Atheists want to indoctrinate their children to their belief system as well. Oh how lovely! Oh they say that religion can hinder morality! Oh how evil religion is! Oh there is no irony in there is there? There is no manipulation in that is there?
@br006DL I agree 100%. These kids are NEVER taught that philosophy questions what knowledge really is (epistemology) and that, in the end, science is just ONE way of thinking about the world and that it can ONLY ANSWER flat facts & is powerless to ask questions of morality, beauty etc.
I do think that the people who run this camp would be quite angry if a kid started reading Dostoevsky, with his attacks on reason, just like a kid at Jesus camp would be if he read Dawkins.
Guess your not too fond of electricity, antibiotics, or the internet?
Obviously the potentiality of an afterlife is imPOSSIBLE to prove, the idea that a god/heaven exists is certainly imPROBABLE. Forgive me if I am blunt, but if you look around at our planet and the humans on it this is not the work of an allpowerful creator.
@scubasloth8 - Oh, but Scuba, you don't understand: electricity, antibiotics, and the internet just work on faith! Science is faith, and atheists like myself worship it as our religion, with Darwin and Dawkins as our prophets. Science can't prove reality, didn't you know?
We have all these great inventions because we wanted them so badly and believed with great faith they should work, which aligned the cosmic planes to allow bacteria to die and electrons to line up. :rolleyes:
@scubasloth8 First, science and technology are two different things: I can't find, tranquilize and catalog a wild Ipad, now can I? Technology has always existed and even some animals, like chimps, use tools, i.e., Technology.
Second, can science ever prove that the reality all of its experiments take place in actually exist? No. How does a scientist no he's not dreaming? He doesn't. Science accepts the existence of reality on FAITH, they are just less honesty about it than religion
@mysticresistence Can science prove the existence of beautiful music? No. I find noise music and dark ambient to be beautiful, even though they both break all the laws of musical theory. Can science prove math? No, science pre-supposes math & using science to prove math is arguing in a circle. Can science answer questions of philosophy or morals? Can science tell me why the Japanese scientists in WWII were evil & not just plain scientists?
@mysticresistence Music actually has a science behind it that any musician understands. The way sound moves through the air, how it is produced, all explained by science. Having Science prove math is like having English prove Spanish, two completely different languages. Science has a large understanding of how our morals came to be and why they are ingrained in all of us.
Japanese scientists were evil? Ummm...how do you come to that conclusion?
@shagoosty Music is sound, I understand that, but can science explain how music I love may be hated and called "noise" by others? If science can explain morality, than can it explain why eating meat is considered moral by some and immoral by others? If science can explain everything, than why can't it explain math? Science presupposes math & blindly accepts its validity.
@shagoosty As for Japanese scientists, I CLEARLY said Japanese scientists duirng WWII, as in the infamous Unit 731, who performed horrible human experiments. They, along with the scientist who performed the Tuskegee Experiments are proof that science can be just as awful as religion. There is NO scientific argument to explain how experimenting on humans is wrong. It's science, FULL STEAM AHEAD, and damn those pathetic morals getting in the way of progress.
@mysticresistence I'm unable to respond because you don't say anything. And there are about 7 straw man arguments in your argument to begin with. If you think that being so stupid and blabbering on like an idiot makes you the winner; then yes, you've won.
@shagoosty Calling me "stupid" is another fallacy:the appeal to ridicule.
Again, I ask: if these kids are taught that science is the only way to approach questions, than that in itself is thought control just as bad as any religious indoctrination. Science is helpless when it comes to questions beyond those of the natural world: philosophical, moral, ascetic, and metaphysical questions. Those questions are serious questions which science can't answer.
@shagoosty Furthermore, science presupposes metaphysical questions that it can't answer: dose the reality in which the experiments take place exist outside of the mind of the scientist conducting the experiment? Was the universe not created 10 minutes ago with an appearance of age? If an experiment gets results 200 times, how can we be sure the 201th time wont get a different results? All those questions science accepts w/out evidence, but w/FAITH. So science too is built on faith
@mysticresistence Seriously dude, smoke less pot. I seriously have no idea what you're saying. You make like 19 different point per comment and none of them make any sense. Is English a second language for you?
@shagoosty Seriously "dude", learn to debate philosophy. Replying with an Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy that means you instantly loose the argument.
@scubasloth8 In other words, science is useful only for answering boring natural questions, like the composition of swamp gas or the amount of chromosomes in a rat. For the big questions, science is absolutely useless. Can science find a way for me to reach existential authenticity? No. Can science prove that some naturalist reasoning crap leads to a better life than faith? No.
As we see, the ideas they forcing on these kids crumble with just a few philosophical questions.
Nice to see it's not just the Christians & Muslims who indoctrinate their children into believing whatever they want them to...something tells me that a kid quoting Dostoevsky or Georg Hamann, with their philosophical ideas that science & reason are not the be all end all, would no doubt be treated the same way a kid quoting Dawkins at Jesus Camp would be treated...
@P0weredByPie They teach kids "how to think," i.e., think using 1 philosophical school of thought while ignoring the others. They aren't telling kids "scientific evidence is just one way of looking at the world & science & reason don't prove themselves". Teaching kids "how to think" scientifically is just as dogmatic as teaching kids how to think another way (biblically) Like I said, a kid challenging Positivism with a book by Dostoevsky would be treated like a kid at Jesus camp w/Darwin's book
@mysticresistence - You've made a testable claim about a kid quoting Dostoevsky or Georg Hamann; let me know how the results go (or am I to take your rhetorical scenario on faith?) ;-)
How do you know that Camp Quest insists that science & reasoning are the only way of looking at things?
How can it be incompatible if one can use reason to evaluate these other methods?
What process are you using to discount scientific method in how it discovers truths about reality, compared to the others?
@P0weredByPie Test the claim: get a kid to quote Hamann at the camp & see how quickly the child abuse starts. These people in the video are teaching the supremacy of Positivism. If science is applied to everything, what you end up with is human robots: no emotions, no freedom Science can't prove the existence of reality, hence, it is ultimately powerless to prove anything about a reality it can't prove even exists. Science requires faith, same as religion, only w/out being honest about it
@shagoosty Because they teach kids that science and science alone can answer the questions while NEVER mentioning other ways of accessing the world. They are taught to
"question everything", but never question the way in which they ask the question.
@mysticresistence "They are taught to 'question everything', but never question the way in which they ask the question." WTF does that even mean? That was the biggest load of hot air I've ever seen.
@shagoosty You are ignoring the point. Again, science is ONE method of exploring the world, not the ONLY method. These kids are never taught to question using the method of science exclusively. Hence, they are taught one method of inquiry (asking questions) and never any others.
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS FOR CREATIONISM-EVOLUTIONISM DEBATE (See Subchapter 10.2.2, Chapter 10, of Part Two.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
All children ask either out loud or in their heads, who made me?
Religious parents say: God made you.
Atheist parents say: well mommy and daddy..........
and later in life we all ask ourselves who made the universe.
Religious people say: God made the universe.
Atheist people say: The universe made itself.
They are both theories, neither can be proven until we die, it is simply what a person chooses to believe. Stop acting like people are idiots for believing in God or not believing in God.
@bombarderoazul - spoken like a true fascist. And this is where you pretend you've actually read and studied the original sources of fascist literature. This is where your indoctrination kicks in and you believe you didn't read a textbook or learn bumper sticker slogans. This is where you think you know something you don't know. Go ahead. Pretend you've read Mussolini, Hitler, or Heidegger. You know you want to. You know you're dying to tell someone they don't know what fascism means.
This is a good thing. I used to be a christian, I felt like I was a part of something that was angry...dissatisfied with something! Christianity is always talking about how christians are the happiest people on Earth, but christians are the most unhappiest people I've ever met! How can you still believe in a religion that can be easily prooven wrong?
"evolution, ridiculous. No-one ever observed life come from non-life."
This comment indicates you don't know what the theory of evolution is.
"There are 0 transitional forms in the fossil record."
Another comment reinforcing the idea you don't know what evolution is. If your idea of a "transitional fossil" is a baby sprouting adult legs/hands etc, then that is not what transitional in the context of biological evolution is.
@TurboDally Actually I do know what the theory of evolution is. It is theory that all life forms have a common ancestor and that somehow, unaided, they evolved through a process of random mutation by natural selection. That is pure fiction. There is certainly micro evolution. But that's just variations within a species, they still bring forth of of the same kind. Macro evoltion is the religious jump that every athiest takes.
Macro evolution, is just micro evolution a million fold. It may take a hundred years, or a thousand for an organism to develop an enzyme to digest something it originally was not able to. Over time, beneficial mutations which may result in these new enzymes, can accumulate. So over a million years, you could have hundreds of these new proteins.
And I'm done with supernatural explanations, nuff of zombies.
@TurboDally I'm still unsure why you objected to my comment, "No-one ever observed life come from non-life." That is precisely what evolutionists try to deny. I said "There are 0 transitional forms in the fossil record." Here's a quote, "Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.
There are many reasons why we reject supernatural/magical explanations and accept there may be a more rational reason for claims. Finding an empty tomb does not necessarily mean that the person was resurrected. Also, "eye-witness testimonies" aren't reliable, I too can write a book claiming 300 people witnessed so and so perform a miracle. There are various religions making such claims. It's more likely they were made up as many stories were.
@TurboDally A good reason i find to reject supernatural claims is that they break the laws of nature, which is physically impossible. Done, they're wrong.
@TurboDally There are major differences between you writing a book claiming 500 people witnessed a miracle, and the Apostle Paul writing 500 people witnessed the resurrection. First, the witnesses were 1st century jews, who would have had a pre-dispostion against the idea of a bodily resurrection. Second, the earliest disciples were so convinced the resurrection was true, that they willingly suffered grusome deaths because of it. This included being fed to lions and crucifixion upside down.
@BladedArrow I'm sorry but once again you clearly have no idea what your talking about. When NT historians examine the Gospels they're not treating them as divinely inspired or as a Holy Book, they treat them as historical documents. They are open to as much scrutiny and criticism as any other ancient text. Lol I think I see your problem, your assuming that all NT historians are Christians, right? Wrong. In fact many NT historians are highly skeptical and yet still reach the same conclusion.
@BladedArrow Your also yet to rebuttal the 3 facts I provided in regard to the resurrection. You also claimed that I am arguing in a circle and still haven't adequetly explained that either. If it helps I'll list the 3 facts again;
@BladedArrow Your basically claiming to have more expert knowledge than an estimated 75% of all contemporary NT historians (see Dr. Gary Habermas). Do you have any idea how foolish that makes you look? Atleast the account of the resurrection has eye-witness testimonies. If we apply your logic to the theory of evolution, it becomes even more ridiculous. No-one has ever observed life come from none-life. There are 0 transitional forms in the fossil record.
@elitegumby actually there are many transitional fossils (if you want you could google it and get loads of sites and pictures so i dont see the need to cite a specific sight) and we (along with many other animals) have vestigial parts *such as the coccyx, plica semilunaris, and appendix*. and now you're building a straw man of abiogensis. It has alredy been proven with electricity aswell as ice amino acids can form from raw materials very easily
@elitegumby and amino acids can form to make rna which can make ribosomes and you can see where im going. ribosomes can self replicate so only 1 ribosome is needed
@BladedArrow Not so fast lol. Some of us actually have a life outside youtube you know. Apologies, I have been busy these past few days. Give me some time to read over your reference and I'll get back to you by tomorrow at the latest. Before I do though let me just address some of your arguments. The coccyx is not a vestigal structure, it is the anchor point for the muscles that form the entire pelvic diaphragm. Neither is the appendix, thats an important part of your immune system.
@elitegumby You seriously trust "eye-witness testimonies" that were recorded second-hand thousands of years ago? Even eye-witness testimonies today are ambiguous.
Lol at 1.47 "Religious beliefs can hinder moral behaviour." What a ridiculous statement. Especially when you consider that naturalism offers no objective reason for moralty whatsoever. When are atheists going to accept that moral truths simply cannot be accessed through the scientific method?
Matt 18:6, "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
@elitegumby Piranhas don't believe in God. They also don't go around devouring each other. But wait, how do they know that killing each other is wrong without God there to tell them?!?! Morality is inherent to a population. An act that maintains of increases population or success is "good", while an act that decreases a population of causes harm is "bad". We don't need God to tell us not to kill or steal.
@Mathwards Piranhas are a species of fish and are not a good example. They are not intrinsically moral beings like humans. Piranhas act on survival instincts. Besides my argument was that there is no 'objective' reason for morality based on naturalism. Sure you can have 'subjective' morality, but thats completely arbitrary. The Nazi doctors in the death camps decided that the extermination of Jews (decrease of population) was beneficial to the evolution of the human race? Were they wrong?
@Mathwards If morality is inherent to a population and is a by-product of evolution, then who are you to say what is moral or unmoral? The majority of the German population supported the mass slaughter of Jews in the death camps at the time. Without God giving an absolute moral standard, there is no reason that anyone should be good or bad.
@elitegumby What about the Inquisition? I think we can all agree that it was incredibly heinous, and yet, those who were involved were not godless heathens acting on their savage instincts, but men doing the work of you God. The giver of your "absolute moral standard"
@Mathwards This is something that atheists always resort to when they're asked a question they don't want to answer about morality. What Christians did in The Crusades and the Inquisiton wasn't a result of acting in accordance to the will of God, it was a result of being in total rebellion against Him. Theres a difference between what Biblical Christianity stands for and how that standard is abused. The historical event your referring to is simply an example of that.
@elitegumby good and bad are thigns we humans assign other things. is it bad that a lion will stalk its pray and then slowly killing it playing with it while it just thrashes in pain and anguish while the lion comes drunk on its blood? its all about perception. society gives us the morals it just so happens religion is a leech on society
@BladedArrowTBGamer I dont see the point of your argument. You claim that society determines what is moral or unmoral. If that is the case then you cant say Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany were wrong in the extermination of millions of people since the "society" decided it was right. I dont understand why you and Mathwards insist on using the behaviour of animals as examples of morality. Animals are not intrinsically moral beings like humans as I've already explained.
@elitegumby well as you can say there are more then 1 societies in this world and to them they were not doing anything wrong to THEIR society to others it can be taken differently. Humans are animals that are just a little bit deeper. But in times in history it seems humans are worse then animals you know like the crusades and the inquisition where they killed for their imaginary friend. Which to them was morally right because god said it was ok
@BladedArrowTBGamer Read my response to Mathwards concerning the Crusades and the Inquisition. Now before I deal with your first point I want to focus in on the statement you ended with. On what basis do you make the claim that God said it was "ok" for "Christians" to participate in the Inquisition and the Crusades? You seem to be quite ignorant when it comes to history.
@BladedArrowTBGamer Your first argument fails miserably, I'm afraid. You seem to be suggesting that because different societies have different opinions, 'objective' morality exists. At best it just shows that everything is relative which actually proves my previous point. Namely that if naturalism is true and societies determine what is moral or immoral then atheists have no grounds to say that anything is right or wrong because there is no absolute standard.
@elitegumby well i say there is a certain principal of all life. To sustain and further your specific species". whereas Hitler was trying to sustain his own species "Aryan race" even though he was not apart of said race he tried to preserve (or more accurately bring about) the Aryan race so yes he was following natures "moral standard" but a very gruesome version
@BladedArrowTBGamer Yup, and Hitler followed Darwins example given in the Tree of Eugenics. By the way, the full title of his book is, "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." BladedArrow, I hope this will open your eyes to the deception your under. Christ set me free and He wants to do the same for you! He loves you and "He is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9)
@elitegumby yes and when darwin was talking bout was the animal kingdom that he studied. Humans no longer evolve in the same way normal animals do now we evolve mainly through our brain not physical manifestations. here's a lil quote from YOUR holy book "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourself every girl who has never slept with a man." (Numbers 31:17-18). Yea its ok to rape the virgins of the enemies. GO GOD
@BladedArrowTBGamer Your ignorance astounds me. The scripture your talking about concerns the Midianites, whose women were sexually immoral idolaters that seduced many of the men of Israel. Israel were the instrument through which God brought judgement upon them. You've probably just blindly searched for the most violent looking scripture online you could find and posted it without understanding any of its historical or contextual implications.
@elitegumby oh so its ok to rape virgins if their people are immoral? so it would be ok to go to a ghetto pick a girl off the street who is a virgin rape her and be like its cool her people are sexually immoral. yea thats real nice of you
@BladedArrowTBGamer Where in the Book of Numbers does it say that the men of Israel raped the Midianite virgins? Oh wait, it doesn't! You clearly have no idea what your talking about. Do you even realise that the average age of the female virgins the Book of Numbers is refering to is '5 years old!' They would have been assimilated into Israel families who would haved cared for them, fed them and trained them. They would then have been taken as wives once they were old enough.
@elitegumby ok how do you get "save them for yourself" to be take them in and assimilate them into your family? just face it the bible is fucked up just like how it says if a dudes junk's crushed he cant go to church
@BladedArrowTBGamer In the Old Testament, Israel was a theocrisy. Meaning they got their laws and were governed directly by God. I think you'll find that child molestation (as you seem to be insinuating) is an abomination before the Lord. Its also important to point out that it was Moses, not God who said, "Keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately."
@elitegumby but moses was the holiest man on the planet right cuz him and his family were the only ones that deserved t live through the killing of everyone else. which would cause everyone being inbred but i digress i can disprove your flood myth later. So killing children if they are unruly comes straight from god? gf
@BladedArrow The other verse your refering to is from Leviticus 20:9. The jews had very strict laws given to them by God. This included dietary laws, governmental laws, sacrificial laws etc... All of these were given exclusively to the nation of Israel at that time. Anyone that transgressed had to face judgement. This was to demonstrate that their needed to be an atonement through blood sacrifice. Violent, disobedient children had to be put to death because otherwise their sin would have spread.
@BladedArrow Yes indeed, Moses was a Holy man, but he was also a sinner. Infact he was denied access to the promise land because he had disobeyed God in Numbers 20:7-13. You have to understand, the Bible is history of redemption. Not every action that is described in the Bible is doing Gods will. Its like the Crusades, just because something is done in the name of God doesn't necessarily mean that God commanded it. Thats the correct way to understand the Scriptures.
@elitegumby but one of gods commandments is TO KILL A UNRULY CHILD IF HE DISOBEYS. If people still followed bible word for word they would be put in prison and get on national news for being batshit crazy
@BladedArrow Haven't you read anything I wrote? Like I said before those laws were given to 'exclusively' to Israel (Jews!), to govern that nation during the age of the Old Covenant. We are living in the age of the New Covenant. Christ paid the penalty for all our sins upon the cross through His blood. He was the sacrifical lamb for the sins of the world. Hebrews 9:22 "And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission."
@elitegumby oh so god is only mean to jews...so hes anti Semitic? meh not my kinda guy. dude with such great powers of forgiveness cant even forgive jews tsk tsk
@BladedArrow The Jews are Gods chosen people. He didn't give them the law to afflict them or because He was anti-semetic. He gave them the law because He wanted what was best for them. But because of man's sinful nature, no-one could uphold it. So God in His infinite mercy sent down His only begotten son, Jesus Christ to die in our place. Through Christ we are reconciled to the Father. "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom 6:23).
@elitegumby if god could do anything why doesnt he do what he does now and just magick everything i mean what was so special back then? oh wait now i remember now people can do report on it and discuss it like rational people not just make up bullshit stories that get blown out of proportion . and by do something like that do some kinda crazy miracle
@BladedArrow Are you saying if God exists, why doesn't He prove it to mankind through a miracle? If so, my answer is that He has. Namely through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. God has deemed that sufficient in bringing His creation to faith. In fact, Jesus' disciples were so convinced they had seen the resurrected Christ, they willingly suffered horrific deaths because of it. But tell me, why do you think God should conform to what man (His creation) wants today and not the other way around?
@elitegumby oh i dont know maybe cuz man has that little thing in their mind called reason. if i am to believe in supernatural beings i better see some super natural shit. im talking like unicorns and dragons fighting in the sky with lasers and stuff. now that was silly i know im amusing myself but man is all about reason we reason that when jump we will come down because of gravity (which is still a theory)
@elitegumby but we dont assume if we jump we will always come back down on lets say the moon because we know gravity is far smaller then on earth we use reason to survive. and i just said why god didnt do any miracles now. its because we can explain "supernatural" things with natural things because our knowledge has increased. i understand where religion came from they didnt know anything about the world and they were just trying to cope with reality by a imaginary friend. just like lil kids
@elitegumby and you do know the apple gate society also gave their life for their belief that on haley's commit that they would be taken to heaven on a space ship? just because someone is misguided and does crazy shit doesnt mean its right
@BladedArrow The vast majority of New Testament scholars affirm that the disciples did infact believe they had witnessed the risen Christ. Whats more, Jesus post-mortem appearences were not isolated to that particular group. Paul the apostle gives a list in Corinthians, of over five hundred people that claimed to have seen Jesus alive after his death (1Cor 15:4-6). Its also important to note that as 1st century Jews, they had every pre-disposition against the idea of a resurrection.
@elitegumby yea and thousands of people were claimed to see a ancient battle of the gods in hindu mythology? soooo im guessing Hinduism trumps your religion
@BladedArrow Where is your evidence? You really need to provide references for what your saying. Its all well and good you having heard about this stuff, but back it up! I'm talking about a real historical person who actually existed. The earliest accounts of the resurrection date to within five years of Christs death. Why would the disciples fabricate the account of the resurrection? They were burned at the stake, crucified upside down! The Romans even fed them to lions.
@elitegumby well mahubarta (most likely spelled wrong) a hindu holy book talks about the battle in the sky and went int ogreat detail about these machines and you have no more proof then i do. Why woudl they fabricate it well lots of reasons maybe they like attention ror they are delusional? I dont judge bro believe ur fairy tale if you want but it keep it out of the schools
@BladedArrow Lol they wanted attention!? They suffered horrible deaths just for that!? BladedArrow I think your clutching on straws here. Your second point doesn't hold up well either. Like I said 500 people witnessed the risen Christ. These weren't followers of Jesus either, they were 1st century Jews who would have had a pre-disposition against the idea of a resurrection. The likelihood that all these witnesses hallucinated the same thing at once is incredibly small.
@elitegumby where exactly is the real proof? I mean concrete evidence and no you cant use the bible to prove it. You cant prove something by using circular logic
@BladedArrow Your second point about "not using The Bible" is just a misunderstanding. The New Testament is not a fictional story book. Rather it is a collection of independent historical documents. The NT contains the earliest and therby most reliable sources about the life of Jesus of Nazereth. Scholars date the earliest Gospel of Mark well within the first generation after Jesus crucifixion. The historical account of Alexander the Great wasn't written until over 400 years after his death!
@BladedArrow (Respond to the following) Explain how you came to the conclusion that I am using circular reasoning? In answer to your question, the following 3 facts about the resurrection are agreed upon by the vast majority of New Testament Scholars;
@BladedArrow Explain how you came to the conclusion that I am using circular reasoning? In answer to your question, the following 3 facts about the resurrection are agreed upon by the vast majority of New Testament Scholars;
atheists arent religous..... having faith doesnt mean ur religous. i have faith in myself and in my abilities does not mean i worship the almighty me.. THE FACT ALONE THAT THEIST THINK OF GOD AS A MALE SHOWS ME ENOUGH TO SEE THE PRIMITIVE TIMES IN WHICH THESE STORIES WERE MADE UP. GOD FORBID (PUN INTENDED) A WOMAN WAS MADE GOD THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO WHEN THESE FAIRYTALES WERE BEING MADE UP.
wow this does not sound like anything that Jesus predicts? Jesus is the way the truth and the light. and this is the reason for judging that men love their sins more than Jesus, and they hate Jesus and wont come to him. Repent and believe in the son of God, Jesus
As said in the bible... circular logic, are you suffering from it?
I don't know what tumbles around inside the mind of a cultist, but how can you love a fictional being like jesus? More importantly, how can you gather the nerve to tell other people to love him? I have plently of love to give, but I'll rather spend it on people that exist outside of fairytales.
@mialionking How are these kids or these adults sinning or loving sin? It is camp! They play and chase lizards and splash in the water and in no way do anything immoral. If this is what you call sin, I'd hate to see what you think is moral and good.
@kenshin304 i wish i lived close enough to attend :P, where i live, there are only christian camps, they're fun and all but its becoming more and more unpleasing for me to attend them
There are three models of Government competing for world domination:
(1) Communist / atheist: where government officials decide and dole out your temporal rights if any
(2) Sharia Law: where the Qu'ron governs
(3) Judeo-Christian model, where God grants our rights & liberties and THEREFORE they are unalienable, power resides in we the people, we are sovereign and the government is our servant.
If that's the case then why even call it an atheist camp? The fact it's even called that shows that the parents that put those kids in that camps are trying to indoctrinate their kids into their belief system.
@RaizerZ It's not called that. It's called 'Camp Quest'. The news report says it's an "atheist camp". Besides, What is the doctrine of atheism? There isn't one. Are they saying that there is no god? Not at all. They are just showing kids the correct way of thinking about unfalsifiable and untestable claims.
@RaizerZ They don't call it atheist camp. And for your information, a kid may ask to go there and a parent may want them to just to get them away from the constant social pressure to convert and stop thinking, learning and discovering the real world around them and just give in to superstition that is present in all aspects of our daily lives.
@RaizerZ Hah? wow, you do realize how simple of a meaning Atheist has. Simply believe no God, a scientific conclusion. its simply a camp where one can receive knowledge over doctrine.
@theMJpower - Babies are born without any belief at all. They don't believe in god, truth, justice or the American way. They learn from their first teachers, their parents. They are captive audiences, sponges who soak up whatever their parents present to them.
@theMJpower - Atheism is a belief dipshit. You're just beyond stupid from indoctrination to understand that. A stupid person could understand that but you've beyond stupid. Atheism makes a definite claim on the unprovable. That is belief. Not knowing any position is no belief you fucking moron.
@thomaserossi - I agree with you that atheism is a belief (i.e. a belief that there are no gods, or that there's insufficient evidence for gods, or that those positing god belief have failed to meet the burden of proof etc.), but you are wrong that "atheism" is a definite claim-- perhaps some atheists make a positive claim (wrongly, as that would entail omniscience), but that's not _atheism_.
Would you kindly share your thoughts re: what you feel is unprovable about the existence of gods?
@bookwormsrcool How about the atheistic schools in China that indoctrinate their kids or their government that imprisons, tortures and beheads religious leaders?? Are they crazy too?? But I am sure there is a good excuse why those atheists are just a notch below that craaazzzyyy children's minister right? I can't wait to here how you give a pass to the atheistic chinese communist party. Is it because "they don't do their crimes in the name of atheism" Dawkins BS or what? Lets hear it
@agnostaxian First, this doesn't take away from my point. That movie IS crazy. But we are not going to get anywhere if we try to go with the which-belief/nonbelief-system-has-caused-more-damage argument. It just goes in circles, and the main point is that there are Christian idiots and atheist idiots. I am NOT giving them a pass. It doesn't matter what belief/nonbelief system you have, a crime is a crime. However, I think that religion makes you think in illogical ways and therefore makes the
@bookwormsrcool I agree that every ideology has its nutbags but disagree that religious nutbags are worse. Atheistic ideologioes have caused the worse mass murders in history the likes of which make Osama look like a dove. That fat lady minster brought those kids to tears by manipulation but atheistic communists just take your head off or whip your ass to death, what is worse??
@agnostaxian My point was that there are nutbags in religion and atheism. My point was that religion manipulates the non-nutbags into doing horrible things, even though they think that they are doing something beneficial. I think you are referring to Stalin, and he is one of the atheist nutbags that I am referring to.
Sidenote: The thing about the mass murders is not true. Hitler was a Roman Catholic.
@bookwormsrcool No, I agree that bad religious ideology can "put more fuel on the flame" but not believing in God effects a worldview. I am an a-fairiest but even if there are magical beings with wings that prep for spring, it has little effect on my life. But if God doesn't exist, that has enormous implications for us don't you think?? I mean, if atheism is true, life and the whole human race have ultimately no meaning & love is an illusion, we are only robots passing on DNA, that's it.
@agnostaxian I'm actually not sure how much God's nonexistence would effect us. It seems to me that the world would be pretty much the same. Oh, heavens, no! But I do understand what you're talking about. I was raised a Lutheran and I was told all the stories in the Bible were true. I thought that morality came from the Bible and that religion was the only thing that gave meaning to life. But, one day, I came across a book about atheism. Of course it explained why some people disagree with
@bookwormsrcool I embraced the naturalistic worldview and grew up in a non-religious home.
I respect how you came to a new perspective in life by embracing atheism. But I have studied Jesus and have had an existential encounter with God and seen Jesus' vision for the kingdom of God. Naturalism only led me to dispair, in Jesus, I found true unconditional love. I think love is the most real thing in the universe, the ultimate reality
@agnostaxian Then I am glad that you have found the path that is right for you. However, I know that it is possible to be content and fulfilled without religion. Peace. :)
@agnostaxian religion. However, it also talked about what made life so great! It said that, yes, we don't have an unlimited amount of time on this earth. But who really wants to live forever? Our lifespans give our life meaning because we decide what is truly most important. It also talked about how we can enjoy love, nature, poetry, art, music, books, and literature. We can appreciate all of those things without religion. We can have meaning in life--helping other people, making the world a
@agnostaxian better place, learning new things, having career ambitions, etc. It said that you can live every day to the fullest and become the person that you want to be. Trust me, I was at first skeptical. Even during the first few months of my atheism, I felt a little sad or lost. However, there IS life after religion. And it can be truly spectacular.
@agnostaxian chance of people doing corrupt things much higher. This is because they have something to justify it with (like the 9/11 bombers). Didn't you notice how she reduced all of those poor children to quivering piles of tears? She genuinely thought that she was doing something good to help those children, to help God. Have you heard of gay exorcisms? During those, religious people, under the impression that they were doing God's work, psychologically and physically assault homosexuals in
@agnostaxian order to rid them of their "inappropriate" feelings. They even have convenient passages in the Bible to justify their homophobic abuse. I could go on and on. But the point is this: there are good and bad people in the world. Some good people are religious and some are atheists. Some bad people are religious and some are atheists. However, religion gives the good religious people reasons to commit atrocities. When an atheist commits an atrocity, they don't have an excuse. They are
An atheist summer camp for children is taking place in Somerset, to offer a secular, "godless" alternative to religious camps.
Aaah... It's called atheist summer camp? Wouldn't an alternative to religious camps be the majority of camps, which by the way, happen to be non religious anyway. I'm speaking of camps that don't care what you are, or what faith you believe in or don't believe in. I think the caption above describing video, says it all.
Atheists want to indoctrinate their children to their belief system as well. Oh how lovely! Oh they say that religion can hinder morality! Oh how evil religion is! Oh there is no irony in there is there? There is no manipulation in that is there?
br006DL 1 month ago
@br006DL I agree 100%. These kids are NEVER taught that philosophy questions what knowledge really is (epistemology) and that, in the end, science is just ONE way of thinking about the world and that it can ONLY ANSWER flat facts & is powerless to ask questions of morality, beauty etc.
I do think that the people who run this camp would be quite angry if a kid started reading Dostoevsky, with his attacks on reason, just like a kid at Jesus camp would be if he read Dawkins.
mysticresistence 3 weeks ago
I know where my kids are going for the summer.
shagoosty 1 month ago
LOL @ people trying to 'discredit science'.
Guess your not too fond of electricity, antibiotics, or the internet?
Obviously the potentiality of an afterlife is imPOSSIBLE to prove, the idea that a god/heaven exists is certainly imPROBABLE. Forgive me if I am blunt, but if you look around at our planet and the humans on it this is not the work of an allpowerful creator.
scubasloth8 1 month ago
@scubasloth8 - Oh, but Scuba, you don't understand: electricity, antibiotics, and the internet just work on faith! Science is faith, and atheists like myself worship it as our religion, with Darwin and Dawkins as our prophets. Science can't prove reality, didn't you know?
We have all these great inventions because we wanted them so badly and believed with great faith they should work, which aligned the cosmic planes to allow bacteria to die and electrons to line up. :rolleyes:
P0weredByPie 1 month ago
@scubasloth8 First, science and technology are two different things: I can't find, tranquilize and catalog a wild Ipad, now can I? Technology has always existed and even some animals, like chimps, use tools, i.e., Technology.
Second, can science ever prove that the reality all of its experiments take place in actually exist? No. How does a scientist no he's not dreaming? He doesn't. Science accepts the existence of reality on FAITH, they are just less honesty about it than religion
mysticresistence 1 month ago
@mysticresistence Can science prove the existence of beautiful music? No. I find noise music and dark ambient to be beautiful, even though they both break all the laws of musical theory. Can science prove math? No, science pre-supposes math & using science to prove math is arguing in a circle. Can science answer questions of philosophy or morals? Can science tell me why the Japanese scientists in WWII were evil & not just plain scientists?
mysticresistence 1 month ago
@mysticresistence Music actually has a science behind it that any musician understands. The way sound moves through the air, how it is produced, all explained by science. Having Science prove math is like having English prove Spanish, two completely different languages. Science has a large understanding of how our morals came to be and why they are ingrained in all of us.
Japanese scientists were evil? Ummm...how do you come to that conclusion?
shagoosty 1 month ago
@shagoosty Music is sound, I understand that, but can science explain how music I love may be hated and called "noise" by others? If science can explain morality, than can it explain why eating meat is considered moral by some and immoral by others? If science can explain everything, than why can't it explain math? Science presupposes math & blindly accepts its validity.
mysticresistence 1 month ago
@shagoosty As for Japanese scientists, I CLEARLY said Japanese scientists duirng WWII, as in the infamous Unit 731, who performed horrible human experiments. They, along with the scientist who performed the Tuskegee Experiments are proof that science can be just as awful as religion. There is NO scientific argument to explain how experimenting on humans is wrong. It's science, FULL STEAM AHEAD, and damn those pathetic morals getting in the way of progress.
mysticresistence 1 month ago
@mysticresistence I've never seen someone say so little with so many words. It's actually quite baffling.
shagoosty 1 month ago
@shagoosty Translation: "you've won the argument, leaving me nothing else to do but to employ the fallacy of The Appeal to Ridicule"
mysticresistence 1 month ago
@mysticresistence I'm unable to respond because you don't say anything. And there are about 7 straw man arguments in your argument to begin with. If you think that being so stupid and blabbering on like an idiot makes you the winner; then yes, you've won.
shagoosty 1 month ago
@shagoosty Calling me "stupid" is another fallacy:the appeal to ridicule.
Again, I ask: if these kids are taught that science is the only way to approach questions, than that in itself is thought control just as bad as any religious indoctrination. Science is helpless when it comes to questions beyond those of the natural world: philosophical, moral, ascetic, and metaphysical questions. Those questions are serious questions which science can't answer.
mysticresistence 1 month ago
@shagoosty Furthermore, science presupposes metaphysical questions that it can't answer: dose the reality in which the experiments take place exist outside of the mind of the scientist conducting the experiment? Was the universe not created 10 minutes ago with an appearance of age? If an experiment gets results 200 times, how can we be sure the 201th time wont get a different results? All those questions science accepts w/out evidence, but w/FAITH. So science too is built on faith
mysticresistence 1 month ago
@mysticresistence Seriously dude, smoke less pot. I seriously have no idea what you're saying. You make like 19 different point per comment and none of them make any sense. Is English a second language for you?
shagoosty 1 month ago
@shagoosty Seriously "dude", learn to debate philosophy. Replying with an Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy that means you instantly loose the argument.
mysticresistence 1 month ago
@mysticresistence You're not debating philosophy, you sound like someone with word salad.
shagoosty 1 month ago
@scubasloth8 In other words, science is useful only for answering boring natural questions, like the composition of swamp gas or the amount of chromosomes in a rat. For the big questions, science is absolutely useless. Can science find a way for me to reach existential authenticity? No. Can science prove that some naturalist reasoning crap leads to a better life than faith? No.
As we see, the ideas they forcing on these kids crumble with just a few philosophical questions.
mysticresistence 1 month ago
If there were a Camp Quest in my area, I would volunteer to help further the cause of teaching secular rational thought to our youth.
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
Nice to see it's not just the Christians & Muslims who indoctrinate their children into believing whatever they want them to...something tells me that a kid quoting Dostoevsky or Georg Hamann, with their philosophical ideas that science & reason are not the be all end all, would no doubt be treated the same way a kid quoting Dawkins at Jesus Camp would be treated...
mysticresistence 4 months ago
@mysticresistence - did you miss the part where it says "we teach kids how to think not what to think"?
P0weredByPie 2 months ago
@P0weredByPie They teach kids "how to think," i.e., think using 1 philosophical school of thought while ignoring the others. They aren't telling kids "scientific evidence is just one way of looking at the world & science & reason don't prove themselves". Teaching kids "how to think" scientifically is just as dogmatic as teaching kids how to think another way (biblically) Like I said, a kid challenging Positivism with a book by Dostoevsky would be treated like a kid at Jesus camp w/Darwin's book
mysticresistence 2 months ago
@mysticresistence - You've made a testable claim about a kid quoting Dostoevsky or Georg Hamann; let me know how the results go (or am I to take your rhetorical scenario on faith?) ;-)
How do you know that Camp Quest insists that science & reasoning are the only way of looking at things?
How can it be incompatible if one can use reason to evaluate these other methods?
What process are you using to discount scientific method in how it discovers truths about reality, compared to the others?
P0weredByPie 2 months ago
@P0weredByPie Test the claim: get a kid to quote Hamann at the camp & see how quickly the child abuse starts. These people in the video are teaching the supremacy of Positivism. If science is applied to everything, what you end up with is human robots: no emotions, no freedom Science can't prove the existence of reality, hence, it is ultimately powerless to prove anything about a reality it can't prove even exists. Science requires faith, same as religion, only w/out being honest about it
mysticresistence 2 months ago
@mysticresistence How is teaching kids to be skeptics and have an open mind be indoctrination?
shagoosty 1 month ago
@shagoosty Because they teach kids that science and science alone can answer the questions while NEVER mentioning other ways of accessing the world. They are taught to
"question everything", but never question the way in which they ask the question.
mysticresistence 1 month ago
@mysticresistence "They are taught to 'question everything', but never question the way in which they ask the question." WTF does that even mean? That was the biggest load of hot air I've ever seen.
shagoosty 1 month ago
@shagoosty You are ignoring the point. Again, science is ONE method of exploring the world, not the ONLY method. These kids are never taught to question using the method of science exclusively. Hence, they are taught one method of inquiry (asking questions) and never any others.
mysticresistence 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (Donated) For Debates And Governance
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS FOR CREATIONISM-EVOLUTIONISM DEBATE (See Subchapter 10.2.2, Chapter 10, of Part Two.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
Comment removed
thefitnessrevolution 5 months ago
Comment removed
thefitnessrevolution 5 months ago
Comment removed
thefitnessrevolution 5 months ago
All children ask either out loud or in their heads, who made me?
Religious parents say: God made you.
Atheist parents say: well mommy and daddy..........
and later in life we all ask ourselves who made the universe.
Religious people say: God made the universe.
Atheist people say: The universe made itself.
They are both theories, neither can be proven until we die, it is simply what a person chooses to believe. Stop acting like people are idiots for believing in God or not believing in God.
creptoin1 6 months ago
Comment removed
HybridD91 6 months ago
Glowstick off the Noggin @ 2:22
Roastbeefwithcheese 6 months ago
All children are born atheist(not believing in any god) we must let their minds develop free from religious indoctrination.
bombarderoazul 6 months ago
@bombarderoazul - spoken like a true fascist. And this is where you pretend you've actually read and studied the original sources of fascist literature. This is where your indoctrination kicks in and you believe you didn't read a textbook or learn bumper sticker slogans. This is where you think you know something you don't know. Go ahead. Pretend you've read Mussolini, Hitler, or Heidegger. You know you want to. You know you're dying to tell someone they don't know what fascism means.
thomaserossi 6 months ago
they will soon have this all around the world, people are waking up
FAMEROB 8 months ago
This is a good thing. I used to be a christian, I felt like I was a part of something that was angry...dissatisfied with something! Christianity is always talking about how christians are the happiest people on Earth, but christians are the most unhappiest people I've ever met! How can you still believe in a religion that can be easily prooven wrong?
AustriaRollerblading 9 months ago
Science as a religion,how awful the indoctrination of children is.How I detest fundamentalism of any type,especially certainty idiots of any ilk.
trant711 9 months ago
Nice to see it's not just the religious nutcases who love indoctrinating their children
mysticresistence 10 months ago
I'm 22, am I too old to go? :-(
madjimms 11 months ago
I am thrilled to see this anti religous camp. Its about time they learned good values.
MrJohnnyrace 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Me and god will send a plegue on your bitch ass
smokelahoma1 11 months ago
I'm an atheist - but this is too far... I mean this is what religious idiots do to brainwash their kids....
xn117 1 year ago
The point of the challenge of disproving the unicorns is to show them they can't, and where the burden of proof lies.
daemonowner 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
They should rename the camp "Camp Fag Worship".
TheUltraHorror559 1 year ago
@TheUltraHorror559 Why should they rename it that?
Chandler937 10 months ago
@Chandler937 do you think your going to get an awnser?
slash3rr 9 months ago
@elitegumby
"evolution, ridiculous. No-one ever observed life come from non-life."
This comment indicates you don't know what the theory of evolution is.
"There are 0 transitional forms in the fossil record."
Another comment reinforcing the idea you don't know what evolution is. If your idea of a "transitional fossil" is a baby sprouting adult legs/hands etc, then that is not what transitional in the context of biological evolution is.
TurboDally 1 year ago
@TurboDally Actually I do know what the theory of evolution is. It is theory that all life forms have a common ancestor and that somehow, unaided, they evolved through a process of random mutation by natural selection. That is pure fiction. There is certainly micro evolution. But that's just variations within a species, they still bring forth of of the same kind. Macro evoltion is the religious jump that every athiest takes.
elitegumby 11 months ago
@elitegumby
Macro evolution, is just micro evolution a million fold. It may take a hundred years, or a thousand for an organism to develop an enzyme to digest something it originally was not able to. Over time, beneficial mutations which may result in these new enzymes, can accumulate. So over a million years, you could have hundreds of these new proteins.
And I'm done with supernatural explanations, nuff of zombies.
TurboDally 11 months ago
@TurboDally I'm still unsure why you objected to my comment, "No-one ever observed life come from non-life." That is precisely what evolutionists try to deny. I said "There are 0 transitional forms in the fossil record." Here's a quote, "Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.
elitegumby 11 months ago
@elitegumby
"resurrection...eye-witness testimonies"
There are many reasons why we reject supernatural/magical explanations and accept there may be a more rational reason for claims. Finding an empty tomb does not necessarily mean that the person was resurrected. Also, "eye-witness testimonies" aren't reliable, I too can write a book claiming 300 people witnessed so and so perform a miracle. There are various religions making such claims. It's more likely they were made up as many stories were.
TurboDally 1 year ago
@TurboDally A good reason i find to reject supernatural claims is that they break the laws of nature, which is physically impossible. Done, they're wrong.
daemonowner 1 year ago
@TurboDally There are major differences between you writing a book claiming 500 people witnessed a miracle, and the Apostle Paul writing 500 people witnessed the resurrection. First, the witnesses were 1st century jews, who would have had a pre-dispostion against the idea of a bodily resurrection. Second, the earliest disciples were so convinced the resurrection was true, that they willingly suffered grusome deaths because of it. This included being fed to lions and crucifixion upside down.
elitegumby 11 months ago
@elitegumby
There are major difference between claiming that a dead body became a zombie, and the claim that someone was nailed to a cross.
"There are 0 transitional forms in the fossil record."
There are zero transitional forms of me in the photo album which shows me from baby, to becoming an adult.
TurboDally 11 months ago
Comment removed
elitegumby 1 year ago
@elitegumby yea NEW TESTAMENT SCHOLARS you automatically take it as fact with no proof other then "this is god's book" sorry that IS circular logic
BladedArrowTBGamer 1 year ago
@BladedArrow I'm sorry but once again you clearly have no idea what your talking about. When NT historians examine the Gospels they're not treating them as divinely inspired or as a Holy Book, they treat them as historical documents. They are open to as much scrutiny and criticism as any other ancient text. Lol I think I see your problem, your assuming that all NT historians are Christians, right? Wrong. In fact many NT historians are highly skeptical and yet still reach the same conclusion.
elitegumby 1 year ago
@elitegumby please cite your "historians" and I will see for my own eyes.
BladedArrowTBGamer 1 year ago
@BladedArrow Your also yet to rebuttal the 3 facts I provided in regard to the resurrection. You also claimed that I am arguing in a circle and still haven't adequetly explained that either. If it helps I'll list the 3 facts again;
a) Jesus Empty Tomb
b) Jesus post-mortem appearences
c) The origin of the disciples belief
elitegumby 1 year ago
@elitegumby Jesus Empty Tomb- No possible way to have 100% Proof that it ever happend
Jesus post-mortem appearences- no photos back then True Origins can be lost over time
BladedArrowTBGamer 1 year ago
@BladedArrow Your basically claiming to have more expert knowledge than an estimated 75% of all contemporary NT historians (see Dr. Gary Habermas). Do you have any idea how foolish that makes you look? Atleast the account of the resurrection has eye-witness testimonies. If we apply your logic to the theory of evolution, it becomes even more ridiculous. No-one has ever observed life come from none-life. There are 0 transitional forms in the fossil record.
elitegumby 1 year ago
@elitegumby actually there are many transitional fossils (if you want you could google it and get loads of sites and pictures so i dont see the need to cite a specific sight) and we (along with many other animals) have vestigial parts *such as the coccyx, plica semilunaris, and appendix*. and now you're building a straw man of abiogensis. It has alredy been proven with electricity aswell as ice amino acids can form from raw materials very easily
BladedArrowTBGamer 1 year ago
@elitegumby and amino acids can form to make rna which can make ribosomes and you can see where im going. ribosomes can self replicate so only 1 ribosome is needed
BladedArrowTBGamer 1 year ago
@elitegumby heres a list of transitional fossils just so you cant say im lieing
BladedArrowTBGamer 1 year ago
@elitegumby en.wikipedia./wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
BladedArrowTBGamer 1 year ago
@elitegumby yea i won
BladedArrowTBGamer 1 year ago
@BladedArrow Not so fast lol. Some of us actually have a life outside youtube you know. Apologies, I have been busy these past few days. Give me some time to read over your reference and I'll get back to you by tomorrow at the latest. Before I do though let me just address some of your arguments. The coccyx is not a vestigal structure, it is the anchor point for the muscles that form the entire pelvic diaphragm. Neither is the appendix, thats an important part of your immune system.
elitegumby 1 year ago
@elitegumby You seriously trust "eye-witness testimonies" that were recorded second-hand thousands of years ago? Even eye-witness testimonies today are ambiguous.
Chandler937 10 months ago
Thumbs up if you clicked this cos of the God Delusion!
tdp1909 1 year ago
Comment removed
elitegumby 1 year ago
Comment removed
elitegumby 1 year ago
Lol at 1.47 "Religious beliefs can hinder moral behaviour." What a ridiculous statement. Especially when you consider that naturalism offers no objective reason for moralty whatsoever. When are atheists going to accept that moral truths simply cannot be accessed through the scientific method?
Matt 18:6, "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
elitegumby 1 year ago
@elitegumby Piranhas don't believe in God. They also don't go around devouring each other. But wait, how do they know that killing each other is wrong without God there to tell them?!?! Morality is inherent to a population. An act that maintains of increases population or success is "good", while an act that decreases a population of causes harm is "bad". We don't need God to tell us not to kill or steal.
Mathwards 1 year ago
@Mathwards Piranhas are a species of fish and are not a good example. They are not intrinsically moral beings like humans. Piranhas act on survival instincts. Besides my argument was that there is no 'objective' reason for morality based on naturalism. Sure you can have 'subjective' morality, but thats completely arbitrary. The Nazi doctors in the death camps decided that the extermination of Jews (decrease of population) was beneficial to the evolution of the human race? Were they wrong?
elitegumby 1 year ago
@Mathwards If morality is inherent to a population and is a by-product of evolution, then who are you to say what is moral or unmoral? The majority of the German population supported the mass slaughter of Jews in the death camps at the time. Without God giving an absolute moral standard, there is no reason that anyone should be good or bad.
elitegumby 1 year ago
@elitegumby What about the Inquisition? I think we can all agree that it was incredibly heinous, and yet, those who were involved were not godless heathens acting on their savage instincts, but men doing the work of you God. The giver of your "absolute moral standard"
Mathwards 1 year ago
@Mathwards This is something that atheists always resort to when they're asked a question they don't want to answer about morality. What Christians did in The Crusades and the Inquisiton wasn't a result of acting in accordance to the will of God, it was a result of being in total rebellion against Him. Theres a difference between what Biblical Christianity stands for and how that standard is abused. The historical event your referring to is simply an example of that.
elitegumby 1 year ago
@elitegumby good and bad are thigns we humans assign other things. is it bad that a lion will stalk its pray and then slowly killing it playing with it while it just thrashes in pain and anguish while the lion comes drunk on its blood? its all about perception. society gives us the morals it just so happens religion is a leech on society
BladedArrowTBGamer 1 year ago
@BladedArrowTBGamer I dont see the point of your argument. You claim that society determines what is moral or unmoral. If that is the case then you cant say Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany were wrong in the extermination of millions of people since the "society" decided it was right. I dont understand why you and Mathwards insist on using the behaviour of animals as examples of morality. Animals are not intrinsically moral beings like humans as I've already explained.
elitegumby 1 year ago
@elitegumby well as you can say there are more then 1 societies in this world and to them they were not doing anything wrong to THEIR society to others it can be taken differently. Humans are animals that are just a little bit deeper. But in times in history it seems humans are worse then animals you know like the crusades and the inquisition where they killed for their imaginary friend. Which to them was morally right because god said it was ok
BladedArrowTBGamer 1 year ago
@BladedArrowTBGamer Read my response to Mathwards concerning the Crusades and the Inquisition. Now before I deal with your first point I want to focus in on the statement you ended with. On what basis do you make the claim that God said it was "ok" for "Christians" to participate in the Inquisition and the Crusades? You seem to be quite ignorant when it comes to history.
elitegumby 1 year ago
@BladedArrowTBGamer Your first argument fails miserably, I'm afraid. You seem to be suggesting that because different societies have different opinions, 'objective' morality exists. At best it just shows that everything is relative which actually proves my previous point. Namely that if naturalism is true and societies determine what is moral or immoral then atheists have no grounds to say that anything is right or wrong because there is no absolute standard.
elitegumby 1 year ago
@elitegumby well i say there is a certain principal of all life. To sustain and further your specific species". whereas Hitler was trying to sustain his own species "Aryan race" even though he was not apart of said race he tried to preserve (or more accurately bring about) the Aryan race so yes he was following natures "moral standard" but a very gruesome version
BladedArrowTBGamer 1 year ago
@BladedArrowTBGamer Yup, and Hitler followed Darwins example given in the Tree of Eugenics. By the way, the full title of his book is, "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." BladedArrow, I hope this will open your eyes to the deception your under. Christ set me free and He wants to do the same for you! He loves you and "He is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9)
elitegumby 1 year ago
@elitegumby yes and when darwin was talking bout was the animal kingdom that he studied. Humans no longer evolve in the same way normal animals do now we evolve mainly through our brain not physical manifestations. here's a lil quote from YOUR holy book "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourself every girl who has never slept with a man." (Numbers 31:17-18). Yea its ok to rape the virgins of the enemies. GO GOD
BladedArrowTBGamer 1 year ago
@BladedArrowTBGamer Your ignorance astounds me. The scripture your talking about concerns the Midianites, whose women were sexually immoral idolaters that seduced many of the men of Israel. Israel were the instrument through which God brought judgement upon them. You've probably just blindly searched for the most violent looking scripture online you could find and posted it without understanding any of its historical or contextual implications.
elitegumby 1 year ago
@elitegumby oh so its ok to rape virgins if their people are immoral? so it would be ok to go to a ghetto pick a girl off the street who is a virgin rape her and be like its cool her people are sexually immoral. yea thats real nice of you
BladedArrowTBGamer 1 year ago
@BladedArrowTBGamer Where in the Book of Numbers does it say that the men of Israel raped the Midianite virgins? Oh wait, it doesn't! You clearly have no idea what your talking about. Do you even realise that the average age of the female virgins the Book of Numbers is refering to is '5 years old!' They would have been assimilated into Israel families who would haved cared for them, fed them and trained them. They would then have been taken as wives once they were old enough.
elitegumby 1 year ago
@elitegumby ok how do you get "save them for yourself" to be take them in and assimilate them into your family? just face it the bible is fucked up just like how it says if a dudes junk's crushed he cant go to church
BladedArrowTBGamer 1 year ago
@BladedArrowTBGamer In the Old Testament, Israel was a theocrisy. Meaning they got their laws and were governed directly by God. I think you'll find that child molestation (as you seem to be insinuating) is an abomination before the Lord. Its also important to point out that it was Moses, not God who said, "Keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately."
elitegumby 1 year ago
@elitegumby but moses was the holiest man on the planet right cuz him and his family were the only ones that deserved t live through the killing of everyone else. which would cause everyone being inbred but i digress i can disprove your flood myth later. So killing children if they are unruly comes straight from god? gf
BladedArrowTBGamer 1 year ago
@BladedArrow The other verse your refering to is from Leviticus 20:9. The jews had very strict laws given to them by God. This included dietary laws, governmental laws, sacrificial laws etc... All of these were given exclusively to the nation of Israel at that time. Anyone that transgressed had to face judgement. This was to demonstrate that their needed to be an atonement through blood sacrifice. Violent, disobedient children had to be put to death because otherwise their sin would have spread.
elitegumby 1 year ago
@BladedArrow Yes indeed, Moses was a Holy man, but he was also a sinner. Infact he was denied access to the promise land because he had disobeyed God in Numbers 20:7-13. You have to understand, the Bible is history of redemption. Not every action that is described in the Bible is doing Gods will. Its like the Crusades, just because something is done in the name of God doesn't necessarily mean that God commanded it. Thats the correct way to understand the Scriptures.
elitegumby 1 year ago
@elitegumby but one of gods commandments is TO KILL A UNRULY CHILD IF HE DISOBEYS. If people still followed bible word for word they would be put in prison and get on national news for being batshit crazy
BladedArrowTBGamer 1 year ago
@BladedArrow Haven't you read anything I wrote? Like I said before those laws were given to 'exclusively' to Israel (Jews!), to govern that nation during the age of the Old Covenant. We are living in the age of the New Covenant. Christ paid the penalty for all our sins upon the cross through His blood. He was the sacrifical lamb for the sins of the world. Hebrews 9:22 "And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission."
elitegumby 1 year ago
@elitegumby oh so god is only mean to jews...so hes anti Semitic? meh not my kinda guy. dude with such great powers of forgiveness cant even forgive jews tsk tsk
BladedArrowTBGamer 1 year ago
Comment removed
elitegumby 1 year ago
@BladedArrow The Jews are Gods chosen people. He didn't give them the law to afflict them or because He was anti-semetic. He gave them the law because He wanted what was best for them. But because of man's sinful nature, no-one could uphold it. So God in His infinite mercy sent down His only begotten son, Jesus Christ to die in our place. Through Christ we are reconciled to the Father. "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom 6:23).
elitegumby 1 year ago
@elitegumby if god could do anything why doesnt he do what he does now and just magick everything i mean what was so special back then? oh wait now i remember now people can do report on it and discuss it like rational people not just make up bullshit stories that get blown out of proportion . and by do something like that do some kinda crazy miracle
BladedArrowTBGamer 1 year ago
@BladedArrow Are you saying if God exists, why doesn't He prove it to mankind through a miracle? If so, my answer is that He has. Namely through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. God has deemed that sufficient in bringing His creation to faith. In fact, Jesus' disciples were so convinced they had seen the resurrected Christ, they willingly suffered horrific deaths because of it. But tell me, why do you think God should conform to what man (His creation) wants today and not the other way around?
elitegumby 1 year ago
@elitegumby oh i dont know maybe cuz man has that little thing in their mind called reason. if i am to believe in supernatural beings i better see some super natural shit. im talking like unicorns and dragons fighting in the sky with lasers and stuff. now that was silly i know im amusing myself but man is all about reason we reason that when jump we will come down because of gravity (which is still a theory)
BladedArrowTBGamer 1 year ago
@elitegumby but we dont assume if we jump we will always come back down on lets say the moon because we know gravity is far smaller then on earth we use reason to survive. and i just said why god didnt do any miracles now. its because we can explain "supernatural" things with natural things because our knowledge has increased. i understand where religion came from they didnt know anything about the world and they were just trying to cope with reality by a imaginary friend. just like lil kids
BladedArrowTBGamer 1 year ago
@elitegumby and you do know the apple gate society also gave their life for their belief that on haley's commit that they would be taken to heaven on a space ship? just because someone is misguided and does crazy shit doesnt mean its right
BladedArrowTBGamer 1 year ago
@BladedArrow The vast majority of New Testament scholars affirm that the disciples did infact believe they had witnessed the risen Christ. Whats more, Jesus post-mortem appearences were not isolated to that particular group. Paul the apostle gives a list in Corinthians, of over five hundred people that claimed to have seen Jesus alive after his death (1Cor 15:4-6). Its also important to note that as 1st century Jews, they had every pre-disposition against the idea of a resurrection.
elitegumby 1 year ago
@elitegumby yea and thousands of people were claimed to see a ancient battle of the gods in hindu mythology? soooo im guessing Hinduism trumps your religion
BladedArrowTBGamer 1 year ago
@BladedArrow Where is your evidence? You really need to provide references for what your saying. Its all well and good you having heard about this stuff, but back it up! I'm talking about a real historical person who actually existed. The earliest accounts of the resurrection date to within five years of Christs death. Why would the disciples fabricate the account of the resurrection? They were burned at the stake, crucified upside down! The Romans even fed them to lions.
elitegumby 1 year ago
@elitegumby well mahubarta (most likely spelled wrong) a hindu holy book talks about the battle in the sky and went int ogreat detail about these machines and you have no more proof then i do. Why woudl they fabricate it well lots of reasons maybe they like attention ror they are delusional? I dont judge bro believe ur fairy tale if you want but it keep it out of the schools
BladedArrowTBGamer 1 year ago
@BladedArrow Lol they wanted attention!? They suffered horrible deaths just for that!? BladedArrow I think your clutching on straws here. Your second point doesn't hold up well either. Like I said 500 people witnessed the risen Christ. These weren't followers of Jesus either, they were 1st century Jews who would have had a pre-disposition against the idea of a resurrection. The likelihood that all these witnesses hallucinated the same thing at once is incredibly small.
elitegumby 1 year ago
@elitegumby where exactly is the real proof? I mean concrete evidence and no you cant use the bible to prove it. You cant prove something by using circular logic
BladedArrowTBGamer 1 year ago
@BladedArrow Your second point about "not using The Bible" is just a misunderstanding. The New Testament is not a fictional story book. Rather it is a collection of independent historical documents. The NT contains the earliest and therby most reliable sources about the life of Jesus of Nazereth. Scholars date the earliest Gospel of Mark well within the first generation after Jesus crucifixion. The historical account of Alexander the Great wasn't written until over 400 years after his death!
elitegumby 1 year ago
@elitegumby you never gave any real proof of the event ever happening. Once again you're using circular logic
BladedArrowTBGamer 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BladedArrow (Respond to the following) Explain how you came to the conclusion that I am using circular reasoning? In answer to your question, the following 3 facts about the resurrection are agreed upon by the vast majority of New Testament Scholars;
a) Jesus Empty Tomb
b) Jesus post-mortem appearences
c) The origin of the disciples belief
elitegumby 1 year ago
@BladedArrow I already gave you 3 concrete facts below. Did you not read them?
elitegumby 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@elitegumby where is the proof that they are ACCUARTE historical documents?
BladedArrowTBGamer 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BladedArrow Explain how you came to the conclusion that I am using circular reasoning? In answer to your question, the following 3 facts about the resurrection are agreed upon by the vast majority of New Testament Scholars;
a) Jesus Empty Tomb
b) Jesus post-mortem appearences
c) The origin of the disciples belief
elitegumby 1 year ago
Comment removed
elitegumby 1 year ago
Comment removed
elitegumby 1 year ago
atheists arent religous..... having faith doesnt mean ur religous. i have faith in myself and in my abilities does not mean i worship the almighty me.. THE FACT ALONE THAT THEIST THINK OF GOD AS A MALE SHOWS ME ENOUGH TO SEE THE PRIMITIVE TIMES IN WHICH THESE STORIES WERE MADE UP. GOD FORBID (PUN INTENDED) A WOMAN WAS MADE GOD THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO WHEN THESE FAIRYTALES WERE BEING MADE UP.
stomperfood 1 year ago
Well, it's confirmed:
Atheist is a religion
palmeiras321 1 year ago
@palmeiras321 It's confirmed. Theist is a moron.
Scraxs 1 year ago
@palmeiras321 Well, it's confirmed:
ID isn't
SuperFeimer 1 year ago
wow this does not sound like anything that Jesus predicts? Jesus is the way the truth and the light. and this is the reason for judging that men love their sins more than Jesus, and they hate Jesus and wont come to him. Repent and believe in the son of God, Jesus
mialionking 1 year ago
@mialionking oh ok thanks, will do
kyrillp 1 year ago
@mialionking
"Jesus is the way the truth and the light."
As said in the bible... circular logic, are you suffering from it?
I don't know what tumbles around inside the mind of a cultist, but how can you love a fictional being like jesus? More importantly, how can you gather the nerve to tell other people to love him? I have plently of love to give, but I'll rather spend it on people that exist outside of fairytales.
piip4 1 year ago
@mialionking How are these kids or these adults sinning or loving sin? It is camp! They play and chase lizards and splash in the water and in no way do anything immoral. If this is what you call sin, I'd hate to see what you think is moral and good.
leavesof3 1 year ago
Dude, i wish i was young enough to attained.
kenshin304 1 year ago 8
@kenshin304 i wish i lived close enough to attend :P, where i live, there are only christian camps, they're fun and all but its becoming more and more unpleasing for me to attend them
TheShaitanjr 8 months ago
whats next the church of atheism
mronionsalad 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There are three models of Government competing for world domination:
(1) Communist / atheist: where government officials decide and dole out your temporal rights if any
(2) Sharia Law: where the Qu'ron governs
(3) Judeo-Christian model, where God grants our rights & liberties and THEREFORE they are unalienable, power resides in we the people, we are sovereign and the government is our servant.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
wow, that water looks nasty!
xd1rtx 1 year ago
Sounds better than religion camp. That being said camps like these always sucked imo anyway xD
Zeldarulah 1 year ago 3
Ha, this is hilarious. Atheist parents indoctrinating their kids to be atheist. Your hypocrisy couldn't be more delicious.
RaizerZ 1 year ago
@RaizerZ They're teaching kids how to use critical thinking. It's hardly indoctrination
tommyk77 1 year ago 3
@tommyk77
If that's the case then why even call it an atheist camp? The fact it's even called that shows that the parents that put those kids in that camps are trying to indoctrinate their kids into their belief system.
RaizerZ 1 year ago
@RaizerZ It's not called that. It's called 'Camp Quest'. The news report says it's an "atheist camp". Besides, What is the doctrine of atheism? There isn't one. Are they saying that there is no god? Not at all. They are just showing kids the correct way of thinking about unfalsifiable and untestable claims.
tommyk77 1 year ago 9
@RaizerZ They don't call it atheist camp. And for your information, a kid may ask to go there and a parent may want them to just to get them away from the constant social pressure to convert and stop thinking, learning and discovering the real world around them and just give in to superstition that is present in all aspects of our daily lives.
..and my kid was atheist before I was.
leavesof3 1 year ago
@RaizerZ Hah? wow, you do realize how simple of a meaning Atheist has. Simply believe no God, a scientific conclusion. its simply a camp where one can receive knowledge over doctrine.
EnchancedHuman 1 year ago 3
@RaizerZ babies are not born Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, etc. They are ALL indoctrinated by their parents.
gmacv1957 1 year ago 23
@gmacv1957 Neither they are born atheist.
theMJpower 7 months ago
@theMJpower - Babies are born without any belief at all. They don't believe in god, truth, justice or the American way. They learn from their first teachers, their parents. They are captive audiences, sponges who soak up whatever their parents present to them.
gmacv1957 7 months ago
@gmacv1957 Indeed.
theMJpower 7 months ago
@theMJpower - Atheism is a belief dipshit. You're just beyond stupid from indoctrination to understand that. A stupid person could understand that but you've beyond stupid. Atheism makes a definite claim on the unprovable. That is belief. Not knowing any position is no belief you fucking moron.
You really are a retard.
thomaserossi 6 months ago
@thomaserossi No. Its not. RInse and repeat 100 times over. When you get a clue. come back.
fmanh 6 months ago
@thomaserossi - I agree with you that atheism is a belief (i.e. a belief that there are no gods, or that there's insufficient evidence for gods, or that those positing god belief have failed to meet the burden of proof etc.), but you are wrong that "atheism" is a definite claim-- perhaps some atheists make a positive claim (wrongly, as that would entail omniscience), but that's not _atheism_.
Would you kindly share your thoughts re: what you feel is unprovable about the existence of gods?
P0weredByPie 2 months ago
This is what the world needs, now all we need to do is turn churches into homeless shelters or other useful things.
EnchancedHuman 1 year ago 4
cool! I wish we had this in US
sheppaul 1 year ago
@sheppaul They do. I believe its in Kentucky of all places.
RayzerAtheistX2 1 year ago
@sheppaul I was wrong. Its in TX, OH, MI, CA, MN and FL.
RayzerAtheistX2 1 year ago
You should watch "Jesus Camp". It's fucking craaaaaaaaaazzzzyyyyyyy!
bookwormsrcool 1 year ago
@bookwormsrcool How about the atheistic schools in China that indoctrinate their kids or their government that imprisons, tortures and beheads religious leaders?? Are they crazy too?? But I am sure there is a good excuse why those atheists are just a notch below that craaazzzyyy children's minister right? I can't wait to here how you give a pass to the atheistic chinese communist party. Is it because "they don't do their crimes in the name of atheism" Dawkins BS or what? Lets hear it
agnostaxian 1 year ago
@agnostaxian First, this doesn't take away from my point. That movie IS crazy. But we are not going to get anywhere if we try to go with the which-belief/nonbelief-system-has-caused-more-damage argument. It just goes in circles, and the main point is that there are Christian idiots and atheist idiots. I am NOT giving them a pass. It doesn't matter what belief/nonbelief system you have, a crime is a crime. However, I think that religion makes you think in illogical ways and therefore makes the
bookwormsrcool 1 year ago
@bookwormsrcool I agree that every ideology has its nutbags but disagree that religious nutbags are worse. Atheistic ideologioes have caused the worse mass murders in history the likes of which make Osama look like a dove. That fat lady minster brought those kids to tears by manipulation but atheistic communists just take your head off or whip your ass to death, what is worse??
agnostaxian 1 year ago
@agnostaxian My point was that there are nutbags in religion and atheism. My point was that religion manipulates the non-nutbags into doing horrible things, even though they think that they are doing something beneficial. I think you are referring to Stalin, and he is one of the atheist nutbags that I am referring to.
Sidenote: The thing about the mass murders is not true. Hitler was a Roman Catholic.
bookwormsrcool 1 year ago
@bookwormsrcool No, I agree that bad religious ideology can "put more fuel on the flame" but not believing in God effects a worldview. I am an a-fairiest but even if there are magical beings with wings that prep for spring, it has little effect on my life. But if God doesn't exist, that has enormous implications for us don't you think?? I mean, if atheism is true, life and the whole human race have ultimately no meaning & love is an illusion, we are only robots passing on DNA, that's it.
agnostaxian 1 year ago
@agnostaxian I'm actually not sure how much God's nonexistence would effect us. It seems to me that the world would be pretty much the same. Oh, heavens, no! But I do understand what you're talking about. I was raised a Lutheran and I was told all the stories in the Bible were true. I thought that morality came from the Bible and that religion was the only thing that gave meaning to life. But, one day, I came across a book about atheism. Of course it explained why some people disagree with
bookwormsrcool 1 year ago
@bookwormsrcool I embraced the naturalistic worldview and grew up in a non-religious home.
I respect how you came to a new perspective in life by embracing atheism. But I have studied Jesus and have had an existential encounter with God and seen Jesus' vision for the kingdom of God. Naturalism only led me to dispair, in Jesus, I found true unconditional love. I think love is the most real thing in the universe, the ultimate reality
agnostaxian 1 year ago
@agnostaxian Then I am glad that you have found the path that is right for you. However, I know that it is possible to be content and fulfilled without religion. Peace. :)
bookwormsrcool 1 year ago
@bookwormsrcool Fair enough. Nice chat, sorry if I was harsh at the beginning. :) back at ya
agnostaxian 1 year ago
@agnostaxian religion. However, it also talked about what made life so great! It said that, yes, we don't have an unlimited amount of time on this earth. But who really wants to live forever? Our lifespans give our life meaning because we decide what is truly most important. It also talked about how we can enjoy love, nature, poetry, art, music, books, and literature. We can appreciate all of those things without religion. We can have meaning in life--helping other people, making the world a
bookwormsrcool 1 year ago
@agnostaxian better place, learning new things, having career ambitions, etc. It said that you can live every day to the fullest and become the person that you want to be. Trust me, I was at first skeptical. Even during the first few months of my atheism, I felt a little sad or lost. However, there IS life after religion. And it can be truly spectacular.
bookwormsrcool 1 year ago
@agnostaxian How is a facist idealogy atheist? You realize that atheism has no dogma and no idealogy connected to it?
leavesof3 1 year ago
@agnostaxian chance of people doing corrupt things much higher. This is because they have something to justify it with (like the 9/11 bombers). Didn't you notice how she reduced all of those poor children to quivering piles of tears? She genuinely thought that she was doing something good to help those children, to help God. Have you heard of gay exorcisms? During those, religious people, under the impression that they were doing God's work, psychologically and physically assault homosexuals in
bookwormsrcool 1 year ago
@agnostaxian order to rid them of their "inappropriate" feelings. They even have convenient passages in the Bible to justify their homophobic abuse. I could go on and on. But the point is this: there are good and bad people in the world. Some good people are religious and some are atheists. Some bad people are religious and some are atheists. However, religion gives the good religious people reasons to commit atrocities. When an atheist commits an atrocity, they don't have an excuse. They are
bookwormsrcool 1 year ago
@agnostaxian just a bad person.
bookwormsrcool 1 year ago
An atheist summer camp for children is taking place in Somerset, to offer a secular, "godless" alternative to religious camps.
Aaah... It's called atheist summer camp? Wouldn't an alternative to religious camps be the majority of camps, which by the way, happen to be non religious anyway. I'm speaking of camps that don't care what you are, or what faith you believe in or don't believe in. I think the caption above describing video, says it all.