, he disbelieves a christian God, which still validates my objection. Someone who doesnt believe that a Christian God exists cannot blame that God for anything. Since youre talking about the God that gave us free will, i.e. the God of the christian/jewish mythos.
tkubok 2 days ago
@tkubok god doesn't control us,he gives us free will.if i kill someone it's MY fault i'm the one who decided to do it,not god,i'm the one who would have to deal with the consequences.if he just controls everyone then their would be no purpose for life or anything.and god doesn't send anyone to hell,we send ourselves there based on our lives.
lucky806 2 days ago
@lucky806
Lets say that i see someone who is about to rape a young girl. I have the power to prevent the girl from being raped, by stepping in and stopping the rapist.
Now, if i step in and prevent the rapist from raping the girl, would you say that i have violated the rapists free will, and controlled him?
If so, then should i stop myself from interfering because i might violate the rapists free will?
tkubok 2 days ago
@tkubok wow dude i think its pretty obvious that you didn't CONTROL the rapist.there was no violation of free will.he had the free will to rape the girl and u had the free will to stop him.it's not that hard to figure out.if we were all just controllable people there would be no reason to live,we would basically be robots.and we're not robots.
lucky806 2 days ago
@lucky806
Thats great. So, if its possible to prevent evil or wrongdoing from being done without violating free will or controlling someone, then why doesnt God do this? Why, whenever someone tries to point a gun at another person, does God not swoop in and turn the bullet into water? Surely its in his power to do so.
tkubok 2 days ago
@tkubok and how do u expect physical proof of god,when god himself probably isn't physical?we live in a physical reailty we're limited to physical explanations.supernatural things are usually dismissed and avoided by scientists because they're not explainable by physics.
lucky806 2 days ago
@lucky806
Can God not do physical manifestations like he did with Jesus? Can God not perform miracles and supernatural events infront of our eyes? Can God not talk to us, like he did with Abraham, Moses, etc? It might not be scientific proof, but it would be pretty undeniable as far as evidence, experiences go.
tkubok 2 days ago
Comment removed
lucky806 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tkubok he can do all of those things,but do you really expect him to solve everyone's problems?like i said twice already,that would defeat the purpose of us being here in the first place.we have to find our own way throught life but it will be god who judges us for what we did with our free will.
lucky806 2 days ago
@tkubok science hasn't been able to explain the original virgin mary's image that appeared almost 500 years ago and to this day has not decayed or shown any signs of aging.man made copies of the image only last 8-20 years WITH glass protection enclosing them.the original image went 116 years before it was placed in glass casing in mexico's basilica.can you explain how it survived a bomb blast that destroyed everything around the image?....except the image.do some research on it.
lucky806 2 days ago
@lucky806
If you are talking about the "Our Lady of Guadalupe" picture, then no. First off, the church has prevented any actual scientific study to be done, only allowing for visual analysis. Secondly, the most recent studies all agree that the picture has been touched up, with additions that were made and removed, and re-touched in certain places, so yes, it has shown signs of aging.
tkubok 2 days ago
@lucky806 Thirdly, what exactly about a bomb that was small enough not to kill anyone or only destroyed its immediate surroundings, is found to be miraculous? Fourthly, no, the painting was covered with a white primer, which helps protect the cloth from degredation, but even then, flaking is present and the picture is aging.
And last but not least, what does any of this have to do with what we were discussing?
tkubok 2 days ago
@lucky806
Since you seemed to have blocked me from replying to your message, ill just type it here.
No, i do not, nor ever have claimed that i am 100% certain that there is no God. I am certainly up to the possibility that God exsits. But until i see evidence or reasoned arguments, and until someone can adress and answer the problems and objections i have against the christian God, i cannot be convinced that it is probable God exists.
tkubok 2 days ago
@lucky806
And no, supernatural events that occur in nature are not rejected by scientists because they are supernatural, they are rejected because they cannot be verified. You cannot repeat the event, with a high degree of consistency.
Once we have a supernatural event that transcends our knowledge of nature and physics, that is both repeatable and verifiable to all, then we have something we can discuss, and that is the time that scientists will accept that Supernatural events occur.
tkubok 2 days ago
@Lutherblue2004
Suffering in the world? It started when God forgot to give us the ability to tell right from wrong. Everyone has freewill? Sure, but the existance of hell is no different than putting a gun to my head and telling me to convert. God sends people to hell? You betcha. God made hell, God made the rules that send people to hell, therefore God sends people to hell. God is a dictator, it is follow him or die.
Seriously, your arguments fail on every level.
tkubok 2 days ago
I grew up in the perfect brainwashing environment and came out an atheist, logic is my middle name. lol
pooponhoop 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am glad you FINALLY admitted that there is a chance a God exists. But even if you had proof God existed, you would still hate God and still reject Him. We have been through this before in heaven, billions of Angels there and a third of them were unhappy and rebelled against God.
So even if you had PROOF that God exists and even if you had a free ticket to enter heaven, you would be very miserable there, it would not be a place you would like or want to be.
EvangelistEvan 3 days ago
@EvangelistEvan
If this is true, then why isnt there proof that God exists? It seems as though you have no reason as to why God wouldnt simply reveal himself to everyone. Its counter-intuitive.
Also, youre right about heaven, cause its a high chance that people like Hitler, Mass murderers and rapists who accepted Jesus on their deathbeds, would be there.
tkubok 2 days ago
@Barabus69er Will your science..? You act as if science doesnt relate to everybody, How was your computer created? How did people find out how to break down precious metals and make a computer.. Through science. And yes, Science has done all of those things already. For addicting its called, rehab and medication (science) Memory of Rape would be therapy and medication (science), And science tells us that the human mind morns naturally once a loved one dies, Science is used in everything.
ArkangelMawwi 3 days ago
i love you.
sixxkid1234 3 days ago
"I'm and athiest because i give a shit"
You, madam are awesome.
Brysey19 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I AM JESUS,
I AM THE 666 IN REVELATION,
I AM THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH.....
THE MARKS / NUMBERS FORMING UPON MY FACE WILL SOON BE TOTALLY UNDENIABLE...
ulived1969 3 days ago