I think his brain damage example somewhat extreme. I'd take it much more lightly. Damage to the frontal lobe, even small amounts, if in the right spots, can result in a huge change in personality. That's a huge change in WHO YOU ARE.
That leads to a curious line of thought. If certain personality types "sin" more, would it be ethical for religious groups to alter the mind to produce one that "sins" less?
I think his brain damage example somewhat extreme. I'd take it much more lightly. Damage to the frontal lobe, even small amounts, if in the right spots, can result in a huge change in personality. That's a huge change in WHO YOU ARE.
That leads to a curious line of thought. If certain personality types "sin" more, would it be ethical for religious groups to alter the mind to produce one that "sins" less?
I was born just fine the first time, and I also have no use for the lies and mythologies holding humankind in bondage to ignorance. It's about time more people who refuse to believe in ghosts speak out.
Those "believers" would have a much better argument if their works matched their words, but that gap is getting wider. The fact that Christians are masters at avoiding the Golden Rule speaks volumes.
I'm an American, born and raised and love my country. That being said, I find it hilarious that a country that was supposedly founded on Christianity, is the only one in the history of the world to drop a nuke on someone....and we dropped two! More of that "killing for Jesus" stuff I see so often. Christianity was once just as bad as Islam, they just didn't have 21st century weapons to prove how peaceful their religion was.
@MyloDude22 Not sure if America was really founded on Christianity - look at the founding fathers and their religious views and you will be very surprised...
@TheDalzielcw I should have made it more clear. I wasn't saying that it was, I'm saying that you have Christians who will fight tooth and nail to say that we were founded on Christianity, and then gloss over the fact that we are the only country who has dropped a nuclear bomb....and we dropped two. I view the founders as they likely were. A group of Christians, Deists, and non believers who did a sound job of keeping their beliefs out of our constitution. Sadly the US is becoming a theocracy.
@TheDalzielcw My whole point was that the Christians who say "Jesus is love" and spout out about how great he is, and then say we are a nation supposedly founded on Christianity(note I said supposedly) yet we've dropped two nukes. Which is why I said, "more of that killing for Jesus stuff I see so often."
@kmk021 In order for our species to progress it's important to expose false claims. Should Galileo have not "obsessed" with exposing the falsehood of geocentrism?
@PainAddict666 It's not always about progressing, most of what I hear from average joes like you and I sound like they're out of spite rather than best interest. Nice try though.
@kmk021 You've admitted it yourself, it's not "always" about progressing. Agreed, however often times it is. I'd say that's the case with Sam Harris. I do agree that the average joe "atheist" (especially the ones who've acquired atheism post age of technology) will often just attack theism simply for emotional gain and that's become very annoying for me too.
1) His existence or “assumption” of it; 2) His ``wisdom`` or will for universe/human.
Jumping between the two makes the discussion a fruitless shouting match; adding some flawed logic, immaturity, ignorance & a lot of insincerity & the dialogue becomes an exercise in futility.
We take human history before, during & after the Prophets for granted, but some wish to discount only that which relate to Prophets. An insincerity that can NOT be rationally argued
E.g. Proven experiments on earth would fail test on Moon (operating environment); Chemistry may not prove physics (specificity of laws); …etc.
I think, the only sane & logical discussion about existence of G-d can only be by discussing his effect on our universe. We believe in countless things that can not be measured or sensed, except for their effects. But we believe in them any way.
Serious discussion of G-d must follow two parallel & distinct tracks:
Was developed for science & it operates within our known world (universe). If this universe has creator then he surely could not be encompassed by his creation and its laws, attributes & effect including empirical scientific method that operates on them. He encompasses them but they do not encompass him. Otherwise, he would be of this universe & not its creator. Empirical method could not be used
Empirical method was developed in the 7th century by pious religious men.
@SirAppleJuice Actually you'll be burning in hell for being a shitty douchebag. More importantly, if God is intelligent and omnipotent, he'd take a skeptical atheist who used his brain for its purpose over a shallow, empty moron such as yourself. No one, God included, has any use for the stupid.
@arraba99 Nice attempt, but nothing you just said makes islam, or any other religion, match with science. Islamic people invented those things, not Islam. It has no bearing on thr fact that Islam is just a poor rip off of Christianity, and that both religions are ultimately false. God is in your head, not hovering above it.
I did not say that Islam/Quran is a science book. But the creator revealed in it countless to be discovered scientific (and non-scientific) facts for the scientifically inclined. When a book revealed 1400 years ago include facts, that were just discovering now, it should give those truly scientific, logical and reasonable minds cause to stop research and ponder. Do not take my word for it, just read the Quran or research science &the Quran & judge for yourself. Cont...
@arraba99 I've seen some videos which put forth such "facts". There are no scientific facts in the koran what so ever. It is poetry which can be very generally interperated to mean just about whatever you want it to.
You said: I've seen some videos whichput forth such "facts".
You are speaking to someone who, for personal reasons, spent a lot of time researching and verifying scientific facts in the Quran. Which video you have seen that speak of these “non facts”? Which you claim to be just poetry. I will try to address that, if I can.
I read the Quran cover to cover few times and I do not remember the poetry you are speaking of.
@arraba99 I cannot post links here but if you copy this title and paste it into the youtube search you will find one of the many videos which are all equally misleading;
MIRACLES OF THE QURAN 1 If you wish i can send you many more such titles but you have probably seen these vidoes yourself already. I do not mean to be insulting like some of the commenters here, I am just trying to point out the vast difference between mythology and science.
Fair enough. Will search and review your titles and comment. Finally someone who can THINK and comment without using four letters word.
It is an insult to intelligence, debate and science, to which those subscribe, to respond to differing opinions with curses and insults and cry wolf when they are paid back in kind. It is nothing more than ignorance and deficient intellect.
@arraba99 Here is another youtube title which you can copy and paste. It takes the most vague references about the "falling of stars" and proposes that this is scientific information in the koran regarding the nature of black holes. It is disturbing to think that anyone could possible think this is so. Please watch the video and comment if you will.
10 Astonishing Quran verses describe black holes! Scientific miracles of the Quran
More over science in Quran is but small part of it, the Quran is intended to be a complete balanced guide for G-d’s creation as it address the individual’s spiritual, mental and physical aspects; men, woman, parents and children relations; society structure, justice, fair, equality, charity, rights and responsibilities; science, psychology, history, environment, ethical and moral standards that should govern all the aforementioned. Cont..
As for Muslims are the ones who innovated not Islam, I agree with you. My point is that Islam explicitly supported science and encouraged it. The Quran placed people with knowledge at higher level than people without. Mohammad (PPUH) said “seek knowledge even if in China”. Islamic Caliphate himself served scientist/artist and rewarded them with Gold. Muslim, Jewish & Christian scientists would not to excel under Islamic empire if Islam fought & resisted learning
One fundamental mistake, learned people in the west fall into is that they assume that all religion is anti-science, because Christianity was such back in the medieval period and because Christianity does not partake into science but restrict itself to theology ….etc. I hope I am not mistaken on this. Religion in Islam has two components faith and reason and they reinforce and complement each other. Cont…
Most are expected to practice and believe in proven science facts. Islam place the highest regards for science and knowledge.
Evolution, if proven is just another science, but the problem it has a lot of unproven theorems, especially origin of life & human evolving from monkeys …etc. These are unproven claims and also against religious belief. So a religious person (Muslim or Non) will not believe in that.
Reasonable, intelligent people should NOT believe in unproven claims.
@arraba99 The fact that humans have evolved and are related to the great apes is completely supported by DNA evidence as well as th fossil record. To deny that just because you feel it contradicts your mythology is not very scientific or rational.
@arraba99 We'll just take one point here, if you belive in the story of adam as a true description of the origin of the human species then you are indeed anti science. If you do not believe in adam then how can you believe any of the other stories in the koran, the bible or the bahagvadgita? It's that simple.
This brings me to the point you have raised, that Islam is a rip off of Christianity. Well, did Christianity rip off Judaism; Of course not. But when Judaism and Jews strayed, G-d sent Jesus (PPUH) to renew G-d’s message and commandments and have the Israelite follow him. Christianity itself became corrupted such Trinity, Jesus being “son of G-d”, then G-d himself. G-d then sent Islam which Muslim belief the religion of all prophets regardless of their name. cont…
@arraba99 It is laughable that you think you uphold some kind of holiness by using your - instead of your o. As if some being outside of time and space who has created the Universe and everything in it, is going to care which vowel or symbol you type. Ridiculous! The fact that reasonably intelligent people like yourself do not see that such beliefs are utterly irrational. It makes no sense. Take a long hard look and ask yourself WHY?
I think, it was my open mind, "reasonableness & intelligence" & ignorance of Quran that led me away from religion when I studied Big bang, expanding universe, black holes…etc. This lasted years till accidently introduced to science in Quran.
My open mind led me back into years of researching religion & science in Quran (before the internet), which resulted in stronger belief in G-d. Very smart people are stuck in their atheist belief, because of arrogance & closed minds.
Islam came to a firm the oneness of G-d (no son, no parent) and to a firm that religion is a way of life and not just in the Church, Mosque or Temple. So if you read the Quran you will recognize names from Christianity that a Muslim must believe in: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David and Jesus peace be upon them all. You will also find all the commandments and you will find damnation and condemnation of Satan. Cont…
You said: "It is a mythological book of fiction written 1400 years ago"
Why do you not support your statement with proof. Cite the fiction you claim, it should easy to do so, unless it is not true.
What is wrong with these people (I am guessing most are Atheists) on this forum/page. They claim logic and reason as their mantra, yet when they are run of arguments they just make claims without any supporting evidence or facts. This beginning to really bore me.
If sincere in you assertion, in fact the Quran stats that as the creator, G-d is outside the realm of understanding and comprehension by his creature. This is the one thing that believers are asked not delve, lest they get astray. i.e. Trying to comprehend how he came to be or thinking of him in human terms. Outside of that believers are encouraged to ponder the universe. This is why in Islam there is no contradiction between faith and science. Cont’d
@arraba99 "the Quran stats that as the creator, G-d is outside the realm of understanding and comprehension by his creature" I think just about any religion says this. And for good reason, because it stops people from asking questions. That you can't see right through that is amazing to me.
"This is why in Islam there is no contradiction between faith and science" So biologists are wrong about embryology?
@Thagomizer i think you need to look the word up. you comment apparently means "i cant think of anything to say so i will say something incorrect and stupid"
@Thagomizer This is not ownage they cant prove the cambrian explosion or the big bang... They werent there and they will NEVER have they answer so therefore. this is pwnage for them.
I am more agnostic than most atheist but I truly appreciate the way he explained that if there is a possibility we will entertain it but if something is so clearly retarded we have to put it to the side and move forward
Theists believe in a god as described by a religion, deists believe in a higher being of no descript. Theists believe in doctrine and faith against all evidence or explination. Deists wont have any of that and to me are more or less just agnostics who lean more to the side of, yes, there is a higher power.
@Lukyo1984 Cont. black hole at the center of our galaxy. That's still a belief, even though it's based on good evidence. Here is the real spectrum: Atheism is the belief that the probability of a god existing - that of a god not existing. Agnosticism is =. Deism is the opposite of atheism. Atheists also reject theism, based on current evidence. This is Richard Dawkins' definition pretty much. Atheists do not believe that a god definitely doesn't exist. That's wrong, atheists define atheism, so
@Lukyo1984 It would make no difference if the "believe" came first or not, it's lingually correct both ways, and has no effect on atheism. Your not harming anyone, as you think you are, by trying to make this point. Atheists have beliefs, like everyone. Belief, by the way, is NOT trusting in something we can't prove, or anything along those lines. A belief is a conviction, based either on evidence or no evidence, which is based on our surroundings. I believe that there is a super massive black
@Lukyo1984 I know what the "a" means, thanks. A theist is someone who believes in a personal god. That's a pretty important piece of that definition to leave out. Theism means that one believes in a personal god. Atheism means that one *does not* believe in a personal god (which is actually the same as what you said). That would actually be the "negative" of the first, as well. You're using semantics and simply switching around words and acting as if they aren't interchangeable, which they are.
@BER2ERKER There is nothing semantic about this. Theism is a vague general description for everyone who believes there is a God and atheism is a vague general description for everyone who believes there is no God.
-
"Believing in God" is a subjective term usually meant to refer to a person who believes in the "true" God, not just any God.
@Lukyo1984 "atheism is vague general description for everyone who believes there is no God."
No, that's incorrect. It's a subtle mistake, but kind of an important one. Here's the correct formulation:
"atheism is a vague general description for everyone who do not believe that there is a God."
If you flip a coin without showing the result and assert that it is "heads" and I say "i don't believe you", then that is not the same as me believing that it is tails instead.
@jheasrsreis314 "previous argument was set on the sole basis that I was a theist" No. I assumed you were a theist, because claiming that 'truth is a concept' is a common creationist strategy to make it seem as if their ridiculous beliefs are of equal status as science.
"Hitchens even agrees with this. " So fucking what?
Truth is demonstrable.
It's not a "concept" in ANY sense of the word that 2+2 equals 4.
@ScientificBob Forgive me for referring to your rant as an argument in the first place. Yes, you assumed that I was an theist and then went about your childish ridicules of calling me a dumbass; that was the basis.
I understand your argument on Hitchens; however, that does not mean that his opinion should be pushed aside. I think that we can agree that he is a prominent figure in atheism. 2+2 IS A CONCEPT!
@beatonm198 It's only ridiculous by our scientific standards. There are probably other universes God created which operate under different scientific principles, like one completely opposite of how ours works. I can't state any scientific evidence as i've already proven it's impossible, but just like you i'm not trying to convince anyone, i'm just offering an alternative.
Believe it , or don't believe it, though I already know which side you're going to stick to, nothing wrong with it though.
@librazone String theory exists because of factors which point to it, based on physics and it's mathematics. It has nothing to do with there being something more than the physical world; in contrary, it has everything to do with only the physical world. It exists because of the promising nature of it's math and predictions.
@Lukyo1984 Another nonsense argument occurring here. Look up simple
nomenclature. A-theist, meaning simply a rejection of theism. It isn't a-deist is it? If you knew how words are formed I guess you wouldn't be writing what you're writing though; either way, now you know. The basic meaning of the word atheist is someone who rejects theism. If a person or group wants to attribute more to the word, they are doing it in a subjective manner. The word is simple, and pretty easy to spell and understa
@onefodderunit Abiogenesis isn't an "atheist" theory. It's a scientific theory, and a fairly new and underdeveloped one. How life originates isn't known, and that doesn't mean a damn thing against or for atheism or theism. What you're saying has literally no meaning to anyone intelligent enough to think critically. One day it will be known, how life originates, then you'll cry about some other non-argument.
Also I'm not looking for a different meaning of believe. Belief is basically trust in what we can't completely understand or prove. So telling me what you disbelieve in tell me nothing of what you do believe in.
@k3w1b3an5 If you're going to be a God-hater at least be an informed one. God doesnt 'give' anything evil to anyone. Ever heard of the "fall" and the "curse" that followed Eden? Satan is the author of evil and sickness and he has domain on Earth for a time. Why do you follow Satan? Do you desire to perish and be sent into the pit when you die?
@goohgulliscia No I don't follow Satan, I don't follow make believe beings. Satan is an invention of Christianity to frighten people, especially children into Christianity. I'll be in the same place when I die that you will. And I'm not scared to understand that there is zero evidence pointing to the contrary.
@k3w1b3an5 Satan is very real and so is hell. Keep fooling yourself or rather keep allowing Satan to deceive you. He's marching you right into the pit.
@k3w1b3an5 "Satan is an invention of Christianity to frighten people" To be fair, it's an invention of ancient Egyptians. Satan used to go by a different name as one of the many gods of the underworld in the Egyptian pantheon. Christianity merely hijacked his character, just like they basicly hijacked every other element of their vile doctrines. They weren't even creative enough to invent something original.
@adamsbeer Are you about 12?. Your vulgar language reveals that it is YOU who dwells in a toilet. I dont need profanity to defend my beliefs. Only the ignorant and angry do so. Ever notice that all God-haters, such as yourself, are always sooo angry? Thats what happens when you live with no hope. Anger and bitterness begin to dwell in you. Satan is a deceiver and a destroyer my friend. He already has you deceived. Your destruction is next.
@goohgulliscia "Thats what happens when you live with no hope" No. That's what happens when people get frustrated at obvious willfull ignorance from the ones they are talking to. Atheists seem angry to you because you make them angry with your repeated stupidity and stick-fingers-in-ears-and-read-the-bible methodology
I may or may not agree with @goohgulliscia, but this is pathetic, childish and shameful and no to dialog. If you do not have something to say; just do not say anything, [Mohammad]. Try it it. Your behaviour and words defeats your arguments. You will never find G-d fearing person speak in this manner. Is this what your Atheism teaches you! This illustrates need for G-d to guide us with hope & fear into behaving nicely
@mk2escortvan You don't know? Not even a guess? You mean to tell me your going through all the trouble to defend this definition of atheism and didn't think to reconfigure its related terminology?
-
If your going to correct a religious fanatic you need to have more complete terminology than this.
-
So can you offer some new term for "believing that there is no God"? Or better yet maybe you can try tell me what it actually means to "disbelieve in God"?
@Lukyo1984 It's not my job to 'reconfigure' the English language. Maybe you can just say 'belief that there is no god'. I just told you what it means to 'disbelieve in god'. The word, 'disbelief' means to lack belief in something. Well, if you need it spelled out again, to 'disbelieve in god' is to lack belief in a god.
@Lukyo1984 "you lack belief in God" EXACTLY! that's what I've been trying to tell you, we do not believe that God doesn't exist, we lack belief that he does. thank you for helping me make that clear.
@Lukyo1984 "Your agnostic" Terminology fail. Agnostic isn't some third option between atheist and theist. (A)gnosticism tells you something about the knowledge (or lack thereof) by which you assert a certain position. It does not (repeat: NOT) tell you anything about the position itself. Rather, it's a qualifier thereof: (a)gnostic (a)theist.
You are either a theist or an atheist. You can't be either. And since knowledge of god is impossible, only agnostic (a)theists exist.
@ScientificBob It makes sense doesn't it? I mean if you believe God doesn't exist then logically you would not believe in him, or rather you would lack belief in Him.
@ScientificBob I was contrasting "believing in God" and "believing God exists." Note the difference. Also if were going to compare belief in different gods the reasons of belief should be compared as well. I believe in Jesus because He is may savior, so I if I were to believe in Thor it would be for salvation as well.
@Lukyo1984 "I was contrasting "believing in God" and "believing God exists."" How can you believe 'in' god if you don't believe a god exists?
"the reasons of belief should be compared as well" That's exactly the point. There is only one valid reson to belief a claim as being correct and that is supportive data. Wheter you 'like' what is being claimed or not is irrelavent.
"I believe in Jesus because He is may savior" And children believe in santa because he brings presents.
@ScientificBob But I do believe God exists and also I do believe in Him. If your disbelief in God is not based on the believe of God's non-existence what is it based on?
-
I didn't claim to believe that God exists because I like it. You claimed that. For all I know you don't like the idea that God exist. The argument works both ways.
@Lukyo1984 "If your disbelief in God is not based on the believe of God's non-existence what is it based on?"
On the simple fact that there is no reason to believe that he exists. Just like there is no reason to believe unicorns exist.
"I didn't claim to believe that God exists because I like it" No, but it is what you implied when you said that you don't believe Thor mythology because no salvation is involved.
@Lukyo1984 "For all I know you don't like the idea that God exist. The argument works both ways." No. The argument only works both ways if me not liking the idea of god is one of the reasons of my disbelief, which it isn't. I realise that my emotions have no bearing on reality.
"Santa Claus doesn't save. So what's your point?" That's exactly my point. This whole "salvation" thing is your reason to believe. Which is emotional reasoning. Which is fallacious.
@ScientificBob "I realise that my emotions have no bearing on reality." So do I but I don't see that in your answers. So your disbelief in God is based on what? Are you saying you believe God exists but you disbelieve in Him anyway?
That's because "salvation" is a reality just as Jesus is. Do you even know what the "whole 'salvation' thing" even is?
@Lukyo1984 "I don't see that in your answers" Please point out where I used emotional reasoning to argue a claim of existance.
"your disbelief in God is based on what?" On the fact that there is no reason to believe god exists. No supportive data or rational argument = no acceptance of the claim. It really is that simple.
"Do you even know what the "whole 'salvation' thing" even is?" I know what christians understand by it, but it's 100% irrelavent.
@ScientificBob You were the first to accused me as emotional on a comment labeled as spam. Then say things like "that there is no reason to believe god exists." There are plenty of reasons. There are people out there who argue that the desire for purpose is enough of a reason (Ravi Zacharias) or that the origin of the universe is another reason (Willima Lane Craig). There are reasons to believe that God exist, you need to provide a reason to believe God doesn't exist.
"There are people out there who argue that the desire for purpose is enough of a reason" Which essentially comes down to an appeal to emotion. Logical fallacye "that the origin of the universe is another reason" Which essentially comes down to argument from ignorance. Logical fallacy.
"There are reasons to believe that God exist" I'ld love to hear one reason that isn't based on a logical fallacy.
@Lukyo1984 "you need to provide a reason to believe God doesn't exist."
Burden of proof fail. I don't need to substantiate YOUR claims. If you can't substantiate them, then that is your problem. To use Hitchin's words: what is asserted without evidence, can be discarded without evidence.
@ScientificBob So based on your comments you know (or believe) that there is no purpose in life and that logical inference is an act of ignorance. Can you substantiate these claims?
Also I didn't ask you to prove that there is no God, I asked you to "provide a reason to believe that God doesn't exist." Of course if you are only an empiricist this might be impossible.
@Lukyo1984 The burden of proof falls on those making claims. In order for someone to claim that there is a 'God' they have to prove it. Saying it's true because the bible says so doesn't count as proof.
@Lukyo1984 "you know (or believe) that there is no purpose in life"
The data suggests that we are not here for some special reason. It doesn't look like humans were intended to exist. They just happen to. I do have purpose in my life. But that's my own input.
"and that logical inference is an act of ignorance" I have no clue on how you came to that conclusion.
@Lukyo1984 To me, providing reason for beliefs is exactly the same as providing evidence in support of the claim you're believing. That is off course, if you care about being rational in your beliefs and decisions.
And what alternative is there to empiricism? The bible? Lol.
@ScientificBob Can you provided evidence that God doesn't exists? If that is your standard I imaging you have the evidence for it. I can provide what I call reasons, can you provide for what you call evidence?
The alternative to empiricism (as if it ever was a useful methodology) would just be logic and reason. What else would you need?
@Lukyo1984 "Can you provided evidence that God doesn't exists?" Why would I need to?
"If that is your standard I imaging you have the evidence for it" The burden of proof lies with the proposer of the positive claim. In this case, the claim of EXISTANCE. Claims of inexistance are meaningless. For example: "I claim fhdqumiohjfdmiqjfdiqm doesn't exist". See? What can you respond to that except "ok... whatever."?
@Lukyo1984 "I can provide what I call reasons" The word 'reasons' is defined by 'reason'. Your reasons should be 'reasonable' and thus rational. What rational reasons (evidence) can you provide in support for your god idea?
"as if it ever was a useful methodology" Right... science is not usefull at all. Nope. Nothing was every accomplished through empirical science. It's faith that trippled life expectancy and put robots on mars. Fucking dumbass.
@ScientificBob Empiricism can't validate itself and therefore refutes itself. That's why it shouldn't be the end all be all of logic an reason. It has its place in limited circumstances but not in everything.
@ScientificBob You can't empirically prove that Empiricism is true.
Empiricism is ignored everyday as we live our lives. Believing that we actually exist, believing that other minds exist outside of our own individual minds, or believing that responding on you tube videos actually matter. Just to name a few.
@Lukyo1984 "You can't empirically prove that Empiricism is true." Empiricism is a methodology, not a claim ya retard. Empiricism works as indicated by the phenomenal things we have achieved by applying said methodology.
"Believing that we actually exist, believing that other minds exist outside of our own individual minds, or believing that responding on you tube videos actually matter" It's funny because all these things are empirically demonstrable.
@Lukyo1984 FYI: if you know of an other methodology by which we can achieve BETTER results then empiricism, you are welcome to mention that methodology and explain how it works better...
@ScientificBob Deductive argumentation would be the best one so far. It actually acknowledges empiricism and is use in the scientific method. But most importantly it open so that all forms of reasoning can be approached not just the questions of limited empirical information. What more could you want?
@Lukyo1984 "Deductive argumentation " Again a fail. Deductive reasoning needs to have premises fed into it in order to work. Where do the premises come from? How do you know the premises are correct and demonstrable? Answer: empirical evidence.
"What more could you want" An actual method by which you can distinguish truth from fiction. Deductive reasoning only works if you have valid data to use as premises. How do you know your data/premises are correct?
@Lukyo1984 you can deny pixies all you want, but they are there are will not make your grass grow in the afterlife, they will doom you to a yard of sand forever.
@kss341 I though Pixies, if there are such things, were visible creatures that created mischief and spread pixie dust which can enable a person to fly. Of course they might be into shoe repair as well.
-
Besides God made the grass grow so there is no need for pixies.
@Lukyo1984 "Well my worldview doesn't acknowledge the existence of pixies."
Nobody cares what you believe. And according to your very own logic, my argument about the pixies is perfectly reasonable, since empirical evidence is not needed to support my premises and a deductive argument is all you need to 'prove' your claims.
@Inclousid Actually I rely on it as God's revelation, and it is a very interesting way to live.
Real dragons would be awesome. Of course tanniyn is broad enough to include dragons, sea or river monsters, serpents, and venomous snakes. Of course the book of Revelation does illiterate Satan as a great dragon but then again that is a vision. So as it is with unicorn its probably just a different meaning of an old word. I just don't yet have any references for it.
This has been flagged as spam show
I think his brain damage example somewhat extreme. I'd take it much more lightly. Damage to the frontal lobe, even small amounts, if in the right spots, can result in a huge change in personality. That's a huge change in WHO YOU ARE.
That leads to a curious line of thought. If certain personality types "sin" more, would it be ethical for religious groups to alter the mind to produce one that "sins" less?
clunkymonk 8 hours ago
I think his brain damage example somewhat extreme. I'd take it much more lightly. Damage to the frontal lobe, even small amounts, if in the right spots, can result in a huge change in personality. That's a huge change in WHO YOU ARE.
That leads to a curious line of thought. If certain personality types "sin" more, would it be ethical for religious groups to alter the mind to produce one that "sins" less?
clunkymonk 8 hours ago
He just endlessly kicks ass!
JohnnieNaked 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I was born just fine the first time, and I also have no use for the lies and mythologies holding humankind in bondage to ignorance. It's about time more people who refuse to believe in ghosts speak out.
Those "believers" would have a much better argument if their works matched their words, but that gap is getting wider. The fact that Christians are masters at avoiding the Golden Rule speaks volumes.
Nice video!
Chelsea4President 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GUYS GOD CAME TO ME LAST NIGHT AND SAID:
"PRIESTS ARE ALOUD TO RAPE LITTLE BOYS!"
AND THEN I SAID:
"GO RELIGION GO! GO RELIGION GO!"
penrun 5 days ago
Sam is the best. Such a clear thinker and clear communicator.
eddie1975utube 5 days ago 4
If god is real, he's a dick
thinkboutit 2 weeks ago
@thinkboutit he's a dick either way. but a very smart dick..
adrianskw 2 weeks ago
Be aggressive with your atheism, impose it on people.
tehkoalainsurgency 2 weeks ago
I'm an American, born and raised and love my country. That being said, I find it hilarious that a country that was supposedly founded on Christianity, is the only one in the history of the world to drop a nuke on someone....and we dropped two! More of that "killing for Jesus" stuff I see so often. Christianity was once just as bad as Islam, they just didn't have 21st century weapons to prove how peaceful their religion was.
MyloDude22 2 weeks ago
@MyloDude22 Not sure if America was really founded on Christianity - look at the founding fathers and their religious views and you will be very surprised...
TheDalzielcw 2 weeks ago
@TheDalzielcw I should have made it more clear. I wasn't saying that it was, I'm saying that you have Christians who will fight tooth and nail to say that we were founded on Christianity, and then gloss over the fact that we are the only country who has dropped a nuclear bomb....and we dropped two. I view the founders as they likely were. A group of Christians, Deists, and non believers who did a sound job of keeping their beliefs out of our constitution. Sadly the US is becoming a theocracy.
MyloDude22 2 weeks ago
@TheDalzielcw My whole point was that the Christians who say "Jesus is love" and spout out about how great he is, and then say we are a nation supposedly founded on Christianity(note I said supposedly) yet we've dropped two nukes. Which is why I said, "more of that killing for Jesus stuff I see so often."
MyloDude22 2 weeks ago
Sorry - If I just may interject here for a second - Just a small point ........"BBBBBBUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRN!"
MrDevilstreaker 1 month ago
Why are so many atheists anti-theist? Wow, talk about obsession over something that "doesn't even exist".
kmk021 1 month ago
@kmk021
Because theists keep trying to pass laws to regulate our lives based on their ridiculous theistic beliefs. That is primarily why we care.
Lowraith 1 month ago
@Lowraith Oh? K lolz if you say so buddy
kmk021 1 month ago
@kmk021 In order for our species to progress it's important to expose false claims. Should Galileo have not "obsessed" with exposing the falsehood of geocentrism?
PainAddict666 1 month ago
@PainAddict666 It's not always about progressing, most of what I hear from average joes like you and I sound like they're out of spite rather than best interest. Nice try though.
kmk021 1 month ago
@kmk021 You've admitted it yourself, it's not "always" about progressing. Agreed, however often times it is. I'd say that's the case with Sam Harris. I do agree that the average joe "atheist" (especially the ones who've acquired atheism post age of technology) will often just attack theism simply for emotional gain and that's become very annoying for me too.
PainAddict666 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sam Harris rules! Religion is for idiots! My Atheist friends will enjoy "Religious Fanatic debates Atheist" on my channel. (Brace yourself)
Sweence 1 month ago
Empirical method, Cont`d 2
1) His existence or “assumption” of it; 2) His ``wisdom`` or will for universe/human.
Jumping between the two makes the discussion a fruitless shouting match; adding some flawed logic, immaturity, ignorance & a lot of insincerity & the dialogue becomes an exercise in futility.
We take human history before, during & after the Prophets for granted, but some wish to discount only that which relate to Prophets. An insincerity that can NOT be rationally argued
arraba99 1 month ago
Comment removed
arraba99 1 month ago
Empirical method, Cont`d 1
E.g. Proven experiments on earth would fail test on Moon (operating environment); Chemistry may not prove physics (specificity of laws); …etc.
I think, the only sane & logical discussion about existence of G-d can only be by discussing his effect on our universe. We believe in countless things that can not be measured or sensed, except for their effects. But we believe in them any way.
Serious discussion of G-d must follow two parallel & distinct tracks:
arraba99 1 month ago
Empirical method
Was developed for science & it operates within our known world (universe). If this universe has creator then he surely could not be encompassed by his creation and its laws, attributes & effect including empirical scientific method that operates on them. He encompasses them but they do not encompass him. Otherwise, he would be of this universe & not its creator. Empirical method could not be used
Empirical method was developed in the 7th century by pious religious men.
arraba99 1 month ago
Comment removed
arraba99 1 month ago
I regard Sam Harris as the most powerful promoter of disbelief, and certainly not for lack of choice.
kibo3232 1 month ago
Which debate is this?
hejie23 1 month ago
240p,we meet again
SwallowRazorz 1 month ago
@beatonm198 Haha, I'm drunk. You bore me. Go read your dumb book in the sand. I'll drink. We both have our prefered methods of intoxication.
beatonm198 1 month ago
@beatonm198
What can I say, when you sober up, will talk.
arraba99 1 month ago
@arraba99 Yeah I don't want to. You're clearly one of the hopelessly brainwashed ones.
beatonm198 1 month ago
@arraba99 Ugh you' re apoli gf
beatonm198 1 month ago
Brilliant answer...
quedawgg 1 month ago
@lkmop1 you mean like you're trying to do now? Don't call people bro. It's stupid.
beatonm198 1 month ago
Comment removed
Incognitoification1 1 month ago
@SirAppleJuice Actually you'll be burning in hell for being a shitty douchebag. More importantly, if God is intelligent and omnipotent, he'd take a skeptical atheist who used his brain for its purpose over a shallow, empty moron such as yourself. No one, God included, has any use for the stupid.
beatonm198 1 month ago 10
@beatonm198 the best way to prove how clever and superior you are is hop on youtube and pick random fights. good work bro
lkmop1 1 month ago
@arraba99 Nice attempt, but nothing you just said makes islam, or any other religion, match with science. Islamic people invented those things, not Islam. It has no bearing on thr fact that Islam is just a poor rip off of Christianity, and that both religions are ultimately false. God is in your head, not hovering above it.
beatonm198 1 month ago
@beatonm198
I did not say that Islam/Quran is a science book. But the creator revealed in it countless to be discovered scientific (and non-scientific) facts for the scientifically inclined. When a book revealed 1400 years ago include facts, that were just discovering now, it should give those truly scientific, logical and reasonable minds cause to stop research and ponder. Do not take my word for it, just read the Quran or research science &the Quran & judge for yourself. Cont...
arraba99 1 month ago
@arraba99 I've seen some videos which put forth such "facts". There are no scientific facts in the koran what so ever. It is poetry which can be very generally interperated to mean just about whatever you want it to.
55chh 1 month ago
@55chh
You said: I've seen some videos whichput forth such "facts".
You are speaking to someone who, for personal reasons, spent a lot of time researching and verifying scientific facts in the Quran. Which video you have seen that speak of these “non facts”? Which you claim to be just poetry. I will try to address that, if I can.
I read the Quran cover to cover few times and I do not remember the poetry you are speaking of.
arraba99 1 month ago
@arraba99 I cannot post links here but if you copy this title and paste it into the youtube search you will find one of the many videos which are all equally misleading;
MIRACLES OF THE QURAN 1 If you wish i can send you many more such titles but you have probably seen these vidoes yourself already. I do not mean to be insulting like some of the commenters here, I am just trying to point out the vast difference between mythology and science.
55chh 1 month ago
@55chh
Fair enough. Will search and review your titles and comment. Finally someone who can THINK and comment without using four letters word.
It is an insult to intelligence, debate and science, to which those subscribe, to respond to differing opinions with curses and insults and cry wolf when they are paid back in kind. It is nothing more than ignorance and deficient intellect.
arraba99 1 month ago
@arraba99 Here is another youtube title which you can copy and paste. It takes the most vague references about the "falling of stars" and proposes that this is scientific information in the koran regarding the nature of black holes. It is disturbing to think that anyone could possible think this is so. Please watch the video and comment if you will.
10 Astonishing Quran verses describe black holes! Scientific miracles of the Quran
55chh 1 month ago
@beatonm198
Cont’d
More over science in Quran is but small part of it, the Quran is intended to be a complete balanced guide for G-d’s creation as it address the individual’s spiritual, mental and physical aspects; men, woman, parents and children relations; society structure, justice, fair, equality, charity, rights and responsibilities; science, psychology, history, environment, ethical and moral standards that should govern all the aforementioned. Cont..
arraba99 1 month ago
@beatonm198
Cont’d
As for Muslims are the ones who innovated not Islam, I agree with you. My point is that Islam explicitly supported science and encouraged it. The Quran placed people with knowledge at higher level than people without. Mohammad (PPUH) said “seek knowledge even if in China”. Islamic Caliphate himself served scientist/artist and rewarded them with Gold. Muslim, Jewish & Christian scientists would not to excel under Islamic empire if Islam fought & resisted learning
arraba99 1 month ago
@beatonm198
Cont’d
One fundamental mistake, learned people in the west fall into is that they assume that all religion is anti-science, because Christianity was such back in the medieval period and because Christianity does not partake into science but restrict itself to theology ….etc. I hope I am not mistaken on this. Religion in Islam has two components faith and reason and they reinforce and complement each other. Cont…
arraba99 1 month ago
@arraba99 I suppose you are the one and only adherant of islam that believes in Evolution and the Big Bang then?
55chh 1 month ago
@55chh
Most are expected to practice and believe in proven science facts. Islam place the highest regards for science and knowledge.
Evolution, if proven is just another science, but the problem it has a lot of unproven theorems, especially origin of life & human evolving from monkeys …etc. These are unproven claims and also against religious belief. So a religious person (Muslim or Non) will not believe in that.
Reasonable, intelligent people should NOT believe in unproven claims.
arraba99 1 month ago
@arraba99 The fact that humans have evolved and are related to the great apes is completely supported by DNA evidence as well as th fossil record. To deny that just because you feel it contradicts your mythology is not very scientific or rational.
55chh 1 month ago
@arraba99 We'll just take one point here, if you belive in the story of adam as a true description of the origin of the human species then you are indeed anti science. If you do not believe in adam then how can you believe any of the other stories in the koran, the bible or the bahagvadgita? It's that simple.
55chh 1 month ago
@beatonm198
Cont’d
This brings me to the point you have raised, that Islam is a rip off of Christianity. Well, did Christianity rip off Judaism; Of course not. But when Judaism and Jews strayed, G-d sent Jesus (PPUH) to renew G-d’s message and commandments and have the Israelite follow him. Christianity itself became corrupted such Trinity, Jesus being “son of G-d”, then G-d himself. G-d then sent Islam which Muslim belief the religion of all prophets regardless of their name. cont…
arraba99 1 month ago
@arraba99 It is laughable that you think you uphold some kind of holiness by using your - instead of your o. As if some being outside of time and space who has created the Universe and everything in it, is going to care which vowel or symbol you type. Ridiculous! The fact that reasonably intelligent people like yourself do not see that such beliefs are utterly irrational. It makes no sense. Take a long hard look and ask yourself WHY?
55chh 1 month ago
@55chh
I think, it was my open mind, "reasonableness & intelligence" & ignorance of Quran that led me away from religion when I studied Big bang, expanding universe, black holes…etc. This lasted years till accidently introduced to science in Quran.
My open mind led me back into years of researching religion & science in Quran (before the internet), which resulted in stronger belief in G-d. Very smart people are stuck in their atheist belief, because of arrogance & closed minds.
arraba99 1 month ago
@beatonm198
Cont’d
Islam came to a firm the oneness of G-d (no son, no parent) and to a firm that religion is a way of life and not just in the Church, Mosque or Temple. So if you read the Quran you will recognize names from Christianity that a Muslim must believe in: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David and Jesus peace be upon them all. You will also find all the commandments and you will find damnation and condemnation of Satan. Cont…
arraba99 1 month ago
@arraba99 There is no reason what so ever to believe in that. It is a mythological book of fiction written 1400 years ago.
55chh 1 month ago
@55chh
You said: "It is a mythological book of fiction written 1400 years ago"
Why do you not support your statement with proof. Cite the fiction you claim, it should easy to do so, unless it is not true.
What is wrong with these people (I am guessing most are Atheists) on this forum/page. They claim logic and reason as their mantra, yet when they are run of arguments they just make claims without any supporting evidence or facts. This beginning to really bore me.
arraba99 1 month ago
@beatonm198
If sincere in you assertion, in fact the Quran stats that as the creator, G-d is outside the realm of understanding and comprehension by his creature. This is the one thing that believers are asked not delve, lest they get astray. i.e. Trying to comprehend how he came to be or thinking of him in human terms. Outside of that believers are encouraged to ponder the universe. This is why in Islam there is no contradiction between faith and science. Cont’d
arraba99 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@arraba99 "the Quran stats that as the creator, G-d is outside the realm of understanding and comprehension by his creature" I think just about any religion says this. And for good reason, because it stops people from asking questions. That you can't see right through that is amazing to me.
"This is why in Islam there is no contradiction between faith and science" So biologists are wrong about embryology?
ScientificBob 1 month ago
I obviously already knew the facts he brought up but then again, most people do.
But I've never seen it put that way.
Picasso43967 1 month ago
PWNAGE apparently means "agreeing with the poster".
Thagomizer 1 month ago
@Thagomizer i think you need to look the word up. you comment apparently means "i cant think of anything to say so i will say something incorrect and stupid"
theUKatheist 1 month ago 17
@theUKatheist Too bad logical and reasonable person such as yourself doesn't have time to appreciate irony.
Thagomizer 1 month ago
@Thagomizer This is not ownage they cant prove the cambrian explosion or the big bang... They werent there and they will NEVER have they answer so therefore. this is pwnage for them.
1xThreeDaysGrace1x 1 month ago
I am more agnostic than most atheist but I truly appreciate the way he explained that if there is a possibility we will entertain it but if something is so clearly retarded we have to put it to the side and move forward
jackhovatter 1 month ago
Theists believe in a god as described by a religion, deists believe in a higher being of no descript. Theists believe in doctrine and faith against all evidence or explination. Deists wont have any of that and to me are more or less just agnostics who lean more to the side of, yes, there is a higher power.
enlightendbel 1 month ago
It's funny - well actually it's sad - how christians enjoy their belief of hell, so that free thinkers can burn. That's really nice.
If god made everything - e v e r y t h i n g - the why the heck did he make the talking snake and hell?
And if we go to heaven - then why be here first?
It is sad for me to see humans in 2012 pledging themselves to folklore. Really sad.
sjatox 1 month ago
I will be laughing in Heaven while all you atheists burn in hell.
SirAppleJuice 1 month ago
@SirAppleJuice I myself am a Christian. If your a Christian and if you love Jesus you will never make that condescending and insulting remark again!
Lukyo1984 1 month ago
@SirAppleJuice Atleast I will be with friends and millions of other people who never knew what christianity is.
Radion561 1 month ago
Boom
MegaPaddy86 1 month ago
@BER2ERKER purpose*
And the " - " sign was meant to say "less than".
BER2ERKER 1 month ago
@BER2ERKER Also, a prefix of an "a", doesn't always have the same meaning or propose in a word, just to let you know.
BER2ERKER 1 month ago
@Lukyo1984 Cont. black hole at the center of our galaxy. That's still a belief, even though it's based on good evidence. Here is the real spectrum: Atheism is the belief that the probability of a god existing - that of a god not existing. Agnosticism is =. Deism is the opposite of atheism. Atheists also reject theism, based on current evidence. This is Richard Dawkins' definition pretty much. Atheists do not believe that a god definitely doesn't exist. That's wrong, atheists define atheism, so
BER2ERKER 1 month ago
@Lukyo1984 It would make no difference if the "believe" came first or not, it's lingually correct both ways, and has no effect on atheism. Your not harming anyone, as you think you are, by trying to make this point. Atheists have beliefs, like everyone. Belief, by the way, is NOT trusting in something we can't prove, or anything along those lines. A belief is a conviction, based either on evidence or no evidence, which is based on our surroundings. I believe that there is a super massive black
BER2ERKER 1 month ago
@Lukyo1984 I know what the "a" means, thanks. A theist is someone who believes in a personal god. That's a pretty important piece of that definition to leave out. Theism means that one believes in a personal god. Atheism means that one *does not* believe in a personal god (which is actually the same as what you said). That would actually be the "negative" of the first, as well. You're using semantics and simply switching around words and acting as if they aren't interchangeable, which they are.
BER2ERKER 1 month ago
@BER2ERKER There is nothing semantic about this. Theism is a vague general description for everyone who believes there is a God and atheism is a vague general description for everyone who believes there is no God.
-
"Believing in God" is a subjective term usually meant to refer to a person who believes in the "true" God, not just any God.
Lukyo1984 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Lukyo1984 "atheism is vague general description for everyone who believes there is no God."
No, that's incorrect. It's a subtle mistake, but kind of an important one. Here's the correct formulation:
"atheism is a vague general description for everyone who do not believe that there is a God."
If you flip a coin without showing the result and assert that it is "heads" and I say "i don't believe you", then that is not the same as me believing that it is tails instead.
ScientificBob 1 month ago
@ScientificBob How am I the idiot? You r previous argument was set on the sole basis that I was a theist, and you were wrong.
It is not just 5, it is every other number besides 4. Truth is a concept. Hitchens even agrees with this.
jheasrsreis314 1 month ago
@jheasrsreis314 "previous argument was set on the sole basis that I was a theist" No. I assumed you were a theist, because claiming that 'truth is a concept' is a common creationist strategy to make it seem as if their ridiculous beliefs are of equal status as science.
"Hitchens even agrees with this. " So fucking what?
Truth is demonstrable.
It's not a "concept" in ANY sense of the word that 2+2 equals 4.
ScientificBob 1 month ago
@ScientificBob Forgive me for referring to your rant as an argument in the first place. Yes, you assumed that I was an theist and then went about your childish ridicules of calling me a dumbass; that was the basis.
I understand your argument on Hitchens; however, that does not mean that his opinion should be pushed aside. I think that we can agree that he is a prominent figure in atheism. 2+2 IS A CONCEPT!
jheasrsreis314 1 month ago
@beatonm198 It's only ridiculous by our scientific standards. There are probably other universes God created which operate under different scientific principles, like one completely opposite of how ours works. I can't state any scientific evidence as i've already proven it's impossible, but just like you i'm not trying to convince anyone, i'm just offering an alternative.
Believe it , or don't believe it, though I already know which side you're going to stick to, nothing wrong with it though.
themixedarts 1 month ago
@librazone String theory exists because of factors which point to it, based on physics and it's mathematics. It has nothing to do with there being something more than the physical world; in contrary, it has everything to do with only the physical world. It exists because of the promising nature of it's math and predictions.
BER2ERKER 1 month ago
@Lukyo1984 Another nonsense argument occurring here. Look up simple
nomenclature. A-theist, meaning simply a rejection of theism. It isn't a-deist is it? If you knew how words are formed I guess you wouldn't be writing what you're writing though; either way, now you know. The basic meaning of the word atheist is someone who rejects theism. If a person or group wants to attribute more to the word, they are doing it in a subjective manner. The word is simple, and pretty easy to spell and understa
BER2ERKER 1 month ago
@BER2ERKER The a- at the start of a word creates the negative meaning of the word it is attached to. Example: Muse-to think, Amuse-to not think.
-
And so: Theist-a person who believes there is a God, Atheist-a person who believes that there is no God.
Lukyo1984 1 month ago
@onefodderunit Abiogenesis isn't an "atheist" theory. It's a scientific theory, and a fairly new and underdeveloped one. How life originates isn't known, and that doesn't mean a damn thing against or for atheism or theism. What you're saying has literally no meaning to anyone intelligent enough to think critically. One day it will be known, how life originates, then you'll cry about some other non-argument.
BER2ERKER 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mk2escortvan Alright, so your agnostic.
-
Also I'm not looking for a different meaning of believe. Belief is basically trust in what we can't completely understand or prove. So telling me what you disbelieve in tell me nothing of what you do believe in.
Lukyo1984 1 month ago
Comment removed
Lukyo1984 1 month ago
Harris looks like a Gargoyle. Strange how God gives people the faces they deserve.
goohgulliscia 1 month ago
@goohgulliscia like how God gives babies deformities, disabilities, life threatening illnesses ? I see God gave you a mental handicap.
k3w1b3an5 1 month ago 35
@k3w1b3an5 If you're going to be a God-hater at least be an informed one. God doesnt 'give' anything evil to anyone. Ever heard of the "fall" and the "curse" that followed Eden? Satan is the author of evil and sickness and he has domain on Earth for a time. Why do you follow Satan? Do you desire to perish and be sent into the pit when you die?
goohgulliscia 1 month ago
@goohgulliscia So why did God let Satan do it exactly?
dubdefuje 1 month ago
@goohgulliscia No I don't follow Satan, I don't follow make believe beings. Satan is an invention of Christianity to frighten people, especially children into Christianity. I'll be in the same place when I die that you will. And I'm not scared to understand that there is zero evidence pointing to the contrary.
k3w1b3an5 1 month ago
@k3w1b3an5 Satan is very real and so is hell. Keep fooling yourself or rather keep allowing Satan to deceive you. He's marching you right into the pit.
goohgulliscia 1 month ago
@goohgulliscia LOL !!
tregibbs 1 month ago
@goohgulliscia "Satan is very real and so is hell" How do you know?
ScientificBob 1 month ago
@k3w1b3an5 "Satan is an invention of Christianity to frighten people" To be fair, it's an invention of ancient Egyptians. Satan used to go by a different name as one of the many gods of the underworld in the Egyptian pantheon. Christianity merely hijacked his character, just like they basicly hijacked every other element of their vile doctrines. They weren't even creative enough to invent something original.
ScientificBob 1 month ago
@goohgulliscia "Ever heard of the "fall" and the "curse" that followed Eden?" Ever heared of the fact that Eden is imaginary?
"Why do you follow Satan?" Do you realise that atheists don't believe that satan exists? How could they follow her?
"Do you desire to perish and be sent into the pit when you die?" I don't care because I'ld be dead.
ScientificBob 1 month ago
@goohgulliscia You must have been born in a toilet, you are a piece of shit.
adamsbeer 1 month ago
@adamsbeer Are you about 12?. Your vulgar language reveals that it is YOU who dwells in a toilet. I dont need profanity to defend my beliefs. Only the ignorant and angry do so. Ever notice that all God-haters, such as yourself, are always sooo angry? Thats what happens when you live with no hope. Anger and bitterness begin to dwell in you. Satan is a deceiver and a destroyer my friend. He already has you deceived. Your destruction is next.
goohgulliscia 1 month ago
@goohgulliscia Sweet! I cant wait to burn!!
adamsbeer 1 month ago
Comment removed
arraba99 1 month ago
@goohgulliscia "Thats what happens when you live with no hope" No. That's what happens when people get frustrated at obvious willfull ignorance from the ones they are talking to. Atheists seem angry to you because you make them angry with your repeated stupidity and stick-fingers-in-ears-and-read-the-bible methodology
ScientificBob 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@adamsbeer
You must have been born in a toilet ..."
I may or may not agree with @goohgulliscia, but this is pathetic, childish and shameful and no to dialog. If you do not have something to say; just do not say anything, [Mohammad]. Try it it. Your behaviour and words defeats your arguments. You will never find G-d fearing person speak in this manner. Is this what your Atheism teaches you! This illustrates need for G-d to guide us with hope & fear into behaving nicely
arraba99 1 month ago
@Lukyo1984 the sky is green that's what it always was and always will be
Anouk475 1 month ago
@Lukyo1984 I don't know.
mk2escortvan 1 month ago
@mk2escortvan You don't know? Not even a guess? You mean to tell me your going through all the trouble to defend this definition of atheism and didn't think to reconfigure its related terminology?
-
If your going to correct a religious fanatic you need to have more complete terminology than this.
-
So can you offer some new term for "believing that there is no God"? Or better yet maybe you can try tell me what it actually means to "disbelieve in God"?
Lukyo1984 1 month ago
Comment removed
mk2escortvan 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Lukyo1984 It's not my job to 'reconfigure' the English language. Maybe you can just say 'belief that there is no god'. I just told you what it means to 'disbelieve in god'. The word, 'disbelief' means to lack belief in something. Well, if you need it spelled out again, to 'disbelieve in god' is to lack belief in a god.
mk2escortvan 1 month ago
@mk2escortvan Of course its not your job to reconfigure the English language. After all your doing it for free.
-
And the reason you lack belief in God is because you believe that God doesn't exist right?
Lukyo1984 1 month ago
@Lukyo1984 "you lack belief in God" EXACTLY! that's what I've been trying to tell you, we do not believe that God doesn't exist, we lack belief that he does. thank you for helping me make that clear.
Anouk475 1 month ago
@Anouk475 So you do believe that God doesn't exist.
Lukyo1984 1 month ago
@Lukyo1984 nope, I lack belief that he does
Anouk475 1 month ago
Comment removed
Lukyo1984 1 month ago
@Anouk475 OOOH! I get it. Your agnostic.
Lukyo1984 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Lukyo1984 "Your agnostic" Terminology fail. Agnostic isn't some third option between atheist and theist. (A)gnosticism tells you something about the knowledge (or lack thereof) by which you assert a certain position. It does not (repeat: NOT) tell you anything about the position itself. Rather, it's a qualifier thereof: (a)gnostic (a)theist.
You are either a theist or an atheist. You can't be either. And since knowledge of god is impossible, only agnostic (a)theists exist.
ScientificBob 1 month ago
@Lukyo1984 What anouk said: "we do not believe that God doesn't exist, we lack belief that he does"
What your responded with: "So you do believe that God doesn't exist"
Me: /FACEPALM
ScientificBob 1 month ago
@ScientificBob It makes sense doesn't it? I mean if you believe God doesn't exist then logically you would not believe in him, or rather you would lack belief in Him.
Lukyo1984 1 month ago
@Lukyo1984 "It makes sense doesn't it?" No.
Not believing X exists is not the same as believing that X does NOT exist.
ScientificBob 1 month ago
@ScientificBob I was contrasting "believing in God" and "believing God exists." Note the difference. Also if were going to compare belief in different gods the reasons of belief should be compared as well. I believe in Jesus because He is may savior, so I if I were to believe in Thor it would be for salvation as well.
Lukyo1984 1 month ago
@Lukyo1984 "I was contrasting "believing in God" and "believing God exists."" How can you believe 'in' god if you don't believe a god exists?
"the reasons of belief should be compared as well" That's exactly the point. There is only one valid reson to belief a claim as being correct and that is supportive data. Wheter you 'like' what is being claimed or not is irrelavent.
"I believe in Jesus because He is may savior" And children believe in santa because he brings presents.
ScientificBob 1 month ago
@ScientificBob But I do believe God exists and also I do believe in Him. If your disbelief in God is not based on the believe of God's non-existence what is it based on?
-
I didn't claim to believe that God exists because I like it. You claimed that. For all I know you don't like the idea that God exist. The argument works both ways.
-
Santa Claus doesn't save. So what's your point?
Lukyo1984 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Lukyo1984 "If your disbelief in God is not based on the believe of God's non-existence what is it based on?"
On the simple fact that there is no reason to believe that he exists. Just like there is no reason to believe unicorns exist.
"I didn't claim to believe that God exists because I like it" No, but it is what you implied when you said that you don't believe Thor mythology because no salvation is involved.
ScientificBob 1 month ago
@Lukyo1984 "For all I know you don't like the idea that God exist. The argument works both ways." No. The argument only works both ways if me not liking the idea of god is one of the reasons of my disbelief, which it isn't. I realise that my emotions have no bearing on reality.
"Santa Claus doesn't save. So what's your point?" That's exactly my point. This whole "salvation" thing is your reason to believe. Which is emotional reasoning. Which is fallacious.
ScientificBob 1 month ago
@ScientificBob "I realise that my emotions have no bearing on reality." So do I but I don't see that in your answers. So your disbelief in God is based on what? Are you saying you believe God exists but you disbelieve in Him anyway?
That's because "salvation" is a reality just as Jesus is. Do you even know what the "whole 'salvation' thing" even is?
Lukyo1984 1 month ago
@Lukyo1984 "I don't see that in your answers" Please point out where I used emotional reasoning to argue a claim of existance.
"your disbelief in God is based on what?" On the fact that there is no reason to believe god exists. No supportive data or rational argument = no acceptance of the claim. It really is that simple.
"Do you even know what the "whole 'salvation' thing" even is?" I know what christians understand by it, but it's 100% irrelavent.
ScientificBob 1 month ago
@ScientificBob You were the first to accused me as emotional on a comment labeled as spam. Then say things like "that there is no reason to believe god exists." There are plenty of reasons. There are people out there who argue that the desire for purpose is enough of a reason (Ravi Zacharias) or that the origin of the universe is another reason (Willima Lane Craig). There are reasons to believe that God exist, you need to provide a reason to believe God doesn't exist.
Lukyo1984 1 month ago
@Lukyo1984 "There are plenty of reason" Such as?
"There are people out there who argue that the desire for purpose is enough of a reason" Which essentially comes down to an appeal to emotion. Logical fallacye "that the origin of the universe is another reason" Which essentially comes down to argument from ignorance. Logical fallacy.
"There are reasons to believe that God exist" I'ld love to hear one reason that isn't based on a logical fallacy.
ScientificBob 1 month ago
@Lukyo1984 "you need to provide a reason to believe God doesn't exist."
Burden of proof fail. I don't need to substantiate YOUR claims. If you can't substantiate them, then that is your problem. To use Hitchin's words: what is asserted without evidence, can be discarded without evidence.
ScientificBob 1 month ago
@ScientificBob So based on your comments you know (or believe) that there is no purpose in life and that logical inference is an act of ignorance. Can you substantiate these claims?
Also I didn't ask you to prove that there is no God, I asked you to "provide a reason to believe that God doesn't exist." Of course if you are only an empiricist this might be impossible.
Lukyo1984 1 month ago
@Lukyo1984 The burden of proof falls on those making claims. In order for someone to claim that there is a 'God' they have to prove it. Saying it's true because the bible says so doesn't count as proof.
mannyftw 1 month ago
@mannyftw So does that mean you make no claims about anything?
Lukyo1984 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Lukyo1984 "you know (or believe) that there is no purpose in life"
The data suggests that we are not here for some special reason. It doesn't look like humans were intended to exist. They just happen to. I do have purpose in my life. But that's my own input.
"and that logical inference is an act of ignorance" I have no clue on how you came to that conclusion.
ScientificBob 1 month ago
@Lukyo1984 To me, providing reason for beliefs is exactly the same as providing evidence in support of the claim you're believing. That is off course, if you care about being rational in your beliefs and decisions.
And what alternative is there to empiricism? The bible? Lol.
ScientificBob 1 month ago
@ScientificBob Can you provided evidence that God doesn't exists? If that is your standard I imaging you have the evidence for it. I can provide what I call reasons, can you provide for what you call evidence?
The alternative to empiricism (as if it ever was a useful methodology) would just be logic and reason. What else would you need?
Lukyo1984 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Lukyo1984 "Can you provided evidence that God doesn't exists?" Why would I need to?
"If that is your standard I imaging you have the evidence for it" The burden of proof lies with the proposer of the positive claim. In this case, the claim of EXISTANCE. Claims of inexistance are meaningless. For example: "I claim fhdqumiohjfdmiqjfdiqm doesn't exist". See? What can you respond to that except "ok... whatever."?
ScientificBob 1 month ago
@Lukyo1984 "I can provide what I call reasons" The word 'reasons' is defined by 'reason'. Your reasons should be 'reasonable' and thus rational. What rational reasons (evidence) can you provide in support for your god idea?
"as if it ever was a useful methodology" Right... science is not usefull at all. Nope. Nothing was every accomplished through empirical science. It's faith that trippled life expectancy and put robots on mars. Fucking dumbass.
ScientificBob 1 month ago
@ScientificBob Empiricism can't validate itself and therefore refutes itself. That's why it shouldn't be the end all be all of logic an reason. It has its place in limited circumstances but not in everything.
Lukyo1984 1 month ago
@Lukyo1984 "Empiricism can't validate itself and therefore refutes itself" That made 0 sense.
"It has its place in limited circumstances but not in everything." Where not?
ScientificBob 1 month ago
@ScientificBob You can't empirically prove that Empiricism is true.
Empiricism is ignored everyday as we live our lives. Believing that we actually exist, believing that other minds exist outside of our own individual minds, or believing that responding on you tube videos actually matter. Just to name a few.
Lukyo1984 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Lukyo1984 "You can't empirically prove that Empiricism is true." Empiricism is a methodology, not a claim ya retard. Empiricism works as indicated by the phenomenal things we have achieved by applying said methodology.
"Believing that we actually exist, believing that other minds exist outside of our own individual minds, or believing that responding on you tube videos actually matter" It's funny because all these things are empirically demonstrable.
ScientificBob 1 month ago
@Lukyo1984 FYI: if you know of an other methodology by which we can achieve BETTER results then empiricism, you are welcome to mention that methodology and explain how it works better...
ScientificBob 1 month ago
@ScientificBob Deductive argumentation would be the best one so far. It actually acknowledges empiricism and is use in the scientific method. But most importantly it open so that all forms of reasoning can be approached not just the questions of limited empirical information. What more could you want?
Lukyo1984 1 month ago
@Lukyo1984 "Deductive argumentation " Again a fail. Deductive reasoning needs to have premises fed into it in order to work. Where do the premises come from? How do you know the premises are correct and demonstrable? Answer: empirical evidence.
"What more could you want" An actual method by which you can distinguish truth from fiction. Deductive reasoning only works if you have valid data to use as premises. How do you know your data/premises are correct?
ScientificBob 1 month ago
@ScientificBob Exactly. We are not limited to the premises that have to be proven empirically. So I don't see what the problem is.
-
How doesn't deductive argumentation distinguish truth from fiction? Empiricism can't even establish truth.
Lukyo1984 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Lukyo1984 "We are not limited to the premises that have to be proven empirically"
Actually, we are.
"Empiricism can't even establish truth" You're a moron who would ignore empirical evidence if it came up and hit you upside the head.
Fucking retard.
ScientificBob 1 month ago
@Lukyo1984 "How doesn't deductive argumentation distinguish truth from fiction"
Premise 1: invisible pixies make grass grow
Premise 2: the grass in my garden grows
Conclusion through deductive argumentation: pixies make my grass grow.
That's how. Deductive reasoning is meaningless if you feed bullshit premises into it.
The above is a perfectly valid argument. And according to you, I don't need to demonstrate the premises. So I guess pixies make my grass grow.
ScientificBob 1 month ago 35
@ScientificBob What's a pixie?
Lukyo1984 1 month ago
@Lukyo1984 Remember Tinker Bell from Peter Pan? She's a pixie.
Inclousid 1 month ago
@Inclousid Oh. Well my worldview doesn't acknowledge the existence of pixies.
Lukyo1984 1 month ago
@Lukyo1984 you can deny pixies all you want, but they are there are will not make your grass grow in the afterlife, they will doom you to a yard of sand forever.
kss341 1 month ago
@kss341 I though Pixies, if there are such things, were visible creatures that created mischief and spread pixie dust which can enable a person to fly. Of course they might be into shoe repair as well.
-
Besides God made the grass grow so there is no need for pixies.
Lukyo1984 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Lukyo1984 "Well my worldview doesn't acknowledge the existence of pixies."
Nobody cares what you believe. And according to your very own logic, my argument about the pixies is perfectly reasonable, since empirical evidence is not needed to support my premises and a deductive argument is all you need to 'prove' your claims.
Hence, pixies make my grass grow.
ScientificBob 1 month ago
@Lukyo1984 But your worldview is obviously to accept anything you hear until it is disproven. So why don't you acknowledge pixies?
Inclousid 1 month ago 14
@Inclousid Because I can't find the acknowledgment to the existence of pixies in scripture.
Lukyo1984 1 month ago
@Lukyo1984 So what you're saying is, you rely on the bible as your sole knowledge base of the world. What a way to live.
By the way, the bible makes many acknowledgements to the existence of dragons. Do you therefore belief they exist?
Inclousid 1 month ago
@Inclousid Actually I rely on it as God's revelation, and it is a very interesting way to live.
Real dragons would be awesome. Of course tanniyn is broad enough to include dragons, sea or river monsters, serpents, and venomous snakes. Of course the book of Revelation does illiterate Satan as a great dragon but then again that is a vision. So as it is with unicorn its probably just a different meaning of an old word. I just don't yet have any references for it.
Lukyo1984 1 month ago
@Lukyo1984 Fantasy is always more interesting than reality, but it's not a way to live.
Inclousid 1 month ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@Inclousid "Fantasy is always more interesting than reality, but it's not a way to live."
-
Of course it isn't. Maybe you can tell me what it's like.
Lukyo1984 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
ScientificBob 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Lukyo1984 "What's a pixie?" Does it matter?
ScientificBob 1 month ago