we don't need a reason for our personal beliefs, so long as we keep it personal.
and I do worry for the mental health of others who maintain simultaneously within their skulls such blatantly contradictory worlds. I certainly wouldn't trust anything they have to say, or want such a person in a position of responsibility.
@Kynokeh I just like to think that way. :) Why take stuff like science and religion seriously? I couldn't careless. I'm living my life the way i want. Personally, i believe that we are all just cosmic dust and when we die, we will be reborn on earth on another planet. :)
@santu662 If we didn't take things like science seriously you would still be living in a hut. Religion is also a serious discussion because it can and very often is very dangerous and has to be refuted and gotten rid of.
If you just "believe" that the universe is god then you should preface your statement with "I believe" (which you did later on), otherwise it becomes an assertion which you have to back up with proof and reason.
It's kinda funny. The dude on the left looks like a retired metalhead from a band or something. And yet, he sounds very educated and intelligent. It's awesome.
@LOLLERIMURSUFIN I blame my thinking on that on the retards I'd see in high school. I know there are always exceptions to any stereotype and image. Every person is his or her own world. But the image of a metalhead was shown as such to me in high school.
@crass770 I love how your logic revolves around taking the face value of the writings in a book that is almost completely centered around metaphoric statements and parables. Jesus did not mean to lyterraly sell everything you own. Silly shallow minded people with their inability to read into the deeper meaning of religious texts.
@bigglyguy I had no idea that the Book of Genisis made up all 27 books of the New Testament. The Book of Genisis was the first book of the Old Testament. Peoe are free to belive that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God. I agree with Jeus's teachings of peace and love, don't you? The world would be alot better if people followed Jesus's example.
@SkylitDriveFan123 absolutely not... the world would be plunged into the dark ages again. The Sermon on the Mount is a bunch of bad advice, most of his parables are about the Son of Man, and the advice that he gives to various people is to sell all their belongings, leave their families (or hate them) and follow, not worrying about possessions because God will care for them in the same way he looks after the birds. In short his teachings are not to think about the future.
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
The stories of Genesis are metaphoric. They were originally ment to be taken literally when it was the only explanation of how the world came to be, but they are now metaphoric. The halting of the construction pfthe Tower of Babel was a metaphor of God freeing the poor. The budders were slaves, and a tower to Heaven would only benefit the rich.
@SkylitDriveFan123 On what basis do you say that? On what basis is ANY of the bible (now to be) considered real? How exactly are you differentiating? Jesus was not really the son of God, that was just metaphoric? The tower of Babel was real or not? How do you determine the difference, if not just cramming God or truth into any remaining gaps?
Anti-theism is what Joseph Stalin did. It is religious oppression of all creeds and beliefs that aren't atheistic. There are groups out there that claim to want "an absolute separation of church and state" and define an absolute separation as not being allowed to display your religious beliefs in public or have a cross in you office cubicle. Does a world that oppressive sound good to you?
@MeewbeToo maybe you should read my post again? im not saying what you say im saying. you are agreeing with me that faith isnt a valid form of knowing whats real.
the songs kinda whiney . religion believes in things beyond the realm of factual testable truths. the afterlife god ect its based on faith..science bases its facts and truth on what can be tested and independently confirmed. this is why you cant use creationism in a science class. the basis for creationism cant be tested. god is beyond testing. therefore in science, faiths an invalid means of truth.
@wraith168 Nature & New Scientist highly recommend Dr. Hannam’s work. The records of history show that the foundations & infrastructure of modern science, education, human rights, morals &more were built largely on a Christian/creationist philosophy & they were drawing both principles & specific concepts, including scientific ones, directly from the Bible. Atheism has tried to kidnap science from its parents and & ban them from it, but is mostly a façade on a Christian superstructure.
@TruthIsLife7 "The records of history show that the foundations & infrastructure of modern science, education, human rights, morals &more were built largely on a Christian/creationist philosophy"
The main problems are that "Christian philosophy" is not original to Christianity in any sense, and that exactly zero parts of Christianity matter to the modern scientific method.
@TruthIsLife7 This is true regardless of whether some early modern scientists, such as Newton, were Christians. Christianity is simply irrelevant to his laws of motion, which is why they are so useful. They work without belief in Jesus. Similarly, Occam's razor is a basic principle of rational reasoning. Occam himself thought it wouldn't exclude his God from reasoning about nature, but it turned out that it did. Methodological naturalism is necessary to draw conclusions in science.
@TruthIsLife7 So basically, what happened is simply that human civilization advanced and discarded some nonsense in the process, which was Christianity and creationism in this context. Much like the belief in Poseidon was abandoned earlier. To claim that there is a "Christian superstructure" in science is simply uninformed to the point of being comical. I can recommend "What's this thing called Science?" by A.F. Chalmers to get a small idea of how wrong you are.
@wraith168 Jews&Protestants won ~86% of the Nobel prizes in science from 1900-1990. Without the Bible&Biblical scientists,you wouldn’t have modern science or at best you would be centuries behind the present. People who ridicule religion as the enemy of science are like immature children who want to disown the parents that lovingly sacrificed everything for them. Only people who hate science, justice & rationality will try to distort history and separate science from the religion that built it.
@wraith168 There's far more evidence for the Bible than any religion on the planet. However, there are not only wrong&right religions. There are a whole range from
a) very evil to
b) some with a mix of right and wrong to
c) a few that are far closer to the documented truths in history, science
You can see this playlist for some highlights of the evidence that shows Christianity to be in the c) category and to my knowledge #1.
@TruthIsLife7 Being that the catholic church held a huge amount of control over people, and nations at one time, it isn't a surprise that there is a lot about it. To call it evidence of the bible or a god is debatable. You can present the evidence and we can look at it and debate it and see if it stands up to scrutiny. See if it it can be scientifically proven (creation, great flood etc). I haven't seen evidence yet myself that this holds true for but I am always looking.
@wraith168 Officially atheist states have killed ~1-200 million in just a couple centuries...that's 30 times more than all religions in all history, COMBINED, including all false religions.
wwwDOThawaiiDOTedu/powerkills/20THDOTHTM
God tho sends rain on the good&bad&has enabled everyone, including atheists to make free choices to be moral or immoral. There are some sincere atheists, but atheism is a philosophy of denial of evidence.
@TruthIsLife7 No it is not a denial of evidence. It is taking the evidence at hand. I have looked a at some of your videos and will take a look at more I'm sure. The ones I have watch don't give any real evidence of anything. Most of them (and more of what you are saying) is just trying to discredit atheism. It's a common ploy, discredit something believed to be in opposition to you while not giving anything in support of your position.
@TruthIsLife7 It's the idea that discrediting something automatically makes your position right. As for your videos, I'll take the example of the did jesus exist ones. I watch a few of the ones in your profile. They claim historical records as evidence but didn't really nail down where that evidence was.Or the evidence was from writings 100 - 150 yrs after jesus supposedly lived written by priests and bishops. Like I said,I'll probably watch some more of your vids when I have the time
The only conflict I have at the moment is wasting time with these clowns or actually using my time to be productive and accomplish something. I think I'll go with the latter.
and not just Religion is against some medical research like stem cell, religious or not that shit is horrible, killing unborn babies to help the sick, sacrificing one life to save another.
what if that unborn child would grow up to be a genius, with inventions changing the world? or a great leader devoting his life to bring peace.
imo its wrong to kill potentially great people to save someone who's in the midst or end of their life anyway.
@Infamous288 What if they grew up to be a crack addict? It's statistically more likely that they will. So why don't we kill all the babies because they could grow up to be crack smoking sinners? Don't give us that crap. Despite the fact that I feel most situations for abortions are wrong, your argument has no place in supporting abortion is wrong.
@Infamous288 That's a completely different argument. You were saying abortion is bad because of the potential for good that not having the abortion could cause. What I'm saying is that the argument which you're trying to put across is only trying to make people feel guilty for what "could have been", which has no place in arguing for whether something is good or bad. It's just as likely, in fact more likely, the child could be a complete failure. That as well has no place in an argument.
@auroraman56 abortion is different from stem cell, abortion might have good reasons, but killing a baby to cure someone sick is different. giving up 1 life to save someone elses? really? its just stupid, let the person be sick and eventually die, and let the babies live and have a life.
what do you want? cure every illness, overpopulate the world, cutting down rainforests and eventually populate the moon or mars?
@Infamous288 Actually, it's not stupid, because that person can have another baby sometime else. It's THEIR decision whether they have to live or die for their baby, regardless of what you think they should do based on a book you read you arrogant prick. Who do you think you are to tell someone they have to die if they have an option not to, just because of what your Holy Book says?
@auroraman56 not talking about the holy book atm, personally i think its just immoral to sacrifice babies just to cure someone sick.
getting sick and dieing is the way of life, in a way it prevents us from overpopulating the world and ruining it by consuming every natural resource,
arrogant my ass, nowhere have i been boasting about myself or saying i am better then anyone else, come back when u get some intelligence and arguing skills
@Infamous288 You said, "let the person be sick and die". That implies that they shouldn't have any choice in whether they live or die. That is arrogance at its finest. You think that your own moral code should dictate someone else's choice about living or dying. Getting sick and dying is a way of life ... yes, but if the birth rate is the same or greater than the death rate, the world is still going to be overpopulated. Why don't we just let everyone die of the common flu or a fever?
@Infamous288 You are talking embryonic stem cells. There are other types of stem cells. Some are even artificially grown now.
As for the what if game, you can go the opposite way also. What if the unborn grew up to be the next Ted Bundy, or Jeffery Dahmer, or Hitler, or Stalin? You can play all the what ifs you want for every good one there is an equally bad example. What ifs, have no bearing on the right or wrong of it.
@Infamous288 Now going with the it's wrong because it's killing argument (without the what if potential great or bad person), then you could have a point there. Though is it killing? Depends on your definition of life. Is a bunch of cells (50 - 150 cells) 4 or 5 days old a live human, some may say yes, others say no. At least an argument from that point of view makes better sense than what if.
besides all that, since Religion becomes less and less important to people, more and more kids grow up without respect for their parents, or people and things in general.
even though religion "might" be bullshit, atleast its a good guideline, guiding people to be decent human beings, being civilized etc.
@Infamous288 That has nothing to do with the religion and all to do with the parenting. If parents are letting the religion do the work they are not doing their parental duty in bringing up their kids. Besides, I see kids from good religious families being just as bad as those that aren't so religious. Hell I went to catholic school up threw and including hs.You should have seen all the crap the good religious kids did.
god or no god who cares, let people believe what they want to believe.
Religion feeds the hungry, helps the sick, and poor.
atheism on the other hand doesnt.
personally i dont really believe, i'm open to there being a god though, but i support religion for the things it does. (not what they did in the past)
Uhh...Atheists give to Charity as well. IN fact the Atheist Experience program mentions feeding the homles programs it supports.
Religion offeres help IF you are a memeber of the Church or if you are willing to be preached to. Religion also offeres seggregation by teaching that nonbeleivers are somehow less than beleivers and inherently untrustworthy. Compare what Churches do for Charity to the money they make.
@Infamous288 Well let's look at the things it does. There's the positives like feed the hungry and help the poor and the sick, however they don't offer that help without trying to shove their belief system down said persons throat.
Now the negatives. They try to ban people from their civil rights (gay marriage), they try to invade schools and force religion into the science classroom even though it is not science (ID), they block potentially life saving medical research (stem cells)... cont
@Infamous288 Bottom line all the positives of religion can and do come without religion. And the negatives are purely there because of their irrational beliefs.
@Infamous288 Oh i forgot to mention the flying planes into buildings and suicide bombings oklahoma bombings, norway mass murder and other acts of religious fundamentalist terrorism.
@Infamous288 Religion doesn't feed the hungry with food, just bs. Science feeds the hungry. Ever heard of the Haber–Bosch process? This came from science and sustains 33% of the worlds population.
Also, the atrocities of religion aren't limited to the past. They happen every day and no-one seems to care because it's in the name of religion.
@maskofsan1ty "his work helped Germany to significantly prolong WW I, and also to develop the Zyklon B poison gas used in WW II's Holocaust" those guys huh? Gj science.
@maskofsan1ty "his work helped Germany to significantly prolong WW I, and also to develop the Zyklon B poison gas used in WW II's Holocaust" those guys huh? Gj science.
@Infamous288 Science feeds the hungry. Not Religion, a starving family can't pray for food & it suddenly appear on their kitchen table. Just as, Science helps the sick & dying. All those medicines, medical procedures & instruments used in all clinics, hospitals & first aid kits were created because of Science not God. How many people have allowed their children die because they chose pray over Science. & for your info I feed the homeless once a month out of pocket, & I'm Atheist.
@Strictlypointless ofcourse praying wont bring food on the table, but religion does get billions of dollars from believers who give money to the church, and the church in turn uses it to feed the hungry, help the sick etc.
Islamic scholars led the world in navigation, mathematics, engineering, science, history, and agriculture. would they still have done it if they were Atheist?
besides, Science kills way more people then religion
@Infamous288 thats a good point. islam pushed the arab tribes out of arabia to new lands and societies and also inspired schalors,philosophers, explorers,artists ect. you can also add in that in west the catholic chruch perserved and fostered knowledge, schalorship, the arts. and it was protestantism that spawned the industrial revolution.
@Strictlypointless ofcourse praying wont bring food on the table, but religion does get billions of dollars from believers who give money to the church, and the church in turn uses it to feed the hungry, help the sick etc.
Islamic scholars led the world in navigation, mathematics, engineering, science, history, and agriculture. would they still have done it if they were Atheist?
besides, Science kills way more people then religion
Although I think it is wrong to make the statement that 'no god exists', I think it is perfectly plausible to say, with conviction, that 'this god does not exist'. Give me a being, and add attributes, and I will tell you whether or not it can exist. The modern definition of the Christian god does not, can not, exist. It's own attributes coupled with what we know of reality make this god an impossibility.
@SuperJBrowne I used to hate philosophy...all I cared about was practically improving the world. But my prof told me that sometimes there's nothing as practical as a good philosophy. Now, I'm a prof & I agree he was right. Your beliefs&philosophy directly influence actions&works&sometimes in massive ways. It's not fine to believe whatever we feel like. That would destroy civilization, esp. if most people chose to believe&act as they felt like regardless of evidence or what is right or wrong.
@baimeng1 Um...sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. There are creationists worldwide. I'm in South Korea. There are over 1000 masters and Ph.Ds. scientists here that are creationists and it's growing. Dr. Veith, former atheist with Ph.D. in zoology has a very big creationist following in Africa.
Don't put your faith in atheist sites or it's philosophy. Very little could be more anti-rational, anti-science and anti-beneficial to your own life on this earth, let , foalone eternity.
@types10000 1) You still don’t understand the null hypothesis. It is NOT a position that is true, logical, valid, rational, etc. It’s SOLELY a testing tool. If you deny this, you’re just a dupe of atheists who are the enemies of science. Atheism can be the null hypothesis, so can many other things. Even religion can be. NOTHING is considered true, valid, rational, worthwhile, etc. in science or rational thinking without evidence. NOTHING. PERIOD. CASE CLOSED.
@TruthIsLife7 religion can not be the null hypothesis, the only null hypothesis to anything is to not believe unless there is evidence supporting it. You closing the case, does not end the case, it just ends your argument. If that is your ending propsition, then you fail.
@MagnusNyborg Sorry, but I just gave examples below of how it can be. You can claim that religion has no effect. That null hypothesis has been falsified numerous times.
ROFL on your stats. NONE are legitimate science. NONE.
1) There are more large sized and black people in prison too. Lists don't prove causes. Learn how to do science.
@TruthIsLife7 i am not talking about effect, i am talking about whether a god exists or not, and what is required for a god to be believable. The harmfull effects religion has on brains is however evident.
@MagnusNyborg Effects are one kind of evidence (there are at least 10 major kinds) that is fully legitimate. The scientific method is accepted as valid almost exclusively because of its effects.
Genuine biblical religion has never had negative effects on brains. Christianity invented modern science, almost all its foundational processes&most of it's fields, universities, most public education, pioneered many human rights, economic rights and MUCH more. See notes in my main channel video.
@MagnusNyborg There is an overwhelming weight of evidence that God exists and not even one particle of a sane reason to deny it or reject the evidence. See some of the videos in my ~Why be a Christian playlist and the 1st video in evidence for the flood playlist for starters. Atheism hasn't ever been a friend of rational thinking or tolerance. In every one of the 22 nations where it was the official state view, tolerance was unknown..and it similar when it gets academic power.
@TruthIsLife7 I'm from New Zealand which is a secular state for the most part, it's very tolerant. You can have any religious belief without being persecuted, you can also be an Atheist without persecution. The reason is beliefs do not define the person, only actions and works. Either way God does or doesn't exist, it's irrelevant because it's personal. I'm an Atheist and I think it's fine to believe what you want. At the end of the day,I only care what I believe...or don't in my case.
@SuperJBrowne New Zealand is not an officially atheist state. Atheism with either state or academic power in history is about the most anti-tolerant philosophy that exists. New Zealand, like Denmark and Sweden follows an economics model that is far closer to the biblical model than the cold capitalism of America. That is a big reason for it's positives.
Nothing is more relevant than God's existence. It makes astronomical differences here on earth and also for eternal life.
@TruthIsLife7 I would be curious to see a list of the countries that are/where officially atheist states. And if you really want to go threw all of history I think you'll find that religions have had the more anti-tolerant philosophy.
Why is a god's existence the most relevant thing? The only reason it makes any difference here on earth is because people choose to make it so. A god is purely a human invention.
@TruthIsLife7 There is not an overwhelming weight of evidence for a god existing. If there was, this discussion wouldn't be happening and most people would have converted to the faith that believed in that god. I took a look at your playlist and watched a couple of the vids, might watch a few more when I have more time, but there wasn't anything compelling that I saw. Like I said, I'll probably watch a few more and see what happens.
@MagnusNyborg Atheism has about as much to do with free thinking as a small school boy who hates studying science talks about wanting to be free when he doesn't have to study science.
@TruthIsLife7 religion has as much with free thinking as a sheep praying to its sheperd. Praying has proven as useless as doing number 2 on the toilett. If you have no evidence for something, it is irrational to believe it.
@TruthIsLife7 Your opinion. Most atheists I know tend to really research things and are always on the look out for new information. They tend to question more of what they find than those of faith. I recently talked with someone of the islamic faith or tried to anyway. All I got to any points brought up where quotes from the quran which had nothing to do with the topic we were talking about. I have talked with creationalists with the same result.
@TruthIsLife7 1. No lists don't prove causes but they can point to the idea that maybe religion isn't all it's cracked up to be. People try to claim the moral high road with religion but the evidence doesn't bare that out. Those that say they subscribe to a religion are at least as likely (personally I would say more likely but we'll go with as likely) to do bad as those that don't.
2. Christians have also done much to hinder science and learning.
@TruthIsLife7 Huh? South Korea is not a haven for creationits, inspite of its unuseally large christian population for an east asian nation. but i do agree you that atheists in general are not great champions of reason and logic, sciences, most couldn't tell you what a proton is, but neither could 80% of the worlds population. as for my enterity i am an confusian shinto-buddhists. if the ancestors or geat kami dosen't save me then i will just try agian on my next go round.
"that atheists..., most couldn't tell you what a proton is" - If you give a test to a group of Atheists vs a goup of Theists, I would put money on more Atheists knowing what a Proton is than a Theist knowing it.
I have been in a class with a Theist at college and had to work in a group with her. She did the work, but swore that the stuff we were working on was Bullcrap because Atoms couldn't exist that small. Theists tend to reject proof and not actualy learn it
Sample population the same, and heck, take them from teh same school.
Atheists are going to be odds on favorite, because questioning raises analytical skills, and if you are the type of person who questions religion, your probably the type to be attentive in examining your learning as well.
@TruthIsLife7 Religion may indeed have positive effects. In fact, I think there are some positive effects of it. However, that does not make the beliefs true.
@backwoodsninja Pragmatic evidence is a very important form of evidence. How many Disney movies do you know that produced 10+ years extra life and were 1000s of years ahead of the best scientific wisdom? Plus...why do we follow the scientific method and view it as useful, true, valid, etc.? Pragmatic evidence alone. but, Christianity has evidence from science, from history and almost all fields considered evidence. That is precisely why it won so many converts,including many atheist scientists.
@TruthIsLife7 What evidence of christianity from science and other fields are you talking about? And what in particular is that evidence proving? That's a very general statement. Are you saying it proves a god exists? Or that the bible is totally true? I will give you that there is some historically accurate info in the bible but it is as a back drop to some stories. On a whole, you can't take the bible as total fact. It's just a collection of stories used to teach.
@TruthIsLife7 Tell me how a god can be proven false a test of observed data? The basis of the christian religion is god. I haven't seen any prove that a god exists let alone proving a god doesn't. I would agree that "NOTHING is considered true, valid, rational, worthwhile, etc. in science or rational thinking without evidence." And no god or religion has made been able to make the cut here.
2) “Do you have any evidence atheism is not the null hypothesis or evidence that disproves the null hypothesis?” We always have. If you're going to be an ostrich and not even look at anything and then assert foolishness and blatant falsehoods, you are the enemy of science, logic, history and all progress for humanity. Numerous Bible prophecies were indisputably made centuries and millenia before they were fulfilled including this one that covers 2,500 years. watch?v=Bivw_ht2bps
Don't be irrational. Truth&life are at stake. You can't make any intelligent judgment by refusing to look at evidence as you are doing. Your assertions about prophecy are 100% false, probably because you believe atheist liars who pervert facts constantly, destroy, lie, straw man&use all manner of fallacies to confuse people about evidence&what constitutes evidence. I don’t know of any more ant-rational, harmful & deceitful philosophy on the planet than atheism.
@TruthIsLife7 Much like those of faith who pervert facts constantly, destroy, lie, straw man&use all manner of fallacies to confuse people about evidence&what constitutes evidence. You spew insults and talk of science this and truth that, but you give very little evidence of anything. If you want a more harmful, deceitful, etc philosophy, just look at most religions. Name calling gets us no where. Lets see proof of something (god, bible, jesus, whatever)
3) No, the link between genuine religion and intelligence is strongly positive. In several secular studies, such as the Cognitive Genesis one, those taught creation science scored more highly in science than the average. I and quite a few of my friends scored in the top 1-2% in the nation throughout school. Christians being smart has everything to do with them being Christian and there is a VERY strong connection in ACTUAL rigorous tests, not just unscientific lists.
One reason for this is that religion is one of the best factors in helping people have self control and 8 decades of research conclusively shows this.
Self-control is about the most important factor in success of all kinds, including educational and intelligence. It is no accident that Christianity pioneered more scientific and intellectual fields than any other worldview. God gives Christians significantly higher levels of self-control.
@TruthIsLife7 No god doesn't. The idea of god, and the reward/punishment system do it. You don't need god or religion to have self control. The idea that those without faith in anything are running around doing whatever because they can't or won't control themselves is bull.
@types10000 Again, I repeat, science does NOT use defaults at all in terms of default truths or beliefs or views that it thinks and teaches are true. It can use null hypotheses as a tool of TESTING with alternative hypotheses, but it never assumes anything is true without evidence. That’s a textbook a priori fallacy.
@types10000 Furthermore, even if all alternative hypotheses fail, that does nothing to prove the null hypothesis is true. If you want to prove the null hypothesis, you need to change it to the alternative hypothesis, make a new null hypothesis and find actual evidence. A little more detail on this from a book on research methods:
@types10000 It is important to understand that the null hypothesis can never be proven. A set of data can only reject a null hypothesis or fail to reject it. For example, if comparison of two groups (e.g.: treatment, no treatment) reveals no statistically significant difference between the two, it does not mean that there is no difference in reality. It only means that there is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis (in other words, one fails to reject the null hypothesis).
@Types10000 from Adèr, H. J.; Mellenbergh, G. J. & Hand, D. J. (2007). Advising on research methods: A consultant's companion. Huizen, The Netherlands: Johannes van Kessel Publishing.
You don't understand science, null hypothesis, Christianity or creation science. It’s not your fault. Not even Einstein could make wise decisions if facts &evidence were withheld. Atheism habitually hides, suppresses, straw mans or distorts evidence for God in numerous ways&is ~the most anti-rational view ever.
1) I HAVE told you were to go to get the links to rutgers, nuremburg and others. If you're too lazy to go there and want to be an intentional ostrich, that's YOUR fault, not mine. Don't blame your laziness on others and lie. I don't make assertions. Neither does Christianity. Almost nothing you have said so far has any relation to reality.
2) No, you haven't explained anything and you are straw manning Christianity constantly.
"1) I HAVE told you were to go to get the links to rutgers"
- incorrect, you simply pointed to a video and asserted the evidence was in there, i checked it and it wasnt. There is no evidence in the links you provided; they are simply opinions that are no more credible than your own.
If you think i am incorrect, then you will be able to cite the evidence :)
"No, you haven't explained anything and you are straw manning Christianity constantly."
incorrect, i did it in the very statement your replying to:
"ie. their scientific findings were completely divorced from their belief in the supernatural eg. Newton believed in alchemy but this didnt help his discoveries, nor did his discoveries give credibility to this supernatural belief."
@betterdrummerjoe 1) Sorry, but if no one changes others views, you'd still be living in a hut eating raw meat like an ignorant savage. Your allegation of rudeness are the enemy of progress.
2) My arguments don't rest on my words. They rest on original documents hosted at Rutgers, Nuremberg war crimes investigators, NY Times reports on those, etc. as well as many scientists. You can check them out for yourself.
3) There have been MANY wars and 1-200 million dead because of atheists. FACT.
"2) My arguments don't rest on my words. They rest on original documents hosted at Rutgers, Nuremberg war crimes investigators, NY Times reports on those, etc. as"
- you assert these things exist but you failed to provide them, you simply pointed to a video and said 'its in here' however that is not a form of evidence and i could just as easily point to a Britney spears clip and say 'this debunks all your arguments'
@TruthIsLife7 3. Where do you get your stats on this? If you go back in history and do a body count of all those that died because on one religion or another, I think you will find many more died from religion than anything else. Just because you say it and put FACT in caps doesn't make it true. Give me sources to research.
and this was inspired directly by their vitriolic hatred for religion combined with no limits on their morals because they had no belief in God and no principles forbidding these crimes in atheism. 4) Prison lists? Oh my stars. You can make lists to fit anything you want. I could say largeness or blackness or whatever cause crime. That's a stupid allegation that has nothing to do with rigorous scientific tests or investigation at all looking at causes and effects.
@TruthIsLife7 You make lists and claim scientific investigation but provide nothing in support of what you say.
You don't need god or religion for morals. Those that you are talking about didn't do what they did because they were atheists (though since you don't list who you are talking about I can't even really say if they are atheists). You are trying to make atheists look like psychopaths running around doing anything they please and make excuses for those of faith that do bad
@wraith168 Of all the 1000s of cultures in history,the Bible,Jewish/Christian scientists&Creation science philosophy built the foundations of modern science (modern scientific method,peer review process,1st scientific journals,falsification, occam’s razor,etc.)&pioneered most of its branches. Dr. Hannam (Ph.D. in the history of science from Cambridge) lectures on some of this at the Royal Society (1st scientific society in history, started by a creationist):
@TruthIsLife7 The process you're describing really boils down to this: Medieval Christians were sure they were right, they were sure that studying nature had to support the bible. This is why you can find creationists in the early history of modern science(Pre-Darwin, when basically everyone were creationists). As knowledge increased it quickly became clear that the bible was nonsense though and all useful results were grounded in empiricism and experiment, not faith.
@TruthIsLife7 Anyway, dishonest apologists who claim Christianity was a necessity for science have to ignore evidence of highly advanced, pre-Christian science. One example of this is "The Antikythera mechanism", a really early mechanical astronomical computer. Recovered from a shipwreck that happened around *150AD*. Rather than promoting science, Christianity suppressed and retarded it for 1500 years before reaching the level of pre-Christians in this area.
@TruthIsLife7 When they finally came around, they enabled the enlightenment, and Christianity started its rapid decline in Europe along with it. Which suggests that although the people driving the intellectual revolutions were often Christians in name(And later mostly Deists), such as Newton, they were not in fact applying Christian doctrine, but helping make it irrelevant by developing and applying the modern scientific method.
@gnomefro Daniel did the 1st "modern" scientific experiment in history “Around 600 BC, Daniel of Judah conducted…the earliest recorded clinical trial. His trial compared the health effects of a vegetarian diet with those of a royal Babylonian diet over a 10-day period. The strengths of his study include the use of a contemporaneous control group, use of an independent assessor of outcome,striking brevity in the published report.” Dr. David Grimes, wwwDncbiDnlmDnihDgov/pubmed/7501328
@Gnomefro You have obviously not done much study on the topic. Dr. Hannam and historians of science have. I well know that there were others in history who did some impressive science. I can list much more than you can and if you go to my website, the playlist wisdom of the ancient lists some. But, it was trial and error science, NOT scientific method based science. That and other aspects of modern science developed directly because of religious philosophy.
@TruthIsLife7 Bleh, of course the Antikythera shipwreck I talked about down below happened in 150 BC, not AD. The whole point was that it predates Christianity as a whole and is conclusive evidence of highly advanced ancient science.
@Gnomefro Nearly all historians of science agree that religion and science have been incredibly great partners for most of history. Many of the philosophies in Christianity DIRECTLY resulted in crucial scientific principles. It's no accident at all that Christianity invented peer review. This is directly founded on ideas that all people are tempted to do wrong and that we should question each other and establishments as numerous prophets&Jesus himself did frequently. You are believing a myth.
@TruthIsLife7 100% agree that science and religion have been great partners. its amazing that many "prestigious" media outlets emphasize there is a long history of conflict between the two... completely inaccurate
@stevenholland I wouldn't say they'd been great partners, it doesn't seem of consequence. I don't know of any example where religion has helped further modern science, or religion helped science in the beginning, the fact that some scientists were religious doesn't mean religion helped, in fact it doesn't make a difference.
I agree in that they were not great enemies, because religion usually steers clear of scientific study, but how were they great partners?
@mrgejwaites There were lots of clergymen who were great scientists in the early 19th century (in England in particular) and their role in science was made possible only because of the time and money that they had available to them as a result of their clerical posts.
Crucially though, although their religion facilitated their science, religion didn't inform their science.
@baldieman64 So their jobs gave them the means to further explore science, not the actual ideas or mythology of their religion.
You misrepresent it, their religion didn't facilitate science, their income from their religious jobs did.
What your saying is the equivalent to this: The FBI and prostitution have been great partners, because several FBI agents can afford regular prostitutes because of the money afforded to them by their jobs as FBI agents.
@mrgejwaites Yes, I agree with you, I was simply adding to and clarifying your point - hence my clear differentiation between the job and the beliefs of those clergymen.
Pretty much all Christians who are in prison are there because they violated Christian principles in order to follow follow media, peer, cultural influences, etc. Decades of research shows conclusively that biblical religion greatly reduces crime as well as increasing self-control which is the foundation all most types of positive success.
5) My science arguments rest on the indisputable facts of history, fully referenced and nearly all historians of science agree.
Note-Hitler was a Catholic as a kid and DID use religion as propaganda (he also claimed Germany only desired peace). But, his personal thoughts about Christianity when in power& before were more like: “The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.”
”Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless...”
More here: wwwDOTanswersDOTorg/apologetics/hitquote.html
3) Sorry, but you're wrong, wrong, wrong. We DO most certainly have evidence of the supernatural and the science of many Christians was directly and profoundly based on the Bible and God's truths. You've been duped and lied to and kept ignorant by people who control education and academia and do their very best to keep out all evidence for God. You don't even know what counts as evidence, which is a common problem for many people.
@types10000 Another point, I don't have presuppositions and I criticize all who do whether atheist or Christians for using a priori fallacies. Both those who presuppose methodological naturalism and those who presuppose God are all in the same boat, the boat of making a priori fallacies which is the enemy of following the evidence where it leads.
@types10000 Here are a couple things for starters:
Bonney, Richard (Winter 2001). "The Nazi Master Plan, Annex 4: The Persecution of the Christian Churches". Rutgers Journal of Law&Religion. wwwDOTleicsDOTgovDOTuk/the_nazi_master_planDOTpdf
I work in academia with scientists. Here's how real science works. It gathers a lot of evidence, then it looks at all hypotheses and tries to figure out which hypothesis matches the evidence best with NO defaults &it follows the weight of evidence WHEREVER it leads. THAT is how real science works, but atheists have perverted facts in that area again. If something doesn't make claims, it's not science OR rational in anyway and loses to any view that has even ONE SINGLE witness or other evidence.
"The practice of science involves formulating and testing hypotheses, assertions that are capable of being proven false using a test of observed data. The null hypothesis typically corresponds to a general or default position. For example, the null hypothesis might be that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena or that a potential treatment has no effect"
Now what do you suppose the null hypothesis on 'whether a god exists' is?
"Bonney, Richard (Winter 2001). 'The Nazi Master Plan, Annex 4: The Persecution of the Christian Churches'. Rutgers Journal of Law&Religion. "
- This is not evidence, it is an opinion piece. If this opinoin pecie contains evidence you will be able to present it, if does not contain evidence then you will be unable to present it.
@types10000 It is murder of science to think that not believing is the default, pure and simple. And we have had evidence of the supernatural in a number of ways. So, naturalism is only a prejudicial a priori fallacy.It is 100% impossible to reconcile naturalism with following the evidence WHEREVER IT LEADS. PERIOD. CASE CLOSED.
I DID give you the site and told you to look in the notes. You obviously couldn’t figure out how to do that:
we don't need a reason for our personal beliefs, so long as we keep it personal.
and I do worry for the mental health of others who maintain simultaneously within their skulls such blatantly contradictory worlds. I certainly wouldn't trust anything they have to say, or want such a person in a position of responsibility.
elgar104 2 days ago
God = The Universe Simple.
santu662 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@santu662 That's just redefining the word God , which as meaningless as me stating "God=Baked Beans Simple".
daverowbotham 1 week ago
@santu662 what do you base this assertion on?
Kynokeh 1 day ago
@Kynokeh I just like to think that way. :) Why take stuff like science and religion seriously? I couldn't careless. I'm living my life the way i want. Personally, i believe that we are all just cosmic dust and when we die, we will be reborn on earth on another planet. :)
santu662 1 day ago
@santu662 If we didn't take things like science seriously you would still be living in a hut. Religion is also a serious discussion because it can and very often is very dangerous and has to be refuted and gotten rid of.
If you just "believe" that the universe is god then you should preface your statement with "I believe" (which you did later on), otherwise it becomes an assertion which you have to back up with proof and reason.
Kynokeh 1 day ago
@Kynokeh I don't mind living in a hut. :)
santu662 1 day ago
It's kinda funny. The dude on the left looks like a retired metalhead from a band or something. And yet, he sounds very educated and intelligent. It's awesome.
RedCrescentDemon 2 weeks ago
@RedCrescentDemon Why couldn't metalheads be educated and intellegent?
LOLLERIMURSUFIN 2 weeks ago
@LOLLERIMURSUFIN I blame my thinking on that on the retards I'd see in high school. I know there are always exceptions to any stereotype and image. Every person is his or her own world. But the image of a metalhead was shown as such to me in high school.
RedCrescentDemon 2 weeks ago
@LOLLERIMURSUFIN
oh they could be, but that all goes out the window durring a gig or while attending a concert...you know what i mean ; ]
raidersSolja 1 week ago
@crass770 I love how your logic revolves around taking the face value of the writings in a book that is almost completely centered around metaphoric statements and parables. Jesus did not mean to lyterraly sell everything you own. Silly shallow minded people with their inability to read into the deeper meaning of religious texts.
SkylitDriveFan123 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SkylitDriveFan123 Why should anyone pay more attention to religous texts than to Harry Potter books?
daverowbotham 1 week ago
@bigglyguy I had no idea that the Book of Genisis made up all 27 books of the New Testament. The Book of Genisis was the first book of the Old Testament. Peoe are free to belive that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God. I agree with Jeus's teachings of peace and love, don't you? The world would be alot better if people followed Jesus's example.
SkylitDriveFan123 1 month ago
@SkylitDriveFan123 absolutely not... the world would be plunged into the dark ages again. The Sermon on the Mount is a bunch of bad advice, most of his parables are about the Son of Man, and the advice that he gives to various people is to sell all their belongings, leave their families (or hate them) and follow, not worrying about possessions because God will care for them in the same way he looks after the birds. In short his teachings are not to think about the future.
crass770 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 1 month ago
I just recently saw this ghuy Aron, he is very good, very inteligent, logical man.
wirikuta14 1 month ago
@wirikuta14 Oh, absolutly. Gotta love Aron, hes awesome.
GrecoWrestlerNJ70 3 weeks ago
The stories of Genesis are metaphoric. They were originally ment to be taken literally when it was the only explanation of how the world came to be, but they are now metaphoric. The halting of the construction pfthe Tower of Babel was a metaphor of God freeing the poor. The budders were slaves, and a tower to Heaven would only benefit the rich.
SkylitDriveFan123 1 month ago
@SkylitDriveFan123 On what basis do you say that? On what basis is ANY of the bible (now to be) considered real? How exactly are you differentiating? Jesus was not really the son of God, that was just metaphoric? The tower of Babel was real or not? How do you determine the difference, if not just cramming God or truth into any remaining gaps?
bigglyguy 1 month ago
Anti-theism is what Joseph Stalin did. It is religious oppression of all creeds and beliefs that aren't atheistic. There are groups out there that claim to want "an absolute separation of church and state" and define an absolute separation as not being allowed to display your religious beliefs in public or have a cross in you office cubicle. Does a world that oppressive sound good to you?
SkylitDriveFan123 1 month ago
@MeewbeToo maybe you should read my post again? im not saying what you say im saying. you are agreeing with me that faith isnt a valid form of knowing whats real.
adzug 1 month ago
Godzilla does exist... I saw him on my trip to Japan last year
ytmndman 1 month ago
the songs kinda whiney . religion believes in things beyond the realm of factual testable truths. the afterlife god ect its based on faith..science bases its facts and truth on what can be tested and independently confirmed. this is why you cant use creationism in a science class. the basis for creationism cant be tested. god is beyond testing. therefore in science, faiths an invalid means of truth.
adzug 1 month ago
Good Video. Thanks...
Spasatcom 1 month ago
Comment removed
PTrackWatts 2 months ago
Comment removed
PTrackWatts 2 months ago
Do you know the song in the beginning.
ComedianFromNASA 2 months ago
@ComedianFromNASA
Bryan Steeksma - Listen to Reason
:)
TheLordHodne 2 months ago
@TheLordHodne great thanks
ComedianFromNASA 2 months ago
@ComedianFromNASA Its a wonder what you'll find, with an open mind....you may be surprised.
dkthg 1 month ago
This long haired guy makes a lot of sense. Like.
ScienceFictionHairdo 2 months ago 2
@wraith168 Nature & New Scientist highly recommend Dr. Hannam’s work. The records of history show that the foundations & infrastructure of modern science, education, human rights, morals &more were built largely on a Christian/creationist philosophy & they were drawing both principles & specific concepts, including scientific ones, directly from the Bible. Atheism has tried to kidnap science from its parents and & ban them from it, but is mostly a façade on a Christian superstructure.
TruthIsLife7 2 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 "The records of history show that the foundations & infrastructure of modern science, education, human rights, morals &more were built largely on a Christian/creationist philosophy"
The main problems are that "Christian philosophy" is not original to Christianity in any sense, and that exactly zero parts of Christianity matter to the modern scientific method.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 This is true regardless of whether some early modern scientists, such as Newton, were Christians. Christianity is simply irrelevant to his laws of motion, which is why they are so useful. They work without belief in Jesus. Similarly, Occam's razor is a basic principle of rational reasoning. Occam himself thought it wouldn't exclude his God from reasoning about nature, but it turned out that it did. Methodological naturalism is necessary to draw conclusions in science.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 So basically, what happened is simply that human civilization advanced and discarded some nonsense in the process, which was Christianity and creationism in this context. Much like the belief in Poseidon was abandoned earlier. To claim that there is a "Christian superstructure" in science is simply uninformed to the point of being comical. I can recommend "What's this thing called Science?" by A.F. Chalmers to get a small idea of how wrong you are.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@wraith168 Jews&Protestants won ~86% of the Nobel prizes in science from 1900-1990. Without the Bible&Biblical scientists,you wouldn’t have modern science or at best you would be centuries behind the present. People who ridicule religion as the enemy of science are like immature children who want to disown the parents that lovingly sacrificed everything for them. Only people who hate science, justice & rationality will try to distort history and separate science from the religion that built it.
TruthIsLife7 2 months ago
@wraith168 There's far more evidence for the Bible than any religion on the planet. However, there are not only wrong&right religions. There are a whole range from
a) very evil to
b) some with a mix of right and wrong to
c) a few that are far closer to the documented truths in history, science
You can see this playlist for some highlights of the evidence that shows Christianity to be in the c) category and to my knowledge #1.
wwwDOTyoutubeDOTcom/user/TruthIsLife7#g/c/21AEF61B66D954E1
TruthIsLife7 2 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Being that the catholic church held a huge amount of control over people, and nations at one time, it isn't a surprise that there is a lot about it. To call it evidence of the bible or a god is debatable. You can present the evidence and we can look at it and debate it and see if it stands up to scrutiny. See if it it can be scientifically proven (creation, great flood etc). I haven't seen evidence yet myself that this holds true for but I am always looking.
wraith168 2 months ago
@wraith168 Officially atheist states have killed ~1-200 million in just a couple centuries...that's 30 times more than all religions in all history, COMBINED, including all false religions.
wwwDOThawaiiDOTedu/powerkills/20THDOTHTM
God tho sends rain on the good&bad&has enabled everyone, including atheists to make free choices to be moral or immoral. There are some sincere atheists, but atheism is a philosophy of denial of evidence.
wwwDOTgodandscienceDOTorg/apologetics/atrocitiesDOThtml
TruthIsLife7 2 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 No it is not a denial of evidence. It is taking the evidence at hand. I have looked a at some of your videos and will take a look at more I'm sure. The ones I have watch don't give any real evidence of anything. Most of them (and more of what you are saying) is just trying to discredit atheism. It's a common ploy, discredit something believed to be in opposition to you while not giving anything in support of your position.
wraith168 2 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 It's the idea that discrediting something automatically makes your position right. As for your videos, I'll take the example of the did jesus exist ones. I watch a few of the ones in your profile. They claim historical records as evidence but didn't really nail down where that evidence was.Or the evidence was from writings 100 - 150 yrs after jesus supposedly lived written by priests and bishops. Like I said,I'll probably watch some more of your vids when I have the time
wraith168 2 months ago
The only conflict I have at the moment is wasting time with these clowns or actually using my time to be productive and accomplish something. I think I'll go with the latter.
JeffersonDinedAlone 3 months ago
I'm an Anti-Theist too. I call it Pastafarianism. That stench you smell is Infamous288 asserting their god fearing beliefs. LMAO!
TheCrimsonification 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
take a look at reality before you look at the bible :)
peterroen 3 months ago 2
and not just Religion is against some medical research like stem cell, religious or not that shit is horrible, killing unborn babies to help the sick, sacrificing one life to save another.
what if that unborn child would grow up to be a genius, with inventions changing the world? or a great leader devoting his life to bring peace.
imo its wrong to kill potentially great people to save someone who's in the midst or end of their life anyway.
Infamous288 3 months ago
@Infamous288 What if they grew up to be a crack addict? It's statistically more likely that they will. So why don't we kill all the babies because they could grow up to be crack smoking sinners? Don't give us that crap. Despite the fact that I feel most situations for abortions are wrong, your argument has no place in supporting abortion is wrong.
auroraman56 3 months ago
Comment removed
godzac 3 months ago
Comment removed
godzac 3 months ago
@auroraman56 statistically proven, everyone will die at a certain age, why dont we just kill everyone?
Infamous288 3 months ago
@Infamous288 That's a completely different argument. You were saying abortion is bad because of the potential for good that not having the abortion could cause. What I'm saying is that the argument which you're trying to put across is only trying to make people feel guilty for what "could have been", which has no place in arguing for whether something is good or bad. It's just as likely, in fact more likely, the child could be a complete failure. That as well has no place in an argument.
auroraman56 3 months ago
@auroraman56 abortion is different from stem cell, abortion might have good reasons, but killing a baby to cure someone sick is different. giving up 1 life to save someone elses? really? its just stupid, let the person be sick and eventually die, and let the babies live and have a life.
what do you want? cure every illness, overpopulate the world, cutting down rainforests and eventually populate the moon or mars?
Infamous288 3 months ago
@Infamous288 Actually, it's not stupid, because that person can have another baby sometime else. It's THEIR decision whether they have to live or die for their baby, regardless of what you think they should do based on a book you read you arrogant prick. Who do you think you are to tell someone they have to die if they have an option not to, just because of what your Holy Book says?
auroraman56 3 months ago
@auroraman56 not talking about the holy book atm, personally i think its just immoral to sacrifice babies just to cure someone sick.
getting sick and dieing is the way of life, in a way it prevents us from overpopulating the world and ruining it by consuming every natural resource,
arrogant my ass, nowhere have i been boasting about myself or saying i am better then anyone else, come back when u get some intelligence and arguing skills
Infamous288 3 months ago
@Infamous288 You said, "let the person be sick and die". That implies that they shouldn't have any choice in whether they live or die. That is arrogance at its finest. You think that your own moral code should dictate someone else's choice about living or dying. Getting sick and dying is a way of life ... yes, but if the birth rate is the same or greater than the death rate, the world is still going to be overpopulated. Why don't we just let everyone die of the common flu or a fever?
auroraman56 3 months ago
@Infamous288 You are talking embryonic stem cells. There are other types of stem cells. Some are even artificially grown now.
As for the what if game, you can go the opposite way also. What if the unborn grew up to be the next Ted Bundy, or Jeffery Dahmer, or Hitler, or Stalin? You can play all the what ifs you want for every good one there is an equally bad example. What ifs, have no bearing on the right or wrong of it.
wraith168 2 months ago
@Infamous288 Now going with the it's wrong because it's killing argument (without the what if potential great or bad person), then you could have a point there. Though is it killing? Depends on your definition of life. Is a bunch of cells (50 - 150 cells) 4 or 5 days old a live human, some may say yes, others say no. At least an argument from that point of view makes better sense than what if.
wraith168 2 months ago
besides all that, since Religion becomes less and less important to people, more and more kids grow up without respect for their parents, or people and things in general.
even though religion "might" be bullshit, atleast its a good guideline, guiding people to be decent human beings, being civilized etc.
Infamous288 3 months ago
@Infamous288 That has nothing to do with the religion and all to do with the parenting. If parents are letting the religion do the work they are not doing their parental duty in bringing up their kids. Besides, I see kids from good religious families being just as bad as those that aren't so religious. Hell I went to catholic school up threw and including hs.You should have seen all the crap the good religious kids did.
wraith168 2 months ago
god or no god who cares, let people believe what they want to believe.
Religion feeds the hungry, helps the sick, and poor.
atheism on the other hand doesnt.
personally i dont really believe, i'm open to there being a god though, but i support religion for the things it does. (not what they did in the past)
Infamous288 3 months ago
@Infamous288
Uhh...Atheists give to Charity as well. IN fact the Atheist Experience program mentions feeding the homles programs it supports.
Religion offeres help IF you are a memeber of the Church or if you are willing to be preached to. Religion also offeres seggregation by teaching that nonbeleivers are somehow less than beleivers and inherently untrustworthy. Compare what Churches do for Charity to the money they make.
google Atheist Charities or Sceular Charities
whiteowl1415 3 months ago
@Infamous288 Well let's look at the things it does. There's the positives like feed the hungry and help the poor and the sick, however they don't offer that help without trying to shove their belief system down said persons throat.
Now the negatives. They try to ban people from their civil rights (gay marriage), they try to invade schools and force religion into the science classroom even though it is not science (ID), they block potentially life saving medical research (stem cells)... cont
youbetzler 3 months ago
@Infamous288 Bottom line all the positives of religion can and do come without religion. And the negatives are purely there because of their irrational beliefs.
youbetzler 3 months ago
@Infamous288 Oh i forgot to mention the flying planes into buildings and suicide bombings oklahoma bombings, norway mass murder and other acts of religious fundamentalist terrorism.
youbetzler 3 months ago
@Infamous288 Religion doesn't feed the hungry with food, just bs. Science feeds the hungry. Ever heard of the Haber–Bosch process? This came from science and sustains 33% of the worlds population.
Also, the atrocities of religion aren't limited to the past. They happen every day and no-one seems to care because it's in the name of religion.
Fuck religion!!
maskofsan1ty 3 months ago
@maskofsan1ty "his work helped Germany to significantly prolong WW I, and also to develop the Zyklon B poison gas used in WW II's Holocaust" those guys huh? Gj science.
Infamous288 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@maskofsan1ty "his work helped Germany to significantly prolong WW I, and also to develop the Zyklon B poison gas used in WW II's Holocaust" those guys huh? Gj science.
Infamous288 3 months ago
@Infamous288 Science feeds the hungry. Not Religion, a starving family can't pray for food & it suddenly appear on their kitchen table. Just as, Science helps the sick & dying. All those medicines, medical procedures & instruments used in all clinics, hospitals & first aid kits were created because of Science not God. How many people have allowed their children die because they chose pray over Science. & for your info I feed the homeless once a month out of pocket, & I'm Atheist.
Strictlypointless 3 months ago
@Strictlypointless ofcourse praying wont bring food on the table, but religion does get billions of dollars from believers who give money to the church, and the church in turn uses it to feed the hungry, help the sick etc.
Islamic scholars led the world in navigation, mathematics, engineering, science, history, and agriculture. would they still have done it if they were Atheist?
besides, Science kills way more people then religion
Infamous288 3 months ago
@Infamous288 thats a good point. islam pushed the arab tribes out of arabia to new lands and societies and also inspired schalors,philosophers, explorers,artists ect. you can also add in that in west the catholic chruch perserved and fostered knowledge, schalorship, the arts. and it was protestantism that spawned the industrial revolution.
baimeng1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Strictlypointless ofcourse praying wont bring food on the table, but religion does get billions of dollars from believers who give money to the church, and the church in turn uses it to feed the hungry, help the sick etc.
Islamic scholars led the world in navigation, mathematics, engineering, science, history, and agriculture. would they still have done it if they were Atheist?
besides, Science kills way more people then religion
Infamous288 3 months ago
Although I think it is wrong to make the statement that 'no god exists', I think it is perfectly plausible to say, with conviction, that 'this god does not exist'. Give me a being, and add attributes, and I will tell you whether or not it can exist. The modern definition of the Christian god does not, can not, exist. It's own attributes coupled with what we know of reality make this god an impossibility.
skywize 4 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuperJBrowne I used to hate philosophy...all I cared about was practically improving the world. But my prof told me that sometimes there's nothing as practical as a good philosophy. Now, I'm a prof & I agree he was right. Your beliefs&philosophy directly influence actions&works&sometimes in massive ways. It's not fine to believe whatever we feel like. That would destroy civilization, esp. if most people chose to believe&act as they felt like regardless of evidence or what is right or wrong.
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@baimeng1 Um...sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. There are creationists worldwide. I'm in South Korea. There are over 1000 masters and Ph.Ds. scientists here that are creationists and it's growing. Dr. Veith, former atheist with Ph.D. in zoology has a very big creationist following in Africa.
Don't put your faith in atheist sites or it's philosophy. Very little could be more anti-rational, anti-science and anti-beneficial to your own life on this earth, let , foalone eternity.
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
@types10000 1) You still don’t understand the null hypothesis. It is NOT a position that is true, logical, valid, rational, etc. It’s SOLELY a testing tool. If you deny this, you’re just a dupe of atheists who are the enemies of science. Atheism can be the null hypothesis, so can many other things. Even religion can be. NOTHING is considered true, valid, rational, worthwhile, etc. in science or rational thinking without evidence. NOTHING. PERIOD. CASE CLOSED.
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 religion can not be the null hypothesis, the only null hypothesis to anything is to not believe unless there is evidence supporting it. You closing the case, does not end the case, it just ends your argument. If that is your ending propsition, then you fail.
MagnusNyborg 4 months ago
@MagnusNyborg I could have been a bit clearer there, but here are examples of religion being part of a null hypothesis:
Null hypothesis A: Religion has no positive effect. (atheistic viewpoint, and conclusively falsified by science in MANY ways)
Null hypothesis B: Atheism has no positive effect (a religious viewpoint, also often verified by history and science)
If people refuse to follow scientific tools as they are always used as types10000 did&all atheists do, THAT ends the discussion.
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 religion as a 'worldview' can never be the null hypothesis.
Prisons are overrepresented with christians compared to how many are christians in the respective societies. Confirmed!
Teen pregnancy and subsequent abortions are higher in christian families. Confirmed!
The most educated people within their proffessions are christians. Falsified!
MagnusNyborg 4 months ago
@MagnusNyborg Sorry, but I just gave examples below of how it can be. You can claim that religion has no effect. That null hypothesis has been falsified numerous times.
ROFL on your stats. NONE are legitimate science. NONE.
1) There are more large sized and black people in prison too. Lists don't prove causes. Learn how to do science.
2) Read: wwwDOTgodandscienceDOTorg/apologetics/religion_as_child_abuseDOThtml
3) Actually confirmed OFTEN & Christians BUILT modern science. Sheesh.
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 i am not talking about effect, i am talking about whether a god exists or not, and what is required for a god to be believable. The harmfull effects religion has on brains is however evident.
MagnusNyborg 4 months ago
@MagnusNyborg Effects are one kind of evidence (there are at least 10 major kinds) that is fully legitimate. The scientific method is accepted as valid almost exclusively because of its effects.
Genuine biblical religion has never had negative effects on brains. Christianity invented modern science, almost all its foundational processes&most of it's fields, universities, most public education, pioneered many human rights, economic rights and MUCH more. See notes in my main channel video.
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
@MagnusNyborg There is an overwhelming weight of evidence that God exists and not even one particle of a sane reason to deny it or reject the evidence. See some of the videos in my ~Why be a Christian playlist and the 1st video in evidence for the flood playlist for starters. Atheism hasn't ever been a friend of rational thinking or tolerance. In every one of the 22 nations where it was the official state view, tolerance was unknown..and it similar when it gets academic power.
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 I'm from New Zealand which is a secular state for the most part, it's very tolerant. You can have any religious belief without being persecuted, you can also be an Atheist without persecution. The reason is beliefs do not define the person, only actions and works. Either way God does or doesn't exist, it's irrelevant because it's personal. I'm an Atheist and I think it's fine to believe what you want. At the end of the day,I only care what I believe...or don't in my case.
SuperJBrowne 4 months ago
@SuperJBrowne New Zealand is not an officially atheist state. Atheism with either state or academic power in history is about the most anti-tolerant philosophy that exists. New Zealand, like Denmark and Sweden follows an economics model that is far closer to the biblical model than the cold capitalism of America. That is a big reason for it's positives.
Nothing is more relevant than God's existence. It makes astronomical differences here on earth and also for eternal life.
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 I said "secular for the most part". Which God is the most relevant? Yours? mine? Hindu? Greek? Navajo? Piraha?
SuperJBrowne 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TruthIsLife7
"Atheism with either state or academic power in history is about the most anti-tolerant philosophy that exists"
Actualy, history tells us that Islam and Christianity fit that description far more than Atheism.
"Nothing is more relevant than God's existence"
Why? All of our choices are being made without devine interventionanyway
whiteowl1415 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 I would be curious to see a list of the countries that are/where officially atheist states. And if you really want to go threw all of history I think you'll find that religions have had the more anti-tolerant philosophy.
Why is a god's existence the most relevant thing? The only reason it makes any difference here on earth is because people choose to make it so. A god is purely a human invention.
wraith168 2 months ago
Comment removed
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 There is not an overwhelming weight of evidence for a god existing. If there was, this discussion wouldn't be happening and most people would have converted to the faith that believed in that god. I took a look at your playlist and watched a couple of the vids, might watch a few more when I have more time, but there wasn't anything compelling that I saw. Like I said, I'll probably watch a few more and see what happens.
wraith168 2 months ago
@MagnusNyborg Atheism has about as much to do with free thinking as a small school boy who hates studying science talks about wanting to be free when he doesn't have to study science.
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TruthIsLife7 religion has as much with free thinking as a sheep praying to its sheperd. Praying has proven as useless as doing number 2 on the toilett. If you have no evidence for something, it is irrational to believe it.
MagnusNyborg 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Your opinion. Most atheists I know tend to really research things and are always on the look out for new information. They tend to question more of what they find than those of faith. I recently talked with someone of the islamic faith or tried to anyway. All I got to any points brought up where quotes from the quran which had nothing to do with the topic we were talking about. I have talked with creationalists with the same result.
wraith168 2 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 1. No lists don't prove causes but they can point to the idea that maybe religion isn't all it's cracked up to be. People try to claim the moral high road with religion but the evidence doesn't bare that out. Those that say they subscribe to a religion are at least as likely (personally I would say more likely but we'll go with as likely) to do bad as those that don't.
2. Christians have also done much to hinder science and learning.
wraith168 2 months ago
@MagnusNyborg only in america my friend.
baimeng1 4 months ago
Comment removed
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Huh? South Korea is not a haven for creationits, inspite of its unuseally large christian population for an east asian nation. but i do agree you that atheists in general are not great champions of reason and logic, sciences, most couldn't tell you what a proton is, but neither could 80% of the worlds population. as for my enterity i am an confusian shinto-buddhists. if the ancestors or geat kami dosen't save me then i will just try agian on my next go round.
baimeng1 4 months ago
@baimeng1
"that atheists..., most couldn't tell you what a proton is" - If you give a test to a group of Atheists vs a goup of Theists, I would put money on more Atheists knowing what a Proton is than a Theist knowing it.
I have been in a class with a Theist at college and had to work in a group with her. She did the work, but swore that the stuff we were working on was Bullcrap because Atoms couldn't exist that small. Theists tend to reject proof and not actualy learn it
whiteowl1415 4 months ago
@whiteowl1415 i woudn't put my monye on either as the sample population would be the same
baimeng1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@baimeng1
Sample population the same, and heck, take them from teh same school.
Atheists are going to be odds on favorite, because questioning raises analytical skills, and if you are the type of person who questions religion, your probably the type to be attentive in examining your learning as well.
whiteowl1415 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Religion may indeed have positive effects. In fact, I think there are some positive effects of it. However, that does not make the beliefs true.
backwoodsninja 4 months ago
@backwoodsninja Pragmatic evidence is a very important form of evidence. How many Disney movies do you know that produced 10+ years extra life and were 1000s of years ahead of the best scientific wisdom? Plus...why do we follow the scientific method and view it as useful, true, valid, etc.? Pragmatic evidence alone. but, Christianity has evidence from science, from history and almost all fields considered evidence. That is precisely why it won so many converts,including many atheist scientists.
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 What evidence of christianity from science and other fields are you talking about? And what in particular is that evidence proving? That's a very general statement. Are you saying it proves a god exists? Or that the bible is totally true? I will give you that there is some historically accurate info in the bible but it is as a back drop to some stories. On a whole, you can't take the bible as total fact. It's just a collection of stories used to teach.
wraith168 2 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Tell me how a god can be proven false a test of observed data? The basis of the christian religion is god. I haven't seen any prove that a god exists let alone proving a god doesn't. I would agree that "NOTHING is considered true, valid, rational, worthwhile, etc. in science or rational thinking without evidence." And no god or religion has made been able to make the cut here.
wraith168 2 months ago
2) “Do you have any evidence atheism is not the null hypothesis or evidence that disproves the null hypothesis?” We always have. If you're going to be an ostrich and not even look at anything and then assert foolishness and blatant falsehoods, you are the enemy of science, logic, history and all progress for humanity. Numerous Bible prophecies were indisputably made centuries and millenia before they were fulfilled including this one that covers 2,500 years. watch?v=Bivw_ht2bps
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
Don't be irrational. Truth&life are at stake. You can't make any intelligent judgment by refusing to look at evidence as you are doing. Your assertions about prophecy are 100% false, probably because you believe atheist liars who pervert facts constantly, destroy, lie, straw man&use all manner of fallacies to confuse people about evidence&what constitutes evidence. I don’t know of any more ant-rational, harmful & deceitful philosophy on the planet than atheism.
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Much like those of faith who pervert facts constantly, destroy, lie, straw man&use all manner of fallacies to confuse people about evidence&what constitutes evidence. You spew insults and talk of science this and truth that, but you give very little evidence of anything. If you want a more harmful, deceitful, etc philosophy, just look at most religions. Name calling gets us no where. Lets see proof of something (god, bible, jesus, whatever)
wraith168 2 months ago
3) No, the link between genuine religion and intelligence is strongly positive. In several secular studies, such as the Cognitive Genesis one, those taught creation science scored more highly in science than the average. I and quite a few of my friends scored in the top 1-2% in the nation throughout school. Christians being smart has everything to do with them being Christian and there is a VERY strong connection in ACTUAL rigorous tests, not just unscientific lists.
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
One reason for this is that religion is one of the best factors in helping people have self control and 8 decades of research conclusively shows this.
wwwDOTnytimesDOTcom/2008/12/30/science/30tierDOThtml
Self-control is about the most important factor in success of all kinds, including educational and intelligence. It is no accident that Christianity pioneered more scientific and intellectual fields than any other worldview. God gives Christians significantly higher levels of self-control.
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 No god doesn't. The idea of god, and the reward/punishment system do it. You don't need god or religion to have self control. The idea that those without faith in anything are running around doing whatever because they can't or won't control themselves is bull.
wraith168 2 months ago
btw, truthislife7=dotoree (this account has more family stuff, but also can upload longer films).
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@types10000 Again, I repeat, science does NOT use defaults at all in terms of default truths or beliefs or views that it thinks and teaches are true. It can use null hypotheses as a tool of TESTING with alternative hypotheses, but it never assumes anything is true without evidence. That’s a textbook a priori fallacy.
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@types10000 Furthermore, even if all alternative hypotheses fail, that does nothing to prove the null hypothesis is true. If you want to prove the null hypothesis, you need to change it to the alternative hypothesis, make a new null hypothesis and find actual evidence. A little more detail on this from a book on research methods:
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
Comment removed
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
Comment removed
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
@types10000 It is important to understand that the null hypothesis can never be proven. A set of data can only reject a null hypothesis or fail to reject it. For example, if comparison of two groups (e.g.: treatment, no treatment) reveals no statistically significant difference between the two, it does not mean that there is no difference in reality. It only means that there is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis (in other words, one fails to reject the null hypothesis).
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
"t is important to understand that the null hypothesis can never be proven"
- It's not meant to be, it appears the only one here who doesnt understand what a null hypothesis is, is you.
"A set of data can only reject a null hypothesis or fail to reject it."
- yes and not believing in a god (atheism) is the null hypothesis.
Do you have any evidence atheism is not the null hypothesis or evidence that disproves the null hypothesis?
types10000 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
"It only means that there is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis (in other words, one fails to reject the null hypothesis)."
- correct, until there is evidence of theism you have no basis for rejecting the null hypothesis of atheism
types10000 4 months ago
@Types10000 from Adèr, H. J.; Mellenbergh, G. J. & Hand, D. J. (2007). Advising on research methods: A consultant's companion. Huizen, The Netherlands: Johannes van Kessel Publishing.
You don't understand science, null hypothesis, Christianity or creation science. It’s not your fault. Not even Einstein could make wise decisions if facts &evidence were withheld. Atheism habitually hides, suppresses, straw mans or distorts evidence for God in numerous ways&is ~the most anti-rational view ever.
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
"You don't understand science, null hypothesis, Christianity or creation science. It’s not your fault..."
- i have already explained why atheism IS the null hypothesis
- this statement is simply an assertion that incorrect and produces no evidence whatsoever
What evidence do you have atheism isnt the null hypothesis?
types10000 4 months ago
Comment removed
dotoree 4 months ago
@types10000
1) I HAVE told you were to go to get the links to rutgers, nuremburg and others. If you're too lazy to go there and want to be an intentional ostrich, that's YOUR fault, not mine. Don't blame your laziness on others and lie. I don't make assertions. Neither does Christianity. Almost nothing you have said so far has any relation to reality.
2) No, you haven't explained anything and you are straw manning Christianity constantly.
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
"1) I HAVE told you were to go to get the links to rutgers"
- incorrect, you simply pointed to a video and asserted the evidence was in there, i checked it and it wasnt. There is no evidence in the links you provided; they are simply opinions that are no more credible than your own.
If you think i am incorrect, then you will be able to cite the evidence :)
types10000 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
"No, you haven't explained anything and you are straw manning Christianity constantly."
incorrect, i did it in the very statement your replying to:
"ie. their scientific findings were completely divorced from their belief in the supernatural eg. Newton believed in alchemy but this didnt help his discoveries, nor did his discoveries give credibility to this supernatural belief."
The same applies to his christian beliefs.
types10000 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@types10000 "their scientific findings were completely divorced from their belief in the supernatural eg"
This like almost everything you say is pure fiction. PERIOD.
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
@betterdrummerjoe 1) Sorry, but if no one changes others views, you'd still be living in a hut eating raw meat like an ignorant savage. Your allegation of rudeness are the enemy of progress.
2) My arguments don't rest on my words. They rest on original documents hosted at Rutgers, Nuremberg war crimes investigators, NY Times reports on those, etc. as well as many scientists. You can check them out for yourself.
3) There have been MANY wars and 1-200 million dead because of atheists. FACT.
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
"2) My arguments don't rest on my words. They rest on original documents hosted at Rutgers, Nuremberg war crimes investigators, NY Times reports on those, etc. as"
- you assert these things exist but you failed to provide them, you simply pointed to a video and said 'its in here' however that is not a form of evidence and i could just as easily point to a Britney spears clip and say 'this debunks all your arguments'
If you have evidence THEN PRESENT IT;.
types10000 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 3. Where do you get your stats on this? If you go back in history and do a body count of all those that died because on one religion or another, I think you will find many more died from religion than anything else. Just because you say it and put FACT in caps doesn't make it true. Give me sources to research.
wraith168 2 months ago
and this was inspired directly by their vitriolic hatred for religion combined with no limits on their morals because they had no belief in God and no principles forbidding these crimes in atheism. 4) Prison lists? Oh my stars. You can make lists to fit anything you want. I could say largeness or blackness or whatever cause crime. That's a stupid allegation that has nothing to do with rigorous scientific tests or investigation at all looking at causes and effects.
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 You make lists and claim scientific investigation but provide nothing in support of what you say.
You don't need god or religion for morals. Those that you are talking about didn't do what they did because they were atheists (though since you don't list who you are talking about I can't even really say if they are atheists). You are trying to make atheists look like psychopaths running around doing anything they please and make excuses for those of faith that do bad
wraith168 2 months ago
@wraith168 Of all the 1000s of cultures in history,the Bible,Jewish/Christian scientists&Creation science philosophy built the foundations of modern science (modern scientific method,peer review process,1st scientific journals,falsification, occam’s razor,etc.)&pioneered most of its branches. Dr. Hannam (Ph.D. in the history of science from Cambridge) lectures on some of this at the Royal Society (1st scientific society in history, started by a creationist):
watch?v=I-k24Q01vck (see notes&links)
TruthIsLife7 2 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 The process you're describing really boils down to this: Medieval Christians were sure they were right, they were sure that studying nature had to support the bible. This is why you can find creationists in the early history of modern science(Pre-Darwin, when basically everyone were creationists). As knowledge increased it quickly became clear that the bible was nonsense though and all useful results were grounded in empiricism and experiment, not faith.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Anyway, dishonest apologists who claim Christianity was a necessity for science have to ignore evidence of highly advanced, pre-Christian science. One example of this is "The Antikythera mechanism", a really early mechanical astronomical computer. Recovered from a shipwreck that happened around *150AD*. Rather than promoting science, Christianity suppressed and retarded it for 1500 years before reaching the level of pre-Christians in this area.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 When they finally came around, they enabled the enlightenment, and Christianity started its rapid decline in Europe along with it. Which suggests that although the people driving the intellectual revolutions were often Christians in name(And later mostly Deists), such as Newton, they were not in fact applying Christian doctrine, but helping make it irrelevant by developing and applying the modern scientific method.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@gnomefro Daniel did the 1st "modern" scientific experiment in history “Around 600 BC, Daniel of Judah conducted…the earliest recorded clinical trial. His trial compared the health effects of a vegetarian diet with those of a royal Babylonian diet over a 10-day period. The strengths of his study include the use of a contemporaneous control group, use of an independent assessor of outcome,striking brevity in the published report.” Dr. David Grimes, wwwDncbiDnlmDnihDgov/pubmed/7501328
TruthIsLife7 2 months ago
@Gnomefro You have obviously not done much study on the topic. Dr. Hannam and historians of science have. I well know that there were others in history who did some impressive science. I can list much more than you can and if you go to my website, the playlist wisdom of the ancient lists some. But, it was trial and error science, NOT scientific method based science. That and other aspects of modern science developed directly because of religious philosophy.
TruthIsLife7 2 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Bleh, of course the Antikythera shipwreck I talked about down below happened in 150 BC, not AD. The whole point was that it predates Christianity as a whole and is conclusive evidence of highly advanced ancient science.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@Gnomefro Nearly all historians of science agree that religion and science have been incredibly great partners for most of history. Many of the philosophies in Christianity DIRECTLY resulted in crucial scientific principles. It's no accident at all that Christianity invented peer review. This is directly founded on ideas that all people are tempted to do wrong and that we should question each other and establishments as numerous prophets&Jesus himself did frequently. You are believing a myth.
TruthIsLife7 2 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 100% agree that science and religion have been great partners. its amazing that many "prestigious" media outlets emphasize there is a long history of conflict between the two... completely inaccurate
stevenholland 2 months ago
@stevenholland I wouldn't say they'd been great partners, it doesn't seem of consequence. I don't know of any example where religion has helped further modern science, or religion helped science in the beginning, the fact that some scientists were religious doesn't mean religion helped, in fact it doesn't make a difference.
I agree in that they were not great enemies, because religion usually steers clear of scientific study, but how were they great partners?
mrgejwaites 1 month ago
@mrgejwaites There were lots of clergymen who were great scientists in the early 19th century (in England in particular) and their role in science was made possible only because of the time and money that they had available to them as a result of their clerical posts.
Crucially though, although their religion facilitated their science, religion didn't inform their science.
baldieman64 1 month ago
@baldieman64 So their jobs gave them the means to further explore science, not the actual ideas or mythology of their religion.
You misrepresent it, their religion didn't facilitate science, their income from their religious jobs did.
What your saying is the equivalent to this: The FBI and prostitution have been great partners, because several FBI agents can afford regular prostitutes because of the money afforded to them by their jobs as FBI agents.
mrgejwaites 1 month ago
@mrgejwaites Yes, I agree with you, I was simply adding to and clarifying your point - hence my clear differentiation between the job and the beliefs of those clergymen.
baldieman64 1 month ago
Pretty much all Christians who are in prison are there because they violated Christian principles in order to follow follow media, peer, cultural influences, etc. Decades of research shows conclusively that biblical religion greatly reduces crime as well as increasing self-control which is the foundation all most types of positive success.
5) My science arguments rest on the indisputable facts of history, fully referenced and nearly all historians of science agree.
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
Note-Hitler was a Catholic as a kid and DID use religion as propaganda (he also claimed Germany only desired peace). But, his personal thoughts about Christianity when in power& before were more like: “The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.”
”Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless...”
More here: wwwDOTanswersDOTorg/apologetics/hitquote.html
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
"Note-Hitler was a Catholic as a kid and DID use religion as propaganda"
- tell me, what exactly is your basis for determining what you ASSERT to be propaganda from his legitimate opinion?
HINT; if your only basis for saying this is your presupposition that christians dont act this way then your argument is a no true scotsman (fallacy)
types10000 4 months ago
3) Sorry, but you're wrong, wrong, wrong. We DO most certainly have evidence of the supernatural and the science of many Christians was directly and profoundly based on the Bible and God's truths. You've been duped and lied to and kept ignorant by people who control education and academia and do their very best to keep out all evidence for God. You don't even know what counts as evidence, which is a common problem for many people.
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TruthIsLife7
"Sorry, but you're wrong, wrong, wrong. We DO most certainly have evidence of the supernatural"
- then present it, because no one else has ever been able to.
"and the science of many Christians was directly and profoundly based on the Bible and God's truths"
- their religion did not contribute to their scientific discoveries
- their religion often conflicted with their discoveries
- their discoveries do not lend credibility to their supernatural beliefs.
types10000 4 months ago
@types10000 Another point, I don't have presuppositions and I criticize all who do whether atheist or Christians for using a priori fallacies. Both those who presuppose methodological naturalism and those who presuppose God are all in the same boat, the boat of making a priori fallacies which is the enemy of following the evidence where it leads.
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TruthIsLife7
"Another point, I don't have presuppositions"
- a presupposition of science is that the natural world exists and we can learn about it, unless you accept this you cannot discuss science.
"and I criticize all who do whether atheist or Christians for using a priori fallacies"
- and your incorrect in doing so because (as with those made by science) some presuppositions can justified.
types10000 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
"presuppose methodological naturalism and those who presuppose God are all..."
INCORRECT:
The presupposition of methodological naturalism is JUSTIFIED by the fact that the natural world is all that we observe to exist.
ie. Until evidence of the supernatural is presented there is no logical basis for accepting supernatural explanations.
If there ever is evidence of the supernatural this presuppositions would likely change.
- by contrast NOT believing in god is default
types10000 4 months ago
@types10000 Here are a couple things for starters:
Bonney, Richard (Winter 2001). "The Nazi Master Plan, Annex 4: The Persecution of the Christian Churches". Rutgers Journal of Law&Religion. wwwDOTleicsDOTgovDOTuk/the_nazi_master_planDOTpdf
orgDOTlawDOTrutgersDOTedu/publications/law-religion/nurinst1DOTshtml
wwwDOTnytimesDOTcom/2002/01/13/weekinreview/word-for-word-case-against-nazis-hitler-s-forces-planned-destroy-germanDOThtml?pagewanted=all
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
I work in academia with scientists. Here's how real science works. It gathers a lot of evidence, then it looks at all hypotheses and tries to figure out which hypothesis matches the evidence best with NO defaults &it follows the weight of evidence WHEREVER it leads. THAT is how real science works, but atheists have perverted facts in that area again. If something doesn't make claims, it's not science OR rational in anyway and loses to any view that has even ONE SINGLE witness or other evidence.
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
"I work in academia with scientists."
- as what? a janitor? because with an understanding of logic and science as flawed as yours, you certainty arnt doing anything scientific.
"It gathers a lot of evidence, then it looks at all hypotheses and tries to figure out which hypothesis matches the evidence best with NO defaults"
- INCORRECT, you dont even know what null hypothesis is, do you?
SAD
types10000 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
Null Hypothesis:
"The practice of science involves formulating and testing hypotheses, assertions that are capable of being proven false using a test of observed data. The null hypothesis typically corresponds to a general or default position. For example, the null hypothesis might be that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena or that a potential treatment has no effect"
Now what do you suppose the null hypothesis on 'whether a god exists' is?
types10000 4 months ago
Comment removed
dotoree 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TruthIsLife7
"Bonney, Richard (Winter 2001). 'The Nazi Master Plan, Annex 4: The Persecution of the Christian Churches'. Rutgers Journal of Law&Religion. "
- This is not evidence, it is an opinion piece. If this opinoin pecie contains evidence you will be able to present it, if does not contain evidence then you will be unable to present it.
Where is your evidence?
types10000 4 months ago
@types10000 It is murder of science to think that not believing is the default, pure and simple. And we have had evidence of the supernatural in a number of ways. So, naturalism is only a prejudicial a priori fallacy.It is 100% impossible to reconcile naturalism with following the evidence WHEREVER IT LEADS. PERIOD. CASE CLOSED.
I DID give you the site and told you to look in the notes. You obviously couldn’t figure out how to do that:
watch?v=dbvp8wXPYYo
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
"It is murder of science to think that not believing is the default, pure and simple"
incorrect, it's basic logic:
- All affirmative claims require evidence.
- An affirmative claim made without evidence can (and should) be dismissed without evidence
- to say 'god exists' is to make an affirmative claim.
Irrespective of whether i make a claim a 'god doesnt exist', the default state is not to beleive in one.
types10000 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
"And we have had evidence of the supernatural in a number of ways."
- then present your alleged evidence, because in all of human history no one else has been able.
"So, naturalism is only a prejudicial a priori fallacy"
- incorrect, science presupposes METHODOLOGICAL naturalism, not naturalism, there is a difference.
- METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM is THE ONLY logical stance in absense of evidence of the supernatura