Added: 2 years ago
From: 1rishShaman
Views: 1,120
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (56)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • @anibisamber Snowy the Frostman is hilarious!!

  • If most Agnostic pieces of shit, fence sitting fucktards would get off the fence, Atheists would have abigger following. That don't include all the Goin thru the motions because my parents believed it.." Bullshit. Think fer yerselves, assholes...otherwise be a braindead "Let others think for me" garbage.

  • I believe there are things that defy logic and reasoning.

    That isn't to say I don't respect Atheism. All I'm saying is that there are things that cannot be explained or understood by humans.

    We believe what we believe because our beliefs give us hope. Just because it doesn't seem logical doesn't mean you should debunk it.

    Being a Catholic, I can say that I have hope in the future because I believe in my religion.

  • @ed88888 Why do you believe that there are things that defy logic and reasoning? And if there are such things, what's the point holding beliefs about them? If they are beyond our ability to comprehend, how can you hold specific beliefs about such things, or even go so far as to make these beliefs the basis of your life?

  • @ed88888 Why do you believe that there are things that defy logic and reasoning? And if there are such things, what's the point holding beliefs about them? If they are beyond our ability to comprehend, how can you hold specific beliefs about such things, or even go so far as to make these beliefs the basis of your life? 

  • @topperheartramada Religion is a belief. Even if they aren't logical, it gives religious people something to believe in. Even if it's as serious as a god(s) or as silly as the worship of television. "Too much knowledge is dangerous." If one devotes his all into one subject, like disproving every religion on earth...that BECOMES your religion, your belief that no religion is real. My belief is that there is a god who started the modern ethics code (10 Commandments).

  • @topperheartramada And that God even helps open people's eyes. Even Atheists have converted from atheism into a religion. Believe what you will. I also believe in souls and that a fetus is alive. I'm not here to convert. I'm no priest. But I will defend my views...much like Atheists defend theirs.

  • @topperheartramada And that God even helps open people's eyes. Even Atheists have converted from atheism into a religion. Believe what you will. I also believe in souls and that a fetus is alive. I'm not here to convert. I'm no priest. But I will defend my views...much like Atheists defend theirs.

  • @topperheartramada People today rely too much on science. Science is not the answer. It is a tool that aids humans. We have strayed from that (technology being tools). We have placed all our trust into science and become disconnected from the real world to the point that all we see is the external world and not the internal.

    A mind isn't physical, the brain is. We use our mind in tandem with the brain to think up ideas. Why not a soul with our ethics and beliefs?

  • @ed88888 science deals with reality, i.e. things we can actually demonstrate to be true. you can make up any fantasy and put the label 'spiritual' on it. i don't see the point. for all we know it id the brain that does the thinking and brain is physical. i don't understand why we should assume that there is some soul which is not material and which is impossible to prove.

  • @topperheartramada We always say that the mind is our brain when, in fact, they are two separate entities. The mind is not physical, yet we know it's there with the brain. The mind let's us think whereas the brain is a bunch of tissue and nerve cells telling the body what to do. If we know that the mind is there without proof, how can you discredit souls?

  • @ed88888 'mind' is the activity of the brain. that's just what we call it. we know there is a brain and we know a lot about how it works. a soul would be something not even connected to the brain, something that is immaterial and something that exists even when the brain disappears. there is no reason to assume that.

  • @topperheartramada The brain doesn't "mind". The brain tells the body what to do. Also, I wasn't linking the soul to the brain. Besides, the soul is a manifestation of one's true self and their intentions, similar to how Kingdom Hearts represents it through their version of "hearts".

  • @ed88888 the 'mind' is the product of the brain's activity. a soul is something you made up, something that has no basis in reality, no need to be there to provide an explanation, and cannot even be proved or disproved. what is the purpose of adding things to an explanation which are not necessary?

  • @topperheartramada Theories of mind and its function are numerous. Earliest recorded speculations are from the likes of Zoroaster, the Buddha, Plato, Aristotle, and other ancient Greek, Indian and, later, Islamic and medieval European philosophers. Pre-modern understandings of the mind, such as the neoplatonic "nous" saw it as an aspect of the soul, in the sense of being both divine and immortal, linking human thinking with the un-changing ordering principle of the cosmos itself."

  • @ed88888 thanks for the copy and paste, but that doesn't really prove your point.

  • @topperheartramada You wanted facts, I'm giving you facts. Read on. I added more about souls that I came across during my research.

  • @topperheartramada Souls were also thought up by early philosophers...THINKERS. Plato himself, who learned it from Socrates, called the soul the "essence of a person, being that which decides how we behave". He even calls it an incorporeal, eternal occupant of our being. Even Aristotle believed that souls exist. The smartest philosophers in history believed this concept. Einstein himself stated that without faith, science is a pile of lies. And without science, faith is fantasy.

  • @ed88888 the 'mind' is the product of the brain's activity. a soul is something you made up, something that has no basis in reality, no need to be there to provide an explanation, and cannot even be proved or disproved. what is the purpose of adding things to an explanation which are not necessary?

  • @topperheartramada We're talking about religion, aren't we? In religion, it is necessary. "Most agree that minds are constituted by conscious experience and intelligent thought. Common attributes of mind include perception, reason, imagination, memory, emotion, attention, and a capacity for communication. A rich set of unconscious processes are also included in many modern characterizations of mind."

  • @topperheartramada And science is what led us to many dangers in the past. The atom bomb. We must limit our reliance on science and just go with what we feel. Granted, we use science to solve our problems, but science also causes more problems. Likewise, over-reliance on religion is bad. Look at the Taliban. My point throughout this unwanted debate is that science and religion must be in balance. We believe in religion and science is a tool, not the other way around.

  • @ed88888 religion is belief without proof. religion means to pretend things are real even though we have no clue, and often even if all the facts testify to the opposite. i really don't think we can emacnipate ourselves as a species while holding on to religion.

  • @topperheartramada I understand where you're coming from as I have a friend who is an atheist. Unlike most atheists, he doesn't attack religion or try very hard to disprove it. That's beside the point. The point is religion gives people hope, faith, etc. Science is a tool to help humans live life better, even if it costs animals and plants' homes/lives in the process. The soul is the essence of a person.  The mind thinks. The brain tells the body what to do.

  • @ed88888 i don't have to disprove religion because the burden of proof is on religion. and i don't see why we need some immaterial soul in order to explain the mind. we can simply explain it as the product of the brain's activity. science is a toiol, but it also has as its ultimate goal to explain all of reality. and it shows great promise. hope is something people can and do have without religion. if you need fairy tales to make it through life, you are mentally a child.

  • @topperheartramada If that's the case, only atheists are adults. I'd rather be a child who believes in something than be an adult who believes in nothing. If science is as powerful as you say it is, how do we not know what killed the dinosaurs? It's on our planet constantly being excavated and researched, but we still do not know what killed them off. If a meteor didn't destroy the moon, how could it have destroyed the dinosaurs?

  • @topperheartramada By the way, atheism is the belief of disbelieving in religion. In a way, atheism is a religion, much like how Scientology has become one.

  • @topperheartramada The fact that atheism works so hard to disprove something makes it similar to an actual religion (which is what makes religious people work so hard to go to heaven after life).

  • @topperheartramada True, we cannot prove the existence of gods or souls. But neither can science answer everything.

  • @ed88888 for now.

  • @topperheartramada That is exactly the kind of thinking that produced Ahmadinejad and his outrageous views. I'd rather live in a world where science is only there to aid humans than a world where science rules humans.

  • @ed88888 who says science has to rule humans? plus ahmedinejad is a religious nutcase, not a science guy.

  • @topperheartramada It already has. And Ahmadinejad, if you recall, wants nuclear power in which EVERYONE (save for Iran's allies) believe that he will create an atom bomb and wipe Israel off the map. We do EVERYTHING through technology to the point that we are losing our culture to industry and technology. Have you not noticed? It is this exact over-reliance on science that leads to madmen like Hitler, Ahmadinejad, Mussolini, Stalin..."Too much knowledge is dangerous".

  • @topperheartramada It already has. And Ahmadinejad, if you recall, wants nuclear power in which EVERYONE (save for Iran's allies) believe that he will create an atomic bomb to wipe Israel (and all other Jews) off the map. We do EVERYTHING through technology to the point that we are losing our culture to industry and technology. Have you not noticed? It is this exact over-reliance on science that leads to madmen like Hitler, Ahmadinejad, Mussolini, Stalin..."Too much knowledge is dangerous".

  • @ed88888 ok, and why exactly does ahmedinejad want to wipe israel off the map? and how was hitler reliant on science? he rejected most of the science as 'jewish science'. that is why most jewish scientists fled nazi germany. and stalin was a psychopath who created a personality cult effectively turning himself into a god. these people imposed an authoritarian ideology, but had little to do with science.

  • @topperheartramada Then I am saying it incorrectly. Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust ever existed. Also, if you've been reading or watching the news (REAL news, not biased news), you would know that Ahmadinejad is, essentially, a modern day Hitler. He finds Jews and Israel a tumor on the earth that must be removed. As for the others, they used science in the form of weaponry and tanks. Who is to say that they WOULDN'T have used science/tech to inspire fear?

  • @ed88888 ok, so science may kill us all. that's true. but it seems we need science more than ever to save us. we must fix the planet, we must find enough food, we must find the cure for numerous diseases, we must find replacement for oil and other resources, and so on. and as for ahmedinejad and others, their motivation is rooted in religious ideas.

  • @topperheartramada Which is why I stated that science must be balanced with religion. Over-reliance on ANYTHING is bad. That has been proven throughout history. Over-reliance on science...over-reliance on religion...over-reliance on meat. All bad. Again, I'm not saying to get rid of anything. I'm just saying that we must limit ourselves. And yes, science can get us out of those troubles, as well.

  • @topperheartramada Which is why I stated that science must be balanced with religion. Over-reliance on ANYTHING is bad. That has been proven throughout history. Over-reliance on science...over-reliance on religion...over-reliance on meat. All bad. Again, I'm not saying to get rid of anything. I'm just saying that we must limit ourselves. And yes, science can get us out of those troubles, as well. But it can just as easily make it worse.

  • @ed88888 balance science with reason, how's that?

  • @topperheartramada Balancing our dependence on science (using it only when necessary, like food, medicine, etc.) with religion or reason (doing what is humanly right or ethically correct). Too much of either leads to ruin, either personally or throughout the community. Too much science with little religion will lead to things like "I, Robot". Too much religion will lead to Ahmadinejad or the Ayatollah Khomeini. Too much reason leads to destroying churches and the people who believe.

  • @topperheartramada There are also records of fanatical atheists as there are for religion. Again, too much of anything is bad...even knowledge.

  • Comment removed

  • @topperheartramada Thank you for this inspiring debate and I know you have more to say. But it's almost 3:00am here and I need to get to bed. Good day, sir. Again, great debate.

  • @topperheartramada Most of the world's science today is being used to invade privacy (social sites and the like), be more precise (in terms of weaponry and otherwise), and...disproving religion. Science was meant to be a tool to help people live lives comfortably (make farming/planting easier, find cures for disease). But now, we use it for EVERYTHING. I'm not saying get rid of science completely. I'm just saying we should use science as it was meant to be used.

  • Comment removed

  • What the Bible says to do doesn't mean to actually give up all your belongings and live like a hermit. It means to "get rid of your earthly desires". Meaning do away with the 7 Deadly Sins.

  • Comment removed

  • Matt sounds like he has a cold. I don't know why this got so many hands down, it's great.

  • I'd be fascinated to know why each and every comment here has been marked as spam when none of them actually qualify as spam.

  • This video got votebotted on the 21st July 2009, along with 133 other videos on my account. I wonder why? =P

  • Indeed. Now that you mention it I've noticed that happening to a lot of atheist videos. If I didn't know better I might suspect some unscrupulous people were trying to censor them.

  • Well then I guess you would know better! It does only seem to happen to accounts that make certain claims.

    It's wierd though how Religious(any denomination) people never have this problem. The one time I saw a religious user being hit by a votebot, it rated his videos up... I got hit right after I made a video investigating dodgy suspended and closed accounts in his subscriber box... which he later and to this day, has set to hidden.

    - Paul M.

  • How peculiar. One might almost think there was some sort of connection there.

    It's a shame that these got votebotted though, they're very good and interesting videos. But the fact that the creationists and other such people do have to resort to censorship in a feeble attempt to hide our oppinions and arguments really does highlight exactly how feeble their own arguments and beliefs are.

  • Angry Jedi is angry.

  • I would have loved to have phoned in that day.

    How do I define god? Strip away mans written word and at the core of the argument you get "What created Matter". If you believe the thing that created matter was "un-intellegent" then you are just ignorant to Science itself.

    If you believe in "God" then you believe "God" created matter. If you believe that nothing intellegent created matter then what is a "Higgs Boson"

    Both are intangible, but the "Higgs Boson" is anything but "un-intellegent".

  • "What", or "Who" created matter are both loaded questions.

    The real question is "HOW" was matter created.

    None of that requires a personified deity, unless you manifest your own believes onto it.

    If that's how you feel, that's fine. Just don't stand around pretending that's a rational belief.

  • I figured anyone even alive in the past 15 years would know about the Hadron Collider and how CERN will use it. You should at least "Wikipedia" something before commenting like you did, it could save you some time.

    I just told you "HOW" in the comment above. Did you even read what I wrote? CERN built the Hadron Collider to find the "Higgs boson" particle in the "Big Bang".

    So what did I say that makes me stand around pretending (what ever it is) is a rational belief What belief? CERN? LHC?

  • "If you believe the thing that created matter was "un-intellegent" then you are just ignorant to Science itself."

    Assertions has no value. Something CAN create matter without intelligence. Not so smart now are you? I don't see how you can create conditions where you HAVE to be intelligent to create matter.

  • So you think that tens of thousands of the worlds greatest Physicists are wrong about the "Higgs boson"?

    Also, what scale or measurement device do you use? Really, what is this imaginary measurement device or equation that defines what is intelligent?

    What is the difference between biological activity within carbon based lifeforms and the quantum mechanics in the quantum world? Cells and microorganisms are intelligent, why not particles? Have you heard of the Double Slit Experiment?

  • So you think that tens of thousands of the worlds greatest Physicists are wrong about the "Higgs boson"? - Please go into more detail, are you arguing this because they are calling it the "God Particle?" I'm not exactly sure what your point is.

    "Also, what scale or measurement device do you use? . . . or equation that defines what is intelligent?"

    I'm not the one asserting that "If you believe the thing that created matter was "un-intellegent" then you are just ignorant to Science itself."

  • "Have you heard of the Double Slit Experiment?" - God of the gaps? So what if we don't understand that wave particles behave in a way that we don't quite understand? You can't simply assert that since it is unexplained, therefore it is intelligent. The default position is, WE DON'T KNOW.

  • "If you believe the thing that created matter was "un-intellegent" then you are just ignorant to Science itself."

    You are already presume that this "The thing" has to create matter with PURPOSE and INTENT. There can be "The thing" which can create matter without purpose or intent.

  • Quite frankly I feel I must point out that we currently have no idea what created matter or rather how matter was created and thus we are hardly justified in simply assuming that a diety did it.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more