Omg lol i was a christian and I think its totally fine that ppl are christians lol but it cant helped even if i still was christian if you gotta sense of humor u cant just not laugh at this loll
@XXXERXXES Really? Their mouths aren't moving? Not everyone has expensive animation software or a lot of extra time to spend on their videos. God so small? WTF are you talking about? First, prove there's a god, then prove how tall he is. On that note, prove there's a Satan, then prove his horns don't look like that. Loosen up cool guy.
@JonO387 Well then, I am laughing a whole lot now thank you very much. The cartoon is redeemable as long as a hilarious follow up from you is included. and , good luck schooling people on how God doesn't exist and there is no devil. You and those that follow in your ways are why the world is a giant toilet to defecate on, have fun and a big thanks for helping the new world order come to life
@XXXERXXES I hate to tell you, but atheist's morals are much better than those of the religious. Atheists don't think that a virgin who is raped before she is engaged should have to marry her rapist like your bible commands. Or that unruly children should be stoned to death for not listening to their parents. Great morals you have there.
@XXXERXXES I hate to tell you, but atheist's morals are much better than those of the religious. Atheists don't think that a virgin who is raped before she is engaged should have to marry her rapist like your bible commands. Or that unruly children should be stoned to death for not listening to their parents. Great morals you have there.
this is so silly XD I never thought those things as unintelligent design until now. But I never really thought that we were intelligentlly designed to begin with, with all the human stupidity and diseases.
And wow this might actually convince believers why we aren't physically perfectly designed if created by god O.o
READ HERE Please. Guys stop follow anything has to do with satan , he is real and the only thing he wants is to destroy ur life , Please i know you may think is all fake but trust me is not once you come to jesus christ and ask him to come in ur life with ur sorry to him , not only ur life will change forever but you will have ur own expiriance of evidence that he indeed exist as he give that to anyone who call his name.
I let go of religion when I was 13, and a preacher said "Think of anything that makes you happy. Got it? All of those things you are thinking of, are sins." "You mean?" "Yes, little boy, the things that we take pleasure in, are all sins." Yeah. Kinda didn't see the point...
Ok this is getting ridiculous. there are so many fucking christian ads on here. i had 3 different ads for christian causes on this fucking video. but if someone wanted to put an atheist ad on here, i bet it would be a whole fucking debate and christians would force youtube to take them down. i hate their hypocrisy!
@31TeV - When adverts for religious organisations appear on videos by atheists, I take great pleasure in knowing that the religious are paying the atheists to debunk their crap and take the piss. It gives me warm and fuzzy feelings all over.
@XxSharpieItBlackxX Well obviously he would have had one but he had it cut off. I had one once for quite a few years. Its is not so bad from the guys point of view except for the part when it has to be cut off...and thats coming from an Atheist.
@XxSharpieItBlackxX So because you were "indoctrinated" into believing that a males natural part was icky (due to the fact that you're use it not being there) you immediately shun those who weren't mutilated by a pediatrician?
@MultiTaketwo Ok first of all I wasn't indoctrinated into believe it was icky. I came to that conclusion on my own. I have only been with guys that haven't had one (at the current time). Just because I haven't been with a guy that was uncircumcised, deosn't mean I haven't seen one, I have seen one.... I think as an adult I can come to conclusions on my own.
@XxSharpieItBlackxX "Icky" is not a conclusion. It's a taste. That any man ever got part cut off to suit women's taste is just as repulsive as the reverse.
I resent the part about foreskin being not in the original design. The majority of the male population of the world is not circumcised, and aside from strongly Islamic nations, America is pretty much the only 1st world country where the practice still has wide-spread traction.
But as far as the video itself goes, I found it amusing. Animation was lacking, but not so bad that it hindered the humor too much.
@2017Downtown Most Americans are cut for no reason to do with god, but because 120 years ago they started doing it to punish masturbation, and can't break the habit of doing it.
It seems all the creationists here advocate the logic of intelligent design over evolution, when in actual fact all they're demonstrating is their need to look for a purpose in everything, and also, strangely, a conciousness in everything. It is far more logical that our current situation has come about essentially as a process of elimination over millenia, rather than being the creation of a deity so powerful and complex its existence is vastly improbable.
Note: In old English, Thee and Thou are informal terms, as opposed to the formal you. The idea was that people would have a very close relationship with God and therefore would speak to him as someone they were close to. It's just that that particular bit of the English language disappeared.
so now we live in a universe that corresponds to textbook logic? the problem with all people is that superficialities exist in a superficial universe. there is no good or evil like there is no day or night. i like that saying, "If a being of infinite complexity can spring into being from nothing then so too can matter"
Those are socially constructed roles played out by both men and women and the divide between them has decreased drastically since the liberation of women within society and it shall continue to do so.
If you disagree then I challenge you to provide peer reviewed, scientific data demonstrating that men, in total not in general, have a "higher sex drive" than women. And we are not talking about hypersexuality either.
@DaToNyOyO webmd.com: "Study after study illustrates that men's sex drives are not only stronger than women's, but much more straightforward. The sources of women's libidos, by contrast, are much more difficult to pin down."
"[...] women also appear to be heavily influenced by social and cultural factors as well. "Sexual desire in women is extremely sensitive to environment and context" "
~~~
I shall stand corrected, but only on the understanding that I must be pretty hot or all the girls I've dated were nymphos.
@DaToNyOyO They did a study in rats, and the female rats could be distracted by some crumbled cheese, but not the males.
That isn't humans, but absolutely no social or cultural influence. If you need me to find a link for you, just tag me back, but please don't waste my time without need.
(check out TED, 10 things you didn't know about sex)
@deadshot1995 I like the story about God handing out features in Eden, and Adam jumps for being able to piss while standing up, so Eve gets - multiple orgasms.
Okay. Now I understand . They expect something in return from this GOD for doing a good deed. So basically their acting out of selfish reasons and beliefs that they'll get into this place in the sky.
Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task, are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?
@1tabligh "Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?"
Not only is it feasible, it's rational and logical...
@DaToNyOyO Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?
@DaToNyOyO Don't bother with @1tabligh. I've seen him before on videos and he's nothing more than a troll who follows the sexist, Islamic cult, Tablighi Jamaat. He has no mind of his own and debating with him is pointless.
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
@1tabligh This is the Fallacy of the Argument from Ignorance. We don't understand it (yet) therefore God. They used to use it about lightning and earthquakes.
Your delusion that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your delusion is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
@1tabligh There is no need to demonstatrate that anything doesn't exist (let alone a "non-material being or factor" whatever that might be or not-be). It is up to you to demonstrate that S/He/it DOES exist.
@DaToNyOyO What realistic scientist, sincerely given to seeking the truth could claim today that while a kidney transplant is the result of centuries of continuous scientific research and experimentation, the structure of the kidney itself reveals no trace of a creative intelligence and will, being the product of mere nature—nature which has no more knowledge or awareness than a kindergarten pupil?
@DaToNyOyO you clearly have not even a basic understanding of evolutionary theory.
___
Many new questions in regard to almost every principle mentioned by Darwin have arisen. For example, it is asked whether the appearance of a new organ or for that matter any other organic change, always results from the use of that organ and the attempt to adapt it to one's environment or it may be due to mutation or any other cause?
@DaToNyOyO Is it not more logical to posit the existence of intelligence, will and planning in the creation of and ordering of the world than to attribute creativity to matter which lacks intelligence, thought, consciousness and the power to innovate?
Matter orders itself in the simplest of ways. You are inferring that it does so to the deliberate benefit of something else. This is simply not the case and you have no evidence that it is.
Exactly what "order" are you referring to? Plants don't grow in rows and in order of size, they are randomly distributed. Animals also. Define "order" in this context.
Why does any of this require "intelligence"? Other than you not understanding the basics evolution..
@DaToNyOyO Belief in the existence of a wise creator is without doubt more logical than faith in the creativity of matter, which has neither perception, consciousness, nor the ability to plan; we cannot attribute to matter all the properties and attributes of intelligence that we see in the world and the ordering will that it displays.
@1tabligh You're wrong. I have demonstrated so and this is just the reiteration of your baseless claim. Matter has no creativity and therefore no "faith in the creativity of matter" is required.
Exactly what "order" are you referring to? Plants don't grow in rows and in order of size, they are randomly distributed. Animals also. Define "order" in this context.
@DaToNyOyO Is it at all possible that the cells of the body should learn their functions, pursue their aim in a precise and orderly fashion, and crystallize so miraculously in the world of being, without there being a conscious and powerful being to instruct them?
Is it not rather the case that phenomena such as these prove and demonstrate, with the utmost emphasis, the need for a plan, a design, a guiding hand inspired by conscious will?
Cells don't "learn" anything, let alone "functions". They do not "pursue an aim". They certainly do not "crystallize"; we'd die if they did that.
No..
This in no way demonstrates a "plan" or "conscious will". It demonstrates genetics and simple chemical reactions compounded into complex systems over long periods of time. As demonstrated in science labs, with simple chemicals in simple systems.
You are starting with god and pushing that concept into places it does not exist.
@DaToNyOyO Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *** unknowing and unperceiving ***, is his creator and that of all beings?
No. Scientists merely conclude what the observable evidence leads them to find; which is zero evidence for an omnipotent creator.
Less scientists believe in a god now than they used to, so *we* can conclude that discovery and knowledge is counter to any god claim.
source: lhup [dot] edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm
What any scientist concludes is for them to say. I won't put words in peoples mouths like theists do. The leading belief in the scientific community is not in a god creator.
@DaToNyOyO How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
Your question falls down right here; you have assumed or asserted that there is a "scheme", which there is demonstrably not. Or there is at least no evidence of a scheme.
Scientific knowledge of the universe is vast. Also, what claim has been made?
"whole mass of unknowns concerning ... earth and ... matter"
Please state clearly what these claimed unknowns are, so that I might refute them.
Some brainless atheists regard matter as independent and imagine that it has itself gained this freedom and elaborated the laws that rule over it.
But how can they believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
Matter or god..? So you are claiming not only the existence of a god, but also that it is not itself formed of matter? And where do you glean this information? Where is your evidence in support of these claims?
ALL brainless theists regard a supernatural deity as having magic'd into existence (produced by what?) and then created 100 billion galaxies, so that we can live on one small rock in one small corner of the universe.
@DaToNyOyO Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Materialism imagines that lowly objects are the source for the emergence of higher objects without troubling to ascertain whether the higher, in fact, exists at the level of the lower. If lowly matter is unable even at the highest stage of its development, namely thought and reflection—
@1tabligh Materialism looks at the evidence presented and as a result has answered more questions than theism has been able to ask. To claim that science cannot find ALL the answers because it hasn't done so yet is bullshit claim grounded in ignorance.
"If lowly matter is unable even at the highest stage of its development"
You are making the baseless assertion that we would know if something has reached it's highest stage of its development. [continues...]
@DaToNyOyO Forget about @1tabligh. He's just a troll who copy-pastes statements from some Muslim site onto atheist videos. You'll never get through to someone as brain-dead as him.
@deadshot1995 @DaToNyOyO I second this. I was debating him elsewhere and he really does just copy-paste.
These sort of thiests are teh worst type becasue they cannot even acknowledge thier own bias: whenever somethign is unknown = thier god. whenever something is known = thier god. there is no valid argument that can cripple the circular reasoning of tradition and holy book becasue valid arguments require reason; reason that theists cannot posses without failing tehir beliefs.
@1tabligh Dude, you need to look at your faith with fresh eyes and consider that all your concerns about teh nature of being can be equally answered by other powerful gods. And if that fails, you have shown that you truely are biased. And if you can allow that malignant realiazation to come to fruitation then maybe you'll be able to consider that your inteligent personification of the universe is just another bias that needs to be kept in check with empirical evidence.
@DaToNyOyO either to create itself or to violate any of the laws that rule over it, it follows ineluctably that it is unable to create other beings and the laws regulating them. How, then, can it be believed that lowly matter should engage in the creation and origination of higher beings or have the power to bestow existence on lofty phenomena?
"it follows .. that it is unable to create other beings and the laws regulating them"
No it does not follow.
Science has already demonstrated that we can create the simple building blocks of life in a lab after only 35 (?) yrs of mapping genomes. Science can create several of what appear to be working stages of basic life, we just need to plumb them together. We don't need to create the laws, only follow them.
Matter is in continuous motion and constant development. This is a fact on which we all agree. Further, matter requires a cause that moves it. This is another fact admitted with no disputation. The most basic issue regarding the philosophy of motion is this. Can the matter in motion be the cause or agent of its motion?
"Can the matter in motion be the cause or agent of its motion?"
Do you understand how an atomic explosion works? Or any explosion? The matter in motion is the cause of it's own motion (at least some of it is).
Put two magnets together, pole to pole, and they drive each other apart. The matter in motion is the cause of it's own motion (at least joint responsibility).
You continue failing to adequately define the terms you use, and I'll continue to pick holes in your arguments...
@1tabligh "matter requires a cause that moves it. This is another fact admitted with no disputation." Sir Isaac Newton disproved this several hundred years ago. His First Law: all matter continues in its state of rest or uniform motion until it is acted on by an external force.
@1tabligh Particles are defined by their interactions. It's not "protons does this actions" it's "this action is a proton". All matter is just energy manifested though vibration of space-time and different properties of that vibration has different effects, and these different effects manifest as what we call particles of matter. It's all terribly simple. :D
@TheNorthernWord Then how can the duped atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@Hugh7777 From a scientific point of view, the self-origination of matter is impossible; the theory that the material world is constantly evolving and advancing toward higher states is clearly contradictory to scientific data and the realities of nature. All development and motion in the mineral realm is due either to the intervention of a will external to matter or to attraction, interchange,
@1tabligh What the fuck are you talking about? Did you EVER read anything about quantum physics, antimatter and virtual particles? Science has already created matter from pretty much nothing.
"Do they imagine that they've been created without any cause, or do they suppose that they are their own creators?" The Quran (52:36) "Have they created the heavens and the earth ? They have no certain belief in what they say" (52:37) Do they have a Lord other than God? No, it is not so; God is exalted above the partners they ascribe to him." (52:43) "Glorified be He in Whose hand is all sovereignty and Who has power over all things." (67:1)
@DavorMATF I would discuss this issue if you can marshal well founded cogent arguments, which I will admit, otherwise you have no right to interpolate without a ken for polemics with your "feel free to fuck you ....."
It does not behove you to talk in the strain that you do! Never use any impropriety, nor retort aggressively.
I thought you are very forbearing, dignified, reasonable and of mature intellect. But you are harsh and touchy. You dont't listen to my talk
@DavorMATF very attentively. You should invite my arguments, so much so that when I have exhausted my armoury and I think to have silenced you, you, with a brief resume, stultify all my reasoning and dumfound me, so that I am left without a plank to answer the arguments of your personage. If you are of this company, then talk to me in the same strain.
No wasting time!
Now clock off!
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
@DaToNyOyO In other words, that which moves is the subject of motion, while the mover is the cause of motion. Can the same thing in the same respect be simultaneously a subject of motion and a cause of it?
@DaToNyOyO With regard to this issue, this is the only explanation that the dialectic can offer as a justification of the dynamism of matter. However, it is very easy to see why this explanation cannot be adopted from a scientific point of view. If hydrogen were to contain its contradictory essentially and to develop due to this fact, in accordance with the alleged dialectical laws, then why is it that not all the hydrogen atoms were completed?
@1tabligh I'm guessing English is not your first language, and I'm trying to be patient and polite, but this makes no sense:
"If hydrogen were to contain its contradictory essentially and to develop due to this fact, in accordance with the alleged dialectical laws, then why is it that not all the hydrogen atoms were completed?"
It's just not a well structured sentence and I don't understand what you are saying. Please clarify.
Hiding your ignorance and arrogance behind your stupid pretext of "I'm bored with you.muslimphilosophy [dot] com/op/op-c8.htm...."!
What then is the cause that makes the development of hydrogen to helium limited to a specific quantity [of hydrogen atoms], while setting the rest free from the fetters of this inevitable development?
So much science for this brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
I'm not answering you until you admit that *every single thing you have said* was plagiarised from:
muslimphilosophy [dot] com/op/op-c8.htm
You can't even think for yourself enough to fucking re-word it! Copy & Paste! Copy & Paste!
It's no wonder very little you have said made any sense and didn't follow the discussion flow... because only one of us was thinking and discussing. And it certainly wasn't you!
@1tabligh It is absolutely possible. Do you claim that a conscious and powerful being causes the cells of the body of every living animal and plant to function at every moment? In that case you will have to explain how this powerful being causes or allows deformities, stillbirths etc in perfectly innocent animals and plants.
The Creator of the universe cannot be preceded by non-existence; otherwise, He would need another god to create Him; and that god, if he is preceded by non-existence, would need another god and so on. Thus, we would have an endless chain of gods without reaching a **causeless cause** to be the source of the existence of the universe.
@1tabligh So nip this endless chain in the bud. Just don't postulate any "creator of the universe". The Universe, is by definition, everything. We'll work out if and how it came into existence some time in the future. Or maybe we won't, but your solution is no solution.
@DaToNyOyO The acquired qualities are hereditable as a principle or genetic investigations have rejected this theory?
The organic changes, whatever may be their cause, are always aimed at survival and evolution or sometimes they may be due to the inconsistency with the environmental conditions and may culminate in death and extinction?
Natural selection is or is not like artificial selection which leads the existing generation to evolution?
"The acquired qualities are hereditable as a principle or genetic investigations have rejected this theory?"
This makes no sense. Please clarify.
"The organic changes, whatever may be their cause, are always aimed at survival and evolution"
The changes are not AIMED at anything. There is no target course. This is a fundamental fallacy and shows a lack of understanding of evolutionary theory. Or is it just badly worded?
"Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!"
As opposed to the theist delusion, where the theist looks at the world through religious myth glasses and, as a result, answers ALL the questions with "God done it. Derp."...
You have no answers and no understanding, all you have is myths and lies. And you're too brainwashed to even realise it.
@DaToNyOyO Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
@DaToNyOyO How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
Show me a belief "in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter". Things that exist can be observed, or you can observe their effects on other things. God cannot be observed; god cannot exist.
I and no atheist that I know has ever made the claim that matter is "the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator". Matter exists no evidence for a deity exists.
And all this leads only to "who made god?"; which does not lead to the answer "god".
@DaToNyOyO Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear.
"Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions."
Utter, utter drivel. All you are saying here is that, before man starts to think rational man can just make stuff up if man thinks it's real.
When "man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief" he stops believing in baseless fairy tales that have no evidence; he grows up.
His Existence is not coming into Being from non-existence.
If in the course of developing the argument of the orderliness of the universe we attempt to prove the existence of a maker similar to the human maker, the divine maker will, in reality, also be a created being on the level of man; proving the existence of such a maker is an entirely different matter from proving the existence of the Maker and Creator of all being.
@1tabligh Right. Right. So the universe MUST have a creator, but god doesn't need one because we can't prove it exists anyway. What a crock of shit argument that is.
@DaToNyOyO How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
Well, to start with there is no evidence for god, there is no evidence for gods necessity. There IS evidence for the universe, and all the matter within it.
You can't claim that unintelligent matter is too complex to exist without a creator and then flip over and claim that the most complex intelligence possible can exist without a creator.
That's a logical fallacy. It simply does not work.
If a being of infinite complexity can spring into being from nothing then so too can matter
@DaToNyOyO The Creator of the universe cannot be preceded by non-existence; otherwise, He would need another god to create Him; and that god, if he is preceded by non-existence, would need another god and so on. Thus, we would have an endless chain of gods without reaching a **causeless cause** to be the source of the existence of the universe.
Then we have to deny the existence of the universe. We would also have to deny ourselves because we are a part of the universe.
@DaToNyOyO But you say to yourself: I cannot do that because I am here. Then you have to say: God is there.
From a scientific point of view, the self-origination of matter is impossible; the theory that the material world is constantly evolving and advancing toward higher states is clearly contradictory to scientific data and the realities of nature. All development and motion in the mineral realm is due either to the intervention of a will external to matter or to attraction,
Logic is not your strong point, eh? Your have a baseless assumption of a god, no way of resolving the issue of where god came from, so you just do some daft logical summersault to hide the gaps in your argument. Fail.
From a scientific point of view, the existence of a creator outside of the universe, unobservable within the universe, proves than if the deity did exist it's influence could not enter the universe without it becoming part of it.
"All development and motion in the mineral realm is due either to the intervention of a will external to matter or to attraction,"
And as I have explained, if god is external to our universe, god could have no influence over what is inside the universe without being bound by its rules.
"Do they imagine that they've been created without any cause, or do they suppose that they are their own creators?" The Quran (52:36) "Have they created the heavens and the earth ? They have no certain belief in what they say" (
Omg lol i was a christian and I think its totally fine that ppl are christians lol but it cant helped even if i still was christian if you gotta sense of humor u cant just not laugh at this loll
KaitoWulf 12 hours ago
@KaitoWulf ignorant kid... atheists are supposed to be intelligent.
valtonen77 1 hour ago
8:43 scared the shit out of me
SxVaNm345 15 hours ago
@SxVaNm345 lol
SxVaNm345 15 hours ago
"I love being reminded that i exist" lol
NicosMind 23 hours ago
awesome video
waqa4you 3 days ago
poor Yahew :-(
GalliadII 4 days ago
boring, their fucking mouths aren't moving either. and why is god so small and lucifer with those cow horns? dante's inferno much????
XXXERXXES 1 week ago
@XXXERXXES Really? Their mouths aren't moving? Not everyone has expensive animation software or a lot of extra time to spend on their videos. God so small? WTF are you talking about? First, prove there's a god, then prove how tall he is. On that note, prove there's a Satan, then prove his horns don't look like that. Loosen up cool guy.
JonO387 1 week ago
@JonO387 Well then, I am laughing a whole lot now thank you very much. The cartoon is redeemable as long as a hilarious follow up from you is included. and , good luck schooling people on how God doesn't exist and there is no devil. You and those that follow in your ways are why the world is a giant toilet to defecate on, have fun and a big thanks for helping the new world order come to life
XXXERXXES 1 week ago
@XXXERXXES I hate to tell you, but atheist's morals are much better than those of the religious. Atheists don't think that a virgin who is raped before she is engaged should have to marry her rapist like your bible commands. Or that unruly children should be stoned to death for not listening to their parents. Great morals you have there.
JonO387 1 week ago 10
This has been flagged as spam show
@XXXERXXES I hate to tell you, but atheist's morals are much better than those of the religious. Atheists don't think that a virgin who is raped before she is engaged should have to marry her rapist like your bible commands. Or that unruly children should be stoned to death for not listening to their parents. Great morals you have there.
JonO387 1 week ago
this is so silly XD I never thought those things as unintelligent design until now. But I never really thought that we were intelligentlly designed to begin with, with all the human stupidity and diseases.
And wow this might actually convince believers why we aren't physically perfectly designed if created by god O.o
LightningWolfang 2 weeks ago
@LightningWolfang And he didn't even mention:
delivery through the pelvis (causing many deaths);
downwards delivery:
urethra going through the prostate;
vasa deferentia going around the bladder:
the recurrent laryngeal nerve:
light receptors pointing away from light:
airway passing through the food passge (causing many choking deaths):
the arch of the foot
Hugh7777 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
READ HERE Please. Guys stop follow anything has to do with satan , he is real and the only thing he wants is to destroy ur life , Please i know you may think is all fake but trust me is not once you come to jesus christ and ask him to come in ur life with ur sorry to him , not only ur life will change forever but you will have ur own expiriance of evidence that he indeed exist as he give that to anyone who call his name.
GokyBoo 2 weeks ago
So God ISN'T malicious, just really obsessed with being ass kissed.
DarkZerkerX 2 weeks ago
I let go of religion when I was 13, and a preacher said "Think of anything that makes you happy. Got it? All of those things you are thinking of, are sins." "You mean?" "Yes, little boy, the things that we take pleasure in, are all sins." Yeah. Kinda didn't see the point...
the81stviewer 2 weeks ago 3
@the81stviewer imagine that worshipping god makes you happy. So worshipping god is a sin to the preacher XD? oooooh contradiction?
LightningWolfang 2 weeks ago
I deep into my religion but i cannot lie this is just too funny. If God was here he would give it a like.
p0lyp0w3r 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from NonStampCollector
@p0lyp0w3r Thought he was everywhere. And omnipotent but can't push a virtual button?
Hugh7777 1 week ago
Great way of combining humor with a message
jmvt3 2 weeks ago
Desecrator here, this is worth the watch so much!
iLuckyduckdog 2 weeks ago 3
This is one of the greatest ideas ever thought. Bravo nsc.
gypsycabs 3 weeks ago
Ok this is getting ridiculous. there are so many fucking christian ads on here. i had 3 different ads for christian causes on this fucking video. but if someone wanted to put an atheist ad on here, i bet it would be a whole fucking debate and christians would force youtube to take them down. i hate their hypocrisy!
Turtleluver26 3 weeks ago
@Turtleluver26 Another way of looking at it is that Christian organisations are wasting their money by advertising things like that on this video.
31TeV 2 weeks ago
@31TeV ...true true lol
Turtleluver26 2 weeks ago
@31TeV - When adverts for religious organisations appear on videos by atheists, I take great pleasure in knowing that the religious are paying the atheists to debunk their crap and take the piss. It gives me warm and fuzzy feelings all over.
RoadRunnerLaser 2 weeks ago
Even though Texas hold'em wasn't invented until the early 1900's - this is the most probable explanation about the creation!
ExtrackterYT 3 weeks ago
@ExtrackterYT Ah, but God (and presumably Satan) are outside of time...(they've got an excuse for everything).
Hugh7777 1 week ago
Damn you Satan if it wasnt for you(only a cartoon I know) id never have had a foreskin to feel bad about not having!
nicepandas 3 weeks ago
one of your best of all time. lol.
MisterRedstone 3 weeks ago
Haha I'm atheist... but I hate the "flap on the thing" it's so gross lol
XxSharpieItBlackxX 4 weeks ago
@XxSharpieItBlackxX You must be female
nicepandas 3 weeks ago
@nicepandas Haha yep. Never been with a guy that has had it :P
XxSharpieItBlackxX 3 weeks ago
@XxSharpieItBlackxX Well obviously he would have had one but he had it cut off. I had one once for quite a few years. Its is not so bad from the guys point of view except for the part when it has to be cut off...and thats coming from an Atheist.
nicepandas 3 weeks ago
@nicepandas "Not so bad"? It's the best part. Did they take yours before you got to enjoy it?
Hugh7777 1 week ago
@XxSharpieItBlackxX So because you were "indoctrinated" into believing that a males natural part was icky (due to the fact that you're use it not being there) you immediately shun those who weren't mutilated by a pediatrician?
MultiTaketwo 2 weeks ago
@MultiTaketwo Ok first of all I wasn't indoctrinated into believe it was icky. I came to that conclusion on my own. I have only been with guys that haven't had one (at the current time). Just because I haven't been with a guy that was uncircumcised, deosn't mean I haven't seen one, I have seen one.... I think as an adult I can come to conclusions on my own.
XxSharpieItBlackxX 2 weeks ago
@XxSharpieItBlackxX "Icky" is not a conclusion. It's a taste. That any man ever got part cut off to suit women's taste is just as repulsive as the reverse.
Hugh7777 1 week ago
2:08 what an attention whore. I mean I think he actually literally gets off on it. 2:37 too
eyeonwashparish 1 month ago
Oh my fucking god that was soo fucking funny and amazing.
Nethertar 1 month ago
The best part was trip 6's, that was priceless; and somehow I didn't even see it coming.
BER2ERKER 1 month ago 21
This is a fucking legendary YouTube atheist video right here. Awesome.
BER2ERKER 1 month ago 3
The sounds god makes when Satan tells him he's gonna worship him LOL!
mas6o0ol100 1 month ago 19
If God created us in his image, WHY THE FUCK CAN'T I FLY?!?
SuperBspb 1 month ago 3
I never thought I'd join the devil in a hearty laugh, but wow that was funny :P
gravityvertigo13579 1 month ago
I resent the part about foreskin being not in the original design. The majority of the male population of the world is not circumcised, and aside from strongly Islamic nations, America is pretty much the only 1st world country where the practice still has wide-spread traction.
But as far as the video itself goes, I found it amusing. Animation was lacking, but not so bad that it hindered the humor too much.
ISmarterThanYou 1 month ago
@ISmarterThanYou That is the humor....satan put it there so god had you cut it off...
2017Downtown 1 month ago
@2017Downtown Most Americans are cut for no reason to do with god, but because 120 years ago they started doing it to punish masturbation, and can't break the habit of doing it.
Hugh7777 1 week ago
@ISmarterThanYou Agreed. The foreskin is not a bug, it's a feature!
Hugh7777 1 week ago
LOL @ chicken skin bags LOL
INMATE2468 1 month ago
It sounds like is jizzing in his pants.
VampireMutilator 1 month ago
HAHA! FAAAAKE!!
God's awesome at poker.
rossplendent 1 month ago
This had me laughing my hairy chicken bag off.
mlgoreable 1 month ago 2
I loled the last of my faith out!
mansanraps 1 month ago 24
@mansanraps lol thats one of the best comments Ive read in a while
MrChaos424242 1 month ago 2
satan is awesome in this one
CareFreeWherever 1 month ago
I've said it before and I'll say it again all you religious people: why care about us 'sinners' let us think what we want and burn in hell
mayrin1112 1 month ago
It seems all the creationists here advocate the logic of intelligent design over evolution, when in actual fact all they're demonstrating is their need to look for a purpose in everything, and also, strangely, a conciousness in everything. It is far more logical that our current situation has come about essentially as a process of elimination over millenia, rather than being the creation of a deity so powerful and complex its existence is vastly improbable.
EnylrebQ 1 month ago
Note: In old English, Thee and Thou are informal terms, as opposed to the formal you. The idea was that people would have a very close relationship with God and therefore would speak to him as someone they were close to. It's just that that particular bit of the English language disappeared.
Enconclock 1 month ago
so now we live in a universe that corresponds to textbook logic? the problem with all people is that superficialities exist in a superficial universe. there is no good or evil like there is no day or night. i like that saying, "If a being of infinite complexity can spring into being from nothing then so too can matter"
ColdBisquitTX 1 month ago
*But I wanted sex to be the ultimate act of LOVE* AMEN TO THAT!!! lol.
neoman121 1 month ago
666 !!! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
kcido14 1 month ago
Point being: God is a far bigger ass than Satan any day -if either one existed that is
Lennon4ever1 1 month ago
Men don't have a higher sex drive than women.
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago
@DaToNyOyO Yeah they do. A man's sex drive is usually stronger and more straightforward than a woman's.
deadshot1995 1 month ago
@deadshot1995 No.
No, they don't. No, it isn't.
Those are socially constructed roles played out by both men and women and the divide between them has decreased drastically since the liberation of women within society and it shall continue to do so.
If you disagree then I challenge you to provide peer reviewed, scientific data demonstrating that men, in total not in general, have a "higher sex drive" than women. And we are not talking about hypersexuality either.
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago
@DaToNyOyO webmd.com: "Study after study illustrates that men's sex drives are not only stronger than women's, but much more straightforward. The sources of women's libidos, by contrast, are much more difficult to pin down."
deadshot1995 1 month ago
@deadshot1995
"Those are socially constructed roles"
webmd.com:
"[...] women also appear to be heavily influenced by social and cultural factors as well. "Sexual desire in women is extremely sensitive to environment and context" "
~~~
I shall stand corrected, but only on the understanding that I must be pretty hot or all the girls I've dated were nymphos.
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago
@DaToNyOyO They did a study in rats, and the female rats could be distracted by some crumbled cheese, but not the males.
That isn't humans, but absolutely no social or cultural influence. If you need me to find a link for you, just tag me back, but please don't waste my time without need.
(check out TED, 10 things you didn't know about sex)
rynther 1 month ago
@rynther What are you talking about?
YourSkyliner 1 month ago
@deadshot1995 I like the story about God handing out features in Eden, and Adam jumps for being able to piss while standing up, so Eve gets - multiple orgasms.
Hugh7777 1 week ago
@DaToNyOyO Yes they do.
Kain5th 3 weeks ago
@goal2004
Okay. Now I understand . They expect something in return from this GOD for doing a good deed. So basically their acting out of selfish reasons and beliefs that they'll get into this place in the sky.
mybrolockie 1 month ago
@mybrolockie Exactly!
goal2004 1 month ago
The Manifestations of God in Nature!
Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task, are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh "Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?"
Not only is it feasible, it's rational and logical...
...unless you believe in magic.
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago
@DaToNyOyO Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh Apparently "yes" because 98% of scientists don't believe in *your* or any god.
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago
@DaToNyOyO Don't bother with @1tabligh. I've seen him before on videos and he's nothing more than a troll who follows the sexist, Islamic cult, Tablighi Jamaat. He has no mind of his own and debating with him is pointless.
deadshot1995 1 month ago
@deadshot1995 Yeah, but it passes the time.
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago 2
@DaToNyOyO The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh This is the Fallacy of the Argument from Ignorance. We don't understand it (yet) therefore God. They used to use it about lightning and earthquakes.
Hugh7777 1 week ago
@DaToNyOyO The atheist Delusion!
Your delusion that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your delusion is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh There is no need to demonstatrate that anything doesn't exist (let alone a "non-material being or factor" whatever that might be or not-be). It is up to you to demonstrate that S/He/it DOES exist.
Hugh7777 1 week ago
@DaToNyOyO What realistic scientist, sincerely given to seeking the truth could claim today that while a kidney transplant is the result of centuries of continuous scientific research and experimentation, the structure of the kidney itself reveals no trace of a creative intelligence and will, being the product of mere nature—nature which has no more knowledge or awareness than a kindergarten pupil?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh
Really? The ages old "irreducible complexity" argument, eh? Pathetic.
I might just give up on you immediately, because you clearly have not even a basic understanding of evolutionary theory.
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago
@DaToNyOyO you clearly have not even a basic understanding of evolutionary theory.
___
Many new questions in regard to almost every principle mentioned by Darwin have arisen. For example, it is asked whether the appearance of a new organ or for that matter any other organic change, always results from the use of that organ and the attempt to adapt it to one's environment or it may be due to mutation or any other cause?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh I'm not sure whether that's a sentence or a question. It ends with a question mark, but doesn't seem to ask a question. Please clarify.
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago
@DaToNyOyO Is it not more logical to posit the existence of intelligence, will and planning in the creation of and ordering of the world than to attribute creativity to matter which lacks intelligence, thought, consciousness and the power to innovate?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh
No. It is not.
Matter orders itself in the simplest of ways. You are inferring that it does so to the deliberate benefit of something else. This is simply not the case and you have no evidence that it is.
Exactly what "order" are you referring to? Plants don't grow in rows and in order of size, they are randomly distributed. Animals also. Define "order" in this context.
Why does any of this require "intelligence"? Other than you not understanding the basics evolution..
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago
@DaToNyOyO Belief in the existence of a wise creator is without doubt more logical than faith in the creativity of matter, which has neither perception, consciousness, nor the ability to plan; we cannot attribute to matter all the properties and attributes of intelligence that we see in the world and the ordering will that it displays.
1tabligh 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh You're wrong. I have demonstrated so and this is just the reiteration of your baseless claim. Matter has no creativity and therefore no "faith in the creativity of matter" is required.
Exactly what "order" are you referring to? Plants don't grow in rows and in order of size, they are randomly distributed. Animals also. Define "order" in this context.
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago
@1tabligh No it is not more logical. It just pushes the problem back one step. How did this wise creator come about?
Hugh7777 1 week ago
@DaToNyOyO Is it at all possible that the cells of the body should learn their functions, pursue their aim in a precise and orderly fashion, and crystallize so miraculously in the world of being, without there being a conscious and powerful being to instruct them?
Is it not rather the case that phenomena such as these prove and demonstrate, with the utmost emphasis, the need for a plan, a design, a guiding hand inspired by conscious will?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh
Cells don't "learn" anything, let alone "functions". They do not "pursue an aim". They certainly do not "crystallize"; we'd die if they did that.
No..
This in no way demonstrates a "plan" or "conscious will". It demonstrates genetics and simple chemical reactions compounded into complex systems over long periods of time. As demonstrated in science labs, with simple chemicals in simple systems.
You are starting with god and pushing that concept into places it does not exist.
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago 21
@DaToNyOyO Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *** unknowing and unperceiving ***, is his creator and that of all beings?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh
No. Scientists merely conclude what the observable evidence leads them to find; which is zero evidence for an omnipotent creator.
Less scientists believe in a god now than they used to, so *we* can conclude that discovery and knowledge is counter to any god claim.
source: lhup [dot] edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm
What any scientist concludes is for them to say. I won't put words in peoples mouths like theists do. The leading belief in the scientific community is not in a god creator.
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago 2
@DaToNyOyO How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh You know you've said that twice now..?
"their knowledge of the total scheme of being"
Your question falls down right here; you have assumed or asserted that there is a "scheme", which there is demonstrably not. Or there is at least no evidence of a scheme.
Scientific knowledge of the universe is vast. Also, what claim has been made?
"whole mass of unknowns concerning ... earth and ... matter"
Please state clearly what these claimed unknowns are, so that I might refute them.
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago
@DaToNyOyO God and Empirical Logic.
Matter or God?
Take your choice!
Some brainless atheists regard matter as independent and imagine that it has itself gained this freedom and elaborated the laws that rule over it.
But how can they believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery!
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh
Matter or god..? So you are claiming not only the existence of a god, but also that it is not itself formed of matter? And where do you glean this information? Where is your evidence in support of these claims?
ALL brainless theists regard a supernatural deity as having magic'd into existence (produced by what?) and then created 100 billion galaxies, so that we can live on one small rock in one small corner of the universe.
Pseudo-Scientific Bullshit.
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago
@DaToNyOyO Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Materialism imagines that lowly objects are the source for the emergence of higher objects without troubling to ascertain whether the higher, in fact, exists at the level of the lower. If lowly matter is unable even at the highest stage of its development, namely thought and reflection—
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh Materialism looks at the evidence presented and as a result has answered more questions than theism has been able to ask. To claim that science cannot find ALL the answers because it hasn't done so yet is bullshit claim grounded in ignorance.
"If lowly matter is unable even at the highest stage of its development"
You are making the baseless assertion that we would know if something has reached it's highest stage of its development. [continues...]
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago
@DaToNyOyO Forget about @1tabligh. He's just a troll who copy-pastes statements from some Muslim site onto atheist videos. You'll never get through to someone as brain-dead as him.
deadshot1995 1 week ago
@deadshot1995 @DaToNyOyO I second this. I was debating him elsewhere and he really does just copy-paste.
These sort of thiests are teh worst type becasue they cannot even acknowledge thier own bias: whenever somethign is unknown = thier god. whenever something is known = thier god. there is no valid argument that can cripple the circular reasoning of tradition and holy book becasue valid arguments require reason; reason that theists cannot posses without failing tehir beliefs.
TheBadagris 1 week ago
@1tabligh Dude, you need to look at your faith with fresh eyes and consider that all your concerns about teh nature of being can be equally answered by other powerful gods. And if that fails, you have shown that you truely are biased. And if you can allow that malignant realiazation to come to fruitation then maybe you'll be able to consider that your inteligent personification of the universe is just another bias that needs to be kept in check with empirical evidence.
TheBadagris 1 week ago
@1tabligh This claim is incoherent. There is no "higher" or "lowly".
Hugh7777 1 week ago
@DaToNyOyO either to create itself or to violate any of the laws that rule over it, it follows ineluctably that it is unable to create other beings and the laws regulating them. How, then, can it be believed that lowly matter should engage in the creation and origination of higher beings or have the power to bestow existence on lofty phenomena?
1tabligh 1 month ago
Comment removed
1tabligh 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh [continued]
"it follows .. that it is unable to create other beings and the laws regulating them"
No it does not follow.
Science has already demonstrated that we can create the simple building blocks of life in a lab after only 35 (?) yrs of mapping genomes. Science can create several of what appear to be working stages of basic life, we just need to plumb them together. We don't need to create the laws, only follow them.
And that's just chemistry.
[continues...]
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago
@1tabligh [continued 2]
"How .. can it be believed .. lowly matter should engage in .. creation .. origination of higher beings"
There was no creative origination of higher beings.
You really have absolutely no understanding of basic science, do you? Do you even know the foundations of evolution? I doubt it.
Once you get past the delusion that things need to be "created" you'll see just how simple it all is.
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago
@DaToNyOyO Matter or God?
Take your choice!
Matter and Motion
Matter is in continuous motion and constant development. This is a fact on which we all agree. Further, matter requires a cause that moves it. This is another fact admitted with no disputation. The most basic issue regarding the philosophy of motion is this. Can the matter in motion be the cause or agent of its motion?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh
"Can the matter in motion be the cause or agent of its motion?"
Do you understand how an atomic explosion works? Or any explosion? The matter in motion is the cause of it's own motion (at least some of it is).
Put two magnets together, pole to pole, and they drive each other apart. The matter in motion is the cause of it's own motion (at least joint responsibility).
You continue failing to adequately define the terms you use, and I'll continue to pick holes in your arguments...
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh "matter requires a cause that moves it. This is another fact admitted with no disputation." Sir Isaac Newton disproved this several hundred years ago. His First Law: all matter continues in its state of rest or uniform motion until it is acted on by an external force.
Hugh7777 1 week ago
@1tabligh Particles are defined by their interactions. It's not "protons does this actions" it's "this action is a proton". All matter is just energy manifested though vibration of space-time and different properties of that vibration has different effects, and these different effects manifest as what we call particles of matter. It's all terribly simple. :D
TheNorthernWord 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheNorthernWord Then how can the duped atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh Read "The Universe" by John Gribbon. That might (just might) give you a clue.
Hugh7777 1 week ago
@Hugh7777 From a scientific point of view, the self-origination of matter is impossible; the theory that the material world is constantly evolving and advancing toward higher states is clearly contradictory to scientific data and the realities of nature. All development and motion in the mineral realm is due either to the intervention of a will external to matter or to attraction, interchange,
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh What the fuck are you talking about? Did you EVER read anything about quantum physics, antimatter and virtual particles? Science has already created matter from pretty much nothing.
DavorMATF 1 week ago
and compounding with other bodies.
"Do they imagine that they've been created without any cause, or do they suppose that they are their own creators?" The Quran (52:36) "Have they created the heavens and the earth ? They have no certain belief in what they say" (52:37) Do they have a Lord other than God? No, it is not so; God is exalted above the partners they ascribe to him." (52:43) "Glorified be He in Whose hand is all sovereignty and Who has power over all things." (67:1)
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh also in Quran: "feel free to fuck you 9 year old wife".
DavorMATF 1 week ago
@DavorMATF also in Quran: "feel free to fuck you ...".
___
The argument of an IGNORANT!
So much science for this uncivilized brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
Hiding your ignorance and arrogance under your stupid pretext of "feel free to fuck you ..."."!
Is science too heavy for you to comprehend?
Ever heard "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."?
1tabligh 1 week ago
@DavorMATF You still don't get it, do you?
I have already in my inbox more then 13390 replies from wannabes monkeys, teachers, profs, scientists etc!
What makes you think, you are a special duped wannabe monkey?
No wasting time!
Talk science otherwise clock off!
The chain of causality cannot recede into infinity!
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
1tabligh 1 week ago
@DavorMATF I would discuss this issue if you can marshal well founded cogent arguments, which I will admit, otherwise you have no right to interpolate without a ken for polemics with your "feel free to fuck you ....."
It does not behove you to talk in the strain that you do! Never use any impropriety, nor retort aggressively.
I thought you are very forbearing, dignified, reasonable and of mature intellect. But you are harsh and touchy. You dont't listen to my talk
1tabligh 1 week ago
@DavorMATF very attentively. You should invite my arguments, so much so that when I have exhausted my armoury and I think to have silenced you, you, with a brief resume, stultify all my reasoning and dumfound me, so that I am left without a plank to answer the arguments of your personage. If you are of this company, then talk to me in the same strain.
No wasting time!
Now clock off!
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
1tabligh 1 week ago
@DaToNyOyO In other words, that which moves is the subject of motion, while the mover is the cause of motion. Can the same thing in the same respect be simultaneously a subject of motion and a cause of it?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh
The sun is an excellent example of matter in motion being both the subject and cause of it's motion. Surely?
Do you ever get to the point?
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago 2
@DaToNyOyO With regard to this issue, this is the only explanation that the dialectic can offer as a justification of the dynamism of matter. However, it is very easy to see why this explanation cannot be adopted from a scientific point of view. If hydrogen were to contain its contradictory essentially and to develop due to this fact, in accordance with the alleged dialectical laws, then why is it that not all the hydrogen atoms were completed?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh I'm guessing English is not your first language, and I'm trying to be patient and polite, but this makes no sense:
"If hydrogen were to contain its contradictory essentially and to develop due to this fact, in accordance with the alleged dialectical laws, then why is it that not all the hydrogen atoms were completed?"
It's just not a well structured sentence and I don't understand what you are saying. Please clarify.
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago
@DaToNyOyO [In other words], why did the essential completion pertain to some atoms and not to others?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh
I'm bored with you.
muslimphilosophy [dot] com/op/op-c8.htm
DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS THAT ARE YOUR OWN?
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago
@DaToNyOyO The argument of an IGNORANT!
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
Hiding your ignorance and arrogance behind your stupid pretext of "I'm bored with you.muslimphilosophy [dot] com/op/op-c8.htm...."!
What then is the cause that makes the development of hydrogen to helium limited to a specific quantity [of hydrogen atoms], while setting the rest free from the fetters of this inevitable development?
So much science for this brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
1tabligh 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh
I'm not answering you until you admit that *every single thing you have said* was plagiarised from:
muslimphilosophy [dot] com/op/op-c8.htm
You can't even think for yourself enough to fucking re-word it! Copy & Paste! Copy & Paste!
It's no wonder very little you have said made any sense and didn't follow the discussion flow... because only one of us was thinking and discussing. And it certainly wasn't you!
You pathetic, religious retard.
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago
@DaToNyOyO its been proven that cells learn
zebraman60 1 month ago
@zebraman60 Citation..?
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago
@1tabligh It is absolutely possible. Do you claim that a conscious and powerful being causes the cells of the body of every living animal and plant to function at every moment? In that case you will have to explain how this powerful being causes or allows deformities, stillbirths etc in perfectly innocent animals and plants.
Hugh7777 1 week ago
@Hugh7777 How did this wise creator come about?
___
The Creator of the universe cannot be preceded by non-existence; otherwise, He would need another god to create Him; and that god, if he is preceded by non-existence, would need another god and so on. Thus, we would have an endless chain of gods without reaching a **causeless cause** to be the source of the existence of the universe.
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh So nip this endless chain in the bud. Just don't postulate any "creator of the universe". The Universe, is by definition, everything. We'll work out if and how it came into existence some time in the future. Or maybe we won't, but your solution is no solution.
Hugh7777 1 week ago
@Hugh7777 Then we have to deny the existence of the universe. We would also have to deny ourselves because we are a part of the universe.
But you say to yourself: I cannot do that because I am here. Then you have to say: God is there.
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh Rubbish. Just rubbish.
Hugh7777 1 week ago
@1tabligh No.
Hugh7777 1 week ago
@DaToNyOyO The acquired qualities are hereditable as a principle or genetic investigations have rejected this theory?
The organic changes, whatever may be their cause, are always aimed at survival and evolution or sometimes they may be due to the inconsistency with the environmental conditions and may culminate in death and extinction?
Natural selection is or is not like artificial selection which leads the existing generation to evolution?
1tabligh 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh
"The acquired qualities are hereditable as a principle or genetic investigations have rejected this theory?"
This makes no sense. Please clarify.
"The organic changes, whatever may be their cause, are always aimed at survival and evolution"
The changes are not AIMED at anything. There is no target course. This is a fundamental fallacy and shows a lack of understanding of evolutionary theory. Or is it just badly worded?
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago
@DaToNyOyO How is that for YOUR "you clearly have not even a basic understanding of evolutionary theory. " and answer the questions instead?!
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh
"Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!"
As opposed to the theist delusion, where the theist looks at the world through religious myth glasses and, as a result, answers ALL the questions with "God done it. Derp."...
You have no answers and no understanding, all you have is myths and lies. And you're too brainwashed to even realise it.
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago 3
@DaToNyOyO Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh No, they derive from rational and logical thought.
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago
@DaToNyOyO How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh
Show me a belief "in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter". Things that exist can be observed, or you can observe their effects on other things. God cannot be observed; god cannot exist.
I and no atheist that I know has ever made the claim that matter is "the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator". Matter exists no evidence for a deity exists.
And all this leads only to "who made god?"; which does not lead to the answer "god".
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago
@DaToNyOyO Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh
"Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions."
Utter, utter drivel. All you are saying here is that, before man starts to think rational man can just make stuff up if man thinks it's real.
When "man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief" he stops believing in baseless fairy tales that have no evidence; he grows up.
I can't be won over with spiritualist babble.
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago
@DaToNyOyO "who made god?";
___
His Existence is not coming into Being from non-existence.
If in the course of developing the argument of the orderliness of the universe we attempt to prove the existence of a maker similar to the human maker, the divine maker will, in reality, also be a created being on the level of man; proving the existence of such a maker is an entirely different matter from proving the existence of the Maker and Creator of all being.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh Right. Right. So the universe MUST have a creator, but god doesn't need one because we can't prove it exists anyway. What a crock of shit argument that is.
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago 3
@DaToNyOyO How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh
Well, to start with there is no evidence for god, there is no evidence for gods necessity. There IS evidence for the universe, and all the matter within it.
You can't claim that unintelligent matter is too complex to exist without a creator and then flip over and claim that the most complex intelligence possible can exist without a creator.
That's a logical fallacy. It simply does not work.
If a being of infinite complexity can spring into being from nothing then so too can matter
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago 2
@DaToNyOyO The Creator of the universe cannot be preceded by non-existence; otherwise, He would need another god to create Him; and that god, if he is preceded by non-existence, would need another god and so on. Thus, we would have an endless chain of gods without reaching a **causeless cause** to be the source of the existence of the universe.
Then we have to deny the existence of the universe. We would also have to deny ourselves because we are a part of the universe.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh Exactly. So you freely admit that you are making a baseless logical jump in order to get around the rational problem of "who made god?".
You have no answers. Only BS.
By your own argument these is no basis for the assumption of god; the universe could just exist without a creator other than itself.
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago 11
@DaToNyOyO But you say to yourself: I cannot do that because I am here. Then you have to say: God is there.
From a scientific point of view, the self-origination of matter is impossible; the theory that the material world is constantly evolving and advancing toward higher states is clearly contradictory to scientific data and the realities of nature. All development and motion in the mineral realm is due either to the intervention of a will external to matter or to attraction,
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh
Logic is not your strong point, eh? Your have a baseless assumption of a god, no way of resolving the issue of where god came from, so you just do some daft logical summersault to hide the gaps in your argument. Fail.
From a scientific point of view, the existence of a creator outside of the universe, unobservable within the universe, proves than if the deity did exist it's influence could not enter the universe without it becoming part of it.
Then it would become observable. Fail.
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago
@1tabligh [continued]
"the theory that the material world is constantly evolving and advancing toward higher states is clearly contradictory to scientific data"
One word: fusion.
It happens in stars, all the time. Matter becomes more complex in a star. There are plenty of examples of matter evolving toward complexity.
On what evidence do you base your claims?
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago 2
@1tabligh
"All development and motion in the mineral realm is due either to the intervention of a will external to matter or to attraction,"
And as I have explained, if god is external to our universe, god could have no influence over what is inside the universe without being bound by its rules.
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago
interchange, and compounding with other bodies.
"Do they imagine that they've been created without any cause, or do they suppose that they are their own creators?" The Quran (52:36) "Have they created the heavens and the earth ? They have no certain belief in what they say" (