I am utterly baffled by how much hatred and argument there is in the comments.
At the end of the day, all the church said was that the slogans would encourage debate. They never said anyone would convert or lose their faith or whatever. Just debate the issue. I for one don't see a problem with that.
No, Dawkins wants people, especially children, to think and draw their conclusions based on scientific evidence. Richard wrote a letter to his daughter on her 10th birthday, encouraging her to learn everything she could and then decide.
It's obvious from his lectures that he knows a great deal about religion and scientific disciplines other than his own. He dose seek to educate, but above else he encourages people to learn.
The signs were only put up because some Christians put up anti-atheist signs, some of which 'condemned some passengers to eternal damnation', according to a reliable source..................................
This is funny. Actually, the "there is probably no god" campaign is in response to fundamental Christians posting slogans saying people will go to hell.
Plus, I am glad to read the start of "no religion" respect as well as the other main religions being taught in Religious Studies... as one of the larger belief systems, it does deserve the same level of respect as the other covered.
@Gelnprato WOOOOHOOOO CAPS LOCK IS SO COOL. IT MAKES MY MESSAGE SOOOO MUCH MORE VALID. THE LOUDER I SHOUT, THE MORE LIKELY IT IS THAT WHAT I AM SAYING IS TRUE.
everything you said is almost certainly false. prove otherwise or quit your jibber jabbber.
The Devil never wins. Just when he uses people like Dawkins to try causing people to doubt God, God uses him as a stepping stool in revealing Himself to people - through His word. God is good!
Nope no 'devil' either, just more superstitious nonsense. What kind of god do you worship that would create a being like satan knowing what he'd become & the suffering he'd cause? No satan, no problems, yet he still decided to create him. That's pretty messed up. Just for the record, god has brutally & needlessly murdered far more people than satan ever did if you believe the bible. God is far from being "good", he's an insanely jealous tyrant who blames us for his own mistakes
"buses will soon display the message that god does not exist" no fkn idiot, it says god probably doesn't exist, giving you a chance to wake the fk up to yourself.
"Your eye is capturing photons ejected from that star long long ago"
"You can go to any University in the world and ask them to measure light for you and show you how it is done and let you perform the calculations yourself"
They've only proven the speed of light to and from a much smaller distance than any stars other than the sun. How do we know light doesn't speed up after having travelled a certain very long distance? or slowly speeds up when travelling so far? it's unproveable.
@TheColaGoodfellow OK now you are being a child. It is obvious that you are a coward who can not think for himself. And further more you do not want to know anything that disrupts your little pretense that you will go to heaven for being a good boy! So my advice is continue reading your little book of lies and fairytale's and die Ignorant. You are simply a troll with no education.
@davidls11 well that's you but I for one and completely not. As Einstein once said, "There are only two infinte things in the universe, the unverse itself and human stupidity... and the universe I'm not too sure about."
this is good and all but IF there is a god/s why did they take so long to assert themselfs? i mean mankind has been around 90-100 thousand years yet god thought after 96-98000 years ok i better help them, by sending my amazing white ginger son to the middle east to save the whole wide world....that will work???
@RaytownSoClassof2010 Uh, I don't. But since you asked for proof, I just pointed out that they're not saying "there is no god, if you think so you're dumb". They're saying that in this day and age science has already confuted many of the claimed attributes of god, to the point that its existence is unlikely.
@Giby86 "Uh, I don't" So you are admitting that you dont know if the statement "There is probably no god. " is true? So why say it if you even know what your talking about? "They're saying that in this day and age science has already confuted many of the claimed attributes of god" Really?Name an example. Why is it that science has brought more people to God then? A growing number of Physicist are very spiritual people,Science is rather proving there must be a God.Science is God's fingerprint.
@RaytownSoClassof2010 Only false figures made up by religious groups say that science brings people to God. Assuming that you believe in the bible then why that particular religion? Why do you not follow one of the tens of thousands of other religions that claim they are correct? Which version of the bible do you believe? why that one and not one of the tens of thousands of other versions? Why do you believe in a god without one single piece of evidence to back up your belief?
@Giby86 It is without a doubt that the sign says "there is NO God." You cant make that claims just because you think God's existence is unlikely,since that would be dishonest. Saying "There is no God" is making a definite claim as if it is a fact and there is no fighting it.
@RaytownSoClassof2010 Lol! The signs still read "there is probably no god". Even if you don't like it. But even if it did say "there is no god"...what's the scandal? The Church is heavily advertising that there IS a god. It's not that they have proof, you know.
About science...yeah, right. Scientists are the group of people with the highest percentage of atheist and agnostics there is. But that's irrelevant, of course. It's not that the more people believe something, the more true...
...that is. About the ATTRIBUTES of god which have been disproved, let's see, where should I begin...oh! yes. Intelligent creation? Nope. Evolution by natural selection. Miracles? Nope. Not one. Power of prayer? Uh uh, there's actually no proof (and quite a lot of evidence of the contrary). Divine punishments such as plague, earthquakes etcetera? No, it's not Him. We figured that out. Of course, the question of the existence of a philosophical...
...god is open. And thinking that there probably isn't one is a legitimate opinion, that people can spread and tell (and even advertise) if they want. I repeat, that's what theists do DAILY.
@Giby86 "Evolution by natural selection" Debunked."Miracles? Nope. Not one" There have been many."Power of prayer? " Witnessed it myself."and quite a lot of evidence of the contrary" Like? "No, it's not Him." And you know this because...?
@RaytownSoClassof2010 Ahh, yes. The good ol' god of the gaps. Is that really your best shot?
Well, you must understand that that is not a hard evidence. It's a logical statement, which we can discuss if you want, but that's not what I asked for. I asked for evidence. Testable, observable, reproducible evidence. So far you've only proven that you choose to call "god" your own ignorance.
@Giby86"The good ol' god of the gaps."It wasnt God of the gaps,thats what you atheist say when you smell defeat,once you realize it is over you go"Ah ha!!God of the gaps".Knowing good and well that video had nothing in common with God of the gaps.It is hard evidence,it is undeniable and irrefutable.It is philosophical evidence.You realize you dont have the advantage,but i've already won since you didnt dare try to address the video,now i know that i have pawned you to the greatest degree.peace:D
@RaytownSoClassof2010 Ahh, I see. You were trying to "win". You realize how lame and sad that sounds, right? What is it that you won, by the way?
But back to the point, you just confirmed what I said: yours is a philosophical evidence. I asked for something else, and I am still waiting. Of course I could address your little video, which is far from being undeniable and irrefutable, but it would be a waste of time, since we would talk about mere opinions.
@RaytownSoClassof2010 Hold on the matey! We are all reading this with a small smile on our faces. Quote"" "Evolution by natural selection" Debunked "" This should be really good. Come on then prove that statement. Please send me the details I will publish your findings and split the millions of dollars in Book, Movie and TV rights that I will be paid for disproving the Strongest Factual Explanation in all of Science. I'll get to the other Bullshit later.!
@Giby86"Lol! The signs still read "there is probably no god". Even if you don't like it." Fact is,there is a God,even if you dont like it. "But even if it did say "there is no god"...what's the scandal? " You cant make a claim with no proof.So it would be dishonest to say that."It's not that they have proof, you know." Only a person who doesn't attend church would say that."Scientists are the group of people with the highest percentage of atheist " And?There is still more theist scientist.
Reality is absolute. The truth cannot be changed otherwise it is by definition not the truth. If your god is true then it is the truth, if it not true then it is not the truth. Is your god true? As I have said before I do not think so, and I believe that you are incorrect for asserting otherwise. If you can show proof of your god then by all means do so, if not then your god is one of infinite hypothetical possibilities, no more the truth than the matrix theory.
@TheColaGoodfellow Atheism is the lack of belief of gods. One sentence is the only thing atheism says, nothing else. Atheist are not held together by any doctrines or dogma. Just because a person who likes the color blue tells me they hate puppies, that does not mean that "people who lack a favorite color other than blue" hate puppies.
Atheism is disbelief in something as a result of already held beliefs before hearing the testimony.
Alot of atheists disregard the Bible because of the miracles, but miracles alone are a false reason for ignoring multiple claims of them throughout history.
Some atheists apparantly disbelieve because their own idea of morality appears to disagree with the Bible, which is a silly reason, because they still believe murderers exist. Reality isn't limited to your idea of morality.
@TheColaGoodfellow You can spew one lie after another about atheists but that does not make what you say about them true. For example, I could say that you eat babies. I could even genuinely believe it. That does not make that statement true. You say atheism believes that the truth isn't all powerful, yet that is in fact the exact opposite of what atheists believe. Hence why your wanting there to be a god doesn't make one exist.
I am not lieing atall, only you are lieing to yourself.
You disbelieve multiple (around 38) witnesses from throughout history who've all seen miracles of God. And for what reason do you assume none of them were honest? Other than what I've already mentioned?
You, like all the others, disbelieve either because you haven't looked into or thought about what the bible is/says properly, or you think the truth isn't powerful enough to do the miracles.
Sorry for beign logn winded, but what I have mentioned is givign you the benefit of the doubt, because there are infact extra biblical references to Jesus and his wonders and his apostles.
@TheColaGoodfellow ......... WOW. You are in it deep man. Why don't I trust in miracles? Because EVERY time ANYONE has EVER asked someone to verify said miracles they have been unable to do so. In fact most of these "miracles" defy the laws of physics. So yes, I distrust anyone who claims supernatural powers IMMENSELY. In fact I would go so far as to say the every person who believes in "miracles" is either deluded or a blatant liar. Impossible to be nice about this, you are just wrong........
It's natural for the truth to be all powerful, that's a natural law in and of itself. So, the miracles of the Bible are completely natural, because they are simply a result of truths unlimitedness.
I would understand your skepticism if it actually was just one book, but it wasn't.
Pay attention to the witnesses whos situation implies they couldn't have conspired together, despite the fact they witnessed to the same God! =)
@TheColaGoodfellow AGAIN, I assert that your god is not the truth. Claiming that your god can simply do whatever it wants whenever it wants is not a form of debate, it is mere fallacy. I assert the presence of group-think in any and all situations where there are supposedly multiple instances of supernatural observation and possibly schizophrenia. This is present in every religion, yours is not special by any standards.
It's not a fallacy or a debate, it is a simple fact. Things are what they are and as far as the Bible is concerned, God is reality! What you're saying is like implying "inu" is not the japanese equivalent of our "dog", same thing.
A Group think explanation doesn't really work over the course of 1000+ years of witness of miracles, and a constant agreement on the source of the miracles.
@TheColaGoodfellow No, no it is not. You say that your god is special, I say it is not even real let alone special. You're merely parroting yourself at this point. And again, nobody has ever witnessed a miracle, as there is no such thing. Either they convinced themselves that they did because they could not explain/understand what happened or they simply made the whole thing up. I suggest that you take a physics 101 course. The laws of nature CANNOT be defied, for they are existence itself.
@TheColaGoodfellow Again, NO. You have yet to assert ANY proof or even credible evidence as to why ANYTHING is done by your god, which is to say that you are arguing in a hypothetical tense. I could as easily say that your god is false and the Flying Spaghetti Monster is responsible for everything, proof wise they are equal, and if you don't need proof then neither does ANYONE ELSE.
So I repeat; show ONE act of your god that lends creditability to its existence over any other god's existence.
@TheColaGoodfellow Again, you assert the existence of your god by saying that things exist. If you cannot see the fallacy of such beliefs then there is nothing anyone can do to save you from your delusions. You are merely writing off everything as proof of your god, which is also proof of every conceivable god. You have no evidence other than baseless assumptions and no reason to believe other than your own indoctrination.
"I am that I am". All I (and the bible) am asserting is that existance exists. Yahweh literally meant "to Exist" in hebrew.
You however cannot get past your hasty assumption that all ancient scripture mentioning events that are rare, are deluded fools.
There is not a 66/66 chance that people claiming "existance" made events occur, were all mad/liars. So maybe you ought to atleast give them SOME benefit of the doubt instead of just being ignorant.
@TheColaGoodfellow And no. False witnesses are not credibility. There were just as many witnesses of witchcraft as there were of your god. The Bible is NOT a reliable source, ergo it's testimony is NOT evidence. Why is it not valid? Because it has NO external verification, therefore it is entirely hearsay. As much as every religious book ever written by anyone at any point in time. Faith is NOT an argument, it is the absence of one; for in the presence of evidence faith is no longer necessary.
@TheColaGoodfellow Nah, you lose. The Bible refutes itself, the Catholic Church lied and endorsed racism for nearly two thousand years, right up until 20th Century, the Bible contains many errors of fact, and doesn't contain reliable testimony or evidence. There are NO witnesses to Jesus' actions, only third or fourthhand accounts written down decades later by people who weren't there.
Christianity is a myth, there's probably no god, now stop WORRYING about him.
Archealogists know the Bible wasnt made up by the catholic church, they've found scriptures from before the catholic church even existed, before the books were even compiled as the Bible.
You're exaggerating the errors in the Bible, alot, there is nothing significant, nothing which we haven't seen worse of in science before. The letters were not third/fourthhand accounts of Gods power and authority, but their own independant firsthand accounts.
@TheColaGoodfellow I never said it was made up by the Catholics specifically, either, but it was made up by people who were rejecting any outside source, any conflicting source, so no, not reliable. And the letters were not compiled by Jesus or any of the people who followed him, but by people who wrote long afterwards based on oral traditions, which is to say only hearsay.
There is no logical reason to think the entire Bible is false, end of the line.
If you can give me one reason to assume they were all liars, which isn't rendered pointless or defeating the object by the context of scripture itself, I'll give you a golden star.
@TheColaGoodfellow Well, yes there is. It's describing supernatural events which should have been mentioned in other sources from the same time, and aren't. Like that bit about the Sun stopping in the sky and going backwards! Firstly, the Sun doesn't do the moving, the Earth does, so a sudden jerk on everything worldwide would cause massive earthquakes, as well as being reported by every single other society.
Since it claims to be holy and inerrant, one error refutes that claim. Hundreds more...
@TheColaGoodfellow are in the book, which shows both a breathtaking ignorance for a 'divinely inspired' book, as well as matching the types of beliefs and ignorance we DO expect of Bronze and Iron Age societies. It matches what we expect of a collection of stories, it contains multiple errors and inconsistencies, both book to book and within the book. No evidence presented for it being divinely inspired, lots that matches an ignorant and harsh view of the world by men. Thus, it's false.
"No evidence presented for it being divinely inspired, lots that matches an ignorant and harsh view of the world by men"
"... it contains multiple errors and inconsistencies, both book to book and within the book. "
Only when you give it no benefit of the doubt whatsoever and always assume the worst.
It'd be hilarious to see what state you'd be in if you treated everything else with such lack of understanding, like you ought to do. But your thinking is too biased. for that.
@TheColaGoodfellow Yes, something that claims perfection shouldn't receive benefit of the doubt. Is that so hard to see? It is saying in that claim it doesn't NEED benefit of the doubt, after all, because it is perfect.
Positive evidence first, then acceptance. Not the other way around.
However, if you want to accept claims first, well I claim you will go to hell if you don't give me, personally, all your money right now. I promise I'll give evidence later to back this up! lol
@TheColaGoodfellow Name 11 things I accept without evidence if it's so easy.
Where does Bible claim perfection? 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"
@TheColaGoodfellow No, the problem is that it's claimed that All Scripture is useful for TEACHING, REBUKING and CORRECTING. Any part of scripture that is wrong factually, that is imperfect or ambiguous or morally reprehensible, isn't useful for all of these. It simply is claiming the attributes of perfection.
It is claiming perfections, it fails it, and you failed to name 11 things I accept without evidence.
Ironically, we agree that nothing in the bible is perfect per se. Yet, you still
@TheColaGoodfellow want people to follow an admittedly imperfect book without critical evaluation and testing? No thank you.
The bible is full of impossible, implausible and immoral teachings, stories and lies. I could make a case that it is the good things in the Bible that are REALLY out of context, after all. That would leave Yahweh revealed as the evil thug with occasional bursts of goodness. Fair enough?
1. You accept evolution, the existance of stars as super huge balls which are billions of lightyears away + the big bang, without direct evidence of being there. Even if you've seen any evidence atall, what you saw was no more or less likely to have been the result of hallucinations and hoaxes than the bible. And that's a fact.
2. The bibles morality isn't wrong, your understanding of the times is.
3. I don't have time to continue this much I'm afraid.
@TheColaGoodfellow Evolution, stars, fusion, Big Bang theory, all have evidence for them. Indirect evidence does not mean no evidence. As for hoaxes or hallucinations, actually yes it is MUCH less likely. We can use our own telescopes to study the stars, see them change relative positions based on their distances, over the course of a year. We see new viruses and bacteria and plants and animals. We see galaxies rushing away from us indicating an expansion.
@TheColaGoodfellow As for the Bible, it tells people you can keep slaves, even Jews, indefinitely, as long as you keep their families hostage. These and other god given laws are *retained* in the Christian version, mind you, rather than simply abandoned on a shit heap where they belong. By retaining it, it's defending the practice and saying that this WAS endorsed by god at one point, yes, that's a morality that's wrong, mate.
@archapmangcmg Wow just by what i've just read, you have never even read or studied the bible. Like I don't even wanna take my time to explain anything to you. All you prob do is go to google and type in debunking the bible and just read everyone else's comments. See I wouldn't be saying this if it weren't true, all of what you said is completely wrong and you call christians ignorant when we don't read about science when you don't even read about the bible LOL
@jbjrsdbttdl Wow, by your reply, YOU are ignorant of the Bible, the OT contains explicit instructions on slavery. And yeah, I call Christians ignorant of your own 'holy' text because you generally are. There are a dozen different examples of Jesus saying that the Law has not been overturned but is RETAINED until the end of the world.
It's only by 'interpreting' verses out of context that anyone can think the Bible is a 'good book'. Hell, it supports killing pregnant women for your god!
@TheColaGoodfellow Quote " 1. You accept evolution, the existance of stars as super huge balls which are billions of lightyears away + the big bang, without direct evidence of being there. " Hold On!!! Are you saying there is No Direct Evidence for these things?
Well, if nobody has actually travelled billions of lightyears away to find the exact distance of stars, then it is technically an unproven theory that light always moves at an exact constant speed at all times in all situations. Scientists only judge the distance and age of the universe using light and it's apparant constant speed.
And if nobody travelled in time to directly see the Big Bang or the evolution from ape-like-ancestor to man, then it isn't really direct evidence.
@TheColaGoodfellow Er! We accept evolution because it has been proven to be a Fact thousands of times over in thousands of tests and experiments by thousands of people with direct observable evidence witnessed by real people! Evolution is a Fact! It is a scientific Theory the highest level of Fact that exists! It is considered more factually correct than the theory of Gravity! Can you say that for Any religion? And back it up!
@TheColaGoodfellow Go out side during the day and look up at that big bright round thing in the sky. Its a Star! We know its a Star because we can see it we can measure it we can record the radiation from it. Even at night we can see it's light bouncing off of the Moon. We know those other little dots in the night sky are also Stars because we can see them and measure them and record the radiation from them. So please what does you religion say they are? Gods Tears?
@TheColaGoodfellow The speed of light is constant for all free falling observers regardless of their speed. You can go to any University in the world and ask them to measure light for you and show you how it is done and let you perform the calculations yourself. We even know how to slow it down bend it and Stop It completely! Heres a simple one for you. Hold a glass of water up to a lamp and look at the light, You have just slowed down light! Do you have a religious experiment that easy?
@TheColaGoodfellow You can buy for a few dollars an old radio or black and white TV. Turn it on and move the dial back and forth until you get an even hum or static picture appear. Part of that static is radiation left over from the Initial expansion of the universe. We have been listening to it for years and we have Actulal Pictures of it. Goggle Microwave background radition! it makes an excellent screen-saver! Do you have any pictures of Noah's flood or the garden of Eden?
@TheColaGoodfellow So in conclusion my friend you are a Fool. We know so much about Evolution, Stars, Expansion and the Speed of Light that to claim any of these things to be false is like claiming that because you have never been to London and seen the Nelsons Column it does not exist. Unlike religion we can back up everything we say with testable data that anyone can try and refute if they wish. And so far nobody ever has! Can You?
You have gone off on a tangent, my comment was about first hand witnessing of the events themselves to prove that the calculations work in given situation, not what you're refering to.
We know how radiation works? Great! We also know that the truth is all powerful, yet you still deny it.
Come back when you've visited the furthest star in the universe.
I didn't reply to your comment to refuel a debate, I'm tired of them.
@TheColaGoodfellow I misunderstood your comment. I thought you were trying to make a serious point not just spurt bullshit. So where is the first hand witnessing of the birth of Christ? Or Noah's flood? Or the creation of Eve? Or that time the devil buried all the Dinosaur fossils? The bible is not a first hand account of anything it is a collection of fables retold from early fables long before the alleged birth of Christ. There is not a single testable calculation in the whole book.
@TheColaGoodfellow When you look up at the stars what you are witnessing first hand is proof that those starts exist. Your eye is capturing photons ejected from that star long long ago. We know the calculations work because they can be tested and repeated. Just the same as all religions know that if they give hope to the ignorant and back it up with lies you cant disprove until you are dead they can control and manipulate idiots like you. And it is testable & repeatable just go to church!
@TheColaGoodfellow You say the truth is all powerful and you are correct. So why are you spreading lies and mistrust? If god was real there would be one religion and one bible. If you or any other god'ist had just one piece of verifiable proof that your god exists then there would be an entire city built around the building containing the room where the cabinet sits protecting that evidence. And the queue to see it would be unending. Is there such a thing in such a place?
@TheColaGoodfellow So I assume then that you have not seen the birth of Christ with your own eye's? And that you were not on Noah's canoe? And I don't suppose you where there when God spoke to some nomad via a bush that was mounted on the side of an active volcano? And yet you believe everything in the bible simply because you are told to by your parents and the church. Why?
Come back to me when you have visited Jesus, Noah, Moses, Adam, Eve, Yahweh etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
@TheColaGoodfellow Go outside during the day and look up. Do you see that bright glowing object in the sky? Thats a Star! Is that up close and personal enough for you?
@davidls11 Well you know how it is, You start off with small talk and candles and a second bottle of wine. And before you know it you are arguing the very fundamental building blocks of the universe! I am sure we have all done it. :)
@TheColaGoodfellow I am still waiting for your reply! I tried to ask you a question on your channel but as you censor the comments that's a pointless exercise.
Alot of people in the past did temple prostitution, having sex with people in the name of their Gods. They were brought up to beleive it's good. And If they'd do it for their Gods, they'd do it for the Isrealites.
They probably would have cared less about the sex, things were much different back then.
@TheColaGoodfellow Temple prostitution is relevant to WHAT, exactly? I mean really? It's not relevant to the murders committed in the Bible at God's orders, nor to the slavery, nor to the rape of the Midianite survivors, small girls, mind you, who were virgins, after their entire families were slaughtered by the Israelites, and who weren't taken for marriage (God punishes someone who does marry the captive).
My position is nice and simple, rape and genocide aren't justified, are evil.
@TheColaGoodfellow If you're setting up a strawman claim that I said the entire Bible is false, go elsewhere, I said the Bible refutes itself, and doesn't contain reliable evidence. To be reliable, it would need to be accurate on everything testable. It's not, so it's unreliable, untrustworthy, as the basis for knowledge of gods or morality 'given' by gods.
You say each book/letter needs other writings to accompany it as evidence for god + miracles, yet you forget the Bible is a collection of them from accross history, they witness one other In God.
Keep in mind these were wrote a long time ago, Isreal has undergone a rocky past. Most other witness would have probably been destroyed over time.
I base my knowledge of God on the fact that reality is infact no different to the Biblical God by definition and by meaning.
@TheColaGoodfellow You cannot use the Bible to justify the Bible. It's that simple. To show you the problem:
Hi, I'm writing that I am God and I do not lie.
Now, if that's all you have to go on, you'll reject the claim because it's absurd. The Bible is exactly this absurd because that's all it has.
I'm saying that before we can accept a god as true, there needs to be independent evidence of it. A collection of myths is no more reliable than 1 myth, it's less so, as each depends on all others.
@TheColaGoodfellow You base your 'knowledge' on ignorance and wishful thinking. Reality doesn't match the Biblical god (and cannot, given it renders itself logically impossible), therefore that god isn't real. Truth is based on evidence, not desire. You can wish as HARD as you want for an ice-cream to be in your hand, but that does nothing to make it real, and wishing is all that belief without evidence can be.
You refuse truth for a disgusting fantasy when you accept the Biblical God that way.
With a one (incomplete) outlook on the Bible, there are many contradictions, therefore I will ignore the existance of God and miracles (which are documented in them all), but accept what I want.
They aren't really fully connected to one another are they? I don't see how you came to that conclusion.
@TheColaGoodfellow My logic: Any book that claims 2 = 7 cannot be trusted on maths. Any book that claims the Earth stood still for 3 hours without support, cannot be trusted on physics. Any book that claims a worldwide flood cannot be trusted on geography or geology. Any book that doesn't have evidence for miracles cannot be trusted on them. Any book that claims the blood of birds cures leprosy can't be trusted on medicine. It sanctifies rape and slavery, too.
1. Even if God did sanctify rape and slavery, you ought to know that reality doesn't always agree with your own sense of morality. This counts nothing against the truth in the situation, (and isn't true anyway, God doesn't allow slavery for any purpose other than punishment (the equivalent to community service), or rape).
Again, no benefit of the doubt, even in the morality area. Before you even read you've already decided to give it no chance whatsoever.
@TheColaGoodfellow 1. Reality doesn't always agree, but reality wins. God DID sanctify slavery by providing legal mechanisms for it, including beating your slave as much as you want, just don't kill him. Also you can buy Jewish slaves for settling debts, and keep them for life if you refuse to let his wife and children go free.
Rape, too many to say in short space.
No benefit of the doubt should be OFFERED to ANYTHING claiming perfection. If it matches perfection, it will still PASS the test
@TheColaGoodfellow Stop deludeing yourself and be rational. Has it ever occurred to you that the people that told you all the Christianity stuff, like any other religion actually want you to believe it so you either;
a) give them money. Note the Catholic church. One only has to go around the Vatican and see the immense wealth exploited from people, by frightening them about what will happen when they die, with threats of excommunication.
You own logic fails you for multiple reasons, but I will name the core of your mistake.
Most of the things I learnt about God and the Bible I taught myself by researching on my own and constant pondering, debating you atheists for half of my life, and trying my best to admit when I was wrong.
My reason for believing is based on logic, yours is blatant denial for all the wrong reasons.
I don't care why you say the church wants money, you have - no evidence -, your opinion is contradictory to your own values in so many ways, just like all atheists, and that makes you much less reliable than the church.
Not only do you deny that the truth is all powerful, you disbelieve in God because of apparantly "no evidence" yet you assume the church is immoral based on "no evidence, asif it changed the possibiltiy of 66 ancient scriptures all beign right or wrong.
@TheColaGoodfellow 1. You are making up and adding to the definition of atheism, it is a lack of belief of gods, thats it. Its not as a result of anything.
2. You are stereotyping atheist. Atheist can believe anything they want, I for example don't "disbelieve" for any of the reasons you supplied.
"my belief in God is entirely subjective and does not require any evidence whatsoever beyond the supernatural experience of Deity that is part of my religious belief"
Game set match. lol
Science disproves the Bible, which is the only reason you even know about your god in the first place. You say you don't believe that the earth is 6000 years old or that animals just poofed into existence. Good for you, now just disbelieve a little more and you'll be heading in the right direction. : )
@CommanderC4 You are as evasive as an eel in clarified butter, "game set match" hardly, you base your worldview on Science, or so you claim, and yet you are entirely ignorant of what Science has taught about the universe, you have yet to present any evidence of your claims beyond your own deluded imagination. "Science disproves the Bible" does Science also disprove the Mona Lisa? Does Science disprove Milton's "Paradis Lost"? cont'd
@CommanderC4 my faith is not based on the Bible, the only one here talking about religious books and religious ideas is you, not me. The Bible is a useful book in understanding one group of people's history of coming to understand God, as are the Vedas, the Lotus Sutra among others. Science is not in the same realm as these, your conclusions are entirely post hoc ergo propter hoc, after Science is accepted ergo atheism is proved. No. Science has nothing to say about the existence of Deity.
@CommanderC4 Science can no more disprove the Bible and the meaning I derive from it than it can disprove the Mona Lisa or Mozart's Magic Flute and the meaning one derives from those. You assert Science supports atheism antitheism, I challenge you to demonstrate that. Just how does Science establish the non-existence of Deity? You've already demonstrated that you are woefully illiterate in the relevant fields of Science, so what on Earth has led you to conclude there is no God?
@CommanderC4 Only your own subjective experiences with religious systems, I doubt you've ever read the Bible or any other religious text in its entirety. You are are yours are absurd, you are basically shouting at the top of your lungs "there is no God and I hate Him!" you assume any person that believes in God must be stupid and yet you have already shown yourself to be uneducated and uninformed.
@CommanderC4 and your'e the one you believes living organism just "poof" into existence, you believe that single celled life emerged from a primordial soup without any prior living organism being present. That is the theory of abiogenesis, which is entirely unproven. Louis Pasteur disproved Spontaneous Generation ages ago, I suggest you take High School biology again.
@SitNomineDigna You are truly a funny fellow. Spontaneous generation is as scientific as spontaneous combustion, IE not at all. You assert that because some unscientific theory was disproved a long time ago that a deity exists? lol What a straw man.
Life is merely a self replicating chemical reaction, nothing magical or supernatural about it. I recommend you look up the FULL theory of evolution. Bacteria--->Humans. Scientists CAN create bacteria by running a current through the right molecules.
@CommanderC4 No I assert that you claimed that scientists have been able to generate life from non-living "chemicals" for over 100 yrs, I was disproving your false claim. If life is a "self-replicating chemical reaction" why have no Scientists been able to duplicate it? And if this is a natural phenomenon why is not apparent in nature? I suggest you go to your Microbiology professor and ask him to whip you up a Eukaryotic cell. Lets see how far you get.
@SitNomineDigna If your implication is that because there are holes in the puzzle as of right now that it could not be true then in the 1600s you would be saying that Galileo's arguments have holes in them because we have no way of seeing gravity directly. lol Logical extrapolation is how you find variables in algebraic formulas and the concept is applied to proper science as well. Otherwise we couldn't believe someone has cancer until we see the tumor, because symptoms are unreliable. : P
@CommanderC4 "holes in a puzzle" no my implication is that your "puzzle" is irrelevant to the existence or the non-existence of Deity to me, but that the "holes in the puzzle" mean that your innate need for complete rational Scientific explanation of a process, phenomenon ect. its a necessary condition for belief in such a process, phenomenon ect. means that you yourself have no rational reason to accept your self serving conceptions of "Science."
@CommanderC4 you deny the existence of God because of your own psychological need to combat "religion" which you see as a negative force in human society, Science has nothing to to do with it. And again you are wrong, Scientists have made synthetic genomes which hypothetically could lead to the eventually construction of a synthetic proto-Cell, however this is only meaningful to your desire to disprove existence of Deity if they are then able to make synthetic "MEST" from an absolute void.
@CommanderC4 oh MEST is Matter Energy Space and Time. When Scientists can, from an absolute void, ie total nothingness, induce that absolute void to bring forth Matter Energy Space and Time, I will consider abandoning belief in Deity. And while they're at it we'll have them square the circle and add 0 and 0 to equal 1. It takes A LOT of faith to be an atheist, I could never believe that 0+0=1. You impress me, I hope to one day have that level of faith in my own beliefs.
@CommanderC4 but please stop being evasive, you have asserted repeatedly that because of Scientific discoveries belief in God is impossible, please demonstrate that, no more tangents about the status of experimental abiogenesis research, no more fallacious ranting about the Bible and "2000 year old writings," disprove the existence of God with Science like you have been claiming to be able to do since you decided to thumb your nose at a simple comment I made and forgot about within the hour.
@SitNomineDigna THIS is what I'm talking about. THIS is why I'm an atheist. I was an agnostic for a long time before I realized just how many people try hijack science in order to give credibility to their particular deity by pointing out how it is incomplete. Well bravo on figuring out the mysteries of everything my friend. Did your deity create itself? If not then what created it? Is it infinite? Is it all powerful? Is it finite? When did it come into existence? What do you know about it?
@SitNomineDigna You like to apply a variable to the unknown, but what do you do with it? Does you deity love? Does it hate? Does it want you to do things? Is there any purpose to believing in it beyond your own personal satisfaction with the universe? Did it make things just for you? Does it even know you exist? Does it care either way?
You saying that there has to be a deity would be as ignorant as me saying that can't be one, which I don't.
@CommanderC4 What is the nature of Deity? Does the Divine love? Does the Divine hate? Well that is why we have religion to attempt to answer just those questions, unfortunately I cannot boil down 1,000's of years of religious reasoning on the Nature of God into a youtube comment. If I had to choose one term to describe God it would probably have to resemble the Islamic affirmation of faith, God is the Compassionate, the Merciful, the Cherisher of Mankind.
@SitNomineDigna But I don't claim to have the answers to the entirety of everything that could ever possibly exist. I claim to have unanswered questions. Your faith is a watchmaker argument at best. There is so there has to be, correct? Your idea of an intelligent whatever is incredibly biased. Why must the universe have intelligence? Why must there be reason behind it at all? Why must the universe conform to your standards of what it must be.
@SitNomineDigna When you use the term "created" you have already given in to your bias as a rational creature. The universe exists, I think, and that's all I think, because I think. I am curious as to the things I don't know but I do not believe in answers. I do not even believe in science, I trust it. Not blindly, as it has been wrong before, but it is like a good car, it rarely fails to come through in the end.
The variable behind everything we don't know is not (G), it is merely (x). Unknown.
@SitNomineDigna "Void"? What void? Is there a non existence that exists? You again assert that since we could never see outside of existence that there must be something outside existence that started existence. Yet would that not also exist as well? Where does the (x) that started existence begin? Why can't existence be infinite(existence not universe, as there may be more than one)? I simply warn against presuming so much. It suffocates curiosity, which I think is a good thing, for us anyway.
@CommanderC4 It may very well be that the Universe is infinite uncreated and godless, I don't exclude that as a possibility, I merely do not believe that it is. I have no rational explanation for this belief, I only have the irrational basis of belief in Deity from the supernatural experiences I've had. I never stated "there has to be a Deity" I stated that atheism is atypical human behavior and that I pay it no attention. I have not been trying to argue for the existence of God,
@CommanderC4 I've been arguing against the toted rationality and credibility of atheism, Science could assemble from inanimate material a complere or even superior synthetic human being and I'd still have a fervent belief in God, because Science is irrelevant to God's existence, and God's non-existence. Science only explains how, not why.
@CommanderC4 The fact is C4 for all your adamant feelings, your zeal for antitheism is not based on knowledge, your knowledge of Science is obviously fragmentary since you thought the Scientists had been cooking up synthetic life for "over a 100 years" when in fact Scientists have yet to do so, let alone did so in 1910. You know even less about religion and philosophy. So instead of basing your opinions on your hurt feelings, I'd invite you to make some honest inquiries.
@SitNomineDigna Right. You don't know it exists but you can define it with what you admit is irrationality. That makes perfect sense. lol God God God God God I WANT TO BELIEVE! And you think that I need to be more honest? Too funny. I suggest you stop using human bias to assert that you know the fundamentals of the universe, it is rather unbecoming of a sentient life form. I can only say that if you can assert that there IS a deity without proof then I can do the same inversely, which I don't.
@CommanderC4 I know God exists, but not based on any rational evidence, I know God exists because of experiences I've had that are wholly supernatural and beyond rational explanation, I don't WANT there to be a God, there IS a God and I look for reasons not to believe in Deity. I have not once in this discussion argued there is rational evidence for the existence of God, you on the other hand have been attempting to exaggerate Scientific findings in order to negate the existence of Deity.
@CommanderC4 I don't WANT to believe, I do believe. There is a God, I know it, and as far as I'm concerned that is self evident and requires no explanation. And the majority of the human race agrees with that perception of reality, atheism is an aberrant form of human thought and is not threatening to me at all. Someone asking me to prove there is a God to them is akin to asking me to prove that "dignity" exists or "honour" exists or that my "mind" exists.
@SitNomineDigna Wow, really? lol Do you even know what the term supernatural means? It means that something is beyond the natural laws (those would be the ones that govern the entirety of the universe). "Honor"? "Dignity"? You think that concepts that humans came up with are finite laws? WOW. Dude I think you've been reading a bit to much Freud. The ID went out the door along with alternative medicine about ten years ago. To say that something is supernatural is to say that it doesn't exist.
@TheColaGoodfellow Um, sorry cupcake but saying that your god is truth is to assume that gods exist in the first place. If gods do exist then they are truth, if they do not exist then they are not truth. You cannot prove the existence of gods nor the fundamental necessity for their supposed existence, ergo such an assertion is entirely hypothetical at best. And truth is synonymous with reality; as such it is unchangeable. Is your deity the truth? I don't think so.
You can't disprove God by abusing the intended meaning of words.
God and truth, by definition, are the same thing. Invisible, all powerful, everywhere.
If it's logical to assume the writers of the 66 books and letters from different periods, were all schizophrenics and liars, then it's logical to assume many other things that any logical person would usually call rediculous.
Truth literally is all powerful, that alone destroys your key reason for disbelieving (the miracles).
@crazyboyxx around 10% of humans are atheists, around 10% of humans are serial killers or think they're Napoleon or a Poached Egg, atheism is an aberration of normal human thought and I pay it no more heed than I do the man who says he's seen Elvis alive and well, the majority of us humans know there is a God. I hope for your sake that you're right about there being no God, that way when you die you'll rot in the ground instead of suffering in Hell.
@SitNomineDigna LOL, that made me chuckle. Why don't you explain to every other religion in the world how you all believe in the same thing and then tell me how that works out. You know, before they behead you for being an infidel.
PS. There is more evidence to support Elvis coming back to save us all then there is of this Jesus fellow doing the same.
@CommanderC4 every religion in the world is simply a different interpretation of the same truth, different people understand reality differently based upon culture, psychology ect. some even have an intrinsic need to feel such perceptions are exclusive, but in the end its the same truth. Evidence only matters if one is a rationalist, I'm not. I'm very proud of my irrationality. Best of luck to you CommanderC4.
@SitNomineDigna Wow... You don't like rationality... I think that just about says it all.
Is Satan is equal to Jesus in your mind??? How about the gods of the Inca??? Zeus, Thor, Shiva??? All the same interpretation of a radical preacher that got nailed to a stick for being a pest to Roman security long after most religions came into existance??? OOOOOOOOOK then, good luck with that...
@CommanderC4 hahaha the person who believes that existence winked into existence out of nothing for no reason is scoffing at my irrationality? Right haha. The theory of "spontaneous generation" was dismissed in the Renaissance until revived in the 20th Century by lunatics who needed to justify their assertion that there is no Supreme Intelligence. Its impossible to have a reasonable discussion with a person who believes that things simply appear from nothing.
@SitNomineDigna "Its impossible to have a reasonable discussion with a person who believes that things simply appear from nothing."
Hence why I don't debate creationists. You DO know that the spontaneous generation argument in the cornerstone of creationism right? God poofed everything into existence just because". Not logical.
And FYI. Scientists CAN create life from basic chemicals, and have been able to do so for about 100 years. The fact that you don't know history is just sad...
@CommanderC4 "FYI. Scientists CAN create life from basic chemicals" I presume you refer to the theory of "abiogenesis" no scientist has ever produced a living organism from inanimate material, some have been able to form organic macromolecules from the material that hypothetically would be present in the "primordial soup" from which they reason the first proto-Cells developed. I suggest your research or stop lying whichever the case may be.
@SitNomineDigna And we're done. Anyone who accuses biologists of lying is no different than the Catholic Church attacking Galileo. Its not a matter of proving it, its a matter of you not wanting to see the proof. Sad really. You're just not worth my time.
@CommanderC4 prove me wrong if you can, which biologist created a living organism from non-living material? Give me a name and which peer reviewed journal he published in. Prove me wrong or your just another name calling coward bested by his own ignorance.
I am utterly baffled by how much hatred and argument there is in the comments.
At the end of the day, all the church said was that the slogans would encourage debate. They never said anyone would convert or lose their faith or whatever. Just debate the issue. I for one don't see a problem with that.
SeraphimSwordmaster 2 months ago
Good news, christianity and all the other current religions will run their course, bad news, they will be replaced
BlackAssassinBlade 2 months ago
So many people were afraid to say no to the fairy tales. Now its ok to laugh at them. Thank Gumby
MrJohnnyrace 2 months ago
Richard Dawkins wants people to start thinking the way he does period. Typical professor they never want people to think on their own.
piusvapor 7 months ago
@piusvapor
No, Dawkins wants people, especially children, to think and draw their conclusions based on scientific evidence. Richard wrote a letter to his daughter on her 10th birthday, encouraging her to learn everything she could and then decide.
It's obvious from his lectures that he knows a great deal about religion and scientific disciplines other than his own. He dose seek to educate, but above else he encourages people to learn.
GuillemotWatcher 7 months ago
Comment removed
downbrownintown 8 months ago
@downbrownintown what prophecy says the UK will be destroyed?
FredrickDeSherlock 2 months ago
@downbrownintown UK is supposed to freeze. According to an old ancient prophecy. I can't remember where it originated from: I think Greece.
downbrownintown 2 months ago
Cool. The prophecy states that England will be destroyed. Now, I understand why.
downbrownintown 8 months ago
No, the bus campaign will encourage critical thinking you jackass!
Lennon4ever1 8 months ago
@mankymole I think (or hope) that he's joking
EnglishDrums1 9 months ago
The signs were only put up because some Christians put up anti-atheist signs, some of which 'condemned some passengers to eternal damnation', according to a reliable source..................................
Just sayin' don't whack the atheists
EnglishDrums1 9 months ago
This is funny. Actually, the "there is probably no god" campaign is in response to fundamental Christians posting slogans saying people will go to hell.
Plus, I am glad to read the start of "no religion" respect as well as the other main religions being taught in Religious Studies... as one of the larger belief systems, it does deserve the same level of respect as the other covered.
mellr0 10 months ago
DAWKINS IS A FOOL.....
WE WILL NOT SEE THE KINGDOM OF GOD ...
WOULD HIS NAME BE WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF LIFE?
OR THE BOOK OF DEATH ...
HE WILL ONE DAY SOON SEE THE GLORY OF GOD...
FROM DOWN BELOW THE BOWELS OF HELL
OR THE LAKE OF FIRE AND BRIMSTONE...
Gelnprato 10 months ago
@Gelnprato people like you make people think religion is stupid..
kpgpwi64 9 months ago
@Gelnprato
*yawn*
Prove it.
ReptilianFreemason 9 months ago
@Gelnprato WOOOOHOOOO CAPS LOCK IS SO COOL. IT MAKES MY MESSAGE SOOOO MUCH MORE VALID. THE LOUDER I SHOUT, THE MORE LIKELY IT IS THAT WHAT I AM SAYING IS TRUE.
everything you said is almost certainly false. prove otherwise or quit your jibber jabbber.
PurushadasaTotalFAIL 8 months ago
@Gelnprato There is still a chance that he and all these low-classed, nasty-mouthed atheist will all go to heaven. Hope brother, hope.
piusvapor 7 months ago
@piusvapor WoH!! A man without a brain! Abomination!!! ha ha
gabrielcarena 7 months ago
The Devil never wins. Just when he uses people like Dawkins to try causing people to doubt God, God uses him as a stepping stool in revealing Himself to people - through His word. God is good!
dbelton2010 10 months ago
@dbelton2010
Nope no 'devil' either, just more superstitious nonsense. What kind of god do you worship that would create a being like satan knowing what he'd become & the suffering he'd cause? No satan, no problems, yet he still decided to create him. That's pretty messed up. Just for the record, god has brutally & needlessly murdered far more people than satan ever did if you believe the bible. God is far from being "good", he's an insanely jealous tyrant who blames us for his own mistakes
ReptilianFreemason 9 months ago
@dbelton2010 god is not good! /watch?v=ceSFxPbvkEg
ThorTheOdinSon 7 months ago
"buses will soon display the message that god does not exist" no fkn idiot, it says god probably doesn't exist, giving you a chance to wake the fk up to yourself.
MrUrsinhoNick 10 months ago
"...enhance the support for Christianity".
It didn't.
davidheffron 10 months ago 3
"Your eye is capturing photons ejected from that star long long ago"
"You can go to any University in the world and ask them to measure light for you and show you how it is done and let you perform the calculations yourself"
They've only proven the speed of light to and from a much smaller distance than any stars other than the sun. How do we know light doesn't speed up after having travelled a certain very long distance? or slowly speeds up when travelling so far? it's unproveable.
TheColaGoodfellow 11 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow OK now you are being a child. It is obvious that you are a coward who can not think for himself. And further more you do not want to know anything that disrupts your little pretense that you will go to heaven for being a good boy! So my advice is continue reading your little book of lies and fairytale's and die Ignorant. You are simply a troll with no education.
TacticalAtheist 11 months ago 2
It absolutely amazes me that people still believe in primitive superstitions.
davidls11 1 year ago 50
@davidls11 well that's you but I for one and completely not. As Einstein once said, "There are only two infinte things in the universe, the unverse itself and human stupidity... and the universe I'm not too sure about."
TheAlexander356 1 year ago
@davidls11 It frightens me.
MacRief 10 months ago
this is good and all but IF there is a god/s why did they take so long to assert themselfs? i mean mankind has been around 90-100 thousand years yet god thought after 96-98000 years ok i better help them, by sending my amazing white ginger son to the middle east to save the whole wide world....that will work???
allanspqr14 1 year ago
Dream on.
SuperFantasticFox 1 year ago
"There is no God...." Where is the proof professor?So far you haven't show a shred.Fail.
RaytownSoClassof2010 1 year ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010 There is probably no god. Emphasis on "probably".
Giby86 1 year ago
@Giby86 How do you know that there is probably no God?
RaytownSoClassof2010 1 year ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010 Uh, I don't. But since you asked for proof, I just pointed out that they're not saying "there is no god, if you think so you're dumb". They're saying that in this day and age science has already confuted many of the claimed attributes of god, to the point that its existence is unlikely.
Giby86 1 year ago
@Giby86 "Uh, I don't" So you are admitting that you dont know if the statement "There is probably no god. " is true? So why say it if you even know what your talking about? "They're saying that in this day and age science has already confuted many of the claimed attributes of god" Really?Name an example. Why is it that science has brought more people to God then? A growing number of Physicist are very spiritual people,Science is rather proving there must be a God.Science is God's fingerprint.
RaytownSoClassof2010 1 year ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010 Only false figures made up by religious groups say that science brings people to God. Assuming that you believe in the bible then why that particular religion? Why do you not follow one of the tens of thousands of other religions that claim they are correct? Which version of the bible do you believe? why that one and not one of the tens of thousands of other versions? Why do you believe in a god without one single piece of evidence to back up your belief?
TacticalAtheist 11 months ago
@Giby86 It is without a doubt that the sign says "there is NO God." You cant make that claims just because you think God's existence is unlikely,since that would be dishonest. Saying "There is no God" is making a definite claim as if it is a fact and there is no fighting it.
RaytownSoClassof2010 1 year ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010 Lol! The signs still read "there is probably no god". Even if you don't like it. But even if it did say "there is no god"...what's the scandal? The Church is heavily advertising that there IS a god. It's not that they have proof, you know.
About science...yeah, right. Scientists are the group of people with the highest percentage of atheist and agnostics there is. But that's irrelevant, of course. It's not that the more people believe something, the more true...
Giby86 1 year ago
...that is. About the ATTRIBUTES of god which have been disproved, let's see, where should I begin...oh! yes. Intelligent creation? Nope. Evolution by natural selection. Miracles? Nope. Not one. Power of prayer? Uh uh, there's actually no proof (and quite a lot of evidence of the contrary). Divine punishments such as plague, earthquakes etcetera? No, it's not Him. We figured that out. Of course, the question of the existence of a philosophical...
Giby86 1 year ago
...god is open. And thinking that there probably isn't one is a legitimate opinion, that people can spread and tell (and even advertise) if they want. I repeat, that's what theists do DAILY.
Giby86 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Giby86 " And thinking that there probably isn't one is a legitimate opinion" There is no evidence that there probably isn't one.
RaytownSoClassof2010 1 year ago
@Giby86 "Evolution by natural selection" Debunked."Miracles? Nope. Not one" There have been many."Power of prayer? " Witnessed it myself."and quite a lot of evidence of the contrary" Like? "No, it's not Him." And you know this because...?
RaytownSoClassof2010 1 year ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010 This is always funny. Can you cite me one single hard evidence for the existence of god?
Giby86 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Giby86 "Can you cite me one single hard evidence for the existence of god?" Sure.
/watch?v=6nrNQ4IrqzM
RaytownSoClassof2010 1 year ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010 Ahh, yes. The good ol' god of the gaps. Is that really your best shot?
Well, you must understand that that is not a hard evidence. It's a logical statement, which we can discuss if you want, but that's not what I asked for. I asked for evidence. Testable, observable, reproducible evidence. So far you've only proven that you choose to call "god" your own ignorance.
Giby86 1 year ago
@Giby86"The good ol' god of the gaps."It wasnt God of the gaps,thats what you atheist say when you smell defeat,once you realize it is over you go"Ah ha!!God of the gaps".Knowing good and well that video had nothing in common with God of the gaps.It is hard evidence,it is undeniable and irrefutable.It is philosophical evidence.You realize you dont have the advantage,but i've already won since you didnt dare try to address the video,now i know that i have pawned you to the greatest degree.peace:D
RaytownSoClassof2010 1 year ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010 Ahh, I see. You were trying to "win". You realize how lame and sad that sounds, right? What is it that you won, by the way?
But back to the point, you just confirmed what I said: yours is a philosophical evidence. I asked for something else, and I am still waiting. Of course I could address your little video, which is far from being undeniable and irrefutable, but it would be a waste of time, since we would talk about mere opinions.
Giby86 1 year ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010 Hold on the matey! We are all reading this with a small smile on our faces. Quote"" "Evolution by natural selection" Debunked "" This should be really good. Come on then prove that statement. Please send me the details I will publish your findings and split the millions of dollars in Book, Movie and TV rights that I will be paid for disproving the Strongest Factual Explanation in all of Science. I'll get to the other Bullshit later.!
TacticalAtheist 11 months ago
@Giby86"Lol! The signs still read "there is probably no god". Even if you don't like it." Fact is,there is a God,even if you dont like it. "But even if it did say "there is no god"...what's the scandal? " You cant make a claim with no proof.So it would be dishonest to say that."It's not that they have proof, you know." Only a person who doesn't attend church would say that."Scientists are the group of people with the highest percentage of atheist " And?There is still more theist scientist.
RaytownSoClassof2010 1 year ago
Reality is absolute. The truth cannot be changed otherwise it is by definition not the truth. If your god is true then it is the truth, if it not true then it is not the truth. Is your god true? As I have said before I do not think so, and I believe that you are incorrect for asserting otherwise. If you can show proof of your god then by all means do so, if not then your god is one of infinite hypothetical possibilities, no more the truth than the matrix theory.
CommanderC4 1 year ago
Atheism says the truth isn't all powerful, how is that not a contradictory belief?
TheColaGoodfellow 1 year ago
@TheColaGoodfellow Atheism is the lack of belief of gods. One sentence is the only thing atheism says, nothing else. Atheist are not held together by any doctrines or dogma. Just because a person who likes the color blue tells me they hate puppies, that does not mean that "people who lack a favorite color other than blue" hate puppies.
ShaadyKS 1 year ago
@ShaadyKS
Atheism is disbelief in something as a result of already held beliefs before hearing the testimony.
Alot of atheists disregard the Bible because of the miracles, but miracles alone are a false reason for ignoring multiple claims of them throughout history.
Some atheists apparantly disbelieve because their own idea of morality appears to disagree with the Bible, which is a silly reason, because they still believe murderers exist. Reality isn't limited to your idea of morality.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 year ago
@TheColaGoodfellow You can spew one lie after another about atheists but that does not make what you say about them true. For example, I could say that you eat babies. I could even genuinely believe it. That does not make that statement true. You say atheism believes that the truth isn't all powerful, yet that is in fact the exact opposite of what atheists believe. Hence why your wanting there to be a god doesn't make one exist.
CommanderC4 1 year ago
@CommanderC4
I am not lieing atall, only you are lieing to yourself.
You disbelieve multiple (around 38) witnesses from throughout history who've all seen miracles of God. And for what reason do you assume none of them were honest? Other than what I've already mentioned?
You, like all the others, disbelieve either because you haven't looked into or thought about what the bible is/says properly, or you think the truth isn't powerful enough to do the miracles.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 year ago
@CommanderC4
*
The Bible constitutes 38 people at the minimum, assuming we don't include the people who are mentioned in Bible.
If we include the entire church of people who Paul and the apostles sent the letters of the Bible to, then we're talking many many witnesses.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 year ago
@CommanderC4
Sorry for beign logn winded, but what I have mentioned is givign you the benefit of the doubt, because there are infact extra biblical references to Jesus and his wonders and his apostles.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 year ago
@TheColaGoodfellow ......... WOW. You are in it deep man. Why don't I trust in miracles? Because EVERY time ANYONE has EVER asked someone to verify said miracles they have been unable to do so. In fact most of these "miracles" defy the laws of physics. So yes, I distrust anyone who claims supernatural powers IMMENSELY. In fact I would go so far as to say the every person who believes in "miracles" is either deluded or a blatant liar. Impossible to be nice about this, you are just wrong........
CommanderC4 1 year ago
@CommanderC4
It's natural for the truth to be all powerful, that's a natural law in and of itself. So, the miracles of the Bible are completely natural, because they are simply a result of truths unlimitedness.
I would understand your skepticism if it actually was just one book, but it wasn't.
Pay attention to the witnesses whos situation implies they couldn't have conspired together, despite the fact they witnessed to the same God! =)
TheColaGoodfellow 1 year ago
@TheColaGoodfellow AGAIN, I assert that your god is not the truth. Claiming that your god can simply do whatever it wants whenever it wants is not a form of debate, it is mere fallacy. I assert the presence of group-think in any and all situations where there are supposedly multiple instances of supernatural observation and possibly schizophrenia. This is present in every religion, yours is not special by any standards.
CommanderC4 1 year ago
@CommanderC4
It's not a fallacy or a debate, it is a simple fact. Things are what they are and as far as the Bible is concerned, God is reality! What you're saying is like implying "inu" is not the japanese equivalent of our "dog", same thing.
A Group think explanation doesn't really work over the course of 1000+ years of witness of miracles, and a constant agreement on the source of the miracles.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 year ago
@TheColaGoodfellow No, no it is not. You say that your god is special, I say it is not even real let alone special. You're merely parroting yourself at this point. And again, nobody has ever witnessed a miracle, as there is no such thing. Either they convinced themselves that they did because they could not explain/understand what happened or they simply made the whole thing up. I suggest that you take a physics 101 course. The laws of nature CANNOT be defied, for they are existence itself.
CommanderC4 1 year ago
@CommanderC4
Yeah, I agree "miracles" don't exist, only works of God/Reality that people call "miracles".
Yes, I am parrotting myself, because you're using a strawman against God, and blatantly shoving multiple witnesses from without history.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 year ago
@TheColaGoodfellow Again, NO. You have yet to assert ANY proof or even credible evidence as to why ANYTHING is done by your god, which is to say that you are arguing in a hypothetical tense. I could as easily say that your god is false and the Flying Spaghetti Monster is responsible for everything, proof wise they are equal, and if you don't need proof then neither does ANYONE ELSE.
So I repeat; show ONE act of your god that lends creditability to its existence over any other god's existence.
CommanderC4 1 year ago
@CommanderC4
There is a parallel between my God and reality, the descriptions are the same.
1. Nothing other than truth/reality exists (nothing other than my God exists).
2. Reality/truth is all powerful/unlimited. (God is all powerful/unlimited)
3. Reality/truth is everywhere. (My God is everywhere)
I have less reason to believe in a God that does not parallel reality, than one which does.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 year ago
@TheColaGoodfellow Again, you assert the existence of your god by saying that things exist. If you cannot see the fallacy of such beliefs then there is nothing anyone can do to save you from your delusions. You are merely writing off everything as proof of your god, which is also proof of every conceivable god. You have no evidence other than baseless assumptions and no reason to believe other than your own indoctrination.
I truly pity you.
CommanderC4 1 year ago
@CommanderC4
"I am that I am". All I (and the bible) am asserting is that existance exists. Yahweh literally meant "to Exist" in hebrew.
You however cannot get past your hasty assumption that all ancient scripture mentioning events that are rare, are deluded fools.
There is not a 66/66 chance that people claiming "existance" made events occur, were all mad/liars. So maybe you ought to atleast give them SOME benefit of the doubt instead of just being ignorant.
You pity me? I pity you.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 year ago
@TheColaGoodfellow And no. False witnesses are not credibility. There were just as many witnesses of witchcraft as there were of your god. The Bible is NOT a reliable source, ergo it's testimony is NOT evidence. Why is it not valid? Because it has NO external verification, therefore it is entirely hearsay. As much as every religious book ever written by anyone at any point in time. Faith is NOT an argument, it is the absence of one; for in the presence of evidence faith is no longer necessary.
CommanderC4 1 year ago
@CommanderC4
"False Witnesses" says the one who has less witnesses than me.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 year ago
@TheColaGoodfellow Nah, you lose. The Bible refutes itself, the Catholic Church lied and endorsed racism for nearly two thousand years, right up until 20th Century, the Bible contains many errors of fact, and doesn't contain reliable testimony or evidence. There are NO witnesses to Jesus' actions, only third or fourthhand accounts written down decades later by people who weren't there.
Christianity is a myth, there's probably no god, now stop WORRYING about him.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg
Archealogists know the Bible wasnt made up by the catholic church, they've found scriptures from before the catholic church even existed, before the books were even compiled as the Bible.
You're exaggerating the errors in the Bible, alot, there is nothing significant, nothing which we haven't seen worse of in science before. The letters were not third/fourthhand accounts of Gods power and authority, but their own independant firsthand accounts.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 year ago
@TheColaGoodfellow I never said it was made up by the Catholics specifically, either, but it was made up by people who were rejecting any outside source, any conflicting source, so no, not reliable. And the letters were not compiled by Jesus or any of the people who followed him, but by people who wrote long afterwards based on oral traditions, which is to say only hearsay.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg
There is no logical reason to think the entire Bible is false, end of the line.
If you can give me one reason to assume they were all liars, which isn't rendered pointless or defeating the object by the context of scripture itself, I'll give you a golden star.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 year ago
@TheColaGoodfellow Well, yes there is. It's describing supernatural events which should have been mentioned in other sources from the same time, and aren't. Like that bit about the Sun stopping in the sky and going backwards! Firstly, the Sun doesn't do the moving, the Earth does, so a sudden jerk on everything worldwide would cause massive earthquakes, as well as being reported by every single other society.
Since it claims to be holy and inerrant, one error refutes that claim. Hundreds more...
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@TheColaGoodfellow are in the book, which shows both a breathtaking ignorance for a 'divinely inspired' book, as well as matching the types of beliefs and ignorance we DO expect of Bronze and Iron Age societies. It matches what we expect of a collection of stories, it contains multiple errors and inconsistencies, both book to book and within the book. No evidence presented for it being divinely inspired, lots that matches an ignorant and harsh view of the world by men. Thus, it's false.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg
"No evidence presented for it being divinely inspired, lots that matches an ignorant and harsh view of the world by men"
"... it contains multiple errors and inconsistencies, both book to book and within the book. "
Only when you give it no benefit of the doubt whatsoever and always assume the worst.
It'd be hilarious to see what state you'd be in if you treated everything else with such lack of understanding, like you ought to do. But your thinking is too biased. for that.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 year ago
@TheColaGoodfellow Yes, something that claims perfection shouldn't receive benefit of the doubt. Is that so hard to see? It is saying in that claim it doesn't NEED benefit of the doubt, after all, because it is perfect.
Positive evidence first, then acceptance. Not the other way around.
However, if you want to accept claims first, well I claim you will go to hell if you don't give me, personally, all your money right now. I promise I'll give evidence later to back this up! lol
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg
2. There's tons of things you have no evidence of yet give benefit of the doubt anyway. Why single out the Bible?
3. Where does the Bible claim perfection? It may be God breathed but so was mankind in the beginning, and we didn't stay "perfect" forever.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 year ago
@TheColaGoodfellow Name 11 things I accept without evidence if it's so easy.
Where does Bible claim perfection? 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"
There ya go lol was that SO hard to find?
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg
Everything else is God breathed too, I think you'll find the apostles did know that, is that perfect in your eyes? No.
Your idea of perfection (and your idea of the meaning of that piece of scripture) is what's wrong here, not the Bible.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 year ago
@TheColaGoodfellow No, the problem is that it's claimed that All Scripture is useful for TEACHING, REBUKING and CORRECTING. Any part of scripture that is wrong factually, that is imperfect or ambiguous or morally reprehensible, isn't useful for all of these. It simply is claiming the attributes of perfection.
It is claiming perfections, it fails it, and you failed to name 11 things I accept without evidence.
Ironically, we agree that nothing in the bible is perfect per se. Yet, you still
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@TheColaGoodfellow want people to follow an admittedly imperfect book without critical evaluation and testing? No thank you.
The bible is full of impossible, implausible and immoral teachings, stories and lies. I could make a case that it is the good things in the Bible that are REALLY out of context, after all. That would leave Yahweh revealed as the evil thug with occasional bursts of goodness. Fair enough?
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg
1. You accept evolution, the existance of stars as super huge balls which are billions of lightyears away + the big bang, without direct evidence of being there. Even if you've seen any evidence atall, what you saw was no more or less likely to have been the result of hallucinations and hoaxes than the bible. And that's a fact.
2. The bibles morality isn't wrong, your understanding of the times is.
3. I don't have time to continue this much I'm afraid.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 year ago
@TheColaGoodfellow Evolution, stars, fusion, Big Bang theory, all have evidence for them. Indirect evidence does not mean no evidence. As for hoaxes or hallucinations, actually yes it is MUCH less likely. We can use our own telescopes to study the stars, see them change relative positions based on their distances, over the course of a year. We see new viruses and bacteria and plants and animals. We see galaxies rushing away from us indicating an expansion.
All these are independent and verified.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@TheColaGoodfellow As for the Bible, it tells people you can keep slaves, even Jews, indefinitely, as long as you keep their families hostage. These and other god given laws are *retained* in the Christian version, mind you, rather than simply abandoned on a shit heap where they belong. By retaining it, it's defending the practice and saying that this WAS endorsed by god at one point, yes, that's a morality that's wrong, mate.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago 18
@archapmangcmg Wow just by what i've just read, you have never even read or studied the bible. Like I don't even wanna take my time to explain anything to you. All you prob do is go to google and type in debunking the bible and just read everyone else's comments. See I wouldn't be saying this if it weren't true, all of what you said is completely wrong and you call christians ignorant when we don't read about science when you don't even read about the bible LOL
jbjrsdbttdl 4 months ago
@jbjrsdbttdl Wow, by your reply, YOU are ignorant of the Bible, the OT contains explicit instructions on slavery. And yeah, I call Christians ignorant of your own 'holy' text because you generally are. There are a dozen different examples of Jesus saying that the Law has not been overturned but is RETAINED until the end of the world.
It's only by 'interpreting' verses out of context that anyone can think the Bible is a 'good book'. Hell, it supports killing pregnant women for your god!
archapmangcmg 4 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow Quote " 1. You accept evolution, the existance of stars as super huge balls which are billions of lightyears away + the big bang, without direct evidence of being there. " Hold On!!! Are you saying there is No Direct Evidence for these things?
Or are you just trolling?
TacticalAtheist 11 months ago
@TacticalAtheist
Well, if nobody has actually travelled billions of lightyears away to find the exact distance of stars, then it is technically an unproven theory that light always moves at an exact constant speed at all times in all situations. Scientists only judge the distance and age of the universe using light and it's apparant constant speed.
And if nobody travelled in time to directly see the Big Bang or the evolution from ape-like-ancestor to man, then it isn't really direct evidence.
TheColaGoodfellow 11 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow Er! We accept evolution because it has been proven to be a Fact thousands of times over in thousands of tests and experiments by thousands of people with direct observable evidence witnessed by real people! Evolution is a Fact! It is a scientific Theory the highest level of Fact that exists! It is considered more factually correct than the theory of Gravity! Can you say that for Any religion? And back it up!
TacticalAtheist 11 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow Go out side during the day and look up at that big bright round thing in the sky. Its a Star! We know its a Star because we can see it we can measure it we can record the radiation from it. Even at night we can see it's light bouncing off of the Moon. We know those other little dots in the night sky are also Stars because we can see them and measure them and record the radiation from them. So please what does you religion say they are? Gods Tears?
TacticalAtheist 11 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow The speed of light is constant for all free falling observers regardless of their speed. You can go to any University in the world and ask them to measure light for you and show you how it is done and let you perform the calculations yourself. We even know how to slow it down bend it and Stop It completely! Heres a simple one for you. Hold a glass of water up to a lamp and look at the light, You have just slowed down light! Do you have a religious experiment that easy?
TacticalAtheist 11 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow You can buy for a few dollars an old radio or black and white TV. Turn it on and move the dial back and forth until you get an even hum or static picture appear. Part of that static is radiation left over from the Initial expansion of the universe. We have been listening to it for years and we have Actulal Pictures of it. Goggle Microwave background radition! it makes an excellent screen-saver! Do you have any pictures of Noah's flood or the garden of Eden?
TacticalAtheist 11 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow So in conclusion my friend you are a Fool. We know so much about Evolution, Stars, Expansion and the Speed of Light that to claim any of these things to be false is like claiming that because you have never been to London and seen the Nelsons Column it does not exist. Unlike religion we can back up everything we say with testable data that anyone can try and refute if they wish. And so far nobody ever has! Can You?
TacticalAtheist 11 months ago 2
@TacticalAtheist
You have gone off on a tangent, my comment was about first hand witnessing of the events themselves to prove that the calculations work in given situation, not what you're refering to.
We know how radiation works? Great! We also know that the truth is all powerful, yet you still deny it.
Come back when you've visited the furthest star in the universe.
I didn't reply to your comment to refuel a debate, I'm tired of them.
TheColaGoodfellow 11 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow I misunderstood your comment. I thought you were trying to make a serious point not just spurt bullshit. So where is the first hand witnessing of the birth of Christ? Or Noah's flood? Or the creation of Eve? Or that time the devil buried all the Dinosaur fossils? The bible is not a first hand account of anything it is a collection of fables retold from early fables long before the alleged birth of Christ. There is not a single testable calculation in the whole book.
TacticalAtheist 11 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow When you look up at the stars what you are witnessing first hand is proof that those starts exist. Your eye is capturing photons ejected from that star long long ago. We know the calculations work because they can be tested and repeated. Just the same as all religions know that if they give hope to the ignorant and back it up with lies you cant disprove until you are dead they can control and manipulate idiots like you. And it is testable & repeatable just go to church!
TacticalAtheist 11 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow You say the truth is all powerful and you are correct. So why are you spreading lies and mistrust? If god was real there would be one religion and one bible. If you or any other god'ist had just one piece of verifiable proof that your god exists then there would be an entire city built around the building containing the room where the cabinet sits protecting that evidence. And the queue to see it would be unending. Is there such a thing in such a place?
TacticalAtheist 11 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow So I assume then that you have not seen the birth of Christ with your own eye's? And that you were not on Noah's canoe? And I don't suppose you where there when God spoke to some nomad via a bush that was mounted on the side of an active volcano? And yet you believe everything in the bible simply because you are told to by your parents and the church. Why?
Come back to me when you have visited Jesus, Noah, Moses, Adam, Eve, Yahweh etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
TacticalAtheist 11 months ago
@TacticalAtheist
"And yet you believe everything in the bible simply because you are told to by your parents and the church"
Oh the irony. No, I don't, actually. I've done my research thanks. My beliefs have differed many times between I and the church.
"If god was real there would be one religion and one bible"
Not necasserily. God wants us to be responsible for our own actions, he isn't going to intervene all the time.
I'm not going to waste much time here, I have a life to live.
TheColaGoodfellow 11 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow No you dont have a life your life belongs to Jesus and he want's you to do his sky daddy's bidding.
Just answer the fucking question!
TacticalAtheist 11 months ago
@TacticalAtheist
There's a big difference between witnesses, and things which nobody has seen close and personal (stars).
TheColaGoodfellow 11 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow Go outside during the day and look up. Do you see that bright glowing object in the sky? Thats a Star! Is that up close and personal enough for you?
Answer the fucking question!
TacticalAtheist 11 months ago
@TacticalAtheist Why are you arguing with someone who thinks the speed of light is variable?
davidls11 10 months ago
@davidls11 Well you know how it is, You start off with small talk and candles and a second bottle of wine. And before you know it you are arguing the very fundamental building blocks of the universe! I am sure we have all done it. :)
TacticalAtheist 10 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow I am still waiting for your reply! I tried to ask you a question on your channel but as you censor the comments that's a pointless exercise.
TacticalAtheist 11 months ago
@archapmangcmg
FYI, I'm not denying any of those things, I have a tendency to trust a large group of people when they have no reason to lie.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 year ago
@TheColaGoodfellow The thing is, they're all things we can check for ourselves. That's the big, important, critical difference.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg
Alot of people in the past did temple prostitution, having sex with people in the name of their Gods. They were brought up to beleive it's good. And If they'd do it for their Gods, they'd do it for the Isrealites.
They probably would have cared less about the sex, things were much different back then.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 year ago
@TheColaGoodfellow Temple prostitution is relevant to WHAT, exactly? I mean really? It's not relevant to the murders committed in the Bible at God's orders, nor to the slavery, nor to the rape of the Midianite survivors, small girls, mind you, who were virgins, after their entire families were slaughtered by the Israelites, and who weren't taken for marriage (God punishes someone who does marry the captive).
My position is nice and simple, rape and genocide aren't justified, are evil.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@TheColaGoodfellow If you're setting up a strawman claim that I said the entire Bible is false, go elsewhere, I said the Bible refutes itself, and doesn't contain reliable evidence. To be reliable, it would need to be accurate on everything testable. It's not, so it's unreliable, untrustworthy, as the basis for knowledge of gods or morality 'given' by gods.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg
You say each book/letter needs other writings to accompany it as evidence for god + miracles, yet you forget the Bible is a collection of them from accross history, they witness one other In God.
Keep in mind these were wrote a long time ago, Isreal has undergone a rocky past. Most other witness would have probably been destroyed over time.
I base my knowledge of God on the fact that reality is infact no different to the Biblical God by definition and by meaning.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 year ago
@TheColaGoodfellow You cannot use the Bible to justify the Bible. It's that simple. To show you the problem:
Hi, I'm writing that I am God and I do not lie.
Now, if that's all you have to go on, you'll reject the claim because it's absurd. The Bible is exactly this absurd because that's all it has.
I'm saying that before we can accept a god as true, there needs to be independent evidence of it. A collection of myths is no more reliable than 1 myth, it's less so, as each depends on all others.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@TheColaGoodfellow You base your 'knowledge' on ignorance and wishful thinking. Reality doesn't match the Biblical god (and cannot, given it renders itself logically impossible), therefore that god isn't real. Truth is based on evidence, not desire. You can wish as HARD as you want for an ice-cream to be in your hand, but that does nothing to make it real, and wishing is all that belief without evidence can be.
You refuse truth for a disgusting fantasy when you accept the Biblical God that way.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg
Your logic:
With a one (incomplete) outlook on the Bible, there are many contradictions, therefore I will ignore the existance of God and miracles (which are documented in them all), but accept what I want.
They aren't really fully connected to one another are they? I don't see how you came to that conclusion.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 year ago
@TheColaGoodfellow My logic: Any book that claims 2 = 7 cannot be trusted on maths. Any book that claims the Earth stood still for 3 hours without support, cannot be trusted on physics. Any book that claims a worldwide flood cannot be trusted on geography or geology. Any book that doesn't have evidence for miracles cannot be trusted on them. Any book that claims the blood of birds cures leprosy can't be trusted on medicine. It sanctifies rape and slavery, too.
Why START trusting such a book?!
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg
1. Even if God did sanctify rape and slavery, you ought to know that reality doesn't always agree with your own sense of morality. This counts nothing against the truth in the situation, (and isn't true anyway, God doesn't allow slavery for any purpose other than punishment (the equivalent to community service), or rape).
Again, no benefit of the doubt, even in the morality area. Before you even read you've already decided to give it no chance whatsoever.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 year ago
@TheColaGoodfellow 1. Reality doesn't always agree, but reality wins. God DID sanctify slavery by providing legal mechanisms for it, including beating your slave as much as you want, just don't kill him. Also you can buy Jewish slaves for settling debts, and keep them for life if you refuse to let his wife and children go free.
Rape, too many to say in short space.
No benefit of the doubt should be OFFERED to ANYTHING claiming perfection. If it matches perfection, it will still PASS the test
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@TheColaGoodfellow Stop deludeing yourself and be rational. Has it ever occurred to you that the people that told you all the Christianity stuff, like any other religion actually want you to believe it so you either;
a) give them money. Note the Catholic church. One only has to go around the Vatican and see the immense wealth exploited from people, by frightening them about what will happen when they die, with threats of excommunication.
b) Do as they tell you. Note all religions.
bigear69 1 year ago
@bigear69
You own logic fails you for multiple reasons, but I will name the core of your mistake.
Most of the things I learnt about God and the Bible I taught myself by researching on my own and constant pondering, debating you atheists for half of my life, and trying my best to admit when I was wrong.
My reason for believing is based on logic, yours is blatant denial for all the wrong reasons.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 year ago
@bigear69
I don't care why you say the church wants money, you have - no evidence -, your opinion is contradictory to your own values in so many ways, just like all atheists, and that makes you much less reliable than the church.
Not only do you deny that the truth is all powerful, you disbelieve in God because of apparantly "no evidence" yet you assume the church is immoral based on "no evidence, asif it changed the possibiltiy of 66 ancient scriptures all beign right or wrong.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 year ago
@TheColaGoodfellow 1. You are making up and adding to the definition of atheism, it is a lack of belief of gods, thats it. Its not as a result of anything.
2. You are stereotyping atheist. Atheist can believe anything they want, I for example don't "disbelieve" for any of the reasons you supplied.
ShaadyKS 1 year ago
@ShaadyKS
All beliefs have reasons, most of them bad reasons, some of them good reasons.
Atheism has reasons which would be good in any situation other than what constitutes God and the Bible.
If the same logic was applied to other claims it would automatically appear foolish if people weren't so blind already.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 year ago
"my belief in God is entirely subjective and does not require any evidence whatsoever beyond the supernatural experience of Deity that is part of my religious belief"
Game set match. lol
Science disproves the Bible, which is the only reason you even know about your god in the first place. You say you don't believe that the earth is 6000 years old or that animals just poofed into existence. Good for you, now just disbelieve a little more and you'll be heading in the right direction. : )
CommanderC4 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CommanderC4 You are as evasive as an eel in clarified butter, "game set match" hardly, you base your worldview on Science, or so you claim, and yet you are entirely ignorant of what Science has taught about the universe, you have yet to present any evidence of your claims beyond your own deluded imagination. "Science disproves the Bible" does Science also disprove the Mona Lisa? Does Science disprove Milton's "Paradis Lost"? cont'd
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@CommanderC4 my faith is not based on the Bible, the only one here talking about religious books and religious ideas is you, not me. The Bible is a useful book in understanding one group of people's history of coming to understand God, as are the Vedas, the Lotus Sutra among others. Science is not in the same realm as these, your conclusions are entirely post hoc ergo propter hoc, after Science is accepted ergo atheism is proved. No. Science has nothing to say about the existence of Deity.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@CommanderC4 Science can no more disprove the Bible and the meaning I derive from it than it can disprove the Mona Lisa or Mozart's Magic Flute and the meaning one derives from those. You assert Science supports atheism antitheism, I challenge you to demonstrate that. Just how does Science establish the non-existence of Deity? You've already demonstrated that you are woefully illiterate in the relevant fields of Science, so what on Earth has led you to conclude there is no God?
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@CommanderC4 Only your own subjective experiences with religious systems, I doubt you've ever read the Bible or any other religious text in its entirety. You are are yours are absurd, you are basically shouting at the top of your lungs "there is no God and I hate Him!" you assume any person that believes in God must be stupid and yet you have already shown yourself to be uneducated and uninformed.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna crct; "you and yours" in line 3
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@CommanderC4 and your'e the one you believes living organism just "poof" into existence, you believe that single celled life emerged from a primordial soup without any prior living organism being present. That is the theory of abiogenesis, which is entirely unproven. Louis Pasteur disproved Spontaneous Generation ages ago, I suggest you take High School biology again.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna You are truly a funny fellow. Spontaneous generation is as scientific as spontaneous combustion, IE not at all. You assert that because some unscientific theory was disproved a long time ago that a deity exists? lol What a straw man.
Life is merely a self replicating chemical reaction, nothing magical or supernatural about it. I recommend you look up the FULL theory of evolution. Bacteria--->Humans. Scientists CAN create bacteria by running a current through the right molecules.
CommanderC4 1 year ago
@CommanderC4 No I assert that you claimed that scientists have been able to generate life from non-living "chemicals" for over 100 yrs, I was disproving your false claim. If life is a "self-replicating chemical reaction" why have no Scientists been able to duplicate it? And if this is a natural phenomenon why is not apparent in nature? I suggest you go to your Microbiology professor and ask him to whip you up a Eukaryotic cell. Lets see how far you get.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna If your implication is that because there are holes in the puzzle as of right now that it could not be true then in the 1600s you would be saying that Galileo's arguments have holes in them because we have no way of seeing gravity directly. lol Logical extrapolation is how you find variables in algebraic formulas and the concept is applied to proper science as well. Otherwise we couldn't believe someone has cancer until we see the tumor, because symptoms are unreliable. : P
CommanderC4 1 year ago
@CommanderC4 "holes in a puzzle" no my implication is that your "puzzle" is irrelevant to the existence or the non-existence of Deity to me, but that the "holes in the puzzle" mean that your innate need for complete rational Scientific explanation of a process, phenomenon ect. its a necessary condition for belief in such a process, phenomenon ect. means that you yourself have no rational reason to accept your self serving conceptions of "Science."
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@CommanderC4 you deny the existence of God because of your own psychological need to combat "religion" which you see as a negative force in human society, Science has nothing to to do with it. And again you are wrong, Scientists have made synthetic genomes which hypothetically could lead to the eventually construction of a synthetic proto-Cell, however this is only meaningful to your desire to disprove existence of Deity if they are then able to make synthetic "MEST" from an absolute void.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@CommanderC4 oh MEST is Matter Energy Space and Time. When Scientists can, from an absolute void, ie total nothingness, induce that absolute void to bring forth Matter Energy Space and Time, I will consider abandoning belief in Deity. And while they're at it we'll have them square the circle and add 0 and 0 to equal 1. It takes A LOT of faith to be an atheist, I could never believe that 0+0=1. You impress me, I hope to one day have that level of faith in my own beliefs.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@CommanderC4 but please stop being evasive, you have asserted repeatedly that because of Scientific discoveries belief in God is impossible, please demonstrate that, no more tangents about the status of experimental abiogenesis research, no more fallacious ranting about the Bible and "2000 year old writings," disprove the existence of God with Science like you have been claiming to be able to do since you decided to thumb your nose at a simple comment I made and forgot about within the hour.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna THIS is what I'm talking about. THIS is why I'm an atheist. I was an agnostic for a long time before I realized just how many people try hijack science in order to give credibility to their particular deity by pointing out how it is incomplete. Well bravo on figuring out the mysteries of everything my friend. Did your deity create itself? If not then what created it? Is it infinite? Is it all powerful? Is it finite? When did it come into existence? What do you know about it?
CommanderC4 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna You like to apply a variable to the unknown, but what do you do with it? Does you deity love? Does it hate? Does it want you to do things? Is there any purpose to believing in it beyond your own personal satisfaction with the universe? Did it make things just for you? Does it even know you exist? Does it care either way?
You saying that there has to be a deity would be as ignorant as me saying that can't be one, which I don't.
CommanderC4 1 year ago
@CommanderC4 What is the nature of Deity? Does the Divine love? Does the Divine hate? Well that is why we have religion to attempt to answer just those questions, unfortunately I cannot boil down 1,000's of years of religious reasoning on the Nature of God into a youtube comment. If I had to choose one term to describe God it would probably have to resemble the Islamic affirmation of faith, God is the Compassionate, the Merciful, the Cherisher of Mankind.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna But I don't claim to have the answers to the entirety of everything that could ever possibly exist. I claim to have unanswered questions. Your faith is a watchmaker argument at best. There is so there has to be, correct? Your idea of an intelligent whatever is incredibly biased. Why must the universe have intelligence? Why must there be reason behind it at all? Why must the universe conform to your standards of what it must be.
CommanderC4 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna When you use the term "created" you have already given in to your bias as a rational creature. The universe exists, I think, and that's all I think, because I think. I am curious as to the things I don't know but I do not believe in answers. I do not even believe in science, I trust it. Not blindly, as it has been wrong before, but it is like a good car, it rarely fails to come through in the end.
The variable behind everything we don't know is not (G), it is merely (x). Unknown.
CommanderC4 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna "Void"? What void? Is there a non existence that exists? You again assert that since we could never see outside of existence that there must be something outside existence that started existence. Yet would that not also exist as well? Where does the (x) that started existence begin? Why can't existence be infinite(existence not universe, as there may be more than one)? I simply warn against presuming so much. It suffocates curiosity, which I think is a good thing, for us anyway.
CommanderC4 1 year ago
@CommanderC4 It may very well be that the Universe is infinite uncreated and godless, I don't exclude that as a possibility, I merely do not believe that it is. I have no rational explanation for this belief, I only have the irrational basis of belief in Deity from the supernatural experiences I've had. I never stated "there has to be a Deity" I stated that atheism is atypical human behavior and that I pay it no attention. I have not been trying to argue for the existence of God,
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@CommanderC4 I've been arguing against the toted rationality and credibility of atheism, Science could assemble from inanimate material a complere or even superior synthetic human being and I'd still have a fervent belief in God, because Science is irrelevant to God's existence, and God's non-existence. Science only explains how, not why.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@CommanderC4 The fact is C4 for all your adamant feelings, your zeal for antitheism is not based on knowledge, your knowledge of Science is obviously fragmentary since you thought the Scientists had been cooking up synthetic life for "over a 100 years" when in fact Scientists have yet to do so, let alone did so in 1910. You know even less about religion and philosophy. So instead of basing your opinions on your hurt feelings, I'd invite you to make some honest inquiries.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna Right. You don't know it exists but you can define it with what you admit is irrationality. That makes perfect sense. lol God God God God God I WANT TO BELIEVE! And you think that I need to be more honest? Too funny. I suggest you stop using human bias to assert that you know the fundamentals of the universe, it is rather unbecoming of a sentient life form. I can only say that if you can assert that there IS a deity without proof then I can do the same inversely, which I don't.
CommanderC4 1 year ago
@CommanderC4 I know God exists, but not based on any rational evidence, I know God exists because of experiences I've had that are wholly supernatural and beyond rational explanation, I don't WANT there to be a God, there IS a God and I look for reasons not to believe in Deity. I have not once in this discussion argued there is rational evidence for the existence of God, you on the other hand have been attempting to exaggerate Scientific findings in order to negate the existence of Deity.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@CommanderC4 I don't WANT to believe, I do believe. There is a God, I know it, and as far as I'm concerned that is self evident and requires no explanation. And the majority of the human race agrees with that perception of reality, atheism is an aberrant form of human thought and is not threatening to me at all. Someone asking me to prove there is a God to them is akin to asking me to prove that "dignity" exists or "honour" exists or that my "mind" exists.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna Wow, really? lol Do you even know what the term supernatural means? It means that something is beyond the natural laws (those would be the ones that govern the entirety of the universe). "Honor"? "Dignity"? You think that concepts that humans came up with are finite laws? WOW. Dude I think you've been reading a bit to much Freud. The ID went out the door along with alternative medicine about ten years ago. To say that something is supernatural is to say that it doesn't exist.
CommanderC4 1 year ago
@CommanderC4
Does that mean the natural laws are actually supernatural, because the laws themselves don't follow their own laws?
The truth is all powerful, therefore miracles are possible, God is truth.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 year ago
@TheColaGoodfellow Um, sorry cupcake but saying that your god is truth is to assume that gods exist in the first place. If gods do exist then they are truth, if they do not exist then they are not truth. You cannot prove the existence of gods nor the fundamental necessity for their supposed existence, ergo such an assertion is entirely hypothetical at best. And truth is synonymous with reality; as such it is unchangeable. Is your deity the truth? I don't think so.
CommanderC4 1 year ago
@CommanderC4
You can't disprove God by abusing the intended meaning of words.
God and truth, by definition, are the same thing. Invisible, all powerful, everywhere.
If it's logical to assume the writers of the 66 books and letters from different periods, were all schizophrenics and liars, then it's logical to assume many other things that any logical person would usually call rediculous.
Truth literally is all powerful, that alone destroys your key reason for disbelieving (the miracles).
TheColaGoodfellow 1 year ago
@crazyboyxx around 10% of humans are atheists, around 10% of humans are serial killers or think they're Napoleon or a Poached Egg, atheism is an aberration of normal human thought and I pay it no more heed than I do the man who says he's seen Elvis alive and well, the majority of us humans know there is a God. I hope for your sake that you're right about there being no God, that way when you die you'll rot in the ground instead of suffering in Hell.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna LOL, that made me chuckle. Why don't you explain to every other religion in the world how you all believe in the same thing and then tell me how that works out. You know, before they behead you for being an infidel.
PS. There is more evidence to support Elvis coming back to save us all then there is of this Jesus fellow doing the same.
CommanderC4 1 year ago
@CommanderC4 every religion in the world is simply a different interpretation of the same truth, different people understand reality differently based upon culture, psychology ect. some even have an intrinsic need to feel such perceptions are exclusive, but in the end its the same truth. Evidence only matters if one is a rationalist, I'm not. I'm very proud of my irrationality. Best of luck to you CommanderC4.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna Wow... You don't like rationality... I think that just about says it all.
Is Satan is equal to Jesus in your mind??? How about the gods of the Inca??? Zeus, Thor, Shiva??? All the same interpretation of a radical preacher that got nailed to a stick for being a pest to Roman security long after most religions came into existance??? OOOOOOOOOK then, good luck with that...
CommanderC4 1 year ago
@CommanderC4 hahaha the person who believes that existence winked into existence out of nothing for no reason is scoffing at my irrationality? Right haha. The theory of "spontaneous generation" was dismissed in the Renaissance until revived in the 20th Century by lunatics who needed to justify their assertion that there is no Supreme Intelligence. Its impossible to have a reasonable discussion with a person who believes that things simply appear from nothing.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna "Its impossible to have a reasonable discussion with a person who believes that things simply appear from nothing."
Hence why I don't debate creationists. You DO know that the spontaneous generation argument in the cornerstone of creationism right? God poofed everything into existence just because". Not logical.
And FYI. Scientists CAN create life from basic chemicals, and have been able to do so for about 100 years. The fact that you don't know history is just sad...
CommanderC4 1 year ago
@CommanderC4 "FYI. Scientists CAN create life from basic chemicals" I presume you refer to the theory of "abiogenesis" no scientist has ever produced a living organism from inanimate material, some have been able to form organic macromolecules from the material that hypothetically would be present in the "primordial soup" from which they reason the first proto-Cells developed. I suggest your research or stop lying whichever the case may be.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna And we're done. Anyone who accuses biologists of lying is no different than the Catholic Church attacking Galileo. Its not a matter of proving it, its a matter of you not wanting to see the proof. Sad really. You're just not worth my time.
CommanderC4 1 year ago
@CommanderC4 prove me wrong if you can, which biologist created a living organism from non-living material? Give me a name and which peer reviewed journal he published in. Prove me wrong or your just another name calling coward bested by his own ignorance.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago