All have sinned and greatly offended the holy God of the bible. The just punishment is death then hell. That's not Gods will. He suffered and died on the cross paying for the law you broke in His life's blood so He could legally dismiss your case. You must repent turn from your sin and trust alone in Jesus Christ for your salvation.
Shermer seems really nervous in this debate, which is unlike him. I've seen him debate creationists and other religious people and he' usually cool and confident. He's still winning.
"We have extended more personal liberties in spite of religion" LMAO, really? Would those include the likes of fine Atheists such as Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot? My God what a ridiculous argument!
Michael makes good points, anyone who disregards his points on God showing preference at times and not to others is off their head. The reason crap happens to some and not to others is GOD/ or lets use the word LIFE has no preference in any matter
@myfacevids The guy says how do we know we are the only universe, then thinks he can somehow deny God when he makes statements like that? He's only a sceptic when it suits him. Anyone who believes evolution is in no way a skeptic
Wow, thank you for the comment it made my morning! (plus the iced coffee) lol. If something I said helps you communicate your position then I'm glad to have helped in the same way others have helped me. Take care man.
Dude, follow atheist here. I've NEVER seen it put so well, so thoroughly, and so...politely! That was badass, dude! I gonna have to copy that page outta your playbook, if you don't mind, of course! (^_−)−☆
No problem man. It seems atheism tends to be misunderstood by everyone who isn't actually an atheist. I called myself an agnostic before more or less realizing that I was in fact an atheist by definition. Once I realized this it didn't matter what I or other people thought about atheism because it's just what I am. Take care!
When an atheist debates a theist they're usually debating not for why there is no God but for why believing in God is unjustified. This can look like the atheist is claiming there is no God because they're constantly rejecting theistic arguments. But the rejection comes because theistic claims use faulty logic and they lack evidence. Therefore its justified to not believe the claims. Atheists are countering claims not making them.
I can demonstrate why agnostics are probably atheists with an analogy. If I asked you if you believe iksnop exists what would you say? You'd probably ask what iksnop is. However, since you do not know what iksnop is you can't possibly believe iksnop exists. Of course you wouldn't also conclude there is no iksnop as that would be premature and unjustified. But would you believe it exists? No. You would be an iksnop agnostic atheist.
All agnosticism means is lacking knowledge. Since atheism doesn't deal with knowledge but rather belief, one can be both. None of those famous atheists you mentioned would claim to know there is no God, but they might believe there is no God. They'd still be agnostic atheists. Most agnostics are probably atheists and don't realize it because their semantics are wrong or they're trying to avoid the negative stigma attached to atheism. Agnosticism is not a middle ground.
What I'm trying to distinguish is the difference between lack of belief in God and a belief that there is no God. These are 2 different things. Just as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, lack of belief is not a belief in a lack of. Lacking a belief in God does not necessitate believing there is no God. If I'm not yet convinced there is life on Mars that doesn't mean I'm convinced there is no life on Mars. I'd be a life on Mars "atheist".
Personally, I can't see how agnosticism can stand by itself without being attached to theism or atheism. Sure, the agnostic can be undecided. But undecided falls under the category of not believing now doesn't it?
@msuders I don't know, these dual positions seem, to me, a lack of confidence in their position? I would not categorize shermer, dawkins, harris, and all their cliques to be agnostic atheists. There positions are very clear; they are militant atheists who say they are scientists by profession.
"I cannot see the intherchangability of agnosticism and atheism"...that's because you keep assuming that atheism necessitates a conclusive decision that there is no God. Theism means Tue belief in God. The prefix 'a' means without. Atheism: Without belief in God. Agnosticism: Without knowledge. Agnostic Atheism: One who does not believe in God but does not know if there is a God. Why would a scientist have to reconcile this position?
@msuders I think I understand what you are trying to say. You mean to distinguish closet atheists from flamboyant ones? There ones that assert and the ones that do not, just have it in their minds? I always thought agnosticism was more neutral on the position concerning the question of god?
"It seems to me that it seems you're implying that there are two versions of atheism"...Essentially yes, that is the case. It's usually referred to as strong/weak atheism. The "all encompassing" definition for atheism however is the lack of a belief in a God. This definition fits both the versions of atheism you listed since in both cases one would not believe. Atheism does not necessitate that one claims there is no God but claiming that there is no God is also atheism. Understand?
@msuders I think I understand what you are trying to say. You mean to distinguish closet atheists from flamboyant ones? There ones that assert and the ones that do not, just have it in their minds? I always thought agnosticism was more neutral on the position concerning the question of god? Sorry, I'm a very black/white thinker to my dismay at times.
@msuders I can not see the inter-changeability of atheism and agnosticism. For one clearly is in the middle grounds on the decision of god. The scientist can not reconcile his professional position with that of the atheist. I dont know, it just seems ludicrous to think a scientist already his mind made up before proposing a scientific hypotheisis.
@msuders The former having a noticeably distingishable than the latter. To me, it seems like an equivocation of terms. I see believers taking the positive position and atheists being negative, agnostics taking the neutral. To insert the word "lack" is, for me, still a negative position since it is contrary to the believers positive position.
@msuders It seems to me that you seem to be implying there are two versions of atheism. There are the radicalists that say, " there is no evidence for god, and there never will be". There are also the softcores that say, " There is no evidence as of yet and so I do not do not believe in god as of yet". (cont)
An analogy to what I'm trying to demonstrate to you about the atheist position would be if I said I don't at this moment believe there is microbial life on Mars. That would not be me making the claim that "there is no microbial life on Mars", as that would be unjustified. We don't know yet. Yet I'm perfectly justified in withholding my belief that there is microbial life on Mars. Withholding a belief is lacking a belief.
I agree with what you said about scientists being agnostics. Many scientists are also atheists on top of being agnostic because they will rarely believe something there is insufficient evidence for. The belief would be unjustified. This is exactly the position Shermer holds, which is why he's with scientists.
"atheism as a lack of belief is the same as asserting there is no God" ..no it isn't. It'd be the same as asserting "I don't believe in God". Lack of belief is a negative position, hence the "lack". An assertion that there is no God is a positive position, a claim. Atheism is not a claim but rather a response to the claim that a God exists. Also agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. Most atheists are also agnostics.
That's not a contradiction @ 07Aristotle. Belief and knowledge are not the same thing. Shermer can lack belief in God without "knowing" that there is no God. You seem to be attributing atheism to claims of knowledge about the non existence of God and this just isn't the case.
@msuders Assuming that, considering it is always to be an assumption and never false nor correct conclusively, god is to be ''discovered'', a true scientist should never assert that an ''unknown variable'' is false, or untrue, because the claim is unjustified. Any scientist knows that a lack of evidence is not evidence of absence.Atheism, as a ''lack of belief'', is the same as asserting there is no god. Ask any atheist. Asserting this claim is unjustified because we just do not know.
@msuders At best, the only position an scientist can take is agnostic. It is the only position he can take without being inconsistent to his profession. A form of modesty is needed in the scientific field because it promotes all avenues of scientific discovery. The scientific position of ''we just don't know'' is awfully familiar with the agnostic position of god is''unknown'' at the present. The most reasonable position is agnostic for a true scientist.
@sidewinderxx I only wish to Comment on one thing you said at this point. Love your neighbor then kill those creeps...... Kill them was in the old testament. When only obedience to God and the laws he set fourth could give the chance of the eternal. Love your neighbor and the freedom to do this or not came after one who save us from ourselves. Jesus Christ. You had no context therefore no rational thought to your statement.
@sin247365 Jesus said, in the Bible, a lot of messed up things. This is from Matthew: And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, ‘I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel’. Search for truth.
@gianlucapaul It is a moot point that he eventually helped her. If God is that callous to start with, if he/she/it, is so insecure about hesheit's place as Alpha and Omega/Omnipotent/All Power Creator that he needs to hold it over people's heads I think it is a very depressing situation. God fearing used to be a common descriptor. Life is hard and will always be hard. You can say it's God when life is good or bad, but there is nothing pointing to that conclusion. Flying Spaghetti Monster.
@clovek456 thank you! The atheist is going thru a lot of effort to wash his hands in dirty water based on his biased choice outside of evidence! Goo observation;)
@revo1974 a super intelligent but not all powerful? If it isn't all powerful then that leaves room for "is there a more powerful?" which stands IN reason that the next question be "not all powerful, something even more powerful?, what created this lesser thing that created us, is IT all powerful? No? Then what created it? On and on.
The last point he mAkes about a highly advanced entity, but not an all-powerful god is a good one. Being a deist of sort, I see much circumstantial evidence pointing in the direction of a designed Universe, however, it's far, far more likely this designer is super advanced, but not all-powerful.
According to other multi-verse theorists, each universe exists with it's own laws and does not effect the next. So the darwinian theory of universes isn't consistent with current thought. Also, why would it? Why would it demand that a universe's "success" necessitate that it create another one? That's based on a human centric philosophy rather than cold mathematics
@radvermin There is no consensus about which multiverse theory is correct, so saying Smolin's multiverse theory is not consistent with current thought isn't technically correct. His theory is absolutely based on mathematics, though.
This guy is taking into consideraton only the natural effects...This is His coice he made and all his explanations are derived from this choice..however objective it may look..simply put..when you wash your hands in dirty water they will be dirty.and that is true even if you take a lot of effort to do it.
Firstly, you are using the fallacy of ad hominem, attacking me personally to further your position, but I'll let that pass. I see that you are frustrated. Secondly, 0.o I am not called to go to North Korea by God at the moment as the Hebrews were. Thirdly, I recommend to you the book, "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist," by Geisler. You may have some pretty answers to it; I think you'll be interested. I would debate you personally, but this commenting won't do.
continuing-- compromised as they mingled the various surrounding people groups who practiced incredible brutality. Also, do not think that God was not grieved when other people were destroyed. He loves them as well, but He is just and He cannot let incredible crimes go unanswered, just as we Americans could not allow the suffering under the Nazis to continue. Clearly, there is no contradiction.
@Gazdo01 OK - Shermer argues that the bible is hypocritical because it says to love your neighbour on one page, then to go and 'kill those creeps' across the river because they believe in the wrong god.
@sidewinderxx If I may reply- Would you call 20th century America hypocritical for desiring peace and then fighting Germany in the World War II? That's a contradiction of beliefs! Right? No, of course not. Why? It is not a contradiction, because a war was necessary for peace to come and also because there was a clear call for justice. Likewise, in the Bible, we find that the morals and the ethical tradition of the Jews (that included loving your neighbors) was being
@J0se4Jesus America didn't want peace, they wanted THEIR peace. That's what war is about. Admittedly, it's a better peace than the Nazis would have come to, but it's still just me vs. you. I would absolutely call 20th century America hypocritical if their mantra was -love your neighbour- and they went to war. The only way one can hope to reconcile this hypocrisy is to say.. "I am killing my enemy for justice, but I still love them" - which is bordering on the insane.
@sidewinderxx I disagree, because you are completely ignoring the significance of justice. If you would go analyze and study the history and culture of the civilizations that the Hebrews fought (such as the Amalekites), you would find that they were incredibly cruel in their treatment of other people groups. Obviously, that needs to be ended. They did not say "I am killing my enemy for justice, but I still love them."
@J0se4Jesus according to your warped, indoctrinated, slave logic, you personally should take up arms and invade north korea to liberate their people, just as the Hebrews did with the Amalekites. Less talking superstitious nonsense on youtube, more action to prove your own preaching. Off you go!
@sidewinderxx Instead, it's more like, "I care and love humanity so much that I cannot allow such pain to be inflicted on innocent people." That is really what is going on here. There is no contradiction, and there is no hypocrisy because when the Hebrews began to act like the cruel people they were suppose oppose, God (according to the Bible) allowed them (the Hebrews) to be taken over as well.
@J0se4Jesus If you think it is not hypocritical to order followers to love someone, then order followers to kill them, then you are lying to yourself. Intellectual dishonesty is the new opiate of the religious masses
@sidewinderxx Additionally, the use of logical fallacy and the refusal to analyze the entirety of the situation is true intellectual dishonesty. See, while I am using reasoning, you are using labels ("the new opiate"). Furthmore, Karl Marx's phrase- how appropriate! Today, we know just how great his philosophy was, don't we? Anyway, if you want to study for youself the complete situation instead of just making up quotes ("kill those creeps" and etc), I dare you to read the text for yourself.
@J0se4Jesus "kill those creeps" is a quote from the video you simpleton. And I've read the bible, it's the greatest force for atheism in existence. No thinking person can read it and remain religious.
It fits somewhere between Greek Mythology and a backyard trailer park cult in terms of credibility.
@sidewinderxx PS. I haven't "preached" to you. I am merely giving a defense for a belief to which you are so antagonistic. And if Christianity means nothing, what does it matter to you? Nothing.
"The findings are quite staggering," he says. "Studies show that patients in hospital who are being prayed for (even when they do not know they are being prayed for) are more likely to recover."
Professor Leslie Francis of the University of Bangor has studied 31 experiments (conducted to the "highest professional standards") into the effectiveness of prayer.
@callofduty497 But is curiosity a law of nature? Why the truth is so desireable? Ok, this is barely-seriously asked I try to show you that any questions can be stetched to the infinity. And this is not a proof tha they are valid.
We don't know if all matter "must have" a natural c. We assumed many so called "facts" in the past including "atoms are smalles building blocks of matter" and that General Theory of Gravity is ultimately true - just some latter examples. We are still far from truth.
@callofduty497 Ok, but somebody could ask you "what causes your question"?
Nobody, never primised to us that the answers can be understandable. Our minds are quite simple and limited, which Schermer mentioned - didn't you notice that?
Doesn't the insistence that there reasonably could be many universes admit the reasonableness of accepting a possible Supreme Being? I'm not proposing the Hebrew God here, I'm proposing an older, wiser, stronger "someone else" out there.
By the way dejesusluis, you have a talent for not understanding what other people ask of you. Your answers consist of partly just preaching, and what answer you do give only creates more problems. Ex: you bring the bible into it, but that raises a ton of other issues. Or you say god wants me to believe by faith, but how do you know that? How do you know he wants me to use faith? How do you know what he WANTS in the first place. How do you know he even has desires?
@AR333 I know what God wants because I understand, having God's grace is being in his same wavelenght. I was as oblivious as you, as was a non-believer. Once you accep God, and you ask for enlightment, a whole new world opens in front of you. You ask questions, but are not ready for the answers. You need to be ready if fou seek the thruth and the thruth will set you free. I have never been freer. Free from guilt, anger, remorse, revenge, materialism, vanity, selfishness, etc. That's personal. GB
@dejesusluisx It's a good thing that rational people don't accept arguments from personal anecdote. If I had to take yours at face value, I'd have to take the mormon's too, and the muslim's anecdote.
The last thing I want to say to you is that there's a bigger problem with your entire stance. The moment you declare "god showed me" as your reason, you are in effect shutting your ears and eyes. There's no point in discussing with people who are convinced they have revealed truth.
@AR333 There is no problem with other religion arguments. As long as you are one with the divine consciousness, as long as you are in His same wavelenght, then you can be in His prescence. You find no point in discussing, why? What was your expectation? Do you come here just to show off your debating skills? To satisfy your ego? As soon as you find someone with a real experience, with a life changing testimony (I was a non-believer), then you realize there will be no price for your ego and quit?
@dejesusluisx Again, you display a lack of willingness to understand. I said there's no point in discussing with people who believe they have been revealed a truth from on high. It has nothing to do with debating skills, it's a simple fact. People who think like that are often close-minded. And you could use some debating skills, because your early posts consisted of preaching and quite often you answer a question by adding on more assumptions, like when you bring the bible up. Or "wavelengths"
@AR333 Are you trying to convince me there is no God? Imagine you just painted your house and I go by and tell you that I don't see the paint. I was a non-believer and after many years of quest and exploration I was able to communicate with God and I received wonderful messages. Do you think I'm willing to go back? I painted my house and changed the color and I like it just the way it is. My efforts are directed to share how I has able to do it and all I learned. Want to live a great life? Learn
@dejesusluisx I could positively argue against your position. For example: it is clear from your rhetoric that you have concluded as a matter of certainty that there is a (theistic) god. From this, the moment I say I am a skeptic, you invariably must conclude that it is me who has my eyes shut. Then, you reverse this circle: when I ask you to tell me why I should believe, you say I'm no longer on a quest. With answers like yours, you don't convince any skeptic, and it's not OUR fault.
@AR333 There is not a hint of doubt in my mind that God is real. I can give you 1,000 reasons for you to believe but none will be scientific, tangible reasons. All the reasons are based on subjective perceptions and personal experience. You won't find objective reasons for you to believe neither here nor anywhere. In order to find your own reasons you have to be willing to let go the earthly anchors that won't let you sail in God's love. No one can convince you, you have to convince yourself. GB
I did not say you were no longer on a quest ; atheists by definition, are no longer in any quest to find the truth. When you say there is no God, you are done, you have just closed your mind to any possibility. Agnostics, on the other hand, are still on a quest. They don't know if there is or not a God, so they are open minded. I don't know which are you, but I just referred to atheists in my remark. I hope you are still in a quest for the thruth. GB
@dejesusluisx Your definition of atheism is a very narrow one and misses in fact the central claim that most atheist writers make. Atheism as contemporary proponents and most past proponents have phrased it is not the claim that there is no god, it's the lack of belief in a god. In other words, name any thing in which you don't believe in because you find no reason to support it (astrology, ufology, chi-therapy) and that's how I see god. I asked you to give reasons, revelations don't count.
@AR333 I know it's a matter of definition, but it matters. You define agnostics and atheists as mutually exclusive. That's just not true. Most atheists, including the current famous ones, declare that evidence could sway their mind.
The reason they call themselves atheists is because people like you would misunderstand what their position is if they called themselves agnostics. Yes, they can't KNOW that there is no god, just as they can't KNOW that there are no invisible unicorns.
@AR333 If that is the case, then why atheists insists in asking for evidence for God when they absolutely know, 100% sure, no doubt that no evidence can be provided. There is an evil intention behind it and is to strip from faith ignorant people that don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Any inteligent atheist know that sceintific evidence can't be provided for intangibles (God, love, conciousness, etc.) yet they keep pressing for evidence. To me, those intentions are evil. God Bless
@dejesusluisx It's funny you mention ignorance. because very often that is why theists are theists in the first place. Has religion claimed throughout history that god explains phenomenon such as disease and earthquake or has it not claimed that?
There is no evil intent behind what I asked. Why did you not say 20 posts ago, when I asked for reasons, that you don't have reasons and just faith. You accept through revelation. Sorry but love and consciousness aren't comparable to such beliefs.
@AR333 "Why did you not say 20 posts ago, when I asked for reasons, that you don't have reasons and just faith"
That should have been pretty obvious for you since you seem to be a smart atheist. What if I told you God revealed to me the elusive theory of everything? If I say that as a proof, you'll not believe it since most probably you won't understand it and even if you do, you will need to do experiments to confirm it. So, what's the point of asking for proof? ego? Well, ego is evil. GB
@dejesusluisx And what do I say to the guy who told me that god revealed to him that everything you're telling me is a lie? That's why anecdotal stories don't count.
@AR333 Well you just proved my point. Nothing counts as proof to you except the proof you know can't be provided, once again an evil plot. I hope you understand now why this is much more than a trivial exchange of ideas for believers. God Bless.
@dejesusluisx Sorry but it has nothing to do with "an evil plot". I'm trying to explain to you something every rational adult should understand: personal anecdotes don't have evidential weight. I can't take you seriously and not take the guy who said to me "god told me in a dream that that jesusluis guy you talk to is a liar."
Again, I'm sorry if you don't get that but I can't make it any clearer. You can't make an extravagant claim and expect to support it with what you've provided.
@AR333 "personal anecdotes don't have evidential weight." In science they don't, but this is not a AACC meeting, we are talking about Faith. You need to understand that Faith don't deal and will never deal with evidence. Why is that concept so hard to grasp? Evidence will kill faith by definition. God Bless
@dejesusluisx Well aside from their being many theologians who would disagree with your opinion, you should have answered that to the first post. I had to ask you 3 times "how do you know". You could have started with saying "what convinces me won't convince anyone else, I have had a personal experience of revelation and I take it on faith". Thats all I wanted. And you are putting words in my mouth by saying "proof" I never asked for proof. I just wanted to point out your position is nonrational
@AR333 Well, I think you're the only atheist I met on line that is actually interested in the real answer to the question "how do you know". All other atheists ask the question waiting for a clasical apologetic responce and like a scripted political debate, begin to throw the rehersed rebuttal lines that their gods (Dawkins, Dennett, Lenox, et. al.) have pointed elsewhere to mock and ridicule our faith and/or ourselves. It's so lame that even 16 yr olds are doing that. Maybe you're an outlier.
@AR333 Likewise, don't forget, God is real. You're smart; open your heart and mind to the posibility; try to think as God think and you will start to understand. God Bless.
@AR333 You may be right in your definition but in the real world, atheists defend their position like a dogma. All my discussion with atheists can seldom be qualified as an open minded exchange of ideas. As soon I put an argument the rebuttal shows either anger, or some sort of dismissal as if coming from a theist might not be an intelligent argument. For a group of "intellingent" people who claim they don't believe due to lack of reason, when a reason is given, a thoughtful approach is due. GB
Also I totally agree with him on the type of God you would want to believe in. I don't believe that it is biblical to say that God punishes the good along with the wicked. As far as this great and never ending debate I'm somewhat between. I believe in creation ( not creationism, there is a big difference ), but I disagree with many/most Christians on God's personality and how he acts.
You can't argue outside of the universe. This is his own ideology for why you can't believe in the supernatural. This is a contradiction so there is no point in mentioning it like he himself argues when speaking about belief in God. The bubble universe theory is essentially supernatural, a place holder for "I don't know". But I must say has a good sense of humor and does have very good arguments. He in my opinion is much more intelligent than Dawkins and other noted atheists.
." If a conflic is found is either flawed science and logic or a misinterpretation of the Bible. "
This is called inerrantist presupposition, and no actual scientist would ever operate this way. Throwing out anything that contradicts your already held beliefs about something is the exact OPPOSITE of the way science works, and is not only a completely biased position to have but is void of intellectual credibility. It has also proven to be laguhably incorrect.
@MrUsername5678888 I think I already clarified that faith can't be based on evidence. Faith is one thing and science is another. They can't be measured by the same standards or rules, but scientific facts can contradict our concept of God. The point is that our concept of God could be wrong and yet God still could be real since science is just trying to understand God's mechanisms and laws. God Bless
@MrUsername5678888 Using science to understand Faith is like using a ruler to measure the volume of water in the ocean. They don't mix. God exists, but the true nature of God is a matter of debate even among believers. As far as your are concearned, your question should be: if there is a possibility that the arrise of a self-programing brain in humans could be the product of a concious being. If yes, then you need to explore further; if no, then show another example of that in nature. God Bless.
@dejesusluisx "your question should be: if there is a possibility that the arrise of a self-programing brain in humans could be the product of a concious being." That wasn't a question... first of all... second of all the way you structure your arguments I don't really understand what you are trying to say. The truth is that I don't have conversations with people who insist on saying an incantation after every paragraph. It is annoying and detracts from your arguments. No offense, sorry. Bye
@MrUsername5678888 If you don't understand what I mean, I will be glad to clarify, just ask; 500 characters is not a lot of space to elaborate. I don't mean to be offensive by blessing, quite the contrary, it is intended to assure the reader that anything I say or any dissagreement is harmless and my intentions are to help you see the light. I have been revealed wonderful things, and is my mission to share them. I'm sure you are looking for answers, otherwise why would you be posting? I got them
I want to take you up on your argument. I think the fact that you blankly assert "god exists, it's just his nature that is a matter of debate" without any backup, or elaboration, leaves the reader with no understanding of your actual position. Put simply, a pantheist could have said that, as well as a theist. Begin by clearly stating what you mean by "god" and then the reasons why you believe. That's how a serious discussion can begin.
@AR333 "Begin by clearly stating what you mean by "god" and then the reasons why you believe."God is the pure concious energy that drives the universe. I believe in God because God has revealed to me his misteries. God is concience, pure logic, love and light. You can undestand too but most people are not willing to let go. You need to let go all material things and surrender to God's love, them you'll see the light. There can't be a conflict between God & science/logic/reason cause God is real.
@dejesusluisx Okay listen to the guy you were arguing with before. Your answer should have stopped before the "most people aren't willing to surrender to god's love". That's preaching, and it's sort of a poisoning-the-well fallacy. Now, onto your point.
"Pure conscious energy", okay, so correct me, you aren't a theist are you? Your answer sounds rather new-age, and not really dark-age. You need to clarify what you mean by he is pure energy. How do you know he is pure energy? You detected it?
@AR333 Theists don't agree on God's nature, but we all agree there is a God. I don't believe in an anthropomorphic God, that would be an ET; although I can't say with any certainty God isn't like that. God is defined as love and is also presented, troughout the bible as light. Those are important clues. I can feel God's energy. I had received important revelations. As a scientist, I was a non-believer, a skeptic. God transformed my life. It can transform your's too. God Bless.
@dejesusluisx You make a number of loaded statements such as "... present in the bible as light, these are important clues". Say what? Now you brought the bible into this. You're making your job bigger than it has to be. I asked you why do you believe, HOW do you know?
"we theists agree there is a god". I asked how do you know god is "pure energy". How do you know this? By the way, to include "revelations" as a means to how you acquired your beliefs is not going to work on an educated audience
@AR333 I know because I can feel it. Imagine God wants to give you a message, but He can't be obvious because you'll not believe by faith. How do you think He will communicate? What kind of message will convince you? I received a message that absolutely convinced me, but the message is personal, it will only convince me. Tell me what will it takes to make you believe? God Bless.
@dejesusluisx Your argument again comes with a loaded assumption. You say he wants to give me a message but can't be obvious because I won't believe by faith? The heck is that supposed to mean? How do you know he wants me to believe by faith in the first place?
You still haven't made a coherent argument for your position. Personal revelation doesn't count btw. Neither does personal feeling. Forget what would convince me for now, just answer my question from 3 posts ago. HOW do you know? Why?
@AR333 If God is obvious, Faith is gone. Believing by Faith is the only way to preserve free will. Free will is God's gift to mankind and taking it away is like eliminating mankind. Try to do the mental excersice. You need to try to think as God in order to understand.I just answered the question, if you're not ready forthe answer, why ask? God experience is a personal one, if it doesn't count, then you will never know the truth. If you really want to know the truth, you need to let go.God Bless
@dejesusluisx The free will answer is false. You can use the bible itself to prove it. What are fallen angels? Beings who have observed god in all his glory but still rebelled.
Similarly, if god would make his existence obvious, it would not negate free will. There are many things which are obvious and yet people believe otherwise.
A bigger point is the fact that if god endowed me with reason, my reason doubts claims which can only be argued for by personal anecdote and that's a good thing
@AR333 There are no fallen angels because there is no free will in heaven. That is probably a missinterpretation of God's message. Bible can't be interpreted literally. If God made himself obvious, he has to eliminate free will or take the risk of people reveling against him. Is not he same going to someone's home than waiting for that person to come to you. If the person comes, is because they freely wanted. Is a good thing to doubt, if you are in a quest, but atheists are no longer in a quest.
"The concept of Satan is contrary to logic and reason."
There, that wasn't so hard was it... admitting the bible sounds pretty stupid when it talks about those kinds of things? My quote would be "The concept of God is contrary to logic and reason." Hey... if you are here to bash your own bible or attack it's literal interpretation, i am all ears. Be my guest!
@MrUsername5678888 "The concept of God is contrary to logic and reason." Give me a statement or reason where God contradicts logic, I already did with my quote. God Bless.
@MrUsername5678888 The concept of Satan does contradict logic, and I don't believe in it; but you didn't provide a reason. It contradict logic because satan living in heaven before being evicted contradicts heaven logic since only all that is pure can live in heaven. You need to provide a similar logical contradition to disprove God. Many Catholic theologians delieve there is no Hell watch the following video: Fr Barron comments on Hell. God don't send anyone to Hell. Hell is the absence of God.
So I have now established ANOTHER contradiction on your part, where you had insisted that having proof of god makes you a slave of god, and then insist you and others HAVE this proof, yet are not slaves, and that your faith is not based on evidence, it is based on faith alone, (and then insist there is proof), and that god can not be obvious, although he is obvious to countless millions of people. You contradict yourself at every turn......
@MrUsername5678888 The proof is personal, not universal, that is what gets you confused. If I see something red, it's red to me. Is not a contradiction is you open your heart to the possibility. God Bless
"St Thomas Aquinas established in the 13th century that if there couldn't be a conflict between science and religion because God was real."
No, he simply asserted something he had not actually proven, and you are insisting it is true because of the biases you have toward wanting it to be true. You also never countered the fact that if human beings had proof of your god, they would become slaves.... so Thomas Aquinas, according to you, became a slave to your god upon finding proof?
@MrUsername5678888 He didn't find proof. He was just trying to understand God's nature. All religions might disagree in God's nature, but all agree there is a God.
"if human beings had proof of your god, they would become slaves.." because in order to have proof, God would have to make himself obvious, once He does that, how will he deal with the free will of non-believers, he would have to impose Himself and that would lead to slavery. God Bless
Man was created with a free will, so what ever catastrophes(not so called natural catastrophes) we see in this world can be done by man and also be solved by man by helping others. If man did not have a free will, then nothing bad would happen, because every singel person would be perfect and always do the right thing. Without a free will, there would be no wars, but we were given the opportunity to choose ourselves what to do in every given situation.
@cristianfcao The real question should be what had the amputees against God? About 90% of amputees are so because they were acting recklessly or fighting in wars. If they were following Gods will, they wouldn't find themselves in that situation. God is the most important support they all could have to cope with their misforture which is mostly product of their free will. God Bless
@dejesusluisx Where do you get that 90% figure from? If I had to guess, I'd say most amputations come from diseases (infections, cancer, diabetes, gangrene, etc.) and accidents (working with machines, car accidents, etc.). Anyway, the point is: if God does miracles of all sorts with, why NEVER in recorded history has he ever helped an amputee recover a leg or an arm? As with other cases, the best you can come up with is God must not want to manifest himself.
@cristianfcao As reckless behavior I include people not taking care of their diabetes, not taking care of infections, traumas, lack of PPE, etc. Reackless behaviour is a way to say the amputation was preventable if people would be acting by the book. God created all laws of nature, do you think he created those laws to violate them every minute? That is not logical. God gave man free will to take decision about his life, man has to live with the consequences of his actions. God Bless
@dejesusluisx Yes amputations are in many cases preventable, but that's not the problem presented here. The problem is why God doesn't help those people but "choses" to help (if you believe in miracles related to health) other people that also could had prevented their diseases. Do you have an answer to that?
@cristianfcao Yes, God help mankind in accordance to the laws he created. Imagine you are God and you designed a brain that can program itself. Would you intervene? Would you impose? Would you make yourself obvious? Think logically. If you were to design and build a house with all the techs to have pure air inside, would you, just because you can, sit in the living room to smoke a cigar? No, that would be contrary to your intention. Think like God think and you’ll understand. God Bless.
@dejesusluisx It amuses me so much how you avoid to answer my question. Anyway, let me tell you what I would never do if I were an omnipotent God: create a universe where I hide myself and then I punish people with ETERNAL UNIMAGINABLE TORTURE just for not believing in me. I won't also punish people for what their ancestors did, nor would I forgive people's faults because another guy (Jesus) was "sacrificed" in their name (WTF??).
@cristianfcao "It amuses me so much how you avoid to answer my question" I'm trying to answer to several people on different videos, don't know what question you're refering to.
"create a universe where I hide myself and then I punish people with ETERNAL UNIMAGINABLE TORTURE just for not believing in me"
It doesn't work that way. God doesn't punish anyone; you just punish yourself. God doesn't hide either, he is inside of you waiting for you to accept Him. God Bless
Aug. 9, 2000 -- Religion appears to soothe the body as well as the soul, as people who are highly religious tend to live longer than others, a review of more than 40 scientific studies has found
How did you get 'rape and pillage' from love thy enemy - love thy neighbor. This is someone who has not read the Bible to know what he is talking about. His God is science. I believe in science, and science is proving God exists but most have not figured that out yet.
i think william lang craig made a good argument about multiple universes creating ours... he said. why should it stop there?. if the universe created a big bang, then we should have things poping into existence today. i should see black holes poping into my living rooms and multiple chaotic things popping everywhere from multiple universes continuing its natural process of creating energy and matter into our habitable universe.
If I ever became a deity, I would arrange it so that no evidence can be found to support my existence. And THEN, I would punish those who would not believe in me. That would teach them to doubt.
@SamonMarquis Great example, but let's assume you gave them free will, meaning they would have the genuine opportunity to deny you, otherwise you left them no REAL choice. That is the purpose of free will. They should be given the opportunity to choose YOU or accept the alternate construction of the very mind you gave them, right (self governing)? It wouldn't be a real choice to LOVE you if you didn't let them decide. Or would you slant the outcome in your favor?
@eskayp101 If I really wanted them to live the afterlife with myself, I would try to slant it in my favour. Such as, having a specific tree in some obscure location in the world to prove I exist. Or perhaps I will send a daughter in my form to preach the Good Word. I wouldn't send a son, because boys cause trouble.
Then again, by getting involved I no longer play non-interventionism.
@SamonMarquis Yes, sadism is what thats called and that is another charge to lay at the base of religious thought. All god's to date have been sadistic.
@spiminator "Bravo!!!! Michael Shermer is a intellectual hero."
I agree that Shermer is very intelligent and I like his skepticism, but let's not exclude the Oxford professor that he's debating. These are both highly intelligent men.
Note that the biggest problems with an atheist is that they assume that if they find the reason, then it was not done by God, and totally ignore the fact that got put that reason for things to happen.
"At least the new Testament was an improvement on that but we can do better still."
How we do know it was an improvement and how do we know better from worse? Also, consider the fact that we instinctively feel that the world could be a moral place and most of (I hope) strive daily to make it so. If our moral compass evolved and evolves memetically with us, how do we intuit towards what is "more moral" than what already is? Its almost as if we're smarter than ourselves.
This video makes me feel sorry for him. Jesus (and His disciples) was able to heal from the basis that the recipient had shown faith and then at that moment of faith, the Holy Spirit was then able to work in the recipients body. The bible makes that clear.
@diuryl If God doesn't give us any reason to believe in him, then... we don't have any reason to believe in him. Obviously.
Shermer was just pointing out the suspiciousness of God never performing miracles that have no explanation other than God, and the incredible narcissism of people believing God has 'saved' them from death while letting thousands of others die. This is all exactly as we'd EXPECT things to be if there is no God, and if religious people are just raging solipsists.
maybe the guy who turned left was an atheist with whom god was fed up!
harry33331 12 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All have sinned and greatly offended the holy God of the bible. The just punishment is death then hell. That's not Gods will. He suffered and died on the cross paying for the law you broke in His life's blood so He could legally dismiss your case. You must repent turn from your sin and trust alone in Jesus Christ for your salvation.
mamainmancj 3 days ago
no cebo efect
lol
niinja2 1 month ago
How much coffee did he have before this?
santajimi 1 month ago
Shermer is a great fellow but he sucks here.
azzy314159 1 month ago
Shermer seems really nervous in this debate, which is unlike him. I've seen him debate creationists and other religious people and he' usually cool and confident. He's still winning.
Zentavia 2 months ago
@Zentavia He sounds like he needs an inhaler. Does he have athsma?
BloodOfRayne 4 days ago
Why are people saying that Shermer isn't doing good? He has hell of a lot good rational arguements.
ommaercool 2 months ago
We're going to regrow limbs like a Salamander? Haven't you ever watched or read Spiderman??
DMatthewHenry 3 months ago
I think it takes a profound lack of understanding of God's character to assume that you could do a study on the effectiveness of prayer.
DMatthewHenry 3 months ago
@DMatthewHenry why?
We ask: does prayer work?
What other method but the scientific, would you suggest to answer it?
neuromatiker 3 months ago
"We have extended more personal liberties in spite of religion" LMAO, really? Would those include the likes of fine Atheists such as Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot? My God what a ridiculous argument!
MrNeotheist 3 months ago
Couldn't an all powerful entity make an amphibian do it?
Couldn't an all powerful entity make an entity with the capacity to make other entities capable of doing it?
More false dichotomy.
m1chae15 4 months ago in playlist The Great Debate: John Lennox vs. Michael Shermer
I'm very desapointed with the shermer's presentation. I really like his work in skeptic magazine, but as a debater he sucks hairy balls
NewWaysMusic 4 months ago
Michael makes good points, anyone who disregards his points on God showing preference at times and not to others is off their head. The reason crap happens to some and not to others is GOD/ or lets use the word LIFE has no preference in any matter
myfacevids 5 months ago
@myfacevids The guy says how do we know we are the only universe, then thinks he can somehow deny God when he makes statements like that? He's only a sceptic when it suits him. Anyone who believes evolution is in no way a skeptic
semitope 4 months ago
ah no.... i mean 0:31
OyonTheAdept 5 months ago
LOL!!! 0:33 - 0:37
sex..... just wanted to point that out XD
OyonTheAdept 5 months ago
@macgeek2004
Wow, thank you for the comment it made my morning! (plus the iced coffee) lol. If something I said helps you communicate your position then I'm glad to have helped in the same way others have helped me. Take care man.
msuders 6 months ago
@msuders
Dude, follow atheist here. I've NEVER seen it put so well, so thoroughly, and so...politely! That was badass, dude! I gonna have to copy that page outta your playbook, if you don't mind, of course! (^_−)−☆
macgeek2004 6 months ago
@07aristotle
No problem man. It seems atheism tends to be misunderstood by everyone who isn't actually an atheist. I called myself an agnostic before more or less realizing that I was in fact an atheist by definition. Once I realized this it didn't matter what I or other people thought about atheism because it's just what I am. Take care!
msuders 6 months ago
@msuders Well said, I understand what your saying now. Now it makes more sense. Thank you for clearing my misunderstanding.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07aristotle
When an atheist debates a theist they're usually debating not for why there is no God but for why believing in God is unjustified. This can look like the atheist is claiming there is no God because they're constantly rejecting theistic arguments. But the rejection comes because theistic claims use faulty logic and they lack evidence. Therefore its justified to not believe the claims. Atheists are countering claims not making them.
msuders 6 months ago
@07aristotle
I can demonstrate why agnostics are probably atheists with an analogy. If I asked you if you believe iksnop exists what would you say? You'd probably ask what iksnop is. However, since you do not know what iksnop is you can't possibly believe iksnop exists. Of course you wouldn't also conclude there is no iksnop as that would be premature and unjustified. But would you believe it exists? No. You would be an iksnop agnostic atheist.
msuders 6 months ago
@07aristotle
All agnosticism means is lacking knowledge. Since atheism doesn't deal with knowledge but rather belief, one can be both. None of those famous atheists you mentioned would claim to know there is no God, but they might believe there is no God. They'd still be agnostic atheists. Most agnostics are probably atheists and don't realize it because their semantics are wrong or they're trying to avoid the negative stigma attached to atheism. Agnosticism is not a middle ground.
msuders 6 months ago
@07aristotle
What I'm trying to distinguish is the difference between lack of belief in God and a belief that there is no God. These are 2 different things. Just as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, lack of belief is not a belief in a lack of. Lacking a belief in God does not necessitate believing there is no God. If I'm not yet convinced there is life on Mars that doesn't mean I'm convinced there is no life on Mars. I'd be a life on Mars "atheist".
msuders 6 months ago
@07aristotle
Personally, I can't see how agnosticism can stand by itself without being attached to theism or atheism. Sure, the agnostic can be undecided. But undecided falls under the category of not believing now doesn't it?
msuders 6 months ago
@msuders I don't know, these dual positions seem, to me, a lack of confidence in their position? I would not categorize shermer, dawkins, harris, and all their cliques to be agnostic atheists. There positions are very clear; they are militant atheists who say they are scientists by profession.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07aristotle
"I cannot see the intherchangability of agnosticism and atheism"...that's because you keep assuming that atheism necessitates a conclusive decision that there is no God. Theism means Tue belief in God. The prefix 'a' means without. Atheism: Without belief in God. Agnosticism: Without knowledge. Agnostic Atheism: One who does not believe in God but does not know if there is a God. Why would a scientist have to reconcile this position?
msuders 6 months ago
@msuders I think I understand what you are trying to say. You mean to distinguish closet atheists from flamboyant ones? There ones that assert and the ones that do not, just have it in their minds? I always thought agnosticism was more neutral on the position concerning the question of god?
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07aristotle
"It seems to me that it seems you're implying that there are two versions of atheism"...Essentially yes, that is the case. It's usually referred to as strong/weak atheism. The "all encompassing" definition for atheism however is the lack of a belief in a God. This definition fits both the versions of atheism you listed since in both cases one would not believe. Atheism does not necessitate that one claims there is no God but claiming that there is no God is also atheism. Understand?
msuders 6 months ago
@msuders I think I understand what you are trying to say. You mean to distinguish closet atheists from flamboyant ones? There ones that assert and the ones that do not, just have it in their minds? I always thought agnosticism was more neutral on the position concerning the question of god? Sorry, I'm a very black/white thinker to my dismay at times.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@msuders I can not see the inter-changeability of atheism and agnosticism. For one clearly is in the middle grounds on the decision of god. The scientist can not reconcile his professional position with that of the atheist. I dont know, it just seems ludicrous to think a scientist already his mind made up before proposing a scientific hypotheisis.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@msuders The former having a noticeably distingishable than the latter. To me, it seems like an equivocation of terms. I see believers taking the positive position and atheists being negative, agnostics taking the neutral. To insert the word "lack" is, for me, still a negative position since it is contrary to the believers positive position.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@msuders It seems to me that you seem to be implying there are two versions of atheism. There are the radicalists that say, " there is no evidence for god, and there never will be". There are also the softcores that say, " There is no evidence as of yet and so I do not do not believe in god as of yet". (cont)
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07aristotle
An analogy to what I'm trying to demonstrate to you about the atheist position would be if I said I don't at this moment believe there is microbial life on Mars. That would not be me making the claim that "there is no microbial life on Mars", as that would be unjustified. We don't know yet. Yet I'm perfectly justified in withholding my belief that there is microbial life on Mars. Withholding a belief is lacking a belief.
msuders 6 months ago
@07aristotle
I agree with what you said about scientists being agnostics. Many scientists are also atheists on top of being agnostic because they will rarely believe something there is insufficient evidence for. The belief would be unjustified. This is exactly the position Shermer holds, which is why he's with scientists.
msuders 6 months ago
@07aristotle
"atheism as a lack of belief is the same as asserting there is no God" ..no it isn't. It'd be the same as asserting "I don't believe in God". Lack of belief is a negative position, hence the "lack". An assertion that there is no God is a positive position, a claim. Atheism is not a claim but rather a response to the claim that a God exists. Also agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. Most atheists are also agnostics.
msuders 6 months ago
@ImGladImBrad No, just inconsistent to their profession as a scientist in this specific case. If you want to be an atheist do not become a scientist.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
That's not a contradiction @ 07Aristotle. Belief and knowledge are not the same thing. Shermer can lack belief in God without "knowing" that there is no God. You seem to be attributing atheism to claims of knowledge about the non existence of God and this just isn't the case.
msuders 7 months ago
@msuders Assuming that, considering it is always to be an assumption and never false nor correct conclusively, god is to be ''discovered'', a true scientist should never assert that an ''unknown variable'' is false, or untrue, because the claim is unjustified. Any scientist knows that a lack of evidence is not evidence of absence.Atheism, as a ''lack of belief'', is the same as asserting there is no god. Ask any atheist. Asserting this claim is unjustified because we just do not know.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@msuders At best, the only position an scientist can take is agnostic. It is the only position he can take without being inconsistent to his profession. A form of modesty is needed in the scientific field because it promotes all avenues of scientific discovery. The scientific position of ''we just don't know'' is awfully familiar with the agnostic position of god is''unknown'' at the present. The most reasonable position is agnostic for a true scientist.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
Scientific position= '' We just don't know''
Shermer= '' Im an atheist''
Atheist= Non-belief in god
Shermer= '' I'm with science''
Conclusion= Self-contradicting
07Aristotle 7 months ago
There are a lot of sour-pusses in the audience - must be most christians.
TeenTwinkTween 7 months ago
@sidewinderxx I only wish to Comment on one thing you said at this point. Love your neighbor then kill those creeps...... Kill them was in the old testament. When only obedience to God and the laws he set fourth could give the chance of the eternal. Love your neighbor and the freedom to do this or not came after one who save us from ourselves. Jesus Christ. You had no context therefore no rational thought to your statement.
sin247365 8 months ago
@sin247365 Jesus said, in the Bible, a lot of messed up things. This is from Matthew: And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, ‘I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel’. Search for truth.
gianlucapaul 7 months ago
@gianlucapaul It is a moot point that he eventually helped her. If God is that callous to start with, if he/she/it, is so insecure about hesheit's place as Alpha and Omega/Omnipotent/All Power Creator that he needs to hold it over people's heads I think it is a very depressing situation. God fearing used to be a common descriptor. Life is hard and will always be hard. You can say it's God when life is good or bad, but there is nothing pointing to that conclusion. Flying Spaghetti Monster.
gianlucapaul 7 months ago
@clovek456 thank you! The atheist is going thru a lot of effort to wash his hands in dirty water based on his biased choice outside of evidence! Goo observation;)
sin247365 8 months ago
@revo1974 a super intelligent but not all powerful? If it isn't all powerful then that leaves room for "is there a more powerful?" which stands IN reason that the next question be "not all powerful, something even more powerful?, what created this lesser thing that created us, is IT all powerful? No? Then what created it? On and on.
sin247365 8 months ago
The last point he mAkes about a highly advanced entity, but not an all-powerful god is a good one. Being a deist of sort, I see much circumstantial evidence pointing in the direction of a designed Universe, however, it's far, far more likely this designer is super advanced, but not all-powerful.
revo1974 8 months ago
According to other multi-verse theorists, each universe exists with it's own laws and does not effect the next. So the darwinian theory of universes isn't consistent with current thought. Also, why would it? Why would it demand that a universe's "success" necessitate that it create another one? That's based on a human centric philosophy rather than cold mathematics
radvermin 9 months ago in playlist Christian Apologetics
@radvermin There is no consensus about which multiverse theory is correct, so saying Smolin's multiverse theory is not consistent with current thought isn't technically correct. His theory is absolutely based on mathematics, though.
kfk4life 8 months ago
This guy is taking into consideraton only the natural effects...This is His coice he made and all his explanations are derived from this choice..however objective it may look..simply put..when you wash your hands in dirty water they will be dirty.and that is true even if you take a lot of effort to do it.
clovek456 10 months ago
Firstly, you are using the fallacy of ad hominem, attacking me personally to further your position, but I'll let that pass. I see that you are frustrated. Secondly, 0.o I am not called to go to North Korea by God at the moment as the Hebrews were. Thirdly, I recommend to you the book, "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist," by Geisler. You may have some pretty answers to it; I think you'll be interested. I would debate you personally, but this commenting won't do.
J0se4Jesus 11 months ago
Where is Christopher Hitchens - this guy sucks
hammertime870 11 months ago
Longevity of Prayed-for People ?
This guy is a JOKE
hammertime870 11 months ago
Wow a 10 minute opening argument with no arguments...and terrible jokes...
Darwinian selection of universes - LOL !
hammertime870 11 months ago
continuing-- compromised as they mingled the various surrounding people groups who practiced incredible brutality. Also, do not think that God was not grieved when other people were destroyed. He loves them as well, but He is just and He cannot let incredible crimes go unanswered, just as we Americans could not allow the suffering under the Nazis to continue. Clearly, there is no contradiction.
J0se4Jesus 11 months ago
Every single argument used here is a sophism that can be EASILY be proven false.
Gazdo01 1 year ago
@Gazdo01 OK - Shermer argues that the bible is hypocritical because it says to love your neighbour on one page, then to go and 'kill those creeps' across the river because they believe in the wrong god.
Refute that argument.
sidewinderxx 1 year ago
Comment removed
J0se4Jesus 11 months ago
@sidewinderxx If I may reply- Would you call 20th century America hypocritical for desiring peace and then fighting Germany in the World War II? That's a contradiction of beliefs! Right? No, of course not. Why? It is not a contradiction, because a war was necessary for peace to come and also because there was a clear call for justice. Likewise, in the Bible, we find that the morals and the ethical tradition of the Jews (that included loving your neighbors) was being
J0se4Jesus 11 months ago
@J0se4Jesus America didn't want peace, they wanted THEIR peace. That's what war is about. Admittedly, it's a better peace than the Nazis would have come to, but it's still just me vs. you. I would absolutely call 20th century America hypocritical if their mantra was -love your neighbour- and they went to war. The only way one can hope to reconcile this hypocrisy is to say.. "I am killing my enemy for justice, but I still love them" - which is bordering on the insane.
sidewinderxx 11 months ago
@sidewinderxx I disagree, because you are completely ignoring the significance of justice. If you would go analyze and study the history and culture of the civilizations that the Hebrews fought (such as the Amalekites), you would find that they were incredibly cruel in their treatment of other people groups. Obviously, that needs to be ended. They did not say "I am killing my enemy for justice, but I still love them."
J0se4Jesus 11 months ago
@J0se4Jesus according to your warped, indoctrinated, slave logic, you personally should take up arms and invade north korea to liberate their people, just as the Hebrews did with the Amalekites. Less talking superstitious nonsense on youtube, more action to prove your own preaching. Off you go!
sidewinderxx 11 months ago
@sidewinderxx Instead, it's more like, "I care and love humanity so much that I cannot allow such pain to be inflicted on innocent people." That is really what is going on here. There is no contradiction, and there is no hypocrisy because when the Hebrews began to act like the cruel people they were suppose oppose, God (according to the Bible) allowed them (the Hebrews) to be taken over as well.
J0se4Jesus 11 months ago
@J0se4Jesus If you think it is not hypocritical to order followers to love someone, then order followers to kill them, then you are lying to yourself. Intellectual dishonesty is the new opiate of the religious masses
sidewinderxx 11 months ago
@sidewinderxx Additionally, the use of logical fallacy and the refusal to analyze the entirety of the situation is true intellectual dishonesty. See, while I am using reasoning, you are using labels ("the new opiate"). Furthmore, Karl Marx's phrase- how appropriate! Today, we know just how great his philosophy was, don't we? Anyway, if you want to study for youself the complete situation instead of just making up quotes ("kill those creeps" and etc), I dare you to read the text for yourself.
J0se4Jesus 11 months ago
@J0se4Jesus "kill those creeps" is a quote from the video you simpleton. And I've read the bible, it's the greatest force for atheism in existence. No thinking person can read it and remain religious.
It fits somewhere between Greek Mythology and a backyard trailer park cult in terms of credibility.
sidewinderxx 11 months ago
@J0se4Jesus calling something a logical fallacy doesn't make it so - explain what is fallacious.
sidewinderxx 11 months ago
@sidewinderxx PS. I haven't "preached" to you. I am merely giving a defense for a belief to which you are so antagonistic. And if Christianity means nothing, what does it matter to you? Nothing.
J0se4Jesus 11 months ago
"The findings are quite staggering," he says. "Studies show that patients in hospital who are being prayed for (even when they do not know they are being prayed for) are more likely to recover."
vdofam 1 year ago
Professor Leslie Francis of the University of Bangor has studied 31 experiments (conducted to the "highest professional standards") into the effectiveness of prayer.
vdofam 1 year ago
What about this study?
vdofam 1 year ago
@callofduty497 But is curiosity a law of nature? Why the truth is so desireable? Ok, this is barely-seriously asked I try to show you that any questions can be stetched to the infinity. And this is not a proof tha they are valid.
We don't know if all matter "must have" a natural c. We assumed many so called "facts" in the past including "atoms are smalles building blocks of matter" and that General Theory of Gravity is ultimately true - just some latter examples. We are still far from truth.
nonseans 1 year ago
@callofduty497 Ok, but somebody could ask you "what causes your question"?
Nobody, never primised to us that the answers can be understandable. Our minds are quite simple and limited, which Schermer mentioned - didn't you notice that?
nonseans 1 year ago
Doesn't the insistence that there reasonably could be many universes admit the reasonableness of accepting a possible Supreme Being? I'm not proposing the Hebrew God here, I'm proposing an older, wiser, stronger "someone else" out there.
risswillis 1 year ago
By the way dejesusluis, you have a talent for not understanding what other people ask of you. Your answers consist of partly just preaching, and what answer you do give only creates more problems. Ex: you bring the bible into it, but that raises a ton of other issues. Or you say god wants me to believe by faith, but how do you know that? How do you know he wants me to use faith? How do you know what he WANTS in the first place. How do you know he even has desires?
You aren't being helpful.
AR333 1 year ago
@AR333 I know what God wants because I understand, having God's grace is being in his same wavelenght. I was as oblivious as you, as was a non-believer. Once you accep God, and you ask for enlightment, a whole new world opens in front of you. You ask questions, but are not ready for the answers. You need to be ready if fou seek the thruth and the thruth will set you free. I have never been freer. Free from guilt, anger, remorse, revenge, materialism, vanity, selfishness, etc. That's personal. GB
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@dejesusluisx It's a good thing that rational people don't accept arguments from personal anecdote. If I had to take yours at face value, I'd have to take the mormon's too, and the muslim's anecdote.
The last thing I want to say to you is that there's a bigger problem with your entire stance. The moment you declare "god showed me" as your reason, you are in effect shutting your ears and eyes. There's no point in discussing with people who are convinced they have revealed truth.
AR333 1 year ago
@AR333 There is no problem with other religion arguments. As long as you are one with the divine consciousness, as long as you are in His same wavelenght, then you can be in His prescence. You find no point in discussing, why? What was your expectation? Do you come here just to show off your debating skills? To satisfy your ego? As soon as you find someone with a real experience, with a life changing testimony (I was a non-believer), then you realize there will be no price for your ego and quit?
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@dejesusluisx Again, you display a lack of willingness to understand. I said there's no point in discussing with people who believe they have been revealed a truth from on high. It has nothing to do with debating skills, it's a simple fact. People who think like that are often close-minded. And you could use some debating skills, because your early posts consisted of preaching and quite often you answer a question by adding on more assumptions, like when you bring the bible up. Or "wavelengths"
AR333 1 year ago
@AR333 Are you trying to convince me there is no God? Imagine you just painted your house and I go by and tell you that I don't see the paint. I was a non-believer and after many years of quest and exploration I was able to communicate with God and I received wonderful messages. Do you think I'm willing to go back? I painted my house and changed the color and I like it just the way it is. My efforts are directed to share how I has able to do it and all I learned. Want to live a great life? Learn
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@dejesusluisx I could positively argue against your position. For example: it is clear from your rhetoric that you have concluded as a matter of certainty that there is a (theistic) god. From this, the moment I say I am a skeptic, you invariably must conclude that it is me who has my eyes shut. Then, you reverse this circle: when I ask you to tell me why I should believe, you say I'm no longer on a quest. With answers like yours, you don't convince any skeptic, and it's not OUR fault.
AR333 1 year ago
@AR333 There is not a hint of doubt in my mind that God is real. I can give you 1,000 reasons for you to believe but none will be scientific, tangible reasons. All the reasons are based on subjective perceptions and personal experience. You won't find objective reasons for you to believe neither here nor anywhere. In order to find your own reasons you have to be willing to let go the earthly anchors that won't let you sail in God's love. No one can convince you, you have to convince yourself. GB
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@AR333 "you say I'm no longer on a quest."
I did not say you were no longer on a quest ; atheists by definition, are no longer in any quest to find the truth. When you say there is no God, you are done, you have just closed your mind to any possibility. Agnostics, on the other hand, are still on a quest. They don't know if there is or not a God, so they are open minded. I don't know which are you, but I just referred to atheists in my remark. I hope you are still in a quest for the thruth. GB
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@dejesusluisx Your definition of atheism is a very narrow one and misses in fact the central claim that most atheist writers make. Atheism as contemporary proponents and most past proponents have phrased it is not the claim that there is no god, it's the lack of belief in a god. In other words, name any thing in which you don't believe in because you find no reason to support it (astrology, ufology, chi-therapy) and that's how I see god. I asked you to give reasons, revelations don't count.
AR333 1 year ago
@AR333 I know it's a matter of definition, but it matters. You define agnostics and atheists as mutually exclusive. That's just not true. Most atheists, including the current famous ones, declare that evidence could sway their mind.
The reason they call themselves atheists is because people like you would misunderstand what their position is if they called themselves agnostics. Yes, they can't KNOW that there is no god, just as they can't KNOW that there are no invisible unicorns.
AR333 1 year ago
@AR333 If that is the case, then why atheists insists in asking for evidence for God when they absolutely know, 100% sure, no doubt that no evidence can be provided. There is an evil intention behind it and is to strip from faith ignorant people that don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Any inteligent atheist know that sceintific evidence can't be provided for intangibles (God, love, conciousness, etc.) yet they keep pressing for evidence. To me, those intentions are evil. God Bless
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@dejesusluisx It's funny you mention ignorance. because very often that is why theists are theists in the first place. Has religion claimed throughout history that god explains phenomenon such as disease and earthquake or has it not claimed that?
There is no evil intent behind what I asked. Why did you not say 20 posts ago, when I asked for reasons, that you don't have reasons and just faith. You accept through revelation. Sorry but love and consciousness aren't comparable to such beliefs.
AR333 1 year ago
@AR333 "Why did you not say 20 posts ago, when I asked for reasons, that you don't have reasons and just faith"
That should have been pretty obvious for you since you seem to be a smart atheist. What if I told you God revealed to me the elusive theory of everything? If I say that as a proof, you'll not believe it since most probably you won't understand it and even if you do, you will need to do experiments to confirm it. So, what's the point of asking for proof? ego? Well, ego is evil. GB
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@dejesusluisx And what do I say to the guy who told me that god revealed to him that everything you're telling me is a lie? That's why anecdotal stories don't count.
AR333 1 year ago
Comment removed
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@AR333 Well you just proved my point. Nothing counts as proof to you except the proof you know can't be provided, once again an evil plot. I hope you understand now why this is much more than a trivial exchange of ideas for believers. God Bless.
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@dejesusluisx Sorry but it has nothing to do with "an evil plot". I'm trying to explain to you something every rational adult should understand: personal anecdotes don't have evidential weight. I can't take you seriously and not take the guy who said to me "god told me in a dream that that jesusluis guy you talk to is a liar."
Again, I'm sorry if you don't get that but I can't make it any clearer. You can't make an extravagant claim and expect to support it with what you've provided.
AR333 1 year ago
@AR333 "personal anecdotes don't have evidential weight." In science they don't, but this is not a AACC meeting, we are talking about Faith. You need to understand that Faith don't deal and will never deal with evidence. Why is that concept so hard to grasp? Evidence will kill faith by definition. God Bless
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@dejesusluisx Well aside from their being many theologians who would disagree with your opinion, you should have answered that to the first post. I had to ask you 3 times "how do you know". You could have started with saying "what convinces me won't convince anyone else, I have had a personal experience of revelation and I take it on faith". Thats all I wanted. And you are putting words in my mouth by saying "proof" I never asked for proof. I just wanted to point out your position is nonrational
AR333 1 year ago
@AR333 Well, I think you're the only atheist I met on line that is actually interested in the real answer to the question "how do you know". All other atheists ask the question waiting for a clasical apologetic responce and like a scripted political debate, begin to throw the rehersed rebuttal lines that their gods (Dawkins, Dennett, Lenox, et. al.) have pointed elsewhere to mock and ridicule our faith and/or ourselves. It's so lame that even 16 yr olds are doing that. Maybe you're an outlier.
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@dejesusluisx It was nice chatting with you
AR333 1 year ago
@AR333 Likewise, don't forget, God is real. You're smart; open your heart and mind to the posibility; try to think as God think and you will start to understand. God Bless.
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@AR333 You may be right in your definition but in the real world, atheists defend their position like a dogma. All my discussion with atheists can seldom be qualified as an open minded exchange of ideas. As soon I put an argument the rebuttal shows either anger, or some sort of dismissal as if coming from a theist might not be an intelligent argument. For a group of "intellingent" people who claim they don't believe due to lack of reason, when a reason is given, a thoughtful approach is due. GB
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
Also I totally agree with him on the type of God you would want to believe in. I don't believe that it is biblical to say that God punishes the good along with the wicked. As far as this great and never ending debate I'm somewhat between. I believe in creation ( not creationism, there is a big difference ), but I disagree with many/most Christians on God's personality and how he acts.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
You can't argue outside of the universe. This is his own ideology for why you can't believe in the supernatural. This is a contradiction so there is no point in mentioning it like he himself argues when speaking about belief in God. The bubble universe theory is essentially supernatural, a place holder for "I don't know". But I must say has a good sense of humor and does have very good arguments. He in my opinion is much more intelligent than Dawkins and other noted atheists.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
." If a conflic is found is either flawed science and logic or a misinterpretation of the Bible. "
This is called inerrantist presupposition, and no actual scientist would ever operate this way. Throwing out anything that contradicts your already held beliefs about something is the exact OPPOSITE of the way science works, and is not only a completely biased position to have but is void of intellectual credibility. It has also proven to be laguhably incorrect.
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
@MrUsername5678888 I think I already clarified that faith can't be based on evidence. Faith is one thing and science is another. They can't be measured by the same standards or rules, but scientific facts can contradict our concept of God. The point is that our concept of God could be wrong and yet God still could be real since science is just trying to understand God's mechanisms and laws. God Bless
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@MrUsername5678888 Using science to understand Faith is like using a ruler to measure the volume of water in the ocean. They don't mix. God exists, but the true nature of God is a matter of debate even among believers. As far as your are concearned, your question should be: if there is a possibility that the arrise of a self-programing brain in humans could be the product of a concious being. If yes, then you need to explore further; if no, then show another example of that in nature. God Bless.
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@dejesusluisx "your question should be: if there is a possibility that the arrise of a self-programing brain in humans could be the product of a concious being." That wasn't a question... first of all... second of all the way you structure your arguments I don't really understand what you are trying to say. The truth is that I don't have conversations with people who insist on saying an incantation after every paragraph. It is annoying and detracts from your arguments. No offense, sorry. Bye
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
@MrUsername5678888 If you don't understand what I mean, I will be glad to clarify, just ask; 500 characters is not a lot of space to elaborate. I don't mean to be offensive by blessing, quite the contrary, it is intended to assure the reader that anything I say or any dissagreement is harmless and my intentions are to help you see the light. I have been revealed wonderful things, and is my mission to share them. I'm sure you are looking for answers, otherwise why would you be posting? I got them
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@dejesusluisx
I want to take you up on your argument. I think the fact that you blankly assert "god exists, it's just his nature that is a matter of debate" without any backup, or elaboration, leaves the reader with no understanding of your actual position. Put simply, a pantheist could have said that, as well as a theist. Begin by clearly stating what you mean by "god" and then the reasons why you believe. That's how a serious discussion can begin.
AR333 1 year ago
@AR333 "Begin by clearly stating what you mean by "god" and then the reasons why you believe."God is the pure concious energy that drives the universe. I believe in God because God has revealed to me his misteries. God is concience, pure logic, love and light. You can undestand too but most people are not willing to let go. You need to let go all material things and surrender to God's love, them you'll see the light. There can't be a conflict between God & science/logic/reason cause God is real.
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@dejesusluisx Okay listen to the guy you were arguing with before. Your answer should have stopped before the "most people aren't willing to surrender to god's love". That's preaching, and it's sort of a poisoning-the-well fallacy. Now, onto your point.
"Pure conscious energy", okay, so correct me, you aren't a theist are you? Your answer sounds rather new-age, and not really dark-age. You need to clarify what you mean by he is pure energy. How do you know he is pure energy? You detected it?
AR333 1 year ago
@AR333 Theists don't agree on God's nature, but we all agree there is a God. I don't believe in an anthropomorphic God, that would be an ET; although I can't say with any certainty God isn't like that. God is defined as love and is also presented, troughout the bible as light. Those are important clues. I can feel God's energy. I had received important revelations. As a scientist, I was a non-believer, a skeptic. God transformed my life. It can transform your's too. God Bless.
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@dejesusluisx You make a number of loaded statements such as "... present in the bible as light, these are important clues". Say what? Now you brought the bible into this. You're making your job bigger than it has to be. I asked you why do you believe, HOW do you know?
"we theists agree there is a god". I asked how do you know god is "pure energy". How do you know this? By the way, to include "revelations" as a means to how you acquired your beliefs is not going to work on an educated audience
AR333 1 year ago
@AR333 I know because I can feel it. Imagine God wants to give you a message, but He can't be obvious because you'll not believe by faith. How do you think He will communicate? What kind of message will convince you? I received a message that absolutely convinced me, but the message is personal, it will only convince me. Tell me what will it takes to make you believe? God Bless.
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@dejesusluisx Your argument again comes with a loaded assumption. You say he wants to give me a message but can't be obvious because I won't believe by faith? The heck is that supposed to mean? How do you know he wants me to believe by faith in the first place?
You still haven't made a coherent argument for your position. Personal revelation doesn't count btw. Neither does personal feeling. Forget what would convince me for now, just answer my question from 3 posts ago. HOW do you know? Why?
AR333 1 year ago
@AR333 If God is obvious, Faith is gone. Believing by Faith is the only way to preserve free will. Free will is God's gift to mankind and taking it away is like eliminating mankind. Try to do the mental excersice. You need to try to think as God in order to understand.I just answered the question, if you're not ready forthe answer, why ask? God experience is a personal one, if it doesn't count, then you will never know the truth. If you really want to know the truth, you need to let go.God Bless
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@dejesusluisx The free will answer is false. You can use the bible itself to prove it. What are fallen angels? Beings who have observed god in all his glory but still rebelled.
Similarly, if god would make his existence obvious, it would not negate free will. There are many things which are obvious and yet people believe otherwise.
A bigger point is the fact that if god endowed me with reason, my reason doubts claims which can only be argued for by personal anecdote and that's a good thing
AR333 1 year ago
@AR333 There are no fallen angels because there is no free will in heaven. That is probably a missinterpretation of God's message. Bible can't be interpreted literally. If God made himself obvious, he has to eliminate free will or take the risk of people reveling against him. Is not he same going to someone's home than waiting for that person to come to you. If the person comes, is because they freely wanted. Is a good thing to doubt, if you are in a quest, but atheists are no longer in a quest.
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
"The concept of Satan is contrary to logic and reason."
There, that wasn't so hard was it... admitting the bible sounds pretty stupid when it talks about those kinds of things? My quote would be "The concept of God is contrary to logic and reason." Hey... if you are here to bash your own bible or attack it's literal interpretation, i am all ears. Be my guest!
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
@MrUsername5678888 "The concept of God is contrary to logic and reason." Give me a statement or reason where God contradicts logic, I already did with my quote. God Bless.
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@MrUsername5678888 The concept of Satan does contradict logic, and I don't believe in it; but you didn't provide a reason. It contradict logic because satan living in heaven before being evicted contradicts heaven logic since only all that is pure can live in heaven. You need to provide a similar logical contradition to disprove God. Many Catholic theologians delieve there is no Hell watch the following video: Fr Barron comments on Hell. God don't send anyone to Hell. Hell is the absence of God.
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
So I have now established ANOTHER contradiction on your part, where you had insisted that having proof of god makes you a slave of god, and then insist you and others HAVE this proof, yet are not slaves, and that your faith is not based on evidence, it is based on faith alone, (and then insist there is proof), and that god can not be obvious, although he is obvious to countless millions of people. You contradict yourself at every turn......
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
@MrUsername5678888 The proof is personal, not universal, that is what gets you confused. If I see something red, it's red to me. Is not a contradiction is you open your heart to the possibility. God Bless
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
"St Thomas Aquinas established in the 13th century that if there couldn't be a conflict between science and religion because God was real."
No, he simply asserted something he had not actually proven, and you are insisting it is true because of the biases you have toward wanting it to be true. You also never countered the fact that if human beings had proof of your god, they would become slaves.... so Thomas Aquinas, according to you, became a slave to your god upon finding proof?
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
@MrUsername5678888 He didn't find proof. He was just trying to understand God's nature. All religions might disagree in God's nature, but all agree there is a God.
"if human beings had proof of your god, they would become slaves.." because in order to have proof, God would have to make himself obvious, once He does that, how will he deal with the free will of non-believers, he would have to impose Himself and that would lead to slavery. God Bless
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
*babble
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
Can anyone please can tell who's the (old) man at 08:00? Looks familiar...
melese1988 1 year ago
Atheism is obvious..and racional.
Research: The Venus Project
FranciscoKGuerreiro 1 year ago
everyone in the audience looks f-ing pissed off!
danielfochtman 1 year ago
holy shit the universe selection BLEW MY MIND
mauroprovatos 1 year ago 2
Man was created with a free will, so what ever catastrophes(not so called natural catastrophes) we see in this world can be done by man and also be solved by man by helping others. If man did not have a free will, then nothing bad would happen, because every singel person would be perfect and always do the right thing. Without a free will, there would be no wars, but we were given the opportunity to choose ourselves what to do in every given situation.
heightboosting 1 year ago
"What has God against amputees"?! LOL I've never heard that argument as a question. It makes it even funnier.
cristianfcao 1 year ago
@cristianfcao The real question should be what had the amputees against God? About 90% of amputees are so because they were acting recklessly or fighting in wars. If they were following Gods will, they wouldn't find themselves in that situation. God is the most important support they all could have to cope with their misforture which is mostly product of their free will. God Bless
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@dejesusluisx Where do you get that 90% figure from? If I had to guess, I'd say most amputations come from diseases (infections, cancer, diabetes, gangrene, etc.) and accidents (working with machines, car accidents, etc.). Anyway, the point is: if God does miracles of all sorts with, why NEVER in recorded history has he ever helped an amputee recover a leg or an arm? As with other cases, the best you can come up with is God must not want to manifest himself.
cristianfcao 1 year ago
@cristianfcao As reckless behavior I include people not taking care of their diabetes, not taking care of infections, traumas, lack of PPE, etc. Reackless behaviour is a way to say the amputation was preventable if people would be acting by the book. God created all laws of nature, do you think he created those laws to violate them every minute? That is not logical. God gave man free will to take decision about his life, man has to live with the consequences of his actions. God Bless
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@dejesusluisx Yes amputations are in many cases preventable, but that's not the problem presented here. The problem is why God doesn't help those people but "choses" to help (if you believe in miracles related to health) other people that also could had prevented their diseases. Do you have an answer to that?
cristianfcao 1 year ago
@cristianfcao Yes, God help mankind in accordance to the laws he created. Imagine you are God and you designed a brain that can program itself. Would you intervene? Would you impose? Would you make yourself obvious? Think logically. If you were to design and build a house with all the techs to have pure air inside, would you, just because you can, sit in the living room to smoke a cigar? No, that would be contrary to your intention. Think like God think and you’ll understand. God Bless.
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@dejesusluisx It amuses me so much how you avoid to answer my question. Anyway, let me tell you what I would never do if I were an omnipotent God: create a universe where I hide myself and then I punish people with ETERNAL UNIMAGINABLE TORTURE just for not believing in me. I won't also punish people for what their ancestors did, nor would I forgive people's faults because another guy (Jesus) was "sacrificed" in their name (WTF??).
Check these videos:
/watch?v=Puyykf3FwmU
/watch?v=7ua7C5FkbW8
cristianfcao 1 year ago
@cristianfcao "It amuses me so much how you avoid to answer my question" I'm trying to answer to several people on different videos, don't know what question you're refering to.
"create a universe where I hide myself and then I punish people with ETERNAL UNIMAGINABLE TORTURE just for not believing in me"
It doesn't work that way. God doesn't punish anyone; you just punish yourself. God doesn't hide either, he is inside of you waiting for you to accept Him. God Bless
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
How are you going to assert a theory like multi universes, which is completely unfalsifiable and ignore Intelligent Design, when ID is falsifiable?
shernajwine 1 year ago
Aug. 9, 2000 -- Religion appears to soothe the body as well as the soul, as people who are highly religious tend to live longer than others, a review of more than 40 scientific studies has found
Webmd.com
CoachEgg 1 year ago
How did you get 'rape and pillage' from love thy enemy - love thy neighbor. This is someone who has not read the Bible to know what he is talking about. His God is science. I believe in science, and science is proving God exists but most have not figured that out yet.
bnaur 1 year ago
Heh, this guy is pretty good... compared to people like Hitchens, anyway.
Alexdurrant7 1 year ago
i think william lang craig made a good argument about multiple universes creating ours... he said. why should it stop there?. if the universe created a big bang, then we should have things poping into existence today. i should see black holes poping into my living rooms and multiple chaotic things popping everywhere from multiple universes continuing its natural process of creating energy and matter into our habitable universe.
Gods0n1 1 year ago
@Samonmarquis haha so true
nessy707 1 year ago
If I ever became a deity, I would arrange it so that no evidence can be found to support my existence. And THEN, I would punish those who would not believe in me. That would teach them to doubt.
SamonMarquis 1 year ago 16
@SamonMarquis Great example, but let's assume you gave them free will, meaning they would have the genuine opportunity to deny you, otherwise you left them no REAL choice. That is the purpose of free will. They should be given the opportunity to choose YOU or accept the alternate construction of the very mind you gave them, right (self governing)? It wouldn't be a real choice to LOVE you if you didn't let them decide. Or would you slant the outcome in your favor?
eskayp101 1 year ago
@eskayp101 If I really wanted them to live the afterlife with myself, I would try to slant it in my favour. Such as, having a specific tree in some obscure location in the world to prove I exist. Or perhaps I will send a daughter in my form to preach the Good Word. I wouldn't send a son, because boys cause trouble.
Then again, by getting involved I no longer play non-interventionism.
SamonMarquis 1 year ago
@SamonMarquis Touche
eskayp101 1 year ago
@SamonMarquis Yes, sadism is what thats called and that is another charge to lay at the base of religious thought. All god's to date have been sadistic.
equsnarnd 1 year ago
Bravo!!!! Michael Shermer is a intellectual hero...
spiminator 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spiminator "Bravo!!!! Michael Shermer is a intellectual hero."
I agree that Shermer is very intelligent and I like his skepticism, but let's not exclude the Oxford professor that he's debating. These are both highly intelligent men.
130adi 1 year ago
Note that the biggest problems with an atheist is that they assume that if they find the reason, then it was not done by God, and totally ignore the fact that got put that reason for things to happen.
temp12temp12 1 year ago
@temp12temp12 The Russians used to claim that they invented the game of baseball. But that regime collapsed.
claudiaquat 1 year ago
"At least the new Testament was an improvement on that but we can do better still."
How we do know it was an improvement and how do we know better from worse? Also, consider the fact that we instinctively feel that the world could be a moral place and most of (I hope) strive daily to make it so. If our moral compass evolved and evolves memetically with us, how do we intuit towards what is "more moral" than what already is? Its almost as if we're smarter than ourselves.
geodesicks 1 year ago
Man this guy is intelluctually daft.
EmceeLorder 1 year ago
is the mediator serious about that red jacket? that would be a better debate topic.
betamaxdc 1 year ago
This video makes me feel sorry for him. Jesus (and His disciples) was able to heal from the basis that the recipient had shown faith and then at that moment of faith, the Holy Spirit was then able to work in the recipients body. The bible makes that clear.
ModernVikingSaga 2 years ago
@ModernVikingSaga He was talking about Christian soldiers who prayed to get better. They had indeed 'shown faith'.
sam51092 2 years ago
this guys arguments are WEAK!!
his understanding of GOD is poor.
"if GOD doesn't/didn't do x and y, he is not a good GOD, not worth believeing in"
diuryl 2 years ago
@diuryl If God doesn't give us any reason to believe in him, then... we don't have any reason to believe in him. Obviously.
Shermer was just pointing out the suspiciousness of God never performing miracles that have no explanation other than God, and the incredible narcissism of people believing God has 'saved' them from death while letting thousands of others die. This is all exactly as we'd EXPECT things to be if there is no God, and if religious people are just raging solipsists.
sam51092 2 years ago
Comment removed