Fetuses do not have a developed enough nervous system to feel pain. Abortion laws in the united states prevent abortion of any fetus older than 28 weeks(other than nonviability/danger to mother). Most of these are conducted MUCH sooner than that. The vast majority of fetuses have a less complex nervous sytem that your average mollusk. Not only do most of these fetuses lack the capability to feel pain, but painkillers would likely not be effective in those few fetuses that actually do feel it.
the thing that I dont get about my fellow athiests is.... WHY OH WHY don't you care about giving a fetus who is being aborted simple pain killers. Isn't that the least they could do?
God exists, that's the accepted claim by the majority of people, you want to challenge that, bring the evidence, the burden of proof is on YOU. Some narrow minded atheist proposed the wrong notion that atheism doesn't require evidence and many gullible atheists had run to foolishly embrace it. Philosophically the burden of proof is in the argument challenging the establishment. What evidence you have that atheism is true? None, zero, nada. Open your eyes, you're being deceived by an evil cult.
@dejesusluisx Do you know what atheism is? It is the rejection of belief in a god or gods. I do not need to prove to you that i reject a belief in god(s) because i simply DO. You yourself are an athiest in some way, did you know that? Whatever religion you are you believe in YOUR god. Do you know how many other gods there are? and that you probably reject to believe in them? That should be proof enough. open YOUR eyes. Don't be ignorant. You state god exists, where is your evidence?
@TheLoudale "Do you know what atheism is?" yes, a cult. You claim there is no God, prove it. If you don't, then that is a belief, a faith, and any organized faith regarding a divinity is a religion or a cult.
""Do you know how many other gods there are?"" None, there's only one God, one divine consciousness with many names and dogmas.
"You state god exists, where is your evidence?" I have plenty of evidence, but I asked first. Admit defeat, admit atheism is based on faith and I'll present it
@dejesusluisx Atheism is not a cult, if you actually researched the definitions you'd know the difference. There is a difference between belief and faith even though they may be similiar; again research. It is not a religion, there is no organized or governing body that athiest join, nor do they have any governing text or a set of rules. The only difference is they do not believe in god(s). There is no central belief other than that. (tbc)
@TheLoudale To believe anything regarding a divinity is a religion or cult is ignorance. Thinking there is only one god, again is ignorance. Other religions would disagree; claiming your religion to be a cult. Everything you have stated could be applied to your religion. As for the evidence on my belief there is no Christian God for example, is the historical inaccuracies and contradictions in the bible opposed to actual proven facts. You have no evidence because there is no scientific evidence.
@TheLoudale ""As for the evidence on my belief there is no Christian God for example, is the historical inaccuracies and contradictions in the bible opposed to actual proven facts."" assuming what you're saying is correct, that would only affect the people believing in the inerrancy of the Bible (I don't), but would not disprove God. Were you a fundamentalist? God was before the Bible and before religions, so to disprove God you need to find a logical contradiction on the concept of God.
@dejesusluisx What is your religion might i ask? So that i may approach this in a more accurate way. Also, lacking a belief in a god is sort of the opposite of what a cult is. athiests do not worship a deity or perfom rituals, there is no temples, shrines or churches filled with athiests. I believe the concept OF god is illogical I'm not here saying god isn't real, for i have no proof. But there is no proof he is real either, so i choose not to believe. Therefore athiest. Now what's your proof?
@TheLoudale "athiests do not worship a deity or perfom rituals"
The etiology of the word worship comes from the word "worth" and "ship" The verb "worship" means "to shape worth." The meanings of "worth" suggest the purpose of worshiping: to come to be equal to, or to turn toward, the highest or best values. So when you give the highest value to the material world, you are in fact, worshiping it over God. In the absence of God, some people worship their careers, others a love one, or possessions
@TheLoudale "athiests do not worship a deity or perfom rituals"
The etiology of the word worship comes from the word "worth" and "ship" The verb "worship" means "to shape worth." The meanings of "worth" suggest the purpose of worshiping: to come to be equal to, or to turn toward, the highest or best values. So when you give the highest value to the material world, you are in fact, worshiping it over God. In the absence of God, some people worship their careers, others a love one, or possessions
@TheLoudale ""You have no evidence because there is no scientific evidence."" There's plenty of scientific evidence that favors overwhelmingly the existence of a force directing the universe than the universe coming into existence out of randomness. The Penrose calculations, the Hoyle calculations, the string theory landscape model, the BB model, the rules of entropy and the definition of energy all points towards a conscious force rather than pure chance. If you're unfamiliar I could explain.
@TheLoudale ""they can be rebutted and argued over, proving nothing"" I haven't claim those arguments actually prove God exists, they prove we are not the product of random processes, we are the product of a force that has given a specific direction to the universe. We call that force God, you can call it whatever you want, but He exists.
@TheLoudale By definition “Faith is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence”, then atheists belief that God doesn't exists need to be proven with material evidence, otherwise is faith. Theists by definition, don't need that. Without evidence, you're just changing one faith for another. Atheist do conventions, have weekly shows and instructional/dogmatic videos all over youtube.
Atheism is a cult, you have been deceived. Open your eyes before is too late.
@dejesusluisx As i've said athiesm is not a cult, we have no set firm belief other than questioning the exisitance of a god. The sooner you understand that the better. If a book club holds a convention is it called a cult? they are there to discuss a book with like minds? same way in this situation. Also dogamatic? you're the one being dogmatic. I'm stating i don't believe in a god because there is no evidence. You say there is one based on no evidence.
@TheLoudale If a book club holds a convention is it called a cult? If a book club defend a dogma based on faith and this dogma has anything to do with the divine, then yes, this book club is just a facade for a cult.
You are making a claim, actually atheists make many claims, that theists are deluded, that the Bible is a fairy tale, that God doesn't exist among many others. Claims need to be evidenced, otherwise those claims are made out of faith.
@TheLoudale "I did not say theists are deluded" I'm talking about atheists in general, if you don't support their claims, it would be wiser to say you're agnostic instead.
@dejesusluisx "atheists in general" i can't speak for atheists in general because atheism is a broad term and used in a variety of ways. i'm an agnostic atheist if you haven't realized and i dont believe theists are deluded. I can't speak for anybody but myself.
@TheLoudale ""i'm an agnostic atheist"" agnostics by definition are open minded, people in a quest, not buying any argument and open to any option. Atheists are close minded, reached a conclusion, lock their minds and threw away the key. If you're undecided, is better to call yourself agnostic, makes you look smarter.
@dejesusluisx Good job on defining what an agnostic is. Like i said, I'm agnostic atheist. I do not believe in any god, there is no factual evidence of a god so i will not waste my time. You saying there is a god is dogmatic and you lack any proof. "Claims need to be evidenced" yet you said "God exists" in your original comment. Evidence also makes you look smarter.
@TheLoudale ""You saying there is a god is dogmatic and you lack any proof."" I do not reject I have faith and don't reject being part of a religion, you do, so the burden of proof in on you.
""Evidence also makes you look smarter"" I mentioned at least five scientific arguments that supports there is direction in the universe, and you haven't mentioned one. Aren't you supposed to be in the side of science in this discussion? and yet your arguments are based on faith. The ironies of life...
@dejesusluisx The burden of proof is on the claimer, you claim god exists, you cannot prove it other than your faith, which sadly isn't evidence because it is the belief that does not rest on logical proof.
Theory of evolution, Big bang theory, Inflation theory, M theory, Abiogenisis. I'm sure you know something about each of these. Yet no matter how many theories i say or you say does not prove any god therefore you have no reason to make a claim that god exists. don't hide behind faith.
@TheLoudale The theory of evolution is the mechanism God provided for species variation. God made laws that govern the universe, the creation follows those laws. The BB actually point toward God. Before the BB theory, every scientist thought the universe was static and eternal, which disproved God, with a beginning in the universe, the Biblical claim of a universal beginning is proven. Inflation follows BB. M theory is false and I can prove it. Abiogenesis is also false and I can prove it. cont.
@dejesusluisx Your argument has an inescapable fallacy: everything you claim as the result of a god is actually the result of well defined, quantifiable, verifiable natural processes. So by referencing those that you claim are the result of a divine intervention, you are in fact contradicting yourself because we are 99.999% certain that they happen on their own WITHOUT any god. Simply taking a fact of science and attaching a "God was here" sign to it doesn't prove anything.
@Forlo12345 The odds the same person wins every lottery, every week, on every state for all his life are about 10^14, and no one in his right mind would say is perfectly acceptable to believe there was no intervention at all to alter the results. The odds the universe is suitable for life are 10^1230, and you say is OK to believe it ? That there was no intervention? Physicists accept those odds??? Either they are brainwashed by an evil power or just are willfully lying and deceiving themselves.
@dejesusluisx Again with the creationist ignorance of probabilities. First off, you can't compare abiogenesis to winning a lottery. Why? Because a lottery is more like a one time thing. In order to win, you'll need to buy trillions times trillions of tickets. In abiogenesis, you already have trillions times trillions of molecules, so the chance that any several of those molecules form a functional polymer (it doesn't have to be complex, simple is better) would be high (even @ low probability).
@Forlo12345 "Again with the creationist ignorance of probabilities" Before you start judging and making wrong assumptions, first I'm not a YEC, second, I'm a scientist, and third, I have a statistics minor and fourth you should google Roger Penrose and read about his calculation before you make a fool out of yourself. Penrose's calculations are different from abiogenesis, they are the probabilities of fine tuning of the universe, based on the cosmological constants, that allow life to exist.
@dejesusluisx I never said you were a young earth creationist. I implied that were a creationist in general, which is what you are if you claim that your god had to seed the universe with life. Also...a scientist? What is your degree in? What type of research do you do? Have you published any peer reviewed articles? I find it hard to believe you are a scientist given your misunderstanding of science. Which brings me to my next point....
@Forlo12345 "Also..a scientist? What is your degree in? What type of research do you do?"" This just show how little you know about science. Mainly scientists work on two fields in the academia and in the industry. In both fields you have research scientists that publish and scientists that work in administrative, teaching, operations, technical support and other functions. So, not all scientists publish in peer review journals. I can care less if you believe I'm a scientist or not, your problem
@dejesusluisx Your reference of Penrose is obviously a quote mine. Creationists LOVE referencing him because of his calculation, even though they never bothered reading into what he actually said about the calculation. He never once, not once, claimed that his calculation was an indication that life requires a god. His calculation is purely hypothetical and not a solid fact of science; he even admits that. I suggest you read into him before you make a fool of yourself. seriously
@Forlo12345 "what he actually said about the calculation" The scientific data can be interpreted in many ways, and in many instances far beyond what the person that generated it can deduct. The data is there, is correctly calculated and shows the odds of a life permitting universe coming out of random processes is impossible. Now that of course doesn't imply God, it implies some sort of intervention. Use your logic and try to think which intervention might that be, and you'll find the truth.
@dejesusluisx Second: the probabilities of which you speak are based on the random formation of the smallest protein in MODERN bacteria. Again: MODERN! Modern bacteria are too complex to have just emerged (they have, in fact, evolved for BILLIONS of years). Anything that is the result of abiogenesis would be invariably simple. We wouldn't expect the formation of complex biomolecules...but only simple ones. Therefore, the probability of forming functional molecules is significantly lower!!!
@Forlo12345 The probabilities for abiogenesis are much more slim than the probabilities of a life permitting universe calculated by Penrose. The probability for abiogenesis is 10^40,000 and was calculated by Dr. Frederick Hoyle. You mentioned having many tickets for the lottery in the form of molecules, right?, so to follow your analogy, if you fill the entire universe with molecules, all the way until what we can see and measure, you won't even had a fraction of the tickets to form one cel.
@dejesusluisx Again, I hate repeating myself. Read very carefully what I'm about to say. Probabilities are meaningless in a system in which natural selection favors the emergence of simple, life-supporting biomolecules over those that do not. Did you not read that from my previous comments? I want you to acknowledge that before you comment again. Because you need to get that thru your head first before you start criticizing it.
@Forlo12345 "in a system in which natural selection favors the emergence of simple, life-supporting biomolecules over those that do not" Show evidence for claim. There is no evidence for that claim. There is far more evidence for God. Show the evidence!!!!
I'm afraid you are just repeating faith arguments from other of your cult members.
@dejesusluisx Finally, polymers will form spontaneously on their own, given the right conditions and the right amount of time. Most polymers are junk; they don't do anything. A significant amount have some stable function, but perhaps nothing adaptable or viable. But the few that do support life would be favored by natural selection, which is a non-random process. So the few molecules that support life would accumulate faster than the ones that don't. Therefore, probabilities are meaningless.
@Forlo12345 To give you an idea, take thousands of cells, with all their molecules, DNA, ribosomes, organelles, even their nucleus intact, break the cell membranes, and put all the contents together in a test tube. No matter how you treat them, no matter what you do to them, you can add any chemical, any helping method known to man, you won't get on living cell out of it. You have all the components there!!! Cells are living entities, life can't come from lifeless molecules. Open your eyes.
@dejesusluisx And why did you mention bursting cells open and seeing if they form on their own again? #1 Cells today are too complex to have formed on their own (HENCE THE REASON WHY I SAID MODERN BACTERIA IS THE RESULT OF BILLIONS OF YEARS OF EVOLUTION, NOT ABIOGENESIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!). #2 Even if it were possible to reform a cell after bursting it, then it would (again) take billions of years; not overnight. #3 No scientist has ever claimed that complex cells can form from abiogenesis.
@Forlo12345 ""WHY I SAID MODERN BACTERIA IS THE RESULT OF BILLIONS OF YEARS OF EVOLUTION"" The oldest living fossils are of cyanobacteria, which are about 3.5 billion yrs old and they are almost identical to cyanobacteria found today. So, I'm afraid you're making baseless arguments for which you have no knowledge and worst, don't care to investigate prior to posting them in bold letters. Putting them in bold won't make them true, it makes you weaker. You're way over your head here.
@dejesusluisx This is my last comment to you (I hope so because I hate having to repeat myself), but don't try to debate science with a scientist until you've thoroughly educated yourself on the subject matter so you don't make a fool of yourself to the whole world. Seriously, I hate it when creationists use the theory of probability to disprove a fact of science that has little to nothing to do with probabilities.
@Forlo12345 "but don't try to debate science with a scientist until you've thoroughly educated yourself on the subject matter so you don't make a fool of yourself to the whole world" that comments fits you perfectly, I couldn't had said to you any better. "to disprove a fact of science" what fact are you talking about? evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, abiogenesis isn't science, is a philosophical postulate, pseudo science, scientism, it gives us scientists a bad name.
@dejesusluisx GAAAAAAAHHHH!!! Again, you didn't comprehend anything I said. Tell me where I said evolution and abiogenesis are the same thing! I never said that. And yes, I am a scientist. I have a B.S. in biochemistry and I am researching the ability of funcitonal kinases that regulate muscle progenitor cell fusion (which could actually be useful for a cure against muscular dystrophy). So yes, I am a scientist.
@Forlo12345 "I have a B.S. in biochemistry and I am researching the ability of funcitonal kinases" You are still a student, and it shows, you still have a lot to learn.
@Forlo12345 Besides, you totally missed my original point, I was talking about the origin of the universe not life, but since we already discussed it, and I already proved you wrong in those two topics, I would like to ask you one more time, based on the overwhelming scientific data, if you think is possible a conscious energy could have created the universe. yes/not? if no, why not?
@dejesusluisx But you know what, I will give you one thing. I did miss the point you were trying to make. I thought you were talking about abiogenesis, not the probability of life existing elsewhere int he universe. Yes, I did miss your point, even though your points were still wrong. And how pretentious of you to claim that you proved me wrong. You haven't a single bit of understanding regarding abiogenesis; otherwise, you, a self-proclaiming scientist, wouldn't have said all that.
@Forlo12345 I worked for five years in tissue culture before joining the pharma industry, I know cells, I developed a cell line, I can tell you even the simplest cell known to man, Mycoplasma, which are less than a micron in size (less than 10% the size of a bacterium) and are parasitic because of their lack of some metabolic functions,are less probable to self-assemble than a 747 assembling itself from a tornado sweeping a junk yard. There's no scientific evidence for abiogenesis, is philosophy
@dejesusluisx If we take your assertion that abiogenesis cannot possibly be true because you don't think its possible as fact, this still does not bring you any closer to proving the existence of any god, none the less your God - particularly as the entire geological record is at odds with events recorded in the bible. As it happens, there are many competing theories and mechanisms for abiogenesis that are currently being worked on. To make such a judgement is premature to say the least.
@XtalQRP "is at odds with events recorded in the bible" The 6 day creation story is only believed literally by fundamentalists, the sense of time for God is not similar to ours. The world could have been created in 6 days or in 6 x10^12 days it might make a difference to us, but it doesn't to Him. How would you explain creation and evolution to a 2 yr old? Mankind was not prepared for scientific explanations in those days. Nevertheless the story still makes sense when correctly interpreted.
"Nevertheless the story still makes sense when correctly interpreted" - It makes sense that plants were created before light? That Light and dark were created before the Sun and Moon?
Not even taken into account the 6 day thing, just the order of creation is fundamentaly absurd
@dejesusluisx 100% proof it was written by man is they attribute this period of building into days when we know a day is a man made observation.If theres no sun then how can there be a day?please tell me how.If there was nothing in the begining then there is no days.Only reason is by saying there was a universe already made.So yahweh made man from existing materials which means he did not create the materials he used to make the existence but he CLAIMED FALSELY* im the first i made it all*
@Thelondonbadger 1."GOD created the heavens and the earth" means the foundation for all matter, known today as energy. Back then, the concept of energy wasn’t even conceived. "And the earth was without form, and void and darkness lay upon the faces of the deep"Describe how the concept of energy must have been viewed through revelation by the viewer. "and the Spirit of GOD hovered over the waters"energy moves through waves, the only analogy conceivable to describe energy is water
@Thelondonbadger 2."and GOD said “Let there be light,” and there was light": God spoke, speaking produce waves, a movement of energy. The metaphor implies energy waves colliding, that produced a gigantic spark, hence light. This must have been a colossal collision of the energy produced by God and the existing energy waves. Cosmologists are exploring a collision of waves as a theory of how the Big Bang came to be. How could ancient goat herders produce such a profound metaphor?
@dejesusluisx If he can create other things himself then he must be inteligently designed right?Thus disproves ID, now a god CAN be proven by the big bang theory as being another dimensional being that cuased the explosion in our universe.But you cannot have it both ways and believe in scripture from any of the religons if you open your mind to prove your gods existence.This is one of many reasons atheists exist.If your scripture is wrong,your perception is wrong so rethink your theory.
@dejesusluisx So are you suggesting that *God* aka creator is energy?I wasnt aware energy could create energy at whim otherwise we could have spaceships an infinite sources of propulsion and heat.You seem to be describing a being that exists made up of energy but your saying energy doesnt need a inteligent designer to be created and the big bang was energy in its most bound and squashed form.
@Thelondonbadger ""I wasnt aware energy could create energy"" you better believe it, because is a scientific fact. Energy can create matter and matter can create energy, so energy can create energy. ""your saying energy doesnt need a inteligent designer"" actually is not my argument, is science argument, energy can't be created or destroyed. The BB was produced precisely by energy, as the Bible say.
@dejesusluisx You also seem to be admitting energy doesnt need a creator in order to exist.So god to you is a builder using already existing materials.As builders or anything that creates something must have a designer themselves in* ID theory*it seems youve disproven inteligent design for me.A being could have started off the big bang at whim but this is not proof that the scripture in the bible is true.As your described perfect creator can do a better job then set the universe ever expanding.
@Thelondonbadger ""As your described perfect creator can do a better job then set the universe ever expanding"" Maybe the universe has to be the way it is in order to work as it does, otherwise it might had collapse into itself. Who are you to think you can create a better universe than God?
@dejesusluisx Video games+books from our imagination create better universes then god.Can any being created by god speak or view images across thousands of miles in less then 10 seconds?Nope meaning in communication terms man has surpassed god using the same*energy or matter* that he used to create the world.Does this mean humans are set free will in order to improve on his flawed designs and not to submit as slaves or bigoted about minor issues that dont concern the individual such as gay sex?
@Thelondonbadger e "Video games+books from our imagination create better universes then god" The most advance computer on the planet can't create a 1 second simulation of our galaxy, how could anyone imagine how a better universe can be, you have no clue of what you are talking about.
@dejesusluisx Start with flaws like having to consume mass amounts of living organic matter to sustain life and change the digestion process of the stomach for better adaption+survival.Also you could add in telepathic thought between humans,could do away with bacteria/diseases(why did your loving god create the black plague?Before you say the devil, remember god brought plagues upon the egyptians so he ofc made em all)terraform/ create wormholes between planets,see lotsa ways to improve it.
@Thelondonbadger ""Start with flaws like having to consume mass amounts of living organic matter to sustain life"" If we wouldn't our life would be really boring, we find lots of entertainment and pleasure in it, maybe material conscious minds needs that variety not to go insane. Only God know, you don't. We may already have the capacity for telepathy but fail to achieve that conscious state because we keep denying our move to the next consciousness level, we could do the rest.
@dejesusluisx You misunderstood, i mean humans need to consume living organic matter in order to move around procreate and survive.If you could get rid of all the waste that the human body does naturaly and make it better at digesting things we could eat a lot less in order to do more things that require energy.Also organ failure is a huge flaw, god can create trees that last thousands of years yet organs cant last more then 55- 127?( oldest living human i think)Thats pure design fail.
@Thelondonbadger ""we could eat a lot less in order to do more things that require energy"" we can do that with meditation and prayer, we can perfectly maintain ourselves with less than half the calories we consume now, and even more once we elevate our consciousness level. Ask any 90 yrs old person if they want to live until 150. If you are a believer, is not a flaw, is a blessing you can sooner than later meet the Lord.
@gorilla199uncensored There is more than enough land in the world to produce enough food for everyone, actually, it is being produced and thrown away by the ones that have plenty, the problem is greed and capitalism. It isn't God's fault.
So it lets people starve to death all the time. How nice. Why dont you starve yourself to death? According to your story book, your nice god gets the people tortuired firever after it starves them to death...
@gorilla199uncensored God doesn't, your president does. I can fast, actually is a good spiritual exercise, but I can't destroy my body, our bodies are temple of the Holy Spirit, so we are obliged to care for it. There is no other torture than the one you give to yourself.
LOL changing your mind, you know its your god fault it happens, it could stop it but it doenst, it could have not designed it to happen as your claim, but it didnt.
"so we are obliged to care for it"
By using science which proves the bible false, and not begging your imaginary god. Let me guess you eat things you shouldnt!
"There is no other torture than the one you give to yourself."
@dejesusluisx Now, do I think it is possible a conscious energy could have created the universe? Well, here is what almost every scientist (atheist and theist alike) believes, including me. YES! It is absolutely possible! In science, you do not rule out every possibility just because they seem unlikely. BUT, the point of science is to use real, verifiable evidence to discover and apply. We can neither prove/disprove god or its actions, therefore we leave him/her/it/them out of the equation.
@Forlo12345 "YES! It is absolutely possible! In science, you do not rule out every possibility just because they seem unlikely" If you think God is a possibility, then God exists. The logical deduction comes from the fact that God is an all powerful being, so if God can exist in a possible world, then He would know all about the other worlds and move to those too. So if God can exist in a possible world, then God exists in every possible world. Therefore God exists in our world.
Immaterial, invisible dwarf in my closet is also possible. Does that mean he exists? No.
Not sure where you pulled that logic "something can exist -> it exists". Not to mention although some higher power could be possible that doesn't mean that, for example, Christian god(based on bible) could be possible.
@ide94 Is you immaterial invisible dwarf also conscious, eternal, all powerful and all knowing? If so, He exists and we call Him God. There's only one divine consciousness with many names and dogmas, but only one God. The logical deduction comes from God being all knowing (He will know all possible worlds) and all powerful (He will have the power to exists in all of those), so it logically follows that God would exist in our world, if it's possible that He exists in any possible world. Get it?
@dejesusluisx I cannot rule out any deity via science, HOWEVER! Science considers things without evidence to be ignored until there is evidence either way. You have no evidence of God so until you show evidence he is considered a fable just like my pet onyx dragon...don't mess with him he needs new snacks.
@JEL625 "Science considers things without evidence to be ignored until there is evidence either way" So, then there is no love, because science can't prove love exists, there is no consciousness, no beauty, no art, no poetry capable of moving you, because science can't explain those things. There is probably no science either because science can't prove something called science exists. Science is just one discipline among many. It is beyond absurd to base all your life experiences in just one.
@dejesusluisx love is an emotion and has extensive studies on it.
arts: they are man made, just like any god. We can study the effects they have on people and can explain them. but arts have physical properties (colors/sounds) that can be measured so they do exist. God does not have physical manifestations so there is nothing to show proof of existence outside a few religious books. If that counts as evidence than Harry Potter exists.
@JEL625 "love is an emotion and has extensive studies on it" you can't measure love, you might be able to measure a spike in neurotransmitters or a change in physiology, but you can't measure love. You can measure symmetry, colors and arrangements, but there is no way you can say they are beautiful, or that they cause a particular emotion. If you want to live just by science, I would feel deep pity for your life when your significant other swears you love and you try to figure out if it's true.
@dejesusluisx But science is the only one of those disciplines to base its foundations on observable facts and deductions made through informed experimentation and discussion. It is a powerful tool that can be demonstrably shown to work and have beneficial effects. It is, therefore, a sound basis from which to form ones own views on what is and is not reasonable. True, it does not claim to be absolute, but it realises its current limitations -unlike religion.
@XtalQRP "it does not claim to be absolute, but it realises its current limitations -unlike religion" religion is not trying to explain physical reality, is trying to explain the transcendent human experiences and trying to understand the universal conscious energy we call God.
"then there is no love, because science can't prove love exists, there is no consciousness, no beauty, no art, no poetry capable of moving you, because science can't explain those things"
Actualy all those things ARE explained through science by moitorsing brain activity with electro-chemical reactions. the "Love" part of the brain has been found for example.
@TheLoudale M theory is based on the notion that all matter is made of strings. The problem is that for string theory math to work we are one of about 10^520 universes. If you see a trillion universes pup-up every second from the BB until this day on every atom of matter in the universe, that's about 10^110 and you need about 10^520 universes for us to have a chance of existence according to string theory. That's a statistical impossibility. String or M theory won't fly until that's solved
@dejesusluisx Then why would you bother using the string theory against me in a former comment? :/ Statistically impossible? maybe. but there isn't much known on either of the theories because they are basically mathematical theories. Either way, like i said before, theories do not prove there is a deity no more than a theory proves how the universe was created.
@TheLoudale "Then why would you bother using the string theory against me in a former comment? :/ Statistically impossible? maybe" Because they mathematically proved how absurd is the notion of a universe forming our of randomness. They had actually help the case for theism. The same with Penrose calculations about the universe fine tuning and Hoyle's calculations regarding the assembly of the first living cell. That's mathematical evidence supporting the existence of conscious direction.
@TheLoudale "Then why would you bother using the string theory against me in a former comment? :/ Statistically impossible?" Because they mathematically proved how absurd is the notion of a universe forming our of randomness. They had actually help the case for theism. The same with Penrose calculations about the universe fine tuning and Hoyle's calculations regarding the assembly of the first living cell. That's mathematical evidence supporting the existence of conscious direction.
Sarah Palin lives her beliefs. She's not a hypocrite. Wow. If only Jen could go back in time and give herself all the articles, interviews, etc. that we have today. It is amusing, however, to see what we thought before we knew how it would all turn out. It's amazing how much more we know about bailin' Palin than we did then. Everyone already knew she's probably borderline-mentally handicapped, but we didn't know how utterly unscrupulous she is.
Yo, dude, the definition of "atheism" breaks down like this: "a-"=non-,"theism"="belief in God(s)." So when you put 'em together, you get "atheism," or, "non-belief in God(s)," which simplifies down to *"non-believers"*. Non-believers ARE atheists by definition! The only requirement is that you do not believe in God(s).
When should we not respect religious beleifs? When they cause someone to violate my rights. If someone tries to drag me out of my house for a sacrifice, then no respect. If someone is molesting children in the name of "religion" then no respect. If someone is using it as a justification for war, then no respect. Other than that, go for it. Believe in whatever you want.
the rich whites calling the others "elitists" is an age-old politics practice... say the other person has all your faults... you'll know how to find them quickly, because you know them the best.
@dex1391 What do you mean by "respect their religion" tho? I couldn't give a rats ass what people believe, as long as they don't try to somehow impose that belief on me. Discussion around the beliefs are fine and dandy, because then people make up their own minds. With imposing, I mean that they somehow try to legislate tenets of their preferred dogma.
I also find it peculiar that you refer to Jen as "this bitch" while advocating respect towards race and sex.
@dex1391 You cant choose your race, and you cant choose your sex without shoveling out lots of money. Also, i dont have to respect any religion except my own (Stickittodamanism).
@dex1391 *facepalm* You choose your religion. You DONT choose your race or sex. You can choose to believe fairytale creatures are real or not. I think it is perfectly reasonable to make fun of people who think that mystical sky daddies, magic spells, and jewish zombie magicians exist.
@dex1391 No, I'm talking about Christians converting to Islam, or Buddhism or any other religion. How do you explain those if you don't have a choice?
@dex1391 Since I've been an atheist all my life, with a slight foray into pantheism, I can't say that I have. But that's besides the point, since I specifically asked you about the ones who do hold a specific belief and then change it, which, according to you, doesn't happen.
@dex1391 It is a choice, I just don't have sufficient incentive to choose to do so. You make it out to be an absolute conviction that cannot be changed. And what is your point, anyways? Religions can be criticized, and they should be. Why should any ideology be protected from scrutiny and criticism?
@dex1391 A religious ideology is not protected from criticism, and criticism isn't the same as hate. To equate a religious belief with sex/race is the dumbest thing I've read in a while. The point I was trying to get across was that you can easily CHANGE a belief, but you're STUCK with your sex/race. See the difference?
I'm strongly partial to logic and reason, which makes me a horrible bigot! Keep throwing that word around till it means nothing, why don't you.
@dex1391 You really think that religion can be compared to sex or race? Then you aren't worth my time if you can't see how wrong that is. I'm not trying to justify any hate-speech or anything, and I'm not saying people have more of a right to hate specific people for having a specific belief. But trying to equate the two is unreasonable. You can't change your race! You can't change your sex! Those two things are physiological, set in stone. Religion isn't. It's a set of beliefs.
Yes... it is. And the government agrees with me. If you discriminate based upon race, religion, ,age, sex, or any other similar distinguishing characteristic. You are equally liable under the law.
There is no difference...
And we've proven that you can't just change your religion. ... if you could... you'd be Muslim
@dex1391 Yes, discrimination against a specific PERSON. Criticizing a belief-system and pointing out flaws isn't bigoted. That's what Jen said and Matt were talking about. If you can't show a person the flaws of their ideas, how will you ever get progress?
@dex1391 My only point was that religion is a lot more flexible than race or sex, something you didn't seem to grasp. And I'm not being "intolerant" of religious people, I dislike organized religion. If you can't see the difference, you're an idiot.
@dex1391 People convert all the time but just because your believes can change doesn't mean it always does. It's discrimination based on any thing. It says religion because people are discriminated against because of religion a lot. If we had a problem with people who believed the color green is best being discriminated against the government would add that discrimination against people who believe the color green is best is bad.
@dex1391 I care if my believes are true so until proof come forward that points out that Islam is true i won't. But if it does come forward then yes i would convert. Are you saying that people don't convert? If no one converted than we would still be worshiping Zeus and why stop there? Go even further back we would worship the sun or the moon if you were right. Did you think your religion was always here? Also questioning/criticizing ae tnd discrimination aren't the same thing.
@dex1391 If you have some truth i haven't heard please tell i would love to believe in an afterlife where i can spend time with my dead relatives
Discrimination is when you treat one group as a lesser then another. I don't treat religion different than any other group. I questions it at every turn just like everyone else.
No because they're different. Religions have governing documents races don't.
@dex1391 No, i never said i hate people who are different then me. I QUESTION them, i also QUESTION my own believes.
Bigotry and questioning are different. When the church does something i question them and then determine if its good or bad. If i was a bigot then i would never support the church no matter what they did.
You clam something. I ask for proof. You provide non. I than disbelieve that thing until a time where there is proof.
@dex1391 I hate religion because it does terrible things EX crusades, CHRISTIAN dark ages, 9/11. I have nothing against religious people because they are probably good people. If i hated religious people of a particular group than I'm a bigot.
@dex1391 I have a good reason to hate religion just like i have a good reason to hate the Nazi. Am i being a bigot towards the Nazis now. They both did good things and bad things.
@dex1391 i hate CHRISTIANITY. there's a difference. CHRISTIANITY advocates the murder of non-believers, homosexuals, people who commit adultery and the children of guilty fathers.
Non-believers
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel.Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)
No it doesn't. If you hate Christians... you're a bigot.
Christianity preaches non-violence and forbids murder. Your hatred is unfounded and based completely upon ignorance... But then again all bigotry is based upon ignorance.
You're the reason that new atheism is frowned upon.
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel Deuteronomy 17:12 NLt
Adultery
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death Leviticus 20:10 NLT
sons of guilty father
Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers...(Isaiah 14:21 NAB)
Ive always loved how theists demand that thier beliefs be respected and show complete and utter disdain for the atheists lack of belief
dancingnancy09 1 week ago
Fetuses do not have a developed enough nervous system to feel pain. Abortion laws in the united states prevent abortion of any fetus older than 28 weeks(other than nonviability/danger to mother). Most of these are conducted MUCH sooner than that. The vast majority of fetuses have a less complex nervous sytem that your average mollusk. Not only do most of these fetuses lack the capability to feel pain, but painkillers would likely not be effective in those few fetuses that actually do feel it.
exelsisxax 3 months ago 2
the thing that I dont get about my fellow athiests is.... WHY OH WHY don't you care about giving a fetus who is being aborted simple pain killers. Isn't that the least they could do?
trufuknplaya 3 months ago
I hate how I can't hear any of these videos on my speakers :/ volume is so loooww
Macabresque 3 months ago
God exists, that's the accepted claim by the majority of people, you want to challenge that, bring the evidence, the burden of proof is on YOU. Some narrow minded atheist proposed the wrong notion that atheism doesn't require evidence and many gullible atheists had run to foolishly embrace it. Philosophically the burden of proof is in the argument challenging the establishment. What evidence you have that atheism is true? None, zero, nada. Open your eyes, you're being deceived by an evil cult.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx Do you know what atheism is? It is the rejection of belief in a god or gods. I do not need to prove to you that i reject a belief in god(s) because i simply DO. You yourself are an athiest in some way, did you know that? Whatever religion you are you believe in YOUR god. Do you know how many other gods there are? and that you probably reject to believe in them? That should be proof enough. open YOUR eyes. Don't be ignorant. You state god exists, where is your evidence?
TheLoudale 4 months ago
@TheLoudale "Do you know what atheism is?" yes, a cult. You claim there is no God, prove it. If you don't, then that is a belief, a faith, and any organized faith regarding a divinity is a religion or a cult.
""Do you know how many other gods there are?"" None, there's only one God, one divine consciousness with many names and dogmas.
"You state god exists, where is your evidence?" I have plenty of evidence, but I asked first. Admit defeat, admit atheism is based on faith and I'll present it
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx Atheism is not a cult, if you actually researched the definitions you'd know the difference. There is a difference between belief and faith even though they may be similiar; again research. It is not a religion, there is no organized or governing body that athiest join, nor do they have any governing text or a set of rules. The only difference is they do not believe in god(s). There is no central belief other than that. (tbc)
TheLoudale 4 months ago
@TheLoudale To believe anything regarding a divinity is a religion or cult is ignorance. Thinking there is only one god, again is ignorance. Other religions would disagree; claiming your religion to be a cult. Everything you have stated could be applied to your religion. As for the evidence on my belief there is no Christian God for example, is the historical inaccuracies and contradictions in the bible opposed to actual proven facts. You have no evidence because there is no scientific evidence.
TheLoudale 4 months ago
@TheLoudale ""As for the evidence on my belief there is no Christian God for example, is the historical inaccuracies and contradictions in the bible opposed to actual proven facts."" assuming what you're saying is correct, that would only affect the people believing in the inerrancy of the Bible (I don't), but would not disprove God. Were you a fundamentalist? God was before the Bible and before religions, so to disprove God you need to find a logical contradiction on the concept of God.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx What is your religion might i ask? So that i may approach this in a more accurate way. Also, lacking a belief in a god is sort of the opposite of what a cult is. athiests do not worship a deity or perfom rituals, there is no temples, shrines or churches filled with athiests. I believe the concept OF god is illogical I'm not here saying god isn't real, for i have no proof. But there is no proof he is real either, so i choose not to believe. Therefore athiest. Now what's your proof?
TheLoudale 4 months ago
@TheLoudale "athiests do not worship a deity or perfom rituals"
The etiology of the word worship comes from the word "worth" and "ship" The verb "worship" means "to shape worth." The meanings of "worth" suggest the purpose of worshiping: to come to be equal to, or to turn toward, the highest or best values. So when you give the highest value to the material world, you are in fact, worshiping it over God. In the absence of God, some people worship their careers, others a love one, or possessions
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheLoudale "athiests do not worship a deity or perfom rituals"
The etiology of the word worship comes from the word "worth" and "ship" The verb "worship" means "to shape worth." The meanings of "worth" suggest the purpose of worshiping: to come to be equal to, or to turn toward, the highest or best values. So when you give the highest value to the material world, you are in fact, worshiping it over God. In the absence of God, some people worship their careers, others a love one, or possessions
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@TheLoudale ""You have no evidence because there is no scientific evidence."" There's plenty of scientific evidence that favors overwhelmingly the existence of a force directing the universe than the universe coming into existence out of randomness. The Penrose calculations, the Hoyle calculations, the string theory landscape model, the BB model, the rules of entropy and the definition of energy all points towards a conscious force rather than pure chance. If you're unfamiliar I could explain.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx I am (except for the bb model) and they can be rebutted and argued over, proving nothing.
TheLoudale 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheLoudale ""they can be rebutted and argued over, proving nothing"" I haven't claim those arguments actually prove God exists, they prove we are not the product of random processes, we are the product of a force that has given a specific direction to the universe. We call that force God, you can call it whatever you want, but He exists.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
Comment removed
TheLoudale 4 months ago
@TheLoudale By definition “Faith is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence”, then atheists belief that God doesn't exists need to be proven with material evidence, otherwise is faith. Theists by definition, don't need that. Without evidence, you're just changing one faith for another. Atheist do conventions, have weekly shows and instructional/dogmatic videos all over youtube.
Atheism is a cult, you have been deceived. Open your eyes before is too late.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx As i've said athiesm is not a cult, we have no set firm belief other than questioning the exisitance of a god. The sooner you understand that the better. If a book club holds a convention is it called a cult? they are there to discuss a book with like minds? same way in this situation. Also dogamatic? you're the one being dogmatic. I'm stating i don't believe in a god because there is no evidence. You say there is one based on no evidence.
TheLoudale 4 months ago
@TheLoudale If a book club holds a convention is it called a cult? If a book club defend a dogma based on faith and this dogma has anything to do with the divine, then yes, this book club is just a facade for a cult.
You are making a claim, actually atheists make many claims, that theists are deluded, that the Bible is a fairy tale, that God doesn't exist among many others. Claims need to be evidenced, otherwise those claims are made out of faith.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx I did not say theists are deluded. The Bible is inaccurate and contradicting of itself.
Those claims are made out of lack of evidence. Not faith.
TheLoudale 4 months ago
@TheLoudale "I did not say theists are deluded" I'm talking about atheists in general, if you don't support their claims, it would be wiser to say you're agnostic instead.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx "atheists in general" i can't speak for atheists in general because atheism is a broad term and used in a variety of ways. i'm an agnostic atheist if you haven't realized and i dont believe theists are deluded. I can't speak for anybody but myself.
TheLoudale 4 months ago
@TheLoudale ""i'm an agnostic atheist"" agnostics by definition are open minded, people in a quest, not buying any argument and open to any option. Atheists are close minded, reached a conclusion, lock their minds and threw away the key. If you're undecided, is better to call yourself agnostic, makes you look smarter.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx Good job on defining what an agnostic is. Like i said, I'm agnostic atheist. I do not believe in any god, there is no factual evidence of a god so i will not waste my time. You saying there is a god is dogmatic and you lack any proof. "Claims need to be evidenced" yet you said "God exists" in your original comment. Evidence also makes you look smarter.
TheLoudale 4 months ago
@TheLoudale ""You saying there is a god is dogmatic and you lack any proof."" I do not reject I have faith and don't reject being part of a religion, you do, so the burden of proof in on you.
""Evidence also makes you look smarter"" I mentioned at least five scientific arguments that supports there is direction in the universe, and you haven't mentioned one. Aren't you supposed to be in the side of science in this discussion? and yet your arguments are based on faith. The ironies of life...
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx The burden of proof is on the claimer, you claim god exists, you cannot prove it other than your faith, which sadly isn't evidence because it is the belief that does not rest on logical proof.
Theory of evolution, Big bang theory, Inflation theory, M theory, Abiogenisis. I'm sure you know something about each of these. Yet no matter how many theories i say or you say does not prove any god therefore you have no reason to make a claim that god exists. don't hide behind faith.
TheLoudale 4 months ago
@TheLoudale The theory of evolution is the mechanism God provided for species variation. God made laws that govern the universe, the creation follows those laws. The BB actually point toward God. Before the BB theory, every scientist thought the universe was static and eternal, which disproved God, with a beginning in the universe, the Biblical claim of a universal beginning is proven. Inflation follows BB. M theory is false and I can prove it. Abiogenesis is also false and I can prove it. cont.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx Your argument has an inescapable fallacy: everything you claim as the result of a god is actually the result of well defined, quantifiable, verifiable natural processes. So by referencing those that you claim are the result of a divine intervention, you are in fact contradicting yourself because we are 99.999% certain that they happen on their own WITHOUT any god. Simply taking a fact of science and attaching a "God was here" sign to it doesn't prove anything.
Forlo12345 3 months ago
@Forlo12345 The odds the same person wins every lottery, every week, on every state for all his life are about 10^14, and no one in his right mind would say is perfectly acceptable to believe there was no intervention at all to alter the results. The odds the universe is suitable for life are 10^1230, and you say is OK to believe it ? That there was no intervention? Physicists accept those odds??? Either they are brainwashed by an evil power or just are willfully lying and deceiving themselves.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx Again with the creationist ignorance of probabilities. First off, you can't compare abiogenesis to winning a lottery. Why? Because a lottery is more like a one time thing. In order to win, you'll need to buy trillions times trillions of tickets. In abiogenesis, you already have trillions times trillions of molecules, so the chance that any several of those molecules form a functional polymer (it doesn't have to be complex, simple is better) would be high (even @ low probability).
Forlo12345 3 months ago
@Forlo12345 "Again with the creationist ignorance of probabilities" Before you start judging and making wrong assumptions, first I'm not a YEC, second, I'm a scientist, and third, I have a statistics minor and fourth you should google Roger Penrose and read about his calculation before you make a fool out of yourself. Penrose's calculations are different from abiogenesis, they are the probabilities of fine tuning of the universe, based on the cosmological constants, that allow life to exist.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx I never said you were a young earth creationist. I implied that were a creationist in general, which is what you are if you claim that your god had to seed the universe with life. Also...a scientist? What is your degree in? What type of research do you do? Have you published any peer reviewed articles? I find it hard to believe you are a scientist given your misunderstanding of science. Which brings me to my next point....
Forlo12345 3 months ago
@Forlo12345 "Also..a scientist? What is your degree in? What type of research do you do?"" This just show how little you know about science. Mainly scientists work on two fields in the academia and in the industry. In both fields you have research scientists that publish and scientists that work in administrative, teaching, operations, technical support and other functions. So, not all scientists publish in peer review journals. I can care less if you believe I'm a scientist or not, your problem
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx Your reference of Penrose is obviously a quote mine. Creationists LOVE referencing him because of his calculation, even though they never bothered reading into what he actually said about the calculation. He never once, not once, claimed that his calculation was an indication that life requires a god. His calculation is purely hypothetical and not a solid fact of science; he even admits that. I suggest you read into him before you make a fool of yourself. seriously
Forlo12345 3 months ago
@Forlo12345 "what he actually said about the calculation" The scientific data can be interpreted in many ways, and in many instances far beyond what the person that generated it can deduct. The data is there, is correctly calculated and shows the odds of a life permitting universe coming out of random processes is impossible. Now that of course doesn't imply God, it implies some sort of intervention. Use your logic and try to think which intervention might that be, and you'll find the truth.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx Second: the probabilities of which you speak are based on the random formation of the smallest protein in MODERN bacteria. Again: MODERN! Modern bacteria are too complex to have just emerged (they have, in fact, evolved for BILLIONS of years). Anything that is the result of abiogenesis would be invariably simple. We wouldn't expect the formation of complex biomolecules...but only simple ones. Therefore, the probability of forming functional molecules is significantly lower!!!
Forlo12345 3 months ago
@Forlo12345 The probabilities for abiogenesis are much more slim than the probabilities of a life permitting universe calculated by Penrose. The probability for abiogenesis is 10^40,000 and was calculated by Dr. Frederick Hoyle. You mentioned having many tickets for the lottery in the form of molecules, right?, so to follow your analogy, if you fill the entire universe with molecules, all the way until what we can see and measure, you won't even had a fraction of the tickets to form one cel.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx Again, I hate repeating myself. Read very carefully what I'm about to say. Probabilities are meaningless in a system in which natural selection favors the emergence of simple, life-supporting biomolecules over those that do not. Did you not read that from my previous comments? I want you to acknowledge that before you comment again. Because you need to get that thru your head first before you start criticizing it.
Forlo12345 3 months ago
Comment removed
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@Forlo12345 "in a system in which natural selection favors the emergence of simple, life-supporting biomolecules over those that do not" Show evidence for claim. There is no evidence for that claim. There is far more evidence for God. Show the evidence!!!!
I'm afraid you are just repeating faith arguments from other of your cult members.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx Finally, polymers will form spontaneously on their own, given the right conditions and the right amount of time. Most polymers are junk; they don't do anything. A significant amount have some stable function, but perhaps nothing adaptable or viable. But the few that do support life would be favored by natural selection, which is a non-random process. So the few molecules that support life would accumulate faster than the ones that don't. Therefore, probabilities are meaningless.
Forlo12345 3 months ago
@Forlo12345 To give you an idea, take thousands of cells, with all their molecules, DNA, ribosomes, organelles, even their nucleus intact, break the cell membranes, and put all the contents together in a test tube. No matter how you treat them, no matter what you do to them, you can add any chemical, any helping method known to man, you won't get on living cell out of it. You have all the components there!!! Cells are living entities, life can't come from lifeless molecules. Open your eyes.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx And why did you mention bursting cells open and seeing if they form on their own again? #1 Cells today are too complex to have formed on their own (HENCE THE REASON WHY I SAID MODERN BACTERIA IS THE RESULT OF BILLIONS OF YEARS OF EVOLUTION, NOT ABIOGENESIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!). #2 Even if it were possible to reform a cell after bursting it, then it would (again) take billions of years; not overnight. #3 No scientist has ever claimed that complex cells can form from abiogenesis.
Forlo12345 3 months ago
@Forlo12345 ""WHY I SAID MODERN BACTERIA IS THE RESULT OF BILLIONS OF YEARS OF EVOLUTION"" The oldest living fossils are of cyanobacteria, which are about 3.5 billion yrs old and they are almost identical to cyanobacteria found today. So, I'm afraid you're making baseless arguments for which you have no knowledge and worst, don't care to investigate prior to posting them in bold letters. Putting them in bold won't make them true, it makes you weaker. You're way over your head here.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx This is my last comment to you (I hope so because I hate having to repeat myself), but don't try to debate science with a scientist until you've thoroughly educated yourself on the subject matter so you don't make a fool of yourself to the whole world. Seriously, I hate it when creationists use the theory of probability to disprove a fact of science that has little to nothing to do with probabilities.
Forlo12345 3 months ago
@Forlo12345 "but don't try to debate science with a scientist until you've thoroughly educated yourself on the subject matter so you don't make a fool of yourself to the whole world" that comments fits you perfectly, I couldn't had said to you any better. "to disprove a fact of science" what fact are you talking about? evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, abiogenesis isn't science, is a philosophical postulate, pseudo science, scientism, it gives us scientists a bad name.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx GAAAAAAAHHHH!!! Again, you didn't comprehend anything I said. Tell me where I said evolution and abiogenesis are the same thing! I never said that. And yes, I am a scientist. I have a B.S. in biochemistry and I am researching the ability of funcitonal kinases that regulate muscle progenitor cell fusion (which could actually be useful for a cure against muscular dystrophy). So yes, I am a scientist.
Forlo12345 3 months ago
@Forlo12345 "I have a B.S. in biochemistry and I am researching the ability of funcitonal kinases" You are still a student, and it shows, you still have a lot to learn.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@Forlo12345 Besides, you totally missed my original point, I was talking about the origin of the universe not life, but since we already discussed it, and I already proved you wrong in those two topics, I would like to ask you one more time, based on the overwhelming scientific data, if you think is possible a conscious energy could have created the universe. yes/not? if no, why not?
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx But you know what, I will give you one thing. I did miss the point you were trying to make. I thought you were talking about abiogenesis, not the probability of life existing elsewhere int he universe. Yes, I did miss your point, even though your points were still wrong. And how pretentious of you to claim that you proved me wrong. You haven't a single bit of understanding regarding abiogenesis; otherwise, you, a self-proclaiming scientist, wouldn't have said all that.
Forlo12345 3 months ago
@Forlo12345 I worked for five years in tissue culture before joining the pharma industry, I know cells, I developed a cell line, I can tell you even the simplest cell known to man, Mycoplasma, which are less than a micron in size (less than 10% the size of a bacterium) and are parasitic because of their lack of some metabolic functions,are less probable to self-assemble than a 747 assembling itself from a tornado sweeping a junk yard. There's no scientific evidence for abiogenesis, is philosophy
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx If we take your assertion that abiogenesis cannot possibly be true because you don't think its possible as fact, this still does not bring you any closer to proving the existence of any god, none the less your God - particularly as the entire geological record is at odds with events recorded in the bible. As it happens, there are many competing theories and mechanisms for abiogenesis that are currently being worked on. To make such a judgement is premature to say the least.
XtalQRP 3 months ago
@XtalQRP "is at odds with events recorded in the bible" The 6 day creation story is only believed literally by fundamentalists, the sense of time for God is not similar to ours. The world could have been created in 6 days or in 6 x10^12 days it might make a difference to us, but it doesn't to Him. How would you explain creation and evolution to a 2 yr old? Mankind was not prepared for scientific explanations in those days. Nevertheless the story still makes sense when correctly interpreted.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dejesusluisx i guess you are still 2 years old in your mind.
MagnusNyborg 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dejesusluisx
"Nevertheless the story still makes sense when correctly interpreted" - It makes sense that plants were created before light? That Light and dark were created before the Sun and Moon?
Not even taken into account the 6 day thing, just the order of creation is fundamentaly absurd
whiteowl1415 2 months ago
@dejesusluisx 100% proof it was written by man is they attribute this period of building into days when we know a day is a man made observation.If theres no sun then how can there be a day?please tell me how.If there was nothing in the begining then there is no days.Only reason is by saying there was a universe already made.So yahweh made man from existing materials which means he did not create the materials he used to make the existence but he CLAIMED FALSELY* im the first i made it all*
Thelondonbadger 1 month ago
@Thelondonbadger 1."GOD created the heavens and the earth" means the foundation for all matter, known today as energy. Back then, the concept of energy wasn’t even conceived. "And the earth was without form, and void and darkness lay upon the faces of the deep"Describe how the concept of energy must have been viewed through revelation by the viewer. "and the Spirit of GOD hovered over the waters"energy moves through waves, the only analogy conceivable to describe energy is water
dejesusluisx 1 month ago
@Thelondonbadger 2."and GOD said “Let there be light,” and there was light": God spoke, speaking produce waves, a movement of energy. The metaphor implies energy waves colliding, that produced a gigantic spark, hence light. This must have been a colossal collision of the energy produced by God and the existing energy waves. Cosmologists are exploring a collision of waves as a theory of how the Big Bang came to be. How could ancient goat herders produce such a profound metaphor?
dejesusluisx 1 month ago
@dejesusluisx If he can create other things himself then he must be inteligently designed right?Thus disproves ID, now a god CAN be proven by the big bang theory as being another dimensional being that cuased the explosion in our universe.But you cannot have it both ways and believe in scripture from any of the religons if you open your mind to prove your gods existence.This is one of many reasons atheists exist.If your scripture is wrong,your perception is wrong so rethink your theory.
Thelondonbadger 1 month ago
@Thelondonbadger "then he must be inteligently designed right?" energy wasn't designed, it just exists.
""If your scripture is wrong,your perception is wrong so rethink your theory"" is not wrong, is a metaphor, you just need to interpret it correctly.
dejesusluisx 1 month ago
@dejesusluisx So are you suggesting that *God* aka creator is energy?I wasnt aware energy could create energy at whim otherwise we could have spaceships an infinite sources of propulsion and heat.You seem to be describing a being that exists made up of energy but your saying energy doesnt need a inteligent designer to be created and the big bang was energy in its most bound and squashed form.
Thelondonbadger 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thelondonbadger ""I wasnt aware energy could create energy"" you better believe it, because is a scientific fact. Energy can create matter and matter can create energy, so energy can create energy. ""your saying energy doesnt need a inteligent designer"" actually is not my argument, is science argument, energy can't be created or destroyed. The BB was produced precisely by energy, as the Bible say.
dejesusluisx 1 month ago
@dejesusluisx You also seem to be admitting energy doesnt need a creator in order to exist.So god to you is a builder using already existing materials.As builders or anything that creates something must have a designer themselves in* ID theory*it seems youve disproven inteligent design for me.A being could have started off the big bang at whim but this is not proof that the scripture in the bible is true.As your described perfect creator can do a better job then set the universe ever expanding.
Thelondonbadger 1 month ago
@Thelondonbadger ""As your described perfect creator can do a better job then set the universe ever expanding"" Maybe the universe has to be the way it is in order to work as it does, otherwise it might had collapse into itself. Who are you to think you can create a better universe than God?
dejesusluisx 1 month ago
@dejesusluisx Video games+books from our imagination create better universes then god.Can any being created by god speak or view images across thousands of miles in less then 10 seconds?Nope meaning in communication terms man has surpassed god using the same*energy or matter* that he used to create the world.Does this mean humans are set free will in order to improve on his flawed designs and not to submit as slaves or bigoted about minor issues that dont concern the individual such as gay sex?
Thelondonbadger 1 month ago
@Thelondonbadger e "Video games+books from our imagination create better universes then god" The most advance computer on the planet can't create a 1 second simulation of our galaxy, how could anyone imagine how a better universe can be, you have no clue of what you are talking about.
dejesusluisx 1 month ago
@dejesusluisx Start with flaws like having to consume mass amounts of living organic matter to sustain life and change the digestion process of the stomach for better adaption+survival.Also you could add in telepathic thought between humans,could do away with bacteria/diseases(why did your loving god create the black plague?Before you say the devil, remember god brought plagues upon the egyptians so he ofc made em all)terraform/ create wormholes between planets,see lotsa ways to improve it.
Thelondonbadger 1 month ago
@Thelondonbadger ""Start with flaws like having to consume mass amounts of living organic matter to sustain life"" If we wouldn't our life would be really boring, we find lots of entertainment and pleasure in it, maybe material conscious minds needs that variety not to go insane. Only God know, you don't. We may already have the capacity for telepathy but fail to achieve that conscious state because we keep denying our move to the next consciousness level, we could do the rest.
dejesusluisx 1 month ago
@dejesusluisx You misunderstood, i mean humans need to consume living organic matter in order to move around procreate and survive.If you could get rid of all the waste that the human body does naturaly and make it better at digesting things we could eat a lot less in order to do more things that require energy.Also organ failure is a huge flaw, god can create trees that last thousands of years yet organs cant last more then 55- 127?( oldest living human i think)Thats pure design fail.
Thelondonbadger 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thelondonbadger ""we could eat a lot less in order to do more things that require energy"" we can do that with meditation and prayer, we can perfectly maintain ourselves with less than half the calories we consume now, and even more once we elevate our consciousness level. Ask any 90 yrs old person if they want to live until 150. If you are a believer, is not a flaw, is a blessing you can sooner than later meet the Lord.
dejesusluisx 1 month ago
@dejesusluisx
"If we wouldn't our life would be really boring, we find lots of entertainment and pleasure in it,"
LOL im sure the starving people dont find it entertaining, or the people that have to consume water they should not drink.
If your god was really concerned about enteratining with food, it could have done a far better job!
God works in mysterious AKA RETARDED ways! Lame excuse!
gorilla199uncensored 2 weeks ago
@gorilla199uncensored There is more than enough land in the world to produce enough food for everyone, actually, it is being produced and thrown away by the ones that have plenty, the problem is greed and capitalism. It isn't God's fault.
dejesusluisx 2 weeks ago
@dejesusluisx
" It isn't God's fault."
LOL According to your story book
god created people knowing many would die from starvation, bad food, dirty water?
YES or No?
So whats fault was it?
gorilla199uncensored 2 weeks ago
@gorilla199uncensored ""YES or No?"" Of course, but who said dying is the worst thing that can happen to a man, well... ahem... of course an atheist.
dejesusluisx 2 weeks ago
@dejesusluisx
So it lets people starve to death all the time. How nice. Why dont you starve yourself to death? According to your story book, your nice god gets the people tortuired firever after it starves them to death...
gorilla199uncensored 2 weeks ago
@gorilla199uncensored God doesn't, your president does. I can fast, actually is a good spiritual exercise, but I can't destroy my body, our bodies are temple of the Holy Spirit, so we are obliged to care for it. There is no other torture than the one you give to yourself.
dejesusluisx 2 weeks ago
@dejesusluisx
"God doesn't, your president does"
LOL changing your mind, you know its your god fault it happens, it could stop it but it doenst, it could have not designed it to happen as your claim, but it didnt.
"so we are obliged to care for it"
By using science which proves the bible false, and not begging your imaginary god. Let me guess you eat things you shouldnt!
"There is no other torture than the one you give to yourself."
No your religion is based on eternal torture
gorilla199uncensored 2 weeks ago
@gorilla199uncensored God won't act over humans free will unless there is a direct need for it as part of His divine plan.
dejesusluisx 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dejesusluisx
"God won't act over humans free will unless there is a direct need for it as part of His divine plan."
So it does what irt does.
Like I siad it deliberately designed people to starve to death and die from dirty water, according to your story book.
Just another reason why the god of the bible is an asshole.
gorilla199uncensored 2 weeks ago
@dejesusluisx Now, do I think it is possible a conscious energy could have created the universe? Well, here is what almost every scientist (atheist and theist alike) believes, including me. YES! It is absolutely possible! In science, you do not rule out every possibility just because they seem unlikely. BUT, the point of science is to use real, verifiable evidence to discover and apply. We can neither prove/disprove god or its actions, therefore we leave him/her/it/them out of the equation.
Forlo12345 3 months ago
@Forlo12345 "YES! It is absolutely possible! In science, you do not rule out every possibility just because they seem unlikely" If you think God is a possibility, then God exists. The logical deduction comes from the fact that God is an all powerful being, so if God can exist in a possible world, then He would know all about the other worlds and move to those too. So if God can exist in a possible world, then God exists in every possible world. Therefore God exists in our world.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx
Immaterial, invisible dwarf in my closet is also possible. Does that mean he exists? No.
Not sure where you pulled that logic "something can exist -> it exists". Not to mention although some higher power could be possible that doesn't mean that, for example, Christian god(based on bible) could be possible.
ide94 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ide94 Is you immaterial invisible dwarf also conscious, eternal, all powerful and all knowing? If so, He exists and we call Him God. There's only one divine consciousness with many names and dogmas, but only one God. The logical deduction comes from God being all knowing (He will know all possible worlds) and all powerful (He will have the power to exists in all of those), so it logically follows that God would exist in our world, if it's possible that He exists in any possible world. Get it?
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx I cannot rule out any deity via science, HOWEVER! Science considers things without evidence to be ignored until there is evidence either way. You have no evidence of God so until you show evidence he is considered a fable just like my pet onyx dragon...don't mess with him he needs new snacks.
JEL625 3 months ago
@JEL625 "Science considers things without evidence to be ignored until there is evidence either way" So, then there is no love, because science can't prove love exists, there is no consciousness, no beauty, no art, no poetry capable of moving you, because science can't explain those things. There is probably no science either because science can't prove something called science exists. Science is just one discipline among many. It is beyond absurd to base all your life experiences in just one.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx love is an emotion and has extensive studies on it.
arts: they are man made, just like any god. We can study the effects they have on people and can explain them. but arts have physical properties (colors/sounds) that can be measured so they do exist. God does not have physical manifestations so there is nothing to show proof of existence outside a few religious books. If that counts as evidence than Harry Potter exists.
JEL625 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JEL625 "love is an emotion and has extensive studies on it" you can't measure love, you might be able to measure a spike in neurotransmitters or a change in physiology, but you can't measure love. You can measure symmetry, colors and arrangements, but there is no way you can say they are beautiful, or that they cause a particular emotion. If you want to live just by science, I would feel deep pity for your life when your significant other swears you love and you try to figure out if it's true.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx But science is the only one of those disciplines to base its foundations on observable facts and deductions made through informed experimentation and discussion. It is a powerful tool that can be demonstrably shown to work and have beneficial effects. It is, therefore, a sound basis from which to form ones own views on what is and is not reasonable. True, it does not claim to be absolute, but it realises its current limitations -unlike religion.
XtalQRP 3 months ago
@XtalQRP "it does not claim to be absolute, but it realises its current limitations -unlike religion" religion is not trying to explain physical reality, is trying to explain the transcendent human experiences and trying to understand the universal conscious energy we call God.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dejesusluisx
"then there is no love, because science can't prove love exists, there is no consciousness, no beauty, no art, no poetry capable of moving you, because science can't explain those things"
Actualy all those things ARE explained through science by moitorsing brain activity with electro-chemical reactions. the "Love" part of the brain has been found for example.
whiteowl1415 2 months ago
@TheLoudale M theory is based on the notion that all matter is made of strings. The problem is that for string theory math to work we are one of about 10^520 universes. If you see a trillion universes pup-up every second from the BB until this day on every atom of matter in the universe, that's about 10^110 and you need about 10^520 universes for us to have a chance of existence according to string theory. That's a statistical impossibility. String or M theory won't fly until that's solved
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx Then why would you bother using the string theory against me in a former comment? :/ Statistically impossible? maybe. but there isn't much known on either of the theories because they are basically mathematical theories. Either way, like i said before, theories do not prove there is a deity no more than a theory proves how the universe was created.
TheLoudale 4 months ago
@TheLoudale "Then why would you bother using the string theory against me in a former comment? :/ Statistically impossible? maybe" Because they mathematically proved how absurd is the notion of a universe forming our of randomness. They had actually help the case for theism. The same with Penrose calculations about the universe fine tuning and Hoyle's calculations regarding the assembly of the first living cell. That's mathematical evidence supporting the existence of conscious direction.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheLoudale "Then why would you bother using the string theory against me in a former comment? :/ Statistically impossible?" Because they mathematically proved how absurd is the notion of a universe forming our of randomness. They had actually help the case for theism. The same with Penrose calculations about the universe fine tuning and Hoyle's calculations regarding the assembly of the first living cell. That's mathematical evidence supporting the existence of conscious direction.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
You can tell this was recorded in 2008, It's very clear today that Palin is indeed a hypocrite
lestliness 4 months ago
The sound is horrible :/
fablan6 4 months ago
The light you see in Palin's eyes is coming through the hole in the back of her head.
MrApostleLee 5 months ago
Sarah Palin lives her beliefs. She's not a hypocrite. Wow. If only Jen could go back in time and give herself all the articles, interviews, etc. that we have today. It is amusing, however, to see what we thought before we knew how it would all turn out. It's amazing how much more we know about bailin' Palin than we did then. Everyone already knew she's probably borderline-mentally handicapped, but we didn't know how utterly unscrupulous she is.
xJoeEDangerouslyx 5 months ago
@zooryanzoo123
Yo, dude, the definition of "atheism" breaks down like this: "a-"=non-,"theism"="belief in God(s)." So when you put 'em together, you get "atheism," or, "non-belief in God(s)," which simplifies down to *"non-believers"*. Non-believers ARE atheists by definition! The only requirement is that you do not believe in God(s).
macgeek2004 5 months ago
When should we not respect religious beleifs? When they cause someone to violate my rights. If someone tries to drag me out of my house for a sacrifice, then no respect. If someone is molesting children in the name of "religion" then no respect. If someone is using it as a justification for war, then no respect. Other than that, go for it. Believe in whatever you want.
HoundofOdin 5 months ago
wwwdotExposingChristianitydotcom
GahdeMalprigi1488x 5 months ago
the rich whites calling the others "elitists" is an age-old politics practice... say the other person has all your faults... you'll know how to find them quickly, because you know them the best.
AssistingHealth 5 months ago
First.... no one should have to keep their religion private...
And... if as this bitch said... if you don't respect their religion.... then you're a bigot. It's no different than not respecting their race or sex.
dex1391 5 months ago
@dex1391 What do you mean by "respect their religion" tho? I couldn't give a rats ass what people believe, as long as they don't try to somehow impose that belief on me. Discussion around the beliefs are fine and dandy, because then people make up their own minds. With imposing, I mean that they somehow try to legislate tenets of their preferred dogma.
I also find it peculiar that you refer to Jen as "this bitch" while advocating respect towards race and sex.
Bunji2k6 5 months ago
@Bunji2k6
Yes... I did refer to her as "this bitch"
Bitch isn't bigoted... She is a bitch.
I didn't say that Christian Bitch or that White Bitch or that Asian Bitch... simply.... Bitch..
Which is accurate and completely ... non-bigoted...
dex1391 5 months ago
@dex1391 Are you a troll or just stupid?
Bunji2k6 5 months ago
@Bunji2k6
Are a dog rapist or just a pedophile?
dex1391 5 months ago
@dex1391 That answers my question nicely.
Bunji2k6 5 months ago
@dex1391 You cant choose your race, and you cant choose your sex without shoveling out lots of money. Also, i dont have to respect any religion except my own (Stickittodamanism).
TheOnlyAttrition 5 months ago
@TheOnlyAttrition
OK... then by definition... you are a bigot... and no different than a racist or a sexist..
dex1391 5 months ago
@dex1391 *facepalm* You choose your religion. You DONT choose your race or sex. You can choose to believe fairytale creatures are real or not. I think it is perfectly reasonable to make fun of people who think that mystical sky daddies, magic spells, and jewish zombie magicians exist.
TheOnlyAttrition 5 months ago
@TheOnlyAttrition
Bigot... simply not true. Religion isn't a choice. You don't choose what is logical to you.
Here I can prove it. Choose to be Muslim. Go ahead....
Are you Muslim? No'? OK then I'm proven right.
Religion is no different than race or sex... if you choose to hate based upon one of them...
it makes you a bigot....
dex1391 5 months ago
@dex1391 Then how do you explain converts?
Bunji2k6 5 months ago
@Bunji2k6
Did you just convert?
dex1391 5 months ago
@dex1391 No, I'm talking about Christians converting to Islam, or Buddhism or any other religion. How do you explain those if you don't have a choice?
Bunji2k6 5 months ago
@Bunji2k6
Did you just convert?
dex1391 5 months ago
@dex1391 Are you actively trying to sound close-minded and mentally impaired, or does it just come naturally to you?
Bunji2k6 5 months ago
@Bunji2k6
Answer the question... don't be a retard...
dex1391 5 months ago
@dex1391 Since I've been an atheist all my life, with a slight foray into pantheism, I can't say that I have. But that's besides the point, since I specifically asked you about the ones who do hold a specific belief and then change it, which, according to you, doesn't happen.
Bunji2k6 5 months ago
@Bunji2k6
Why didn't you convert? You said it's just a choice. Shouldn't you be able to convert to prove me wrong?
dex1391 5 months ago
@dex1391 Why do I have to convert to prove a point to you that has been proven by others?
"People have died from falling off cliffs."
"Oh yeah? Go fall off a cliff and prove it!"
Bunji2k6 5 months ago
@Bunji2k6
You claimed that it's just a choice.... well than choose to convert...
Or you're wrong...
dex1391 5 months ago
@dex1391 It is a choice, I just don't have sufficient incentive to choose to do so. You make it out to be an absolute conviction that cannot be changed. And what is your point, anyways? Religions can be criticized, and they should be. Why should any ideology be protected from scrutiny and criticism?
Bunji2k6 5 months ago
@Bunji2k6
So it's not just a choice... and it is bigotry.
I don't judge other religions because I'm not a worthless bigot...
dex1391 5 months ago
@dex1391 A religious ideology is not protected from criticism, and criticism isn't the same as hate. To equate a religious belief with sex/race is the dumbest thing I've read in a while. The point I was trying to get across was that you can easily CHANGE a belief, but you're STUCK with your sex/race. See the difference?
I'm strongly partial to logic and reason, which makes me a horrible bigot! Keep throwing that word around till it means nothing, why don't you.
Bunji2k6 5 months ago
@Bunji2k6
Yes it is... just like race is...
It makes you a bigot...
And we've proven that you can't easily change your religion. You're not a Muslim yet are you?
dex1391 5 months ago
@dex1391 You really think that religion can be compared to sex or race? Then you aren't worth my time if you can't see how wrong that is. I'm not trying to justify any hate-speech or anything, and I'm not saying people have more of a right to hate specific people for having a specific belief. But trying to equate the two is unreasonable. You can't change your race! You can't change your sex! Those two things are physiological, set in stone. Religion isn't. It's a set of beliefs.
Bunji2k6 5 months ago
@Bunji2k6
Yes... it is. And the government agrees with me. If you discriminate based upon race, religion, ,age, sex, or any other similar distinguishing characteristic. You are equally liable under the law.
There is no difference...
And we've proven that you can't just change your religion. ... if you could... you'd be Muslim
dex1391 5 months ago
@dex1391 Yes, discrimination against a specific PERSON. Criticizing a belief-system and pointing out flaws isn't bigoted. That's what Jen said and Matt were talking about. If you can't show a person the flaws of their ideas, how will you ever get progress?
Bunji2k6 5 months ago
@Bunji2k6
Here's the definition of bigotry:
bigotry
obtuse or narrow-minded intolerance, especially of other races or religions.
See that there's no difference.... between race or religion?
Religion is as much of a person as their race...
If you can't see that... then you're a bigot
dex1391 5 months ago
@dex1391 My only point was that religion is a lot more flexible than race or sex, something you didn't seem to grasp. And I'm not being "intolerant" of religious people, I dislike organized religion. If you can't see the difference, you're an idiot.
Bunji2k6 5 months ago
@Bunji2k6
Not only don't I see the difference... neither does the law.
So I guess everyone but you... is an idiot.
Being intolerant of religion is being intolerant of religious people.
If you can't see that... then you're just a bigoted red neck
dex1391 5 months ago
@dex1391 Wait. So, you actually think there's some kind of blasphemy law in effect?
Bunji2k6 5 months ago
@Bunji2k6
Did I say that?
Strawman...
dex1391 5 months ago
@dex1391 "Being intolerant of religion is being intolerant of religious people."
You're the one who drew the connection right there.
Bunji2k6 5 months ago
@Bunji2k6
Right... so hating religion... makes you a bigot..
dex1391 5 months ago
@dex1391 No. Hating a person because of his religious views is bigotry. Hating a set of beliefs is hardly bigoted.
Bunji2k6 5 months ago
@Bunji2k6
hating a religion is the same thing as hating religious people...
It's bigoted...
dex1391 5 months ago
@dex1391 Sigh. Well, I'm done here. Have a nice day.
Bunji2k6 5 months ago
@Bunji2k6
Bye...
dex1391 5 months ago
@dex1391 People convert all the time but just because your believes can change doesn't mean it always does. It's discrimination based on any thing. It says religion because people are discriminated against because of religion a lot. If we had a problem with people who believed the color green is best being discriminated against the government would add that discrimination against people who believe the color green is best is bad.
zooryanzoo123 5 months ago
@zooryanzoo123
Great... prove it. Become a Muslim...
dex1391 5 months ago
@dex1391 I care if my believes are true so until proof come forward that points out that Islam is true i won't. But if it does come forward then yes i would convert. Are you saying that people don't convert? If no one converted than we would still be worshiping Zeus and why stop there? Go even further back we would worship the sun or the moon if you were right. Did you think your religion was always here? Also questioning/criticizing ae tnd discrimination aren't the same thing.
zooryanzoo123 5 months ago
@zooryanzoo123
If you care about truth... You wouldn't be an atheist.
Yes... it is discrimination.
Can you question or criticize race?
dex1391 5 months ago
@dex1391 If you have some truth i haven't heard please tell i would love to believe in an afterlife where i can spend time with my dead relatives
Discrimination is when you treat one group as a lesser then another. I don't treat religion different than any other group. I questions it at every turn just like everyone else.
No because they're different. Religions have governing documents races don't.
zooryanzoo123 5 months ago
@zooryanzoo123
So you hate everyone that's different than you... that makes you extremely bigoted.
And no... races and religion aren't different. It's still bigoted either way.
How can you claim that atheism is truth when there's zero evidence?
dex1391 5 months ago
@dex1391 No, i never said i hate people who are different then me. I QUESTION them, i also QUESTION my own believes.
Bigotry and questioning are different. When the church does something i question them and then determine if its good or bad. If i was a bigot then i would never support the church no matter what they did.
You clam something. I ask for proof. You provide non. I than disbelieve that thing until a time where there is proof.
zooryanzoo123 5 months ago
@zooryanzoo123
Do not bother me bigot... I'm done with you...
You can be an atheist without hating religion...
dex1391 5 months ago
@dex1391 I do hate religion but i don't hate religious people.
zooryanzoo123 5 months ago
@zooryanzoo123
OK... then you're a bigot....
dex1391 5 months ago
@dex1391 I hate religion because it does terrible things EX crusades, CHRISTIAN dark ages, 9/11. I have nothing against religious people because they are probably good people. If i hated religious people of a particular group than I'm a bigot.
zooryanzoo123 5 months ago
@zooryanzoo123
You're a bigot... There's no difference between hating religion and religious people.
Hating religion and not religious people is like hating skin color but not that particular race.. It's impossible
dex1391 5 months ago
@dex1391 It's not like that BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT YOU IDIOT. SKIN COLOR AND RACE THE SAME THING. THE RELIGION AND THE FOLLOWERS ARE DIFFERENT.
forget it I'm done. If you can't see the difference that's your problem.
zooryanzoo123 5 months ago
@zooryanzoo123
The problem is... if you can't see that you're a bigot... it's not just YOUR problem... the rest of us have to deal with your ignorance and bigotry.
You can't hate religion without the religious person just like you can't hate skin color without hating that person.
It's the same thing... and you're a bigot..
dex1391 5 months ago
@dex1391 I have a good reason to hate religion just like i have a good reason to hate the Nazi. Am i being a bigot towards the Nazis now. They both did good things and bad things.
zooryanzoo123 5 months ago
@zooryanzoo123
Any hatred towards religion is bigotry. I don't hate any religious group.
dex1391 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dex1391 How about Al'Qaeda? And you didn't answer my question.
zooryanzoo123 5 months ago
@dex1391 Answer my question. Is it bigotry to hate the Nazi? yes or no
zooryanzoo123 5 months ago
@zooryanzoo123
No... It's not bigoted to hate Nazi's...
Bigotry is those that hate religion, race, sex, and other similar distinguishing characteristics.
I've explained this.
dex1391 5 months ago
@dex1391 Why is it bigotry when its a religion but not the Nazi? Both are hate full and discriminatory towards minority.
zooryanzoo123 5 months ago
@zooryanzoo123
Stupid question and stupid assertion.
The Nazis were bigots... they hated Jews...
You're a bigot... You hate Christians...
And religion isn't hate... atheism may be..
And now that I think about it... it's fairly discriminatory as well. Should I hate all atheists like you hate all Christians?
dex1391 5 months ago
@dex1391 i hate CHRISTIANITY. there's a difference. CHRISTIANITY advocates the murder of non-believers, homosexuals, people who commit adultery and the children of guilty fathers.
Non-believers
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel.Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)
zooryanzoo123 5 months ago
@zooryanzoo123
No it doesn't. If you hate Christians... you're a bigot.
Christianity preaches non-violence and forbids murder. Your hatred is unfounded and based completely upon ignorance... But then again all bigotry is based upon ignorance.
You're the reason that new atheism is frowned upon.
dex1391 5 months ago
@dex1391 homosexuals
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel Deuteronomy 17:12 NLt
Adultery
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death Leviticus 20:10 NLT
sons of guilty father
Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers...(Isaiah 14:21 NAB)
zooryanzoo123 5 months ago