you surely wouldn't care if i did or didn't, coz i never said you should believe it or you'll burn in hell. you can't even disprove bigfoot( it's just in our planet).you have to understand that disproving "anything's" existence is a fallasy on its own.
we are not on the same boat. if you believe in everything that cannot be disproven then you'd have to believe in pixies, santa, mermaids, bigfoot you name it. btw they cannot be proven either.
@mroldschoolhiphop1 A Muslim tells me to believe in Allah or burn, yet I'm still Christian, so the reason why you have listed can't be the reason. Have you ever thought the reason why I worship God is because Iove him and not fear him?
@CosmicGrounds you just accepts the myth that is comfortable to you or you just brought up as a christian. do you think muslims don't love their god or their god doesn't love them back. i don't really give a F*** about who loves who. what is irrelevent to our discussion. i don't care if santa exists or not, coz he never threatend me of burning me. you are making an extrodinary claim god loves me. i need evidence. i might be wrong, still need evidence.
@mroldschoolhiphop1 Regarding pixies and Santa, we know from history evidence that those were commercialized. Mermaid were seals sea weed on their heads and mistaken for such by sailors. Bigfoot could very well exist and be a large undiscovered ape -- as many species are being discovered today. You have no historical evidence to disprove God or any other form of God.
@CosmicGrounds so do you think your god wasn't commercialized (lol) or other gods for that matter. the point is can you disprove them(santa mermaid etc.). there will never be any evidence to disproove god or mermaid. the point is why do you believe without evidence (not because just cannot be disproved). your god is just like santa to me.
@mroldschoolhiphop1 Nope, because ever since me having faith in Christ too many things have happened for the best despite the situation and outcome. To be honest from going by how you're taking this debate with profanity and claiming I believe in myths just makes you come off as an a-hole. I've had the pleasure of talking to atheists who are both logical and respectful. If you're going to debate do some research before claiming we all who believe are evil.
@CosmicGrounds come on i never used the word evil. i used the "f" word as an exclamation and also censored it. you said follow christ, he is (gives) evidence, you have faith, and you try to define who true christians are. i know how this debate is going to end even before it started. btw i don't won't you to be an atheist. it's not my intention, but rather i want you to be be skeptical and use reason and evidence rather than faith.
"Faith is the surrender of the mind; it's the surrender of reason, it's the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals. It's our need to believe, and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me. Of all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated."
so do you think you can disprove the existence of ailiens in pluto. come on be serious. in the year 2050 maybe. but until then hold your peace.
stalin and mao!!! atheist didn't teach them to murder unlike religion. atheism is not a belief system. if i was bad that's nothing to do with atheism. then again if you're a good person because of god. you are still the same bad person.
“Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.”
@mroldschoolhiphop1 I can't recall when Buddhism or Christianity has told others to kill those who aren't their faith. According to your argument that would mean anyone and everyone who believes in God or is at least religious is a murderer.
@CosmicGrounds to me christianity is one of the most dangerous religons on the planet. you guys pick and choose from the bible. just look up Inquisition and dark ages.
btw if i said there are ailiens in pluto. do you respect my belief? yet you can't disproove it? i'm the stupid one for believing without evidence. if you don't believe it, that doesn't make you stupid. it's just being rational.
@mroldschoolhiphop1 Personally, I wouldn't care if you did or didn't. We can disprove it by visiting Pluto and finding nothing, but if you're debating against "God" (there are billions of different views on who or what God is) existing you'll have to disprove something you can't -- unlike the aliens you believe in, no one can neither prove or disprove God's existence. Disproving God's existence is a fallacy on its own.
@CosmicGrounds cannot be disproved, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. i never said god doesn't exist. i'm not that ignorant. read all my comments clearly.
Both theists and atheists are too arrogant and stubborn for the majority to agree to disagree. I believe that many atheists like many theists, especially Christians are not real, but just a part of "the club" or bandwagon. I'm seeing many atheists who curse God and make fun of Jesus, but if they don't believe why be so hateful? I'm seeing many Christians not only being ignorant of the bible, but mocking those who actually attempt to live the Christian life.
Neither side can prove?? lol aren't you forgetting that the burden of proof falls on those who come out with a claim. You can never prove the non-existence. It is the same as if someone demands you prove that you didn't steal. You can NEVER achieve that. The one who claims you have stolen must prove you did.
Having said that I do agree with you that it is futile to argue, It is not a debate but a clash-
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
Atheist: "If your God is real, why does evil exist?"
Theist: "I can ask you the same thing, If God is not real, why does good exist?"
That's not really a turn around.
Our concepts of good and evil can quite easily exist in a world without God. Evil however, if you're to believe that God is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnibenevolent, cannot exist.
To try and turn that question around rather than answering it is dishonest.
@Amsah-actually,yes that question can be 'turned around" (i.e.,given a different perspective or positioning) -however,it's not quite correct in the way UR trying posing it. The valid response question to "why does evil exist (if there isGOD)" is If God does not exist, why do U think that any event or happening is "evil" (or for that matter "good") & not simply an inherent event of the "system" or simple reality. Why do we as men have the concepts of good & evil-- other primates do not seem to?
"Why do we as men have the concepts of good & evil-- other primates do not seem to?"
Because we humans are able to see the effects our actions have on the world around us. As a society we've set laws and moral guidelines we think everyone should follow, based on how far your actions deviate from those, we might call them "evil". It's a human concept, we don't need God to define it for us.
Also, most animals do have (their own kind of) morals.
sorry, but i think you really did not understand the question I posed;the issue is why would a person think that something is, in fact, or evil as an objective event (those concepts involve moral evaluations). I am not asking why they would think something is or is not pleasurable. We a person/group claims something is evil or unjust they are invoking a moral standard.My point is being that if there is no God /no Creator there is no valid basis for questioning why reality shd be any other way.
@Amsah - murdering nazis under Mr. Hitler and brutish soldiers in ancient Babylon, Persia, Greece, & Roman soldier, etc... all argued their actions were "moral" as a superior state/pple. Obviously, there enemies disagree. A lot of people today disagree about the number of wives say a person should have. But in 'advanced' societies they would consider one evil & criminal if a person tried to marry/have sex with ANYBODY they wanted to. So, there is a moral standard most pple reference.
the confederate govt.,fighting to the death to maintain slavery and murdering nazis under Mr. Hitler, brutish Roman soldier-all argued their actions were "moral" as a superior state/pple- obviously, their enemies disagreed. A lot of people today disagree about the number of wives say a person should have. But in 'advanced' societies they would consider one evil & criminal if a person tried to marry/have sex with ANYBODY they wanted to. So, there is a moral standard most pple reference.
@Amsah - I would disagree in part,... it shows rather that people who possess objectively right morality (derived from traditional concepts of morality and rooted in monotheistic concept of God) can assess, judge and ameliorate the conduct of of inferior moralities over time.. Remember, the question was if there is God how can their be evil in the world. The Bible concept of God also recognizes evil in the world because man exists in a natural state of alienation from his Creator.
"The Bible concept of God also recognizes evil in the world because man exists in a natural state of alienation from his Creator."
The Bible also claims God is Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent, which means there's a contradiction. In a world where there is an Omnipotent Omnibenevolent being, evil cannot exist. So the bible is flatout wrong.
on't think so;there are evil people from time immemorial. Mr,. HItler did very little in the 1930-19402 that the likes of Julius Cesare hadn't already done 2000+ years before.Humans are fallen creatures and the only way for our morality to change is to have a revelation or encounter with the source of our creation. Our Creator or God can give a new source of spiritual life which enables us to habitually rise above our fallen human nature. It allows us to hear Him in the words of Jesus the Son.
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general secular social perspectives
@Amsah - And yes, the 'morality; (i.e., instinct) of animals is that he most ferocious, powerful, vicious, strongest, biggest do not get eaten...... So, I think that that is not a 'morality' of any sophistication which civilized people could stomach. I hope you really are not saying that animal morality is something which is just as good as human morality. Remember you called it morality- I don't consider animal instinct behavior morality at all
"And yes, the 'morality; (i.e., instinct) of animals is that he most ferocious, powerful, vicious, strongest, biggest do not get eaten...... So, I think that that is not a 'morality' of any sophistication which civilized people could stomach."
Nice strawman. Why don't you educate yourself on this matter, rather than making bold assertions..? Google it or something. Do some research.
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general secular social perspectives
When it comes to Theists and Athesist: those who feel the need to be the most vocal about what they do or do not believe, are the ones who are the weakest in their beliefs.
nah. i love the debate. 0:48-0:53 thats part of the debate that i like: nobody really can win. When they tell me "your going to hell" i say "prove it" and when they say "prove there is no god" i say "prove there isnt an invisable, silent, and transparent dinosaur named ed sitting next me... you cant because you cant prove anything in the absolute negative, but i dont need to provide you with evidence anyway because you are the one making the extraordinary claim that you know the truth about god"
Both sides are capable of using stupid arguments. Attack the logic(including the logic of attacking someone for their beliefs, which is pointless and hateful), not the person or their beliefs and/or lack of belief(s). Theists, stop popping up into scientific arguments and treating your personal beliefs like fact, they have no evidential basis and have no place in a science classroom. Atheists, stop bashing people for stupid reasons, like their personal beliefs.
@46desi that isn't hypocritical. I think you have the meaning of that word confused. Being able to criticize both sides of a debate is just a sign of open-mindedness. It is in no way a flaw or a sign of some poor character trait. You seem angry because he won't concretely side with you.
Having said that... this guy is in no way claiming to have any views that he doesn't actually have, which is the definition of hypocrisy.
Here's another way to see which side is about seeking truth.
most all Xians are convinced that Evolution is false. Evolution has been established beyond a doubt. Our Biological advances are dependent on Evolution, so is Agriculture. I could go on and on, but the point is, the Xian ignores the science bcuz they feel Evolution is a threat to their belief. IOWs, there goes Adam & Eve out the window!
In looking at this subject do you see it as being on equal ground? I certainly don't.
@Cootabux I must take exception to your statement "Evolution has been established beyond a doubt." This is not true. Evolution remains a theory. The greatest downfall of evolution is despite "billions of years" they have been unable to produce one example of a species becoming another species. This includes the fact that the "missing links" are still missing and the proposed links (Java, Piltdown, Lucy, etc.) have all been frauds...then there is the terrible problems with abiogenesis...etc.
@BarryGCarpenter "Evolution remains a theory." like gravity, electricity, germ, plate tectonics, thermo dynamics, computer, atomic, kinetic, cell, general relativity, electronic, special relativity, electromagnetism, molecular bond, homeostasis, photon, radioactivity, Pythagorean, Ideal gas, and microwave are all theories. I suggest that you get yourself a dictionary and look up the term theory as it is used in scientific applications. As for "missing links" the term is transitional forms.
"Theory- plausible or accepted principle.” "Fact- a piece of information presented as having abject reality.” Your statement "Evolution has been established beyond a doubt" is unsustainable. Evolution remains a theory. Your reply does not address the issue but is an attempt to cloud. I restate: Please show us the "transitional forms" for humans from the fossil record. Please show the evidence of one species becoming another species (macro-evolution) from the fossil record or of abiogenesis.
@BarryGCarpenter Evolution is both a fact and a theory... life evolves, that is a fact. the theory of evolution through natural selection and random mutation explains how evolution works.
Francis Collins the former head of the human genome project and fundamentalist christian has said. "It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming."
@chyrd "Evolution is both a fact and a theory"- This is a contraditory statement. When comething is accepted as "fact" it is no longer a "theory." Symatical games will always fail. I gave you 5 documented refutes of Lucy-'nuf said. I am ignoring your other statements- they are childish or off topic & I haven't much time. The list you gave (Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus...) are not "steps" between species...still waiting on missing links for humans and proof of abiogenesis.
@BarryGCarpenter "This is a contraditory statement. " No it isn't. In science, theories explain facts. Facts are a dime a dozen. This isn't semantics, get a dictionary. As for ignoring my other statements... go right ahead... the only reason you do is because you can't refute them. I've refuted your "documented" refutes of Lucy. You are just plain wrong... and ignorant of the facts... It's not my problem if you want to be willfully ignorant.
@BarryGCarpenter How about this... instead of trying to disprove Evolution... which you fail miserably by the way... why not skip a step and prove god.
@BarryGCarpenter "When comething is accepted as "fact" it is no longer a "theory."" - You have no clue what a theory is... that is why you can't explain why gravity is both a theory and a fact.
From Mirriam's - Theory - the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
Dictionary com - Theory - a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
In the sciences, theories are created after observation and testing. They are designed to explain a phenomenon. For example, Isaac Newton came up with a theory about gravity in the 17th century, and the theory proved to be both testable and correct. Scientific theories are not quite the same thing as facts, but they are often very similar; scientists usually test their theories extensively before airing them, looking for obvious problems which could cause the theory to be challenged.
@BarryGCarpenter You see... when you spout off about topics that you know nothing about, as if you knew about them, you come off as silly when someone that does know what they are talking about takes you to task... you come off as laughable when you continue to spout off...
@BarryGCarpenter It is not because you say it is not...ok...You believe what you want, reject evidenec to the contrary & expect realty to adjust. Back to my original point. Stop dodging the issue. One complete fossil showing one species becoming another and give evidence of abiogenesis. If you cannot then you must (if you are honest) retract your statement that "Evoluton has been proven beyond a dounbt." You can't and that is why you keep bringing other non-related things into the discussion.
@BarryGCarpenter you are full of it... talk about someone disregarding the evidence... you have completely ignored the evidence I gave you, with a wave of your hand... why? because it doesn't fit your biased god opinions. I gave you more than one transitional species... you don't want to believe it... that's your problem... remain dumb on purpose.
As for abiogenesis, we don't have all of it figured out... but we have a really good idea...
@chyrd I do appreciate your honesty regarding abiogenesis. It is very big of you to concede this. It is major problem. You asked for proof of God, which is a valid question. But if you will not listen to scientists who contradict your position you will not listen to me. I believe that your problem with God is not intellectual but moral. I want to seriously warn you that if you are just looking for more rocks to throw at heaven they will only fall back on your on head.
@BarryGCarpenter I watched the link and this is a point that abiogenesis being unproven does not negate evolution. However, evolution is a secondary effect from a primary cause (life). Without the primary cause there can be no effect. That would be like trying to explain the apple's existance without having knowledge of the tree from which it feel. I postulate that the apple was once a rock, that became a seed grew flesh and evolved skin.Without valid proof of origin its just a guess.
@BarryGCarpenter "I postulate that the apple was once a rock, that became a seed grew flesh and evolved skin.Without valid proof of origin its just a guess." I see your problem now... you don't want to see how things work. so you make shit up... it all makes sense now
@BarryGCarpenter "However, evolution is a secondary effect from a primary cause (life). Without the primary cause there can be no effect."
Evolution stands on it's own... it didn't have to happen. Life could have formed and never went anywhere from there... your point is pure conjecture.
You praise me for admitting that we don't know exactly how abiogenesis works... but we have some really good ideas. So why would you just assume that it's god? At best you have deism.
@BarryGCarpenter you haven't offered any scientists that refute Lucy... I find it disingenuous of you to continually claim that you have answered my questions, when you have not... You have offered no proof of your claims... instead I get "I can offer your more proof from scientists that refute the transitional forms" But you don't... you just say you will and then don't... so please... do share your proof of god...
@chyrd Honestly, what would be the point? You refute the scientists I gave u re: Lucy without explaination why. If you did not understand my analogy re: the apple, perhaps it was weak. Point: w/o knowledge of ause evolutionists specualte on effect (life). This is a point of ontology. All a posterior arguments are in included in a priori arguments. Also point of cosmology: Effect cannot be divorced from cause. We must work from a posterior (evidence) backward to causation. No effect w/o cause
@BarryGCarpenter get it through your skull... the scientists you gave me do NOT refute Lucy being part of our heritage... you should have read what they said about it.
"Effect cannot be divorced from cause" - then who created god?
@BarryGCarpenter I refute your scientists because NONE of them with the exception of one doesn't think that Lucy was part of our ancestory. The one that does not think she is still believes that that Lucy is part of the same tree... just not the same branch. Seriously... read...
Then tell me how you are going to prove god. Stop pussing out.
@chyrd I have tolerated you childish insults and abuse. Before I proceed, please control your language. You claim to be intelligent then find the vocabulary to support your claim. This is a pubic forum. If you have no respect for others find self-respect. 2nd- you hve not been honest in the claim that evolution is still up for debate. 3rd- your interest is only in maintaining your presuppositions. Not in honest conversation. I will avoid the evolution discussion w/you. You are not honest.
@BarryGCarpenter But i will move to another area of discussion and I will stay within your realm. How much information is contained in a single straind of human DNA?
@BarryGCarpenter are we talking genes? nucleotides? What do you mean by information? I warn you... if you are going to go down the path of, "it's a quintillion to one possibility that those genes came together by themselves"... be prepared to offer peer reviewed documentation.
@chyrd So, if I understand what I read, there is a lot of information encoded in DNA. I read that there is 300 amino-acid protein with 500 bits each for an organism and most organisms contain thousands of protein-coding genes in their genome…blah-blah-blah. whatever…cause I don’t understand what this means. Some guy (Kimura) says that “about 107 or 108 bits of information would be necessary to specify human anatomy” (Adaptation and Natural Selection, George Christopher Williams).
@BarryGCarpenter I have read that this would be the equivalent of “12 sets of The Encyclopedia Britannica” (384 volumes) or “48 feet of library shelves.” Ok, I can put my mind on that. It is amazing that much information is included in something microscopic. I agree that the “improbability” (what? “10 to the 50th” I think I heard one Christian apologist say) is a stupid argument. It did happen- so the improbability of it happening is amazing BUT does not prove God! That is a stupid argument.
@BarryGCarpenter questions: assuming abiogenesis, the lightning that stuck the slime-pool (or whatever natural cause acted upon inanimate matter) not only caused cell but imparted information. The cell had to “write more code”- or create more information for itself as it evolved as there is more “information” in the cells/DNA of more complex creatures. Where did the original information come from and how does information itself create more and more and more information? It's not logical.
@BarryGCarpenter again I see that you are commenting to yourself... I can only assume that you do that to remove me from the conversation and make it seem as though you made a valid point that I couldn't answer. Nice try.
You need an education in amino acids... THAT's where the information comes from.
It's not logical to create more and more information? I assume you have no kids... or maybe you just don't understand where babies come from.
@BarryGCarpenter calling you ignorant isn't an insult. I have left you several forms of evidence, and you haven't even looked at them. All you keep doing is saying that you sent me scientists that refute my claims but in all actuality they refute YOURS. Yet you refuse to admit that.
2nd - I've not been honest? I've shown you peer reviewed science which you scoff at with no refutation.
3rd-I'm presupposing? my ideas are based on the scientific method.
@chyrd Here we go again. You call me a liar. Where do you get the standard for such a category as truth? Second: why is a "lie" bad? Where do you get your morals standards from? Re: info. you say "amino acids." The primary cause of life (natural forces) imparted information and then the information spontaniously wrote more informstion. Are you serious? Where did the original info. come from? A "program" used itself to write more code? How can "code" (which is mindless) also be the programer?
@BarryGCarpenter you don't need moral standards in order to figure out that someone is not telling the truth. All you need is evidence to the contrary
you must think that DNA works like a computer... WRONG... Abiogenesis went most likely in the following order (anything you don't understand please look it up)
@chyrd reduction is necessary for analogy. I did no ask "what." I asked where did the info. come from? And I asked how did these things create more info. to create more complex cells...How do you get through these steps??? I am ignorant but you must be also because you cannot explain this. How did the "first cause" impart information? Does not information assume a "mind" ? Is there ANY proof that information can appear spontaneously??? How?
@BarryGCarpenter if you are going to go with a first cause argument... be prepared to answer where your god came from.
YOU are making the assumption of mind by assuming DNA is the same as binary computer code.
I find it funny that you continue to ask questions without answering any. You ask how things create more "information" I really must ask you a second time what you mean.
@chyrd Please re-read the previous posts re: complexity of DNA in complex beings compared genetical info. in simple single-cell organisms. Re: info please see: "Geons, Black Holes, and Quatum Foam" (Wheeler); "Logic and information" (Devlin); "Informaton: The New Language of Science"(von Baeyer); etc.
@BarryGCarpenter Make sure you watch the following video... it should answer most of your questions involving abiogenesis as well as creating more "information". Obviously I can't answer questions in 500 words... but the video should help.
@chyrd This is purely speculative and overly simplistic. But raises the question:why aren't these elements & chemicals continually producing life NOW?
@BarryGCarpenter "why aren't these elements & chemicals continually producing life NOW? " Who says they aren't? Do you expect them to just go "pop?" You do realize the chemical processes that are being discussed are from a pre biotic earth. Haven't' you heard of the new form of life that was just found? That means that there was a second genesis on this planet... Instead of using Phosphorus in it's DNA linking system it uses Arsenic.
@BarryGCarpenter I've read the bible... several times and several interpretations,... it still can not be used in order to prove that the bible is true
@BarryGCarpenter you don't have time to watch videos that will answer your questions that you asked... but you have time to argue with me? Seems to me that you don't want to learn about things that might be against your current beliefs. there is a term for that, which I'm sure you already know
@BarryGCarpenter "No...not answered. Where did you get your standard to judge? You presented a "moral value." What is the basis for your moral judgment?" From society, as I have stated earlier... let me ask you this... again!!! Without god, would you rape steal and murder?
@chyrd One society loves their neighbors, the other eats their neighbors. Is it mere preference? W/o a law giver all is relative and the logic conclusion is whoever can assert their will is "right" (Neitzche's logic is correct). You are an inconsistent atheist. Do you lie? Do you sexually desire women who are not your wife? What "morals" suit you and which ones do not. I do not do murder because it is a violation of God's law. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."
@chyrd I (and you) know these things are "wrong" because we are made in the image of God. God's law is "written" in our hearts; our "conscience bearing witness" and our "thoughts alternately accusing or defending" us. You got your morality from the same place I did- God has granted you a conscience.
@BarryGCarpenter "God's law is "written" in our hearts" and god being omniscient and omnipresent... it doesn't matter what you do because he already knows what you will do... therefore you have no free will.
@BarryGCarpenter if god gave you morality... why doesn't he follow it? because he doesn't have to? don't people learn by example? ARe you really going to pretend that the jews didn't know that it was a bad idea to rape kill and steal? You do yourself and your followers a disservice. Answer my question... would you rape steal or murder without god?
@BarryGCarpenter why is this so difficult for you? These should be simple answers, yet you pretend that I didn't ask the questions... Would you kill, steal, or rape without god? and What is your proof of god? Why is incest ok in the bible? Why is genocide ok? You want to pretend that you are morally superior to me... but I'm clearly morally superior than your god. And so are you
@BarryGCarpenter "I (and you) know these things are "wrong" because we are made in the image of God. God's law is "written" in our hearts;" no it's not... we are not murderers, we aren't thieves, and we aren't rapists. God is all of those things and worse. He condones those actions. He is also petty... the first 5 commandments are all about him, with no mention of rape, incest, or child molestation. the only mention of slavery is the fact that he freed them from bondage. [more]
@BarryGCarpenter I'm not rational? I am the one answering your questions... you haven't answered one of mine yet... all you do is continually bring up the same statement again and again... why? because you know you don't have a reasonable explanation... Where do you get YOUR moral standards? The bible? If it weren't for the bible or god... would you rape kill and steal? I know you wouldn't.. Therefore you don't get your morals from religion.
@BarryGCarpenter through your own self admittance Evolution is too hard for you to understand. You should realize that you shouldn't try to debunk it. SO... let's go a different root shall we? Since you are positing the claim that god is real, let's play with that for a bit shall we? What is your proof that any god is real... from there we can move on to why YOUR god is real. First lets start with an explanation of god.
@chyrd Evolution is foolish to anyone who is able to to ask "how?" You look at matter and say "there is no God." Then you would have to admit IF there is a God He is transcendent?
@BarryGCarpenter Evolution is foolish to anyone who is able to to ask "how?"
Evolution is foolish to those that don't want to take the time to explore it because they think it's too hard to understand (cough). They would rather believe that a magical sky daddy was responsible.
"You look at matter and say "there is no God." Then you would have to admit IF there is a God He is transcendent?"
Um... no... I wouldn't. you still have not defined god.
@BarryGCarpenter I didn't say he wasn't transcendent... you are saying he is... you are positing the claim, so the ball is in your court to prove that.
@chyrd (Westminster Shorter Catechism) IV. Ques. What is God?
Ans. God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth."Of old You founded the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. Even they will perish, but You endure And all of them will wear out like a garment ; Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end.” Ps. 102: 25-27
@chyrd I understand that logic is difficult for many people. Definition would apply in generalities or specifics. The verse is a poetic express of the observations of a theist. I think if I told you the Bible said the sky was blue you would argue that it is red. You know there is a God but don't want to be acountable for your failure to obey Him. Your pride is damning you."And just as they did not see fit to acnowledge God any longer, He gave them them over to a depraved mind..."Rom. 1:28
@BarryGCarpenter "I think if I told you the Bible said the sky was blue you would argue that it is red. You know there is a God but don't want to be acountable for your failure to obey Him. Your pride is damning you" and you would think wrong... that's just a cop out and you know it. I've asked you simple questions but you want to dance around them. you have the arrogance to say that I know there is a god and that I just don't want to acknowledge him. nonsense. do you believe in Vishnu?
@BarryGCarpenter "for the wrath of GO is revealed from heaven against al ungodliness and urighteousness of men who supress the tuth in unrighteousness because tht which is evident within them; for God made it evidet to them... "
@chyrd Professing to be wise they became fools and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image inthe form of corruptible man- four-footed animals- crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity...God gave them over to adepravewd mind." Your angry with God. Unless you repent you will perish. "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of heaven." Your denial of God will not save you from your disobedience. Forgiveness is available
@BarryGCarpenter LOL... why is it that you refuse to answer my questions? I'm proof of god? Which one? Now stop telling me how I feel and realize that you can't be angry with that which you don't believe is real.
Forgiveness is available? In the human sacrifice that is the Christ? Now who's immoral? you pretend that I'm not responsible, but I say it is you who passes responsibility onto someone else in the form of Christ. Now answer my question... and stop beating around the bush..
@chyrd Cosmology- Teleology- Ontology- Anthropological...but you will only close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears because if there is a God you would have to be accountable to Him. "Having eyes do you not see? and having ears do you not hear?" - I'll get back with you when I have more time. God bless you.
@BarryGCarpenter "Cosmology- Teleology- Ontology- Anthropological" Am I to assume that this litany of ologies is your proof of god? If so... try this... bubonic plague, small pox, dysentery, cancer, AIDS, measles, mumps, cholera, Anisakiasis, Elephantiasis... proof there is no god...
@chyrd what did you mean who created you god and you parents , so why haven god a mother o father hello are your brains so itty piity mhhhh read older version bibles and the modern who left frases away who mess with this ? the men isn the work of god hello how did you used your brians explain to me?? you reaallllly weird ...mhhh dude?
@MultiSolucion honestly, if anything you wrote to me made a bit of sense in the English language (I'm not busting your chops if english isn't your first language), I might have a replay, but as it doesn't make a bit of sense, I am sorry but I can't even begin to respond.
@chyrd the proofment it you , who im i to order you there is a god and now belief in it ,,, nonon this isnt gonne work ,it s your responiblity to proofment seeing , your are indivdual your are you,,, accepting the consequence for not belief in god , no gonne crying or like that ,, it your choices it your responsiblity... i not commend you do this or that ,,, but im belief in god and see the good things, praise the lord. bye the way. who reprinted the bibles? who left part away ?
@MultiSolucion "bye the way. who reprinted the bibles? who left part away ? " - before professional scribes, church members who had at least some literacy. What's your point? If anything that should make you question the very words from the bible.
@BarryGCarpenterYou want bible quotes? How's this for moral? However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. Leviticus 25:44-46
@chyrd The Bible also says you must repent and believe or you will perish. Do you accept this verse? Do you choose the ones you like and reject the ones you do not? Do you understand the typology of slavery in the Old Testament? Do you know the purpose of the Bible?
@BarryGCarpenter why won't you answer the simple question... what is your proof of god? why are you ignoring my questions? Slavery is slavery... do not sit there and pretend that the owning of another human being in biblical times was better than it was 400 years ago... don't you dare.
@BarryGCarpenter answer the question... what do you offer as proof of god... I've lost count of how many times I''ve asked this question only for you to pretend I didn't ask it...
@BarryGCarpenter you still haven't proven your claim for god... let's get back to that question and go from there... stop trying to get out of answering that... once we establish that there is a god... we can move on.
@BarryGCarpenter "The Bible also says you must repent and believe or you will perish. Do you accept this verse? Do you choose the ones you like and reject the ones you do not?" I don't accept the bible. It's mostly rubbish with a smattering of nice stories. It is brutish and disgusting.
As for picking and choosing... I find that funny, as most christians do exactly that. They rail against homosexuals while eating shrimp cocktail and wearing a wool sweater with jeans.
@BarryGCarpenter and it's ironic that god mentions the fact that he brought the jews out of slavery but then goes on to tell them how to keep a slave, and how to properly beat your property. He also tells you how to go about selling your own daughter.
Are you still going to say that we get our morals from god? Or do you think slavery is a good thing?
@BarryGCarpenter you want to continually bring up morals... so let's look at the morals of the bible... let's talk about slavery... and how God condoned it, and Jesus didn't rescind it. But before we go there... give me proof of god.
@BarryGCarpenter stop trying to be insulting without actually coming out and saying anything... You know as well as I do that the moment you go the ad hominem route, you've lost... so... keep that in mind
you surely wouldn't care if i did or didn't, coz i never said you should believe it or you'll burn in hell. you can't even disprove bigfoot( it's just in our planet).you have to understand that disproving "anything's" existence is a fallasy on its own.
we are not on the same boat. if you believe in everything that cannot be disproven then you'd have to believe in pixies, santa, mermaids, bigfoot you name it. btw they cannot be proven either.
mroldschoolhiphop1 1 week ago
@mroldschoolhiphop1 A Muslim tells me to believe in Allah or burn, yet I'm still Christian, so the reason why you have listed can't be the reason. Have you ever thought the reason why I worship God is because Iove him and not fear him?
CosmicGrounds 1 week ago
@CosmicGrounds you just accepts the myth that is comfortable to you or you just brought up as a christian. do you think muslims don't love their god or their god doesn't love them back. i don't really give a F*** about who loves who. what is irrelevent to our discussion. i don't care if santa exists or not, coz he never threatend me of burning me. you are making an extrodinary claim god loves me. i need evidence. i might be wrong, still need evidence.
mroldschoolhiphop1 1 week ago
@mroldschoolhiphop1 If you're looking for evidence then why haven't you followed after Christ?
CosmicGrounds 1 week ago
@mroldschoolhiphop1 Regarding pixies and Santa, we know from history evidence that those were commercialized. Mermaid were seals sea weed on their heads and mistaken for such by sailors. Bigfoot could very well exist and be a large undiscovered ape -- as many species are being discovered today. You have no historical evidence to disprove God or any other form of God.
CosmicGrounds 1 week ago
@CosmicGrounds so do you think your god wasn't commercialized (lol) or other gods for that matter. the point is can you disprove them(santa mermaid etc.). there will never be any evidence to disproove god or mermaid. the point is why do you believe without evidence (not because just cannot be disproved). your god is just like santa to me.
mroldschoolhiphop1 1 week ago
@mroldschoolhiphop1 Nope, because ever since me having faith in Christ too many things have happened for the best despite the situation and outcome. To be honest from going by how you're taking this debate with profanity and claiming I believe in myths just makes you come off as an a-hole. I've had the pleasure of talking to atheists who are both logical and respectful. If you're going to debate do some research before claiming we all who believe are evil.
CosmicGrounds 1 week ago
@CosmicGrounds come on i never used the word evil. i used the "f" word as an exclamation and also censored it. you said follow christ, he is (gives) evidence, you have faith, and you try to define who true christians are. i know how this debate is going to end even before it started. btw i don't won't you to be an atheist. it's not my intention, but rather i want you to be be skeptical and use reason and evidence rather than faith.
mroldschoolhiphop1 1 week ago
@CosmicGrounds finally i leave you with a quote.
"Faith is the surrender of the mind; it's the surrender of reason, it's the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals. It's our need to believe, and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me. Of all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated."
-hitch-
mroldschoolhiphop1 1 week ago
so do you think you can disprove the existence of ailiens in pluto. come on be serious. in the year 2050 maybe. but until then hold your peace.
stalin and mao!!! atheist didn't teach them to murder unlike religion. atheism is not a belief system. if i was bad that's nothing to do with atheism. then again if you're a good person because of god. you are still the same bad person.
“Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.”
hitch
mroldschoolhiphop1 1 week ago
@mroldschoolhiphop1 I can't recall when Buddhism or Christianity has told others to kill those who aren't their faith. According to your argument that would mean anyone and everyone who believes in God or is at least religious is a murderer.
CosmicGrounds 1 week ago
@CosmicGrounds to me christianity is one of the most dangerous religons on the planet. you guys pick and choose from the bible. just look up Inquisition and dark ages.
i can't believe you are so naive.
fyi
whatstheharm(dot)net/religiousfundamentalism(dot)html
mroldschoolhiphop1 1 week ago
@mroldschoolhiphop1 Catholics are not Christians. Research it.
Regarding true Christians have you ever read the bible?
CosmicGrounds 1 week ago
@CosmicGrounds christianity and buddhism are not the same boat come on. you can team up with muslims.
mroldschoolhiphop1 1 week ago
@mroldschoolhiphop1 You're pretty much saying it here, "your god is just like santa to me."
Not to mention, you did post religion is a problem and Buddhism is a religion.
CosmicGrounds 1 week ago
btw if i said there are ailiens in pluto. do you respect my belief? yet you can't disproove it? i'm the stupid one for believing without evidence. if you don't believe it, that doesn't make you stupid. it's just being rational.
mroldschoolhiphop1 1 week ago
@mroldschoolhiphop1 Personally, I wouldn't care if you did or didn't. We can disprove it by visiting Pluto and finding nothing, but if you're debating against "God" (there are billions of different views on who or what God is) existing you'll have to disprove something you can't -- unlike the aliens you believe in, no one can neither prove or disprove God's existence. Disproving God's existence is a fallacy on its own.
CosmicGrounds 1 week ago
what about equal right for homosexuals or teach evolution in class rooms. faith is the purposeful suspension of critical thinking.
btw atheist never said their is no god.
mroldschoolhiphop1 1 week ago
@mroldschoolhiphop1 Oh, really? Boy, you'd have a rude awakening meeting either Cornell West and John Updike.
CosmicGrounds 1 week ago
@CosmicGrounds Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence. “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
it's that simple. that applies to everything including your god.
read the last 2 comments too.
mroldschoolhiphop1 1 week ago
@mroldschoolhiphop1 And that too would apply to your claim that God and all forms or definitions of God do not exist.
CosmicGrounds 1 week ago
@CosmicGrounds cannot be disproved, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. i never said god doesn't exist. i'm not that ignorant. read all my comments clearly.
mroldschoolhiphop1 1 week ago
Maybe both sides would do better to work together to help humanity overcome the problems we all face in life. ;-)
MacOO7 1 week ago
As long as thiest can pull the "faith card" this will always be a circular debate.
mjfraser04 4 months ago
Both theists and atheists are too arrogant and stubborn for the majority to agree to disagree. I believe that many atheists like many theists, especially Christians are not real, but just a part of "the club" or bandwagon. I'm seeing many atheists who curse God and make fun of Jesus, but if they don't believe why be so hateful? I'm seeing many Christians not only being ignorant of the bible, but mocking those who actually attempt to live the Christian life.
CosmicGrounds 7 months ago 3
@CosmicGrounds ever heard of dark ages or jihad???
mroldschoolhiphop1 1 week ago
@mroldschoolhiphop1 Ever hear about Stalin and Mao?
CosmicGrounds 1 week ago
Neither side can prove?? lol aren't you forgetting that the burden of proof falls on those who come out with a claim. You can never prove the non-existence. It is the same as if someone demands you prove that you didn't steal. You can NEVER achieve that. The one who claims you have stolen must prove you did.
Having said that I do agree with you that it is futile to argue, It is not a debate but a clash-
zhrmod 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
shieldsff 8 months ago
Atheist: "If your God is real, why does evil exist?"
Theist: "I can ask you the same thing, If God is not real, why does good exist?"
That's not really a turn around.
Our concepts of good and evil can quite easily exist in a world without God. Evil however, if you're to believe that God is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnibenevolent, cannot exist.
To try and turn that question around rather than answering it is dishonest.
Amsah 8 months ago
Comment removed
shieldsff 8 months ago
@Amsah-actually,yes that question can be 'turned around" (i.e.,given a different perspective or positioning) -however,it's not quite correct in the way UR trying posing it. The valid response question to "why does evil exist (if there isGOD)" is If God does not exist, why do U think that any event or happening is "evil" (or for that matter "good") & not simply an inherent event of the "system" or simple reality. Why do we as men have the concepts of good & evil-- other primates do not seem to?
shieldsff 8 months ago
@shieldsff
"Why do we as men have the concepts of good & evil-- other primates do not seem to?"
Because we humans are able to see the effects our actions have on the world around us. As a society we've set laws and moral guidelines we think everyone should follow, based on how far your actions deviate from those, we might call them "evil". It's a human concept, we don't need God to define it for us.
Also, most animals do have (their own kind of) morals.
Amsah 8 months ago
sorry, but i think you really did not understand the question I posed;the issue is why would a person think that something is, in fact, or evil as an objective event (those concepts involve moral evaluations). I am not asking why they would think something is or is not pleasurable. We a person/group claims something is evil or unjust they are invoking a moral standard.My point is being that if there is no God /no Creator there is no valid basis for questioning why reality shd be any other way.
shieldsff 8 months ago
@shieldsff
"We a person/group claims something is evil or unjust they are invoking a moral standard."
No, they are setting it.
Amsah 8 months ago
@Amsah - murdering nazis under Mr. Hitler and brutish soldiers in ancient Babylon, Persia, Greece, & Roman soldier, etc... all argued their actions were "moral" as a superior state/pple. Obviously, there enemies disagree. A lot of people today disagree about the number of wives say a person should have. But in 'advanced' societies they would consider one evil & criminal if a person tried to marry/have sex with ANYBODY they wanted to. So, there is a moral standard most pple reference.
shieldsff 8 months ago
@shieldsff
This just further proves my point that "morals" are a human invention.
Amsah 8 months ago
the confederate govt.,fighting to the death to maintain slavery and murdering nazis under Mr. Hitler, brutish Roman soldier-all argued their actions were "moral" as a superior state/pple- obviously, their enemies disagreed. A lot of people today disagree about the number of wives say a person should have. But in 'advanced' societies they would consider one evil & criminal if a person tried to marry/have sex with ANYBODY they wanted to. So, there is a moral standard most pple reference.
shieldsff 8 months ago
@shieldsff
This also shows that we change and improve our moral system over time.
Amsah 8 months ago
@Amsah - I would disagree in part,... it shows rather that people who possess objectively right morality (derived from traditional concepts of morality and rooted in monotheistic concept of God) can assess, judge and ameliorate the conduct of of inferior moralities over time.. Remember, the question was if there is God how can their be evil in the world. The Bible concept of God also recognizes evil in the world because man exists in a natural state of alienation from his Creator.
shieldsff 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shieldsff
"The Bible concept of God also recognizes evil in the world because man exists in a natural state of alienation from his Creator."
The Bible also claims God is Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent, which means there's a contradiction. In a world where there is an Omnipotent Omnibenevolent being, evil cannot exist. So the bible is flatout wrong.
Amsah 8 months ago
on't think so;there are evil people from time immemorial. Mr,. HItler did very little in the 1930-19402 that the likes of Julius Cesare hadn't already done 2000+ years before.Humans are fallen creatures and the only way for our morality to change is to have a revelation or encounter with the source of our creation. Our Creator or God can give a new source of spiritual life which enables us to habitually rise above our fallen human nature. It allows us to hear Him in the words of Jesus the Son.
shieldsff 7 months ago
@shieldsff
I don't even know which of my points you're replying to. That's how little sense you're making.
Amsah 7 months ago
@shieldsff have a little respect and take your brainless preaching somewhere else. Did you not watch the video?
magustx 4 months ago
@magustx -- I see-, " somebody" forgot to inform you that this is a SOCIAL NETWORKING (public) site.
Your comment is understandable now.
shieldsff 4 months ago
@shieldsff I'd like to hear you say that to my face so I can beat your gay ass
magustx 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general secular social perspectives
shieldsff 4 months ago
@Amsah - And yes, the 'morality; (i.e., instinct) of animals is that he most ferocious, powerful, vicious, strongest, biggest do not get eaten...... So, I think that that is not a 'morality' of any sophistication which civilized people could stomach. I hope you really are not saying that animal morality is something which is just as good as human morality. Remember you called it morality- I don't consider animal instinct behavior morality at all
shieldsff 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shieldsff
"And yes, the 'morality; (i.e., instinct) of animals is that he most ferocious, powerful, vicious, strongest, biggest do not get eaten...... So, I think that that is not a 'morality' of any sophistication which civilized people could stomach."
Nice strawman. Why don't you educate yourself on this matter, rather than making bold assertions..? Google it or something. Do some research.
Amsah 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general secular social perspectives
shieldsff 4 months ago
Comment removed
Amsah 8 months ago
I love the debates. They're entertaining and one of the main reasons I'm an atheist.
clipsryan 9 months ago
And yes i can prove to you there is no God if that god has a name and a book.
Just read the book.
tilemacro 9 months ago
Define theist....
You talk at someone believing a God with a name ?
Or simply an Idea of a God with no description and no church to follow ?
Atheist does not desrcibe 100% what we are? its a name given to us by religius people. what we are by no means can be described in one word.
We are anti theists in the belief in Gods with names and books and churches
99% of so called atheists are this.
tilemacro 9 months ago
When it comes to Theists and Athesist: those who feel the need to be the most vocal about what they do or do not believe, are the ones who are the weakest in their beliefs.
7danyul7 10 months ago
@TheMagic
However, you are making a claim of evolution and a giant space kablooie, in which space and time came into being.
saltednuts15 10 months ago
@saltednuts15 Define "time."
7danyul7 10 months ago
nah. i love the debate. 0:48-0:53 thats part of the debate that i like: nobody really can win. When they tell me "your going to hell" i say "prove it" and when they say "prove there is no god" i say "prove there isnt an invisable, silent, and transparent dinosaur named ed sitting next me... you cant because you cant prove anything in the absolute negative, but i dont need to provide you with evidence anyway because you are the one making the extraordinary claim that you know the truth about god"
TheMagicSandwichist 10 months ago
Khayav - your condition is called relativism.
The remedy is researching Reductio ad Absurdum and applying it to your thought.
Socrates already delt with relativism please learn from history.
Athiests - There is no evidence to support god exists.
Athiests - There is no evidence to support the claim that god isn't man made.
Form those as questions - the ones you construed are very flawed and not well thought out.
You don't know enough dude, please open a book. (Not being insulting sorry)
dibaterman 11 months ago
Both sides are capable of using stupid arguments. Attack the logic(including the logic of attacking someone for their beliefs, which is pointless and hateful), not the person or their beliefs and/or lack of belief(s). Theists, stop popping up into scientific arguments and treating your personal beliefs like fact, they have no evidential basis and have no place in a science classroom. Atheists, stop bashing people for stupid reasons, like their personal beliefs.
PatrikDC 1 year ago 8
@PatrikDC is this aimed at me?
chyrd 1 year ago
@chyrd It is if you fall into that description, but I was responding to the video and the issue, not you specifically.
PatrikDC 1 year ago
@PatrikDC
*sigh* i love you
annie10103 1 year ago
You are criticizing both sides of the debate, which makes you a hypocrite.
46desi 1 year ago
@46desi that isn't hypocritical. I think you have the meaning of that word confused. Being able to criticize both sides of a debate is just a sign of open-mindedness. It is in no way a flaw or a sign of some poor character trait. You seem angry because he won't concretely side with you.
Having said that... this guy is in no way claiming to have any views that he doesn't actually have, which is the definition of hypocrisy.
TheWillIamLee87 1 year ago
@TheWillIamLee87 You are absolutely correct. I believe I wrote the reply at three in the morning. Thanks for waking me up.
46desi 1 year ago
Here's another way to see which side is about seeking truth.
most all Xians are convinced that Evolution is false. Evolution has been established beyond a doubt. Our Biological advances are dependent on Evolution, so is Agriculture. I could go on and on, but the point is, the Xian ignores the science bcuz they feel Evolution is a threat to their belief. IOWs, there goes Adam & Eve out the window!
In looking at this subject do you see it as being on equal ground? I certainly don't.
Cootabux 1 year ago
@Cootabux I must take exception to your statement "Evolution has been established beyond a doubt." This is not true. Evolution remains a theory. The greatest downfall of evolution is despite "billions of years" they have been unable to produce one example of a species becoming another species. This includes the fact that the "missing links" are still missing and the proposed links (Java, Piltdown, Lucy, etc.) have all been frauds...then there is the terrible problems with abiogenesis...etc.
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter "Evolution remains a theory." like gravity, electricity, germ, plate tectonics, thermo dynamics, computer, atomic, kinetic, cell, general relativity, electronic, special relativity, electromagnetism, molecular bond, homeostasis, photon, radioactivity, Pythagorean, Ideal gas, and microwave are all theories. I suggest that you get yourself a dictionary and look up the term theory as it is used in scientific applications. As for "missing links" the term is transitional forms.
chyrd 1 year ago
"Theory- plausible or accepted principle.” "Fact- a piece of information presented as having abject reality.” Your statement "Evolution has been established beyond a doubt" is unsustainable. Evolution remains a theory. Your reply does not address the issue but is an attempt to cloud. I restate: Please show us the "transitional forms" for humans from the fossil record. Please show the evidence of one species becoming another species (macro-evolution) from the fossil record or of abiogenesis.
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter Evolution is both a fact and a theory... life evolves, that is a fact. the theory of evolution through natural selection and random mutation explains how evolution works.
Francis Collins the former head of the human genome project and fundamentalist christian has said. "It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming."
chyrd 1 year ago
@chyrd "Evolution is both a fact and a theory"- This is a contraditory statement. When comething is accepted as "fact" it is no longer a "theory." Symatical games will always fail. I gave you 5 documented refutes of Lucy-'nuf said. I am ignoring your other statements- they are childish or off topic & I haven't much time. The list you gave (Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus...) are not "steps" between species...still waiting on missing links for humans and proof of abiogenesis.
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter "This is a contraditory statement. " No it isn't. In science, theories explain facts. Facts are a dime a dozen. This isn't semantics, get a dictionary. As for ignoring my other statements... go right ahead... the only reason you do is because you can't refute them. I've refuted your "documented" refutes of Lucy. You are just plain wrong... and ignorant of the facts... It's not my problem if you want to be willfully ignorant.
chyrd 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter How about this... instead of trying to disprove Evolution... which you fail miserably by the way... why not skip a step and prove god.
chyrd 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter "When comething is accepted as "fact" it is no longer a "theory."" - You have no clue what a theory is... that is why you can't explain why gravity is both a theory and a fact.
From Mirriam's - Theory - the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
Dictionary com - Theory - a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
chyrd 1 year ago
In the sciences, theories are created after observation and testing. They are designed to explain a phenomenon. For example, Isaac Newton came up with a theory about gravity in the 17th century, and the theory proved to be both testable and correct. Scientific theories are not quite the same thing as facts, but they are often very similar; scientists usually test their theories extensively before airing them, looking for obvious problems which could cause the theory to be challenged.
chyrd 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter You see... when you spout off about topics that you know nothing about, as if you knew about them, you come off as silly when someone that does know what they are talking about takes you to task... you come off as laughable when you continue to spout off...
chyrd 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter It is not because you say it is not...ok...You believe what you want, reject evidenec to the contrary & expect realty to adjust. Back to my original point. Stop dodging the issue. One complete fossil showing one species becoming another and give evidence of abiogenesis. If you cannot then you must (if you are honest) retract your statement that "Evoluton has been proven beyond a dounbt." You can't and that is why you keep bringing other non-related things into the discussion.
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter you are full of it... talk about someone disregarding the evidence... you have completely ignored the evidence I gave you, with a wave of your hand... why? because it doesn't fit your biased god opinions. I gave you more than one transitional species... you don't want to believe it... that's your problem... remain dumb on purpose.
As for abiogenesis, we don't have all of it figured out... but we have a really good idea...
watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
chyrd 1 year ago
@chyrd I do appreciate your honesty regarding abiogenesis. It is very big of you to concede this. It is major problem. You asked for proof of God, which is a valid question. But if you will not listen to scientists who contradict your position you will not listen to me. I believe that your problem with God is not intellectual but moral. I want to seriously warn you that if you are just looking for more rocks to throw at heaven they will only fall back on your on head.
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter I watched the link and this is a point that abiogenesis being unproven does not negate evolution. However, evolution is a secondary effect from a primary cause (life). Without the primary cause there can be no effect. That would be like trying to explain the apple's existance without having knowledge of the tree from which it feel. I postulate that the apple was once a rock, that became a seed grew flesh and evolved skin.Without valid proof of origin its just a guess.
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter "I postulate that the apple was once a rock, that became a seed grew flesh and evolved skin.Without valid proof of origin its just a guess." I see your problem now... you don't want to see how things work. so you make shit up... it all makes sense now
chyrd 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k&feature=related
I suggest you watch the whole series.
chyrd 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter "However, evolution is a secondary effect from a primary cause (life). Without the primary cause there can be no effect."
Evolution stands on it's own... it didn't have to happen. Life could have formed and never went anywhere from there... your point is pure conjecture.
You praise me for admitting that we don't know exactly how abiogenesis works... but we have some really good ideas. So why would you just assume that it's god? At best you have deism.
chyrd 1 year ago
@chyrd Without an explanation of the primary cause the effect can only be speculative.
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BarryGCarpenter "Without an explanation of the primary cause the effect can only be speculative. " Exactly!! Therefore... god is a speculation
chyrd 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter you haven't offered any scientists that refute Lucy... I find it disingenuous of you to continually claim that you have answered my questions, when you have not... You have offered no proof of your claims... instead I get "I can offer your more proof from scientists that refute the transitional forms" But you don't... you just say you will and then don't... so please... do share your proof of god...
chyrd 1 year ago
@chyrd Honestly, what would be the point? You refute the scientists I gave u re: Lucy without explaination why. If you did not understand my analogy re: the apple, perhaps it was weak. Point: w/o knowledge of ause evolutionists specualte on effect (life). This is a point of ontology. All a posterior arguments are in included in a priori arguments. Also point of cosmology: Effect cannot be divorced from cause. We must work from a posterior (evidence) backward to causation. No effect w/o cause
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter get it through your skull... the scientists you gave me do NOT refute Lucy being part of our heritage... you should have read what they said about it.
"Effect cannot be divorced from cause" - then who created god?
chyrd 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter I refute your scientists because NONE of them with the exception of one doesn't think that Lucy was part of our ancestory. The one that does not think she is still believes that that Lucy is part of the same tree... just not the same branch. Seriously... read...
Then tell me how you are going to prove god. Stop pussing out.
chyrd 1 year ago
@chyrd I have tolerated you childish insults and abuse. Before I proceed, please control your language. You claim to be intelligent then find the vocabulary to support your claim. This is a pubic forum. If you have no respect for others find self-respect. 2nd- you hve not been honest in the claim that evolution is still up for debate. 3rd- your interest is only in maintaining your presuppositions. Not in honest conversation. I will avoid the evolution discussion w/you. You are not honest.
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter But i will move to another area of discussion and I will stay within your realm. How much information is contained in a single straind of human DNA?
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter are we talking genes? nucleotides? What do you mean by information? I warn you... if you are going to go down the path of, "it's a quintillion to one possibility that those genes came together by themselves"... be prepared to offer peer reviewed documentation.
chyrd 1 year ago
@chyrd So, if I understand what I read, there is a lot of information encoded in DNA. I read that there is 300 amino-acid protein with 500 bits each for an organism and most organisms contain thousands of protein-coding genes in their genome…blah-blah-blah. whatever…cause I don’t understand what this means. Some guy (Kimura) says that “about 107 or 108 bits of information would be necessary to specify human anatomy” (Adaptation and Natural Selection, George Christopher Williams).
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter I have read that this would be the equivalent of “12 sets of The Encyclopedia Britannica” (384 volumes) or “48 feet of library shelves.” Ok, I can put my mind on that. It is amazing that much information is included in something microscopic. I agree that the “improbability” (what? “10 to the 50th” I think I heard one Christian apologist say) is a stupid argument. It did happen- so the improbability of it happening is amazing BUT does not prove God! That is a stupid argument.
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter questions: assuming abiogenesis, the lightning that stuck the slime-pool (or whatever natural cause acted upon inanimate matter) not only caused cell but imparted information. The cell had to “write more code”- or create more information for itself as it evolved as there is more “information” in the cells/DNA of more complex creatures. Where did the original information come from and how does information itself create more and more and more information? It's not logical.
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter again I see that you are commenting to yourself... I can only assume that you do that to remove me from the conversation and make it seem as though you made a valid point that I couldn't answer. Nice try.
You need an education in amino acids... THAT's where the information comes from.
It's not logical to create more and more information? I assume you have no kids... or maybe you just don't understand where babies come from.
chyrd 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter calling you ignorant isn't an insult. I have left you several forms of evidence, and you haven't even looked at them. All you keep doing is saying that you sent me scientists that refute my claims but in all actuality they refute YOURS. Yet you refuse to admit that.
2nd - I've not been honest? I've shown you peer reviewed science which you scoff at with no refutation.
3rd-I'm presupposing? my ideas are based on the scientific method.
chyrd 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter I am honest... you my friend are a liar
chyrd 1 year ago
@chyrd Here we go again. You call me a liar. Where do you get the standard for such a category as truth? Second: why is a "lie" bad? Where do you get your morals standards from? Re: info. you say "amino acids." The primary cause of life (natural forces) imparted information and then the information spontaniously wrote more informstion. Are you serious? Where did the original info. come from? A "program" used itself to write more code? How can "code" (which is mindless) also be the programer?
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter you don't need moral standards in order to figure out that someone is not telling the truth. All you need is evidence to the contrary
you must think that DNA works like a computer... WRONG... Abiogenesis went most likely in the following order (anything you don't understand please look it up)
1. simple chemicals 2. polymers 3. replicating polymers 4. hypercycle 5. protobiont 6. bacteria
You seem to think it goes from simple chemicals to bacteria.
chyrd 1 year ago
@chyrd reduction is necessary for analogy. I did no ask "what." I asked where did the info. come from? And I asked how did these things create more info. to create more complex cells...How do you get through these steps??? I am ignorant but you must be also because you cannot explain this. How did the "first cause" impart information? Does not information assume a "mind" ? Is there ANY proof that information can appear spontaneously??? How?
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter if you are going to go with a first cause argument... be prepared to answer where your god came from.
YOU are making the assumption of mind by assuming DNA is the same as binary computer code.
I find it funny that you continue to ask questions without answering any. You ask how things create more "information" I really must ask you a second time what you mean.
/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE
chyrd 1 year ago
@chyrd Please re-read the previous posts re: complexity of DNA in complex beings compared genetical info. in simple single-cell organisms. Re: info please see: "Geons, Black Holes, and Quatum Foam" (Wheeler); "Logic and information" (Devlin); "Informaton: The New Language of Science"(von Baeyer); etc.
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter don't start confusing cosmology with biology.
chyrd 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter Make sure you watch the following video... it should answer most of your questions involving abiogenesis as well as creating more "information". Obviously I can't answer questions in 500 words... but the video should help.
/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE
chyrd 1 year ago
@chyrd This is purely speculative and overly simplistic. But raises the question:why aren't these elements & chemicals continually producing life NOW?
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter and god isn't speculattive and overly simplistic? At least this idea of abiogenesis has scienctific proof behind it.
You really didn't pay attention to the videos did you?
chyrd 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter "why aren't these elements & chemicals continually producing life NOW? " Who says they aren't? Do you expect them to just go "pop?" You do realize the chemical processes that are being discussed are from a pre biotic earth. Haven't' you heard of the new form of life that was just found? That means that there was a second genesis on this planet... Instead of using Phosphorus in it's DNA linking system it uses Arsenic.
chyrd 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter or
/watch?v=3H0RXDrfyZc&feature=related
chyrd 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter as for intelligent design... or irreducible complexity...
/watch?v=irVqVKdiohE&feature=related
chyrd 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter maybe watch this whole series...
/watch?v=wg1fs6vp9Ok
chyrd 1 year ago
@chyrd I don't have time to watch these now but will try to when I can. May I refer you to th Bible: read John chapter 1.
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter I've read the bible... several times and several interpretations,... it still can not be used in order to prove that the bible is true
chyrd 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter you don't have time to watch videos that will answer your questions that you asked... but you have time to argue with me? Seems to me that you don't want to learn about things that might be against your current beliefs. there is a term for that, which I'm sure you already know
chyrd 1 year ago
@chyrd re: moral standards and truth: If a man murders someone and lies about by what standard will you judge him? Why should he be judged?
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BarryGCarpenter re: moral standards and truth: If a man murders someone and lies about by what standard will you judge him? Why should he be judged?
Answered already. Moving on.
chyrd 1 year ago
@chyrd No...not answered. Where did you get your standard to judge? You presented a "moral value." What is the basis for your moral judgment?
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter "No...not answered. Where did you get your standard to judge? You presented a "moral value." What is the basis for your moral judgment?" From society, as I have stated earlier... let me ask you this... again!!! Without god, would you rape steal and murder?
chyrd 1 year ago
@chyrd One society loves their neighbors, the other eats their neighbors. Is it mere preference? W/o a law giver all is relative and the logic conclusion is whoever can assert their will is "right" (Neitzche's logic is correct). You are an inconsistent atheist. Do you lie? Do you sexually desire women who are not your wife? What "morals" suit you and which ones do not. I do not do murder because it is a violation of God's law. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter so if not for god's law... (not Hammurabi) you would kill?
chyrd 1 year ago
@chyrd I (and you) know these things are "wrong" because we are made in the image of God. God's law is "written" in our hearts; our "conscience bearing witness" and our "thoughts alternately accusing or defending" us. You got your morality from the same place I did- God has granted you a conscience.
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter "God's law is "written" in our hearts" and god being omniscient and omnipresent... it doesn't matter what you do because he already knows what you will do... therefore you have no free will.
chyrd 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter if god gave you morality... why doesn't he follow it? because he doesn't have to? don't people learn by example? ARe you really going to pretend that the jews didn't know that it was a bad idea to rape kill and steal? You do yourself and your followers a disservice. Answer my question... would you rape steal or murder without god?
chyrd 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter why is this so difficult for you? These should be simple answers, yet you pretend that I didn't ask the questions... Would you kill, steal, or rape without god? and What is your proof of god? Why is incest ok in the bible? Why is genocide ok? You want to pretend that you are morally superior to me... but I'm clearly morally superior than your god. And so are you
chyrd 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter "I (and you) know these things are "wrong" because we are made in the image of God. God's law is "written" in our hearts;" no it's not... we are not murderers, we aren't thieves, and we aren't rapists. God is all of those things and worse. He condones those actions. He is also petty... the first 5 commandments are all about him, with no mention of rape, incest, or child molestation. the only mention of slavery is the fact that he freed them from bondage. [more]
chyrd 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter I'm not rational? I am the one answering your questions... you haven't answered one of mine yet... all you do is continually bring up the same statement again and again... why? because you know you don't have a reasonable explanation... Where do you get YOUR moral standards? The bible? If it weren't for the bible or god... would you rape kill and steal? I know you wouldn't.. Therefore you don't get your morals from religion.
chyrd 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter Please answer.
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter through your own self admittance Evolution is too hard for you to understand. You should realize that you shouldn't try to debunk it. SO... let's go a different root shall we? Since you are positing the claim that god is real, let's play with that for a bit shall we? What is your proof that any god is real... from there we can move on to why YOUR god is real. First lets start with an explanation of god.
chyrd 1 year ago
@chyrd Evolution is foolish to anyone who is able to to ask "how?" You look at matter and say "there is no God." Then you would have to admit IF there is a God He is transcendent?
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter Evolution is foolish to anyone who is able to to ask "how?"
Evolution is foolish to those that don't want to take the time to explore it because they think it's too hard to understand (cough). They would rather believe that a magical sky daddy was responsible.
"You look at matter and say "there is no God." Then you would have to admit IF there is a God He is transcendent?"
Um... no... I wouldn't. you still have not defined god.
chyrd 1 year ago
@chyrd Please explain your answer (ie., you find no "evidence" of God in matter but if God did exist, He is not transcendent).
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter I didn't say he wasn't transcendent... you are saying he is... you are positing the claim, so the ball is in your court to prove that.
chyrd 1 year ago
Comment removed
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter "Please explain your answer" You have some nerve... you won't answer my questions but ask for explanations? For things I never said?
answer the question... what is your proof of god!
chyrd 1 year ago
@chyrd (Westminster Shorter Catechism) IV. Ques. What is God?
Ans. God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth."Of old You founded the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. Even they will perish, but You endure And all of them will wear out like a garment ; Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end.” Ps. 102: 25-27
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter "Ans. God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth"
And you know this because of a bible verse? Isn't that counter intuitive?
Are you going to argue the case of the judeo christian god? or just a general idea of god?
chyrd 1 year ago
@chyrd I understand that logic is difficult for many people. Definition would apply in generalities or specifics. The verse is a poetic express of the observations of a theist. I think if I told you the Bible said the sky was blue you would argue that it is red. You know there is a God but don't want to be acountable for your failure to obey Him. Your pride is damning you."And just as they did not see fit to acnowledge God any longer, He gave them them over to a depraved mind..."Rom. 1:28
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter "I think if I told you the Bible said the sky was blue you would argue that it is red. You know there is a God but don't want to be acountable for your failure to obey Him. Your pride is damning you" and you would think wrong... that's just a cop out and you know it. I've asked you simple questions but you want to dance around them. you have the arrogance to say that I know there is a god and that I just don't want to acknowledge him. nonsense. do you believe in Vishnu?
chyrd 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter stop beating around the bush, and answer the question. give us your proof of god.
chyrd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chyrd where is your proof that God doesn't exist?
Picklez008 1 year ago
Comment removed
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BarryGCarpenter "for the wrath of GO is revealed from heaven against al ungodliness and urighteousness of men who supress the tuth in unrighteousness because tht which is evident within them; for God made it evidet to them... "
And?
chyrd 1 year ago
@chyrd Professing to be wise they became fools and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image inthe form of corruptible man- four-footed animals- crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity...God gave them over to adepravewd mind." Your angry with God. Unless you repent you will perish. "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of heaven." Your denial of God will not save you from your disobedience. Forgiveness is available
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter LOL... why is it that you refuse to answer my questions? I'm proof of god? Which one? Now stop telling me how I feel and realize that you can't be angry with that which you don't believe is real.
Forgiveness is available? In the human sacrifice that is the Christ? Now who's immoral? you pretend that I'm not responsible, but I say it is you who passes responsibility onto someone else in the form of Christ. Now answer my question... and stop beating around the bush..
chyrd 1 year ago
@chyrd Cosmology- Teleology- Ontology- Anthropological...but you will only close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears because if there is a God you would have to be accountable to Him. "Having eyes do you not see? and having ears do you not hear?" - I'll get back with you when I have more time. God bless you.
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter "Cosmology- Teleology- Ontology- Anthropological" Am I to assume that this litany of ologies is your proof of god? If so... try this... bubonic plague, small pox, dysentery, cancer, AIDS, measles, mumps, cholera, Anisakiasis, Elephantiasis... proof there is no god...
Thanks for playin... =-)
chyrd 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter Teleology? who created god?
chyrd 1 year ago
@chyrd what did you mean who created you god and you parents , so why haven god a mother o father hello are your brains so itty piity mhhhh read older version bibles and the modern who left frases away who mess with this ? the men isn the work of god hello how did you used your brians explain to me?? you reaallllly weird ...mhhh dude?
MultiSolucion 11 months ago
@MultiSolucion honestly, if anything you wrote to me made a bit of sense in the English language (I'm not busting your chops if english isn't your first language), I might have a replay, but as it doesn't make a bit of sense, I am sorry but I can't even begin to respond.
chyrd 11 months ago
@chyrd the proofment it you , who im i to order you there is a god and now belief in it ,,, nonon this isnt gonne work ,it s your responiblity to proofment seeing , your are indivdual your are you,,, accepting the consequence for not belief in god , no gonne crying or like that ,, it your choices it your responsiblity... i not commend you do this or that ,,, but im belief in god and see the good things, praise the lord. bye the way. who reprinted the bibles? who left part away ?
MultiSolucion 11 months ago
@MultiSolucion "bye the way. who reprinted the bibles? who left part away ? " - before professional scribes, church members who had at least some literacy. What's your point? If anything that should make you question the very words from the bible.
chyrd 11 months ago
@BarryGCarpenter Ontology - you certainly don't mean that do you?
and I know for a fact that you don't mean anthropology... you yourself have admitted to not knowing basic biology... so how do you go to anthropology?
and Cosmology? Really? You mean the fact that we aren't even a speck of dust in the immense universe?
Is that really what you are offering as proof of god?
chyrd 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenterYou want bible quotes? How's this for moral? However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. Leviticus 25:44-46
chyrd 1 year ago
@chyrd The Bible also says you must repent and believe or you will perish. Do you accept this verse? Do you choose the ones you like and reject the ones you do not? Do you understand the typology of slavery in the Old Testament? Do you know the purpose of the Bible?
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter why won't you answer the simple question... what is your proof of god? why are you ignoring my questions? Slavery is slavery... do not sit there and pretend that the owning of another human being in biblical times was better than it was 400 years ago... don't you dare.
chyrd 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter answer the question... what do you offer as proof of god... I've lost count of how many times I''ve asked this question only for you to pretend I didn't ask it...
chyrd 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter you say that god's morality is written on my heart but where is your proof of that?
chyrd 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter you still haven't proven your claim for god... let's get back to that question and go from there... stop trying to get out of answering that... once we establish that there is a god... we can move on.
chyrd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BarryGCarpenter "The Bible also says you must repent and believe or you will perish. Do you accept this verse? Do you choose the ones you like and reject the ones you do not?" I don't accept the bible. It's mostly rubbish with a smattering of nice stories. It is brutish and disgusting.
As for picking and choosing... I find that funny, as most christians do exactly that. They rail against homosexuals while eating shrimp cocktail and wearing a wool sweater with jeans.
chyrd 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter and it's ironic that god mentions the fact that he brought the jews out of slavery but then goes on to tell them how to keep a slave, and how to properly beat your property. He also tells you how to go about selling your own daughter.
Are you still going to say that we get our morals from god? Or do you think slavery is a good thing?
chyrd 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter you want to continually bring up morals... so let's look at the morals of the bible... let's talk about slavery... and how God condoned it, and Jesus didn't rescind it. But before we go there... give me proof of god.
chyrd 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter seems like you struggle to determine quite a few things. did you watch the videos?
chyrd 1 year ago
@chyrd No...I will watch on Monday (I'll have time then). Did you read John 1?
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter I've read the entire bible several times... and it still can not be offered as proof of god.
chyrd 1 year ago
@BarryGCarpenter stop trying to be insulting without actually coming out and saying anything... You know as well as I do that the moment you go the ad hominem route, you've lost... so... keep that in mind
chyrd 1 year ago
@chyrd If that is the case you might want to review your past comments...
BarryGCarpenter 1 year ago