Just got done watching your video and see way too many fallacious points that you are using to try to prove that evolution model is a better model than a creation model. DONT USE THE FLOOD? I mean why NOT use the flood story? There are sea shells on Mount Everest there are trees that go though several layers of strata the represent millions of years to you. So if you don't want to face the facts why try to interpret the evidence? There is evidence of flood damage all over the earth......
@MaximusMcc "There is evidence of flood damage all over the earth." Yep there have been many floods over many hundreds of millions of years in different parts of the world - none of which covered the entire Earth. there is also no record of a global flood 6000 years ago.
"a creation model" What creation model? Do you mean the bible guesswork that has no supporting evidence. Hardly a viable model for anything other than your wildest dreams.
" there are trees that go though several layers of strata the represent millions of years to you."
No, there are not. This one is a blatant lie. Petrified trees near river banks go through several layers of rapidly deposited sediment. These are not strata. You are deliberately lying about this as all apologists do.
@MaximusMcc So what if there are sea shells on mount everest or trees under strata as you claim? Does this prove there was a flood? Not at all, it just proves there are trees buried under dirt and sea shells on top of mountains. There are other ways to prove they got there. With the logic you use, a town at the bottom of a sea is evidence of atlantis, and people born with fully functioning tails is evidence of demons or satyrs. You're jumping to a conclusion YOU want.
@MaximusMcc There is no evidence for a global flood. Sea shells on mount everest: Evidence for an old earth, since uplift takes a while. The summit of mt. everest used to be under water before India collided with Asia.
I advise you to check Kent Hovind's"100 reasons against evolution".As for any christian whom I may have offended,I do believe in Jesus and Mary,but I can't say God is or was ever human,(therefore had to go to the toilet..etc)or that God was ever born or ever died,cause we all know God is eternal.However,muslims think(according to the Qu'ran)that the closest to us in brotherhood are christians,cause "amongst them there are pious believers who do good,&believe in the same God&the day of judgement"
Kent Hovind is a liar. Every lecture starts with two verifiable lies and it gets worse. He has no scientific credentials and is wrong about damn near everything.
It seems that everything you spammed here was drawn from a creationist site, as it's all horribly wrong and/or irrelevant.
/watch?v=uEP7Z55Z6nM
When it's this easy to get informed on a topic, there is no other conclusion to draw than you and everyone like you is willfully ignorant.
@TheZooCrew hahaha lol.... i can't believe that is your (rude) answer! so you put up this big show and get us to answer your questions... and then namely cause we disagree with you, you get mad... well, if you want to hide in between your fantasy dinosaur land, go ahead be my guest! but don't ask for others' opinions then! xD
@TheZooCrew I wonder why non-religious people get offended cause "religious people think they have no sense of morality",when you don't seem able to control your rage! I'm hoping it's not racism,we'd be in trouble,for according to u,we all came from bacteria,so we're all equal.Speaking a good enough english,whilst being fluent on 2 other languages&making my way through the 4th one,should not upset you so.But I guess since this is your channel, you have every right to insult people...right? haha
@TheZooCrew i say the same to you... it is truly sad to meet such embittered people! no wonder the major illness of the 21st century is depression. Well, i wish you a joyful life, bacteria!
transitional forms is the following:they are dinosaurs!we only have bones!i could say crabs and spiders are related,yet crabs live underwater,and spiders hang on air...(To christians,I only say:it's difficult to quote Jesus when the 4 people who wrote the new testament didn't even meet him)The only"living fossile"we have was the fish that could do something very similar to hibernation,cause in times of draught it would cover its skin with a mucus-like substance under earth&stay on land for days.
@mtbee9 that's just funny cause I'm a medicine student;but I have a strong enough personality as to not believe anything I get told.That's why I dug long ago into all those theories,cause in the end,(it hurts i know),they aren't but wonderland day-dreaming theories!!thanks for calling me ignorant though,it shows the well mannered being you must be..of course,you wouldn't care too much if you carry urself as a monkey,or a bacteria?(it's a rethorical question,i'm not really interested in knowing)
@rahma241 " I'm a medicine student;but I have a strong enough personality as to not believe anything I get told." And you hope to study medicine without understanding the core science that is part of all life. If this is true you should fail at medicine!
Ignorance is simply a statement that you lack information about something - perfectly well mannered! To succeed at any scientific endeavor you will need to accept what the evidence shows and not rely on religious teachings.
There's LOADS of fossile records of transitional forms?I'll point out to u the same error i point out to christians(cause I'm a muslim,& a medicine student,so that clears your point on"how come only ignorant people believe in God".See,alchimia(that's chemistry)&math were born among muslims,and so did much of surgery&engineering basics(engines,cameras),but not too many people KNOW that, same way everybody thinks islam comes from the dictatorships in the middle east) The problem i see with your
then u claim that dinosaurs not living with elephants is proof of evolution,i think it only proves the extinction of some species,not the evolution of others.Try to answer this:you put up a trilobite image..could you tell me what simpler and smaller organism did the trilobite come from?i only ask this cause there are NO FOSSILES that show us any form of intermediate trilobite forming.It'd be specially useful to know how come they had such complex visual characteristics...yet no records on it!
aminoacids by themselves don't have any related function,such as the creation of teeth,nails,legs..etc they are just liny "letters",we could say,that must be put together by proteins,to form "words".So my question to you is: where did proteins learn to read and write those words in order to turn them then into all types of responses,systems,functional macro molecular structures...etc ¿have you studied how dna replication works?¿have you studied a cell in detail?cells are dependent & so are genes
4th- if the bones in ostriches were inadequate for their living habits.yet you claim evolution is the key, shouldn't they aalready have some change in its structure adapted for land?yet we see ostriches don't seem to have any problem with their bone structure.If they don't have a problem with it, why should we claim that it is "inappropiate"? (same applies for bats) When you talk about genes and their related funtions (teeth,tails...etc) you should realise genes are made up by aminoacids,
1st- the "human tails" are mutations and no, they don't have functional nerves and muscles, they just hang, and that "extra piece of meat" has also been found in others places, for it is a mutation. 2nd- intelligent design doesn't mean animals should be evenly spread, as you claimed, but that they will be able to coexist in a harmonious way,which they do, within their specific environment,that's why they're unevenly spread, cause the environmental conditions are uneven accross the globe.
And the golden rule does not come from the bible. During my holiday in China last summer I learned that the golden rule is the foundation of Taoism and Confucianism. These predate the bible by hundreds of years. *should I insert an insult here like you did? It wouldn’t be very moral of me now would it?*
We do not need religion to know right from wrong. Whether or not it fits in your world view, this is reality, deal with it.
@Floortjahh Of course, to one so ignorant about Taoism and Confucianism one can make the ignorant claim that they have as the foundation the Golden Rule. Rubbish. Their concept is similar, but not altogether the same as the Golden Rule.
Once more, I shall remind you that I never said that we need religion to know right from wrong. I said that an atheistic worldview has no basis for morality. Learn to differentiate the two claims.
@Floortjahh How is it contradicting when I have stated exactly why we seem to "know" right and wrong without religion? Do you understand English? Having no basis for something does not mean not knowing it. What argument do you have? That you are a lying fool? Answer me: what scientific basis is there for not hurting anybody or even for being social in the first place?
@Dante666 If we didn't have a basis, we wouldn't know morality... That basis is maximizing human welbeing.
You misprepresent me again. I am not all for a scientific explaination of morality, although new knowledge has affected our morality in the past. Reasoning in terms of human welfare is what I'm advocating. Also, read the part about the evolution of morality.
@Floortjahh That's...going in circles. What is the basis of maximizing human well-being? No scientific basis. And please, well-being is spelled separately and with a double 'l'.
The idea of human welfare itself is a moral standard that we have set; this moral standard is not an objective concept, at least to science. Evolution of morality is meaningless if morality itself has no basis.
@Dante666 Human welfare is to some extend objective. As I explained before, the basics evolved, there are plenty academic papers on this. The details are cultural and religious. However, we do not hold the same moral truths as we did in the time the bible was written (selling your daughter is NOT ok!).
This is because our knowledge, reasoning and understanding of human welbeing has improved. You've admitted it yourself. You interpret the bible differently than they did centuries ago
@Floortjahh Ah, still going around in ignorant circles. I did not interpret the Bible differently than how it was meant to be interpreted. And please, there is no basis for human welfare. So you consider it moral to keep your daughter and let the both of you starve to death, rather than to sell her to a rich family as a servant so that she may be well-fed and provided for, including having basic rights? I don't know about you, but I find the former actions to be immoral.
@Dante666 Daughters are sold into the sex industry in Thailand all the time. It is true that they are better fed there, but is is the more moral thing to do. There are better alternatives than selling one's daughter... Dohh...
Everyone believes they're interpreting the bible the way it's supposed to be interpreted. Yet here we are with god knows how many types of christianity.
@Floortjahh That's not what happened during Biblical times. Stop distorting the Bible with your own ignorant dishonesty. And look, we have cultural and anthropological data to back our interpretation. We don't just interpret as we like. We interpret according to the evidence.
@Dante666 If you are going to use the bible as a moral guide, it need to be applicable to present day as well. Otherwise you just get to pick and choose which parts are still valid and which aren't. It leaves it vulnerable for immense differences in interpretation. It is therefore a terrible source for morality.
I'm ticking this one off as a WIN for me too. You've had your chance.
@Floortjahh CONTEXT, stupid. We don't pick and choose, we study and analyze to determine what is applicable and what isn't. Leave it to an ignoramus like you to not understand how Biblical theology works.
Don't bother arguing with Dante666. He's an admitted apologist, which means he's obligated to lie to defend what he has declared in advance to be "the truth." He will lie and distort to whatever end necessary to look like he's right, all the while staring down his nose at everyone else. It is useless to reason with such people.
@TheZooCrew Thank you :) Tackling religion one creotard at a time! He tried to respond, but his comments were easily refuted. It's funny that he should accuse me of ad hominem attacks when he's the one calling names. I stayed fairly polite
@Floortjahh Was that part about ad hominems directed at you? No, liar. I'm calling a spade a spade, not calling names. Since when is being a dishonest moron the new way of being "fairly polite"?
@Floortjahh Hey, answer my question: was that part about ad hominems directed at you?
And what, you think the Biblical command to love your neighbor as yourself means to be nice to others? No. Get a grip on what the Bible means by "love" first. Here: /watch?v=CIeltDuFXRI
@Floortjahh Still not answering my question: was that part about ad hominems directed at you? Be honest about your own dishonesty, liar. What warped sense of reality?
As I said before the basics are engrained in our instinct, but the specifics are determined by culture, religion, knowledge and reasoning. When you think of morality in terms of maximizing human welfare, it becomes clear that reasoning is the best way to go.
@Floortjahh There is no basis for human welfare. Try spelling it with one 'l' next time. Also, you're basically saying that adultery is alright as long as you're not caught. Your argument is pathetic.
@Dante666 Thank you for that correction :) but it does not undermine the argument. Adultry has implications for the cheater too. And even if the cheater is not caught, it can still have impications for the couple. They might break up, STDs, fights, lack of trust.
You keep resorting to insults... is that because you are so easily refuted?
@Floortjahh So if they don't break up, no STDs, no fights, no lack of trust, then it's moral? No, I'm putting your pathetic arguments to shame because they are that ridiculous.
@Dante666 There always is some of that :) The cheater will eventually feel guilty. embaressement. I read psychology article about this a while back. If they don't they're sociopathic and morality doesn't apply to them. Do you want me to look the study up and prove it (scientifcally) once and for all?
@Floortjahh So morality does not apply to sociopaths? You're not answering my question directly though. If there is no break up, no STDs, no fights, no lack of trust, is adultery considered moral?
@Dante666 Because we do not want children to be hurt. It is prefectly explainable by evolution. Back when we were living in small isolated communties, for thousands of years any child we ran in to was likely to be related to us. We would therefore not want to hurt it. This type of behavior is engrained in us, call it instinct if you will.
I've allready explained this! You've had your chance, I will not respond anymore
@Floortjahh That's rubbish. Lions kill their young from time to time. There is no reason for us not to hurt any child we ran into even if we were living in small isolated communities. Why don't you just admit that instead of "instinct" your argument is more likely to be "emotion"?
You say science can’t justify morality. I’ve already shown that in some cases, it can. However, that’s not the point I was making. I argued that knowledge and reasoning changes the way we think about morality. New knowledge has led us believe that many things in the old testament are not acceptable anymore (except with divine permission perhaps, like Moses got? Imagine what lunatics could do with this knowledge). There is therefore no absolute basis for morality.
@Floortjahh And I showed that those cases are not proven. I argued that knowledge and reasoning does not, in fact, change the way we think about morality. And please, do enlighten us as to what Moses did with divine permission.
To the primitive writers of the bible, this may have been ok. However this is not acceptable anymore. Also, these passages of the bible stand in total contrast with “love your neighbor as you love yourself”. Just another inconsistency, the bible is a terrible source for morality.
@Floortjahh Wrong, the Bible never condoned any of these things you mentioned. Try reading the Bible for once. Stop misrepresenting the Bible and learn to be honest. At least be honest to yourself.
@Floortjahh Simply saying "My arguments stand irrefuted" means you don't even have an argument in the first place. For one, there's no "irrefuted" to begin with.
@Dante666 You didn't adress my argument, therefore you couldn't have refuted it :)
"My argument stands irrefuted" means that you have not been able to refute it. Yet have have been able to refute your objections. By first argument, therefore, stands irrefuted.
@Floortjahh I already did, by saying that "the Bible never condoned any of these things you mentioned." Stop being so dishonest. You refuted absolutely nothing other than your own civility, and I doubt you know the least about debating.
@Floortjahh So you're just being dishonest again when you said "I say they are determined by culture and religion. I did not specify which religion in the first 2. The last 2, however, are in the bible." You explained WHAT? Be honest, stupid.
@Dante666 Twisting my words isn't fooling anybody Dante... You are perfectly capable of looking up which cultures I was talking about yourself. I consider this agument won by me also. You got your chance, and you failed to adress the point I made, by childish word games. Enough.
@Floortjahh It's not surprising that you made your points by childish word games. So, yes, I am perfectly capable of looking up which cultures these accusations apply to, but they're obviously not the Biblical culture as you claim them to be. I consider you a moral FAILURE for being so dishonest.
The specifics are determined were by culture and religion (is it OK to mutilate a child’s genitals I because god wants it? Is it OK to stone a raped women to death because the “cheated”? Is it OK to discriminate against women because the bible says so? Is it OK to sell your daughter?).
@Dante666 Read Dante, read. I say they are determined by culture and religion. I did not specify which religion in the first 2. The last 2, however, are in the bible.
9 Nor was man created for woman's sake, but woman was created for man's sake. 10 On account of the angels, then, a woman should have a covering over her head to show that she is under her husband's authority.
@Floortjahh That's not even discrimination. Why stop at 10?
11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
@Dante666 Again, it is open for interpretation. Which is more important? 9 and 10, or 11? As I demonstrated before, if you cannot take the bible literally, it is open for interpretation. It can support any view, therfore it can support none.
You've also demonstrated another contradiction I was unaware of. Remember, either all of it is true, or none of it is
@Floortjahh No, it's not open for interpretation. What's important is the whole text, stupid, not which is more important. Taking the Bible literally is one thing, taking it in context is another. And you just contradicted yourself in the same sentence. What contradiction is there in this passage? Is everything that is outside your comprehension a "contradiction"?
@Floortjahh You're not answering the question: What contradiction is there in this passage? Is everything that is outside your comprehension a "contradiction"? You FAIL.
@Dante666 7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.
@Floortjahh Hey, guess what the early English colonists did in order to get to America? They went into indentured servitude. What's indentured servitude? THIS. What's the context of the man selling his daughter? So that she may have food, clothing and marital rights, stupid.
@Dante666 Selling a daughter NEVER good *holy cow, are you for real?!*. Unless of course, you keep in mind that the bible was written by primitive minds, in who's time this was acceptable. If the bible and god are an objective basis for morality, then selling a daughter (this happens in Thailand on a massive scale, and it is BAD) would still be acceptable.
@Floortjahh No, stupid, this is not selling a daughter for slavery or prostitution. This is for another family to provide for her food, clothing and marital rights. It's right there in the text which you cited. And still, have you ever heard of indentured servitude? Of course not, you dishonest ignoramus.
Saying that atheists have no basis for morality is an assumption. Fact of the matter is that atheist communities all over the world, throughout society know right from wrong. The large issues are perfectly explainable by evolution. For example, as highly social creature we wouldn’t survive if we went around killing and plundering. We do not need a moral “basis”, it is engrained in every human being’s instincts.
@Floortjahh On the same basis rape is justified to be an animalistic instinct for the perpetuation of the human species. There is zero scientific basis for what is right and what is wrong. Why is there a need to survive in the first place? Why keep animals from becoming extinct? Genghis Khan went around killing and plundering by the millions, did his people not survive?
@Dante666 Argument from ignorance. Morality evolved way before Genhis Khan was even born (dohhh). Back when only small, isolated communities existed. If you ran into any other humans, chances were, they were related to you. You should therefore not go around killing and pludering, the species wouldn't have survived.
@Floortjahh Why would there be a need for survival of the species to begin with? Argument from ignorance is your specialty. So you're saying that morality did not apply during the time of Genghis Khan? Please, do consider the stupid implications of your own arguments.
Basic morality developed as evolution describes (may I remind you, 3.600.000 papers for, 0 against). However, people can ignore morality (psychopaths for example). Or are you saying Ghenhis Khan acted morally?!
@Floortjahh Yeah, keep reminding me with nonexistent figures. And don't turn away from the argument. Since your argument for morality is that it is based on human welfare, and Genghis Khan did bring to his people greater welfare, is his actions moral on that account? Don't bring in an argument that I have never made.
@Floortjahh Since your argument for morality is that it is based on human welfare, and Genghis Khan did bring to his people greater welfare, is his actions moral on that account? I'm not asking you to answer some philosophical question here.
(If he exists) god never offered me salvation. He never told me. He’s almighty, he could have, but he instead he keeps me ignorant of his existence and when I die he’s going to blame me for it? That makes him immoral. Jesus was pretty clear in the bible, those who believe with blind faith are “blessed”. So god, or rather the writers of the bible, do not want us to question their authority. You see how this keeps us running in circles?
@Floortjahh He's not the one keeping you ignorant; you are solely responsible for your own ignorance. Like parents who keep telling their kids not to do stupid shit and their kids end up getting themselves into trouble, are their parents at fault for their kids' ignorance? No. And no, Jesus never said anything about blind faith. You don't even know what the Bible actually says, do you?
@Floortjahh Who's talking about believing without proof? Without seeing is not the same as without proof. There is definitely proof: the empty tomb, the eyewitnesses, and more.
@Dante666 And as I've stated before why eyewitnesses are not very reliable. In court, scientific evidence outweighs eyewitness accounts. I'll tick this off as a WIN for me too.
@Floortjahh Court records show otherwise. Eyewitness testimony in most cases hold more weight than scientific evidence. Furthermore, this is regarding history, not science. Comprehension FAIL, much?
@Dante666 records before DNA testing was possible obiously don't count :) It's still a WIN for me Dante... I will not be responding to this thread anymore.
Christianity is immoral because you are not accountable for your actions whatsoever! It doesn’t matter if you spend your lifetime killing and raping children. As long as you repent before you die, all of your sins will be forgiven. Explain to me how this is moral. I refuse to believe that the loving god I grew up with (if he exists) is that monster.
@Floortjahh And from misrepresenting my points, you go back to misrepresenting Christianity. This is rubbish. If you believe there is a God, then all the more you need to be accountable, as genuine repentance is required at the moment of belief.
@Dante666 Then why the 10 commandments? Then why do good in first place? Then why should a christian live a moral life? You can never be good enough anyway.
Chrstians therefore have no basis for morality. My argument stands irrefuted.
@Floortjahh The 10 commandments is to show that nobody can live up to perfect standards. We do good because it's the right thing to do. We can never be good enough, but we need to strive to be good, not in order to be saved, but because we are saved. The basis for morality, thus, is the love of God for us. Your argument stands ridiculed by your own ignorance.
@Floortjahh Ah, yes, failing to understand the Christian doctrine, misrepresenting the Bible, dishonest denials, what more aren't the likes of you capable of...
God is immoral for not letting good and innocent people into heaven, while murderers get in. Your answer: I am not to question the morality the almighty. Sounds exactly like the propaganda in North Korea, doesn’t make it right! And here’s what I don’t get, you said either your mum or your dad is an atheist. So, if you get into heaven, it couldn’t be heave knowing that your loved ones are to burn for all eternity. Heaven sounds great!
@Floortjahh Again, who are you to judge who is good and who is innocent? In fact, I specifically mentioned that in God's eyes, no one is good. Since when did I make that answer? Stop lying. Apart from the fact that you apparently get your idea of hell from cartoons about the devil with a pitchfork, that is God granting them what they want: separation from God.
@Dante666 They say the same thing in North Korea... They are not to judge who is right or wrong, only the dear leader is. That does not mean he is right.
As for hell:
Hell is conscious torment.
Matthew 13:50 “furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth”
Mark 9:48 “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched”
Revelation 14:10 “he will be tormented with fire and brimstone”
You did not answer my question. If your loved ones experience this, heaven is an impossibility for you.
@Floortjahh Yeah, conscious torment, i.e. shame. Not literal fire. And no, heaven won't be an impossibility to me for knowing that my loved ones received what they wanted. For all their sins they would want to escape from the glory of God which burns them with their own shame of what they did. It is God's mercy that they are not made to stand in His presence.
@Dante666 If you do not want to take this passage literally, it means it is up for interpretation. This means it can support any view, and thus it can support none, as I stated before.
@Floortjahh That is stupid. You don't take metaphors literally, do you? Oh, who's to say that you're not that dumb to think that retorting with a good comeback will literally burn someone. Your argument stands ridiculed.
I used Hitler as an example to demonstrate how religion be used to justify one’s immoral action. Even, if you are right (and I don’t think so) and Hitler lied about being Christian, that doesn’t change the fact that the majority of the nazis were, and it doesn’t change the argument I made. Blind faith can lead a good man to do horrific things. There are even examples within the bible itself, Moses for instance!
@Dante666 15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
@Floortjahh Argument from outrage it is, then. Pity that the likes of you will never rise above your ignorance and emotional outrage to understand the anthropological reasons for such an act.
@Dante666 11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
@Dante666 Now listen to what the LORD Almighty says...3 Go and attack the Amalekites and completely destroy everything they have. Don't leave a thing; kill all the men, women, children, and babies; the cattle, sheep, camels, and donkeys.
@Floortjahh Not Moses. And more argument from outrage? Why do you think the Amalekites were attacked in the first place? At the time, it would be cruelty to leave the women and children alive without any means of supporting them.
@Dante666 Sorry, yes it is. Another example of how you're, with devine permission, suddenly allowed to break the 10 commandments. If this doesn't horrify you, you are a psychopath
@Floortjahh Which part of this is breaking the 10 commandments? If this is considered breaking the 10 commandments, you're an illiterate moron. See how your arguments are not really arguments at all?
@Dante666 Argument from ignorance + misrepresentation of my argument. I am not all for scientific explainations, although it has altered our morality in some cases (animal cruelty is just one of the many).
I explained the evolution of morality somewhere down below.
@Floortjahh Science has altered our morality, but morality could not come by naturalistic means, i.e. it has to come from a moral being that has preexisted. Science only says that animals do feel pain, but does not state why it is wrong for us to cause pain to animals.
I made a point that prehistoric people lived moral lives. Anthropology shows these people worshipped the elements and animals, they cared for their sick and worked together. From a biological point of view, the evolvement of morality makes perfect sense. As highly social creatures living is small, isolated communities they wouldn’t have survived if they went around killing people. You disregarded this and said they were worshipping god. Newsflash: no they weren’t.
@Floortjahh And this point is somehow supposed to refute any of my points? Flashback: I said that I do accept that people do live moral lives regardless if they believed in God, because God gave everybody a conscience. Stop misrepresenting my points for once and learn to read and remember.
Great, that means my arguments stand irrefuted. It also means that these innocent prehistoric people (eg, Homo Erectus, Neanderthalis, Habilis), who had never even heard of god went to hell?
This means that
a. god is cruel
b. the bible doesn't mention these people, which is weird.
However, if you accept that the bible was written by primitive people, this sort of thing makes perfect sense. People came before god.
@Floortjahh "Hominid" is a scientific term which covers the great apes, including chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans. Obviously the three I've just mentioned are not people.
@Dante666 I allready specified which homonids I meant. Are you going to respond at all to the argument? I'm just going to assume that you can't, or you would have done it before.
@Floortjahh I know you specified which HOMINIDS you meant, but that's irrelevant since they're classed under the same category as gorillas and orangutans as well. If you want me to spell it out for you, fine: they're not people, stupid.
@Dante666 It doesn't matter what I call them. They were highly social creatures with a definity understandig of morality (seriously, look it up, it's interesting stuff).
You've dodged the question and you've had your chance. It's a WIN for me, I will not be responding anymore
@Floortjahh I've looked it up, and it amounts to your stupidity. We have many social creatures in existence, yet the only one with any understanding of morality is us. This is the second time you've posted that you won't be responding anymore, so of course, this would mean that you lied within 3 minutes of posting that. How very moral of you.
Just got done watching your video and see way too many fallacious points that you are using to try to prove that evolution model is a better model than a creation model. DONT USE THE FLOOD? I mean why NOT use the flood story? There are sea shells on Mount Everest there are trees that go though several layers of strata the represent millions of years to you. So if you don't want to face the facts why try to interpret the evidence? There is evidence of flood damage all over the earth......
MaximusMcc 2 weeks ago
@MaximusMcc "There is evidence of flood damage all over the earth." Yep there have been many floods over many hundreds of millions of years in different parts of the world - none of which covered the entire Earth. there is also no record of a global flood 6000 years ago.
"a creation model" What creation model? Do you mean the bible guesswork that has no supporting evidence. Hardly a viable model for anything other than your wildest dreams.
mtbee9 1 week ago
@MaximusMcc
"There are sea shells on Mount Everest"
Uplift.
" there are trees that go though several layers of strata the represent millions of years to you."
No, there are not. This one is a blatant lie. Petrified trees near river banks go through several layers of rapidly deposited sediment. These are not strata. You are deliberately lying about this as all apologists do.
TheZooCrew 1 week ago
@MaximusMcc So what if there are sea shells on mount everest or trees under strata as you claim? Does this prove there was a flood? Not at all, it just proves there are trees buried under dirt and sea shells on top of mountains. There are other ways to prove they got there. With the logic you use, a town at the bottom of a sea is evidence of atlantis, and people born with fully functioning tails is evidence of demons or satyrs. You're jumping to a conclusion YOU want.
crazyinsane500 1 week ago
@MaximusMcc There is no evidence for a global flood. Sea shells on mount everest: Evidence for an old earth, since uplift takes a while. The summit of mt. everest used to be under water before India collided with Asia.
Helge129 6 days ago
oh Muslims why u try and act so smart?
go back to exorcising Jinns from sick people monkey-men
X3SakakiX3 2 weeks ago
I advise you to check Kent Hovind's"100 reasons against evolution".As for any christian whom I may have offended,I do believe in Jesus and Mary,but I can't say God is or was ever human,(therefore had to go to the toilet..etc)or that God was ever born or ever died,cause we all know God is eternal.However,muslims think(according to the Qu'ran)that the closest to us in brotherhood are christians,cause "amongst them there are pious believers who do good,&believe in the same God&the day of judgement"
rahma241 2 weeks ago
@rahma241
Kent Hovind is a liar. Every lecture starts with two verifiable lies and it gets worse. He has no scientific credentials and is wrong about damn near everything.
It seems that everything you spammed here was drawn from a creationist site, as it's all horribly wrong and/or irrelevant.
/watch?v=uEP7Z55Z6nM
When it's this easy to get informed on a topic, there is no other conclusion to draw than you and everyone like you is willfully ignorant.
TheZooCrew 2 weeks ago
@TheZooCrew hahaha lol.... i can't believe that is your (rude) answer! so you put up this big show and get us to answer your questions... and then namely cause we disagree with you, you get mad... well, if you want to hide in between your fantasy dinosaur land, go ahead be my guest! but don't ask for others' opinions then! xD
rahma241 2 weeks ago
@rahma241
If you are not literate in English, that's perfectly fine. I can respect that.
But please don't pretend otherwise.
TheZooCrew 2 weeks ago
@TheZooCrew I wonder why non-religious people get offended cause "religious people think they have no sense of morality",when you don't seem able to control your rage! I'm hoping it's not racism,we'd be in trouble,for according to u,we all came from bacteria,so we're all equal.Speaking a good enough english,whilst being fluent on 2 other languages&making my way through the 4th one,should not upset you so.But I guess since this is your channel, you have every right to insult people...right? haha
rahma241 2 weeks ago
@rahma241
That was not comprehensible.
See previous response.
TheZooCrew 2 weeks ago
@TheZooCrew i say the same to you... it is truly sad to meet such embittered people! no wonder the major illness of the 21st century is depression. Well, i wish you a joyful life, bacteria!
rahma241 2 weeks ago
transitional forms is the following:they are dinosaurs!we only have bones!i could say crabs and spiders are related,yet crabs live underwater,and spiders hang on air...(To christians,I only say:it's difficult to quote Jesus when the 4 people who wrote the new testament didn't even meet him)The only"living fossile"we have was the fish that could do something very similar to hibernation,cause in times of draught it would cover its skin with a mucus-like substance under earth&stay on land for days.
rahma241 2 weeks ago
@rahma241 "transitional forms is the following:they are dinosaurs!we only have bones!i could say crabs and spiders are related"
Your comments show that you are truly ignorant about biology and science in general. Please study some real science rather than ancient mythology.
mtbee9 2 weeks ago in playlist DonExodus' Videos (Evolution/Creationism debate)
@mtbee9 that's just funny cause I'm a medicine student;but I have a strong enough personality as to not believe anything I get told.That's why I dug long ago into all those theories,cause in the end,(it hurts i know),they aren't but wonderland day-dreaming theories!!thanks for calling me ignorant though,it shows the well mannered being you must be..of course,you wouldn't care too much if you carry urself as a monkey,or a bacteria?(it's a rethorical question,i'm not really interested in knowing)
rahma241 2 weeks ago
@rahma241 Oh dear, why would you study a scientific subject if you pick and choose what facts to accept?
phantasmagorial 2 weeks ago
@rahma241 " I'm a medicine student;but I have a strong enough personality as to not believe anything I get told." And you hope to study medicine without understanding the core science that is part of all life. If this is true you should fail at medicine!
Ignorance is simply a statement that you lack information about something - perfectly well mannered! To succeed at any scientific endeavor you will need to accept what the evidence shows and not rely on religious teachings.
mtbee9 2 weeks ago
There's LOADS of fossile records of transitional forms?I'll point out to u the same error i point out to christians(cause I'm a muslim,& a medicine student,so that clears your point on"how come only ignorant people believe in God".See,alchimia(that's chemistry)&math were born among muslims,and so did much of surgery&engineering basics(engines,cameras),but not too many people KNOW that, same way everybody thinks islam comes from the dictatorships in the middle east) The problem i see with your
rahma241 2 weeks ago
then u claim that dinosaurs not living with elephants is proof of evolution,i think it only proves the extinction of some species,not the evolution of others.Try to answer this:you put up a trilobite image..could you tell me what simpler and smaller organism did the trilobite come from?i only ask this cause there are NO FOSSILES that show us any form of intermediate trilobite forming.It'd be specially useful to know how come they had such complex visual characteristics...yet no records on it!
rahma241 2 weeks ago
aminoacids by themselves don't have any related function,such as the creation of teeth,nails,legs..etc they are just liny "letters",we could say,that must be put together by proteins,to form "words".So my question to you is: where did proteins learn to read and write those words in order to turn them then into all types of responses,systems,functional macro molecular structures...etc ¿have you studied how dna replication works?¿have you studied a cell in detail?cells are dependent & so are genes
rahma241 2 weeks ago
4th- if the bones in ostriches were inadequate for their living habits.yet you claim evolution is the key, shouldn't they aalready have some change in its structure adapted for land?yet we see ostriches don't seem to have any problem with their bone structure.If they don't have a problem with it, why should we claim that it is "inappropiate"? (same applies for bats) When you talk about genes and their related funtions (teeth,tails...etc) you should realise genes are made up by aminoacids,
rahma241 2 weeks ago
1st- the "human tails" are mutations and no, they don't have functional nerves and muscles, they just hang, and that "extra piece of meat" has also been found in others places, for it is a mutation. 2nd- intelligent design doesn't mean animals should be evenly spread, as you claimed, but that they will be able to coexist in a harmonious way,which they do, within their specific environment,that's why they're unevenly spread, cause the environmental conditions are uneven accross the globe.
rahma241 2 weeks ago
@Dante666 (pt 18)
And the golden rule does not come from the bible. During my holiday in China last summer I learned that the golden rule is the foundation of Taoism and Confucianism. These predate the bible by hundreds of years. *should I insert an insult here like you did? It wouldn’t be very moral of me now would it?*
We do not need religion to know right from wrong. Whether or not it fits in your world view, this is reality, deal with it.
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh Of course, to one so ignorant about Taoism and Confucianism one can make the ignorant claim that they have as the foundation the Golden Rule. Rubbish. Their concept is similar, but not altogether the same as the Golden Rule.
Once more, I shall remind you that I never said that we need religion to know right from wrong. I said that an atheistic worldview has no basis for morality. Learn to differentiate the two claims.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 I should have said, part of the basis for Taoism and Confucianism, in order for you so understand the point? *sigh*
You say we do not need religion to know right from wrong, yet we have no basis for it either?
Contradicting statement, my argument stands irrefuted.
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh How is it contradicting when I have stated exactly why we seem to "know" right and wrong without religion? Do you understand English? Having no basis for something does not mean not knowing it. What argument do you have? That you are a lying fool? Answer me: what scientific basis is there for not hurting anybody or even for being social in the first place?
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 If we didn't have a basis, we wouldn't know morality... That basis is maximizing human welbeing.
You misprepresent me again. I am not all for a scientific explaination of morality, although new knowledge has affected our morality in the past. Reasoning in terms of human welfare is what I'm advocating. Also, read the part about the evolution of morality.
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh That's...going in circles. What is the basis of maximizing human well-being? No scientific basis. And please, well-being is spelled separately and with a double 'l'.
The idea of human welfare itself is a moral standard that we have set; this moral standard is not an objective concept, at least to science. Evolution of morality is meaningless if morality itself has no basis.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
@Dante666 Human welfare is to some extend objective. As I explained before, the basics evolved, there are plenty academic papers on this. The details are cultural and religious. However, we do not hold the same moral truths as we did in the time the bible was written (selling your daughter is NOT ok!).
This is because our knowledge, reasoning and understanding of human welbeing has improved. You've admitted it yourself. You interpret the bible differently than they did centuries ago
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh Ah, still going around in ignorant circles. I did not interpret the Bible differently than how it was meant to be interpreted. And please, there is no basis for human welfare. So you consider it moral to keep your daughter and let the both of you starve to death, rather than to sell her to a rich family as a servant so that she may be well-fed and provided for, including having basic rights? I don't know about you, but I find the former actions to be immoral.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 Daughters are sold into the sex industry in Thailand all the time. It is true that they are better fed there, but is is the more moral thing to do. There are better alternatives than selling one's daughter... Dohh...
Everyone believes they're interpreting the bible the way it's supposed to be interpreted. Yet here we are with god knows how many types of christianity.
Believing is not the same as knowing.
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh That's not what happened during Biblical times. Stop distorting the Bible with your own ignorant dishonesty. And look, we have cultural and anthropological data to back our interpretation. We don't just interpret as we like. We interpret according to the evidence.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 If you are going to use the bible as a moral guide, it need to be applicable to present day as well. Otherwise you just get to pick and choose which parts are still valid and which aren't. It leaves it vulnerable for immense differences in interpretation. It is therefore a terrible source for morality.
I'm ticking this one off as a WIN for me too. You've had your chance.
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh CONTEXT, stupid. We don't pick and choose, we study and analyze to determine what is applicable and what isn't. Leave it to an ignoramus like you to not understand how Biblical theology works.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh
Those some pretty serious 18 comments. Well done.
Don't bother arguing with Dante666. He's an admitted apologist, which means he's obligated to lie to defend what he has declared in advance to be "the truth." He will lie and distort to whatever end necessary to look like he's right, all the while staring down his nose at everyone else. It is useless to reason with such people.
TheZooCrew 3 weeks ago
@TheZooCrew Ah, yes, hasty generalization, ad hominems, so typical of the likes of you.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 Do you even know what those are?
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh The most obvious behavioral patterns from the likes of you, that's what they are.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 haha funny!
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh You're not.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 No, I'm serious :p
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh Unfortunately.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheZooCrew Thank you :) Tackling religion one creotard at a time! He tried to respond, but his comments were easily refuted. It's funny that he should accuse me of ad hominem attacks when he's the one calling names. I stayed fairly polite
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh Was that part about ad hominems directed at you? No, liar. I'm calling a spade a spade, not calling names. Since when is being a dishonest moron the new way of being "fairly polite"?
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 Your arguments have been refuted very easily. The only way you could refute mine was by misrepresenting them....
Hey, read your bible again. Love your neighbor as you love yourself!
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh Hey, answer my question: was that part about ad hominems directed at you?
And what, you think the Biblical command to love your neighbor as yourself means to be nice to others? No. Get a grip on what the Bible means by "love" first. Here: /watch?v=CIeltDuFXRI
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheZooCrew wow you were right! It was more useless than I thought. It's amazing how these people have such a warped sense of reality.
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh Still not answering my question: was that part about ad hominems directed at you? Be honest about your own dishonesty, liar. What warped sense of reality?
Dante666 3 weeks ago
@Dante666 (pt17)
As I said before the basics are engrained in our instinct, but the specifics are determined by culture, religion, knowledge and reasoning. When you think of morality in terms of maximizing human welfare, it becomes clear that reasoning is the best way to go.
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh So you have no qualms about adultery then.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 This undermines emotional wellfare, which is part of human wellfare.
My argument stands irrefuted
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh There is no basis for human welfare. Try spelling it with one 'l' next time. Also, you're basically saying that adultery is alright as long as you're not caught. Your argument is pathetic.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 Thank you for that correction :) but it does not undermine the argument. Adultry has implications for the cheater too. And even if the cheater is not caught, it can still have impications for the couple. They might break up, STDs, fights, lack of trust.
You keep resorting to insults... is that because you are so easily refuted?
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh So if they don't break up, no STDs, no fights, no lack of trust, then it's moral? No, I'm putting your pathetic arguments to shame because they are that ridiculous.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 There always is some of that :) The cheater will eventually feel guilty. embaressement. I read psychology article about this a while back. If they don't they're sociopathic and morality doesn't apply to them. Do you want me to look the study up and prove it (scientifcally) once and for all?
My arguments still stands irrefuted
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh So morality does not apply to sociopaths? You're not answering my question directly though. If there is no break up, no STDs, no fights, no lack of trust, is adultery considered moral?
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 No it doesn't. Psychopaths in particular have no respect for human well-being whatsoever.
An answer to your question, I believe it is, but that's because of the golden rule. Eventhough I don't know about it, I still don't want it.
However, there are cultures in which adultry is perfectly acceptable.
Adultry is just another one of those specific moral topics, which are based on culture, religion, reason, knowledge, ect...
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh And science just can't touch on these specific moral topics? So how about this: why is pedophilia wrong?
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 No, but reasoning (as I explained allready) can
It is wrong because it always hurts the child. Physically and emotionally.
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh And why is it wrong to hurt a child physically or emotionally?
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 Because we do not want children to be hurt. It is prefectly explainable by evolution. Back when we were living in small isolated communties, for thousands of years any child we ran in to was likely to be related to us. We would therefore not want to hurt it. This type of behavior is engrained in us, call it instinct if you will.
I've allready explained this! You've had your chance, I will not respond anymore
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh That's rubbish. Lions kill their young from time to time. There is no reason for us not to hurt any child we ran into even if we were living in small isolated communities. Why don't you just admit that instead of "instinct" your argument is more likely to be "emotion"?
Dante666 3 weeks ago
@Dante666 (pt16)
You say science can’t justify morality. I’ve already shown that in some cases, it can. However, that’s not the point I was making. I argued that knowledge and reasoning changes the way we think about morality. New knowledge has led us believe that many things in the old testament are not acceptable anymore (except with divine permission perhaps, like Moses got? Imagine what lunatics could do with this knowledge). There is therefore no absolute basis for morality.
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh And I showed that those cases are not proven. I argued that knowledge and reasoning does not, in fact, change the way we think about morality. And please, do enlighten us as to what Moses did with divine permission.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 Go to pt9
My argument stand irrefuted
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh Oh please, from someone who mistakes every Biblical figure to be a "Moses", that's a really strong argument! /sarcasm
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 Nice try :) read your bible Numbers 31:13-18
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh Repeating the same non-argument is meaningless.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 Saying that doesn't make it true :)
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh Does not make it untrue either.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
@Dante666 (pt15)
To the primitive writers of the bible, this may have been ok. However this is not acceptable anymore. Also, these passages of the bible stand in total contrast with “love your neighbor as you love yourself”. Just another inconsistency, the bible is a terrible source for morality.
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh Wrong, the Bible never condoned any of these things you mentioned. Try reading the Bible for once. Stop misrepresenting the Bible and learn to be honest. At least be honest to yourself.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 Try again
My arguments stand irrefuted
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh Simply saying "My arguments stand irrefuted" means you don't even have an argument in the first place. For one, there's no "irrefuted" to begin with.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 You didn't adress my argument, therefore you couldn't have refuted it :)
"My argument stands irrefuted" means that you have not been able to refute it. Yet have have been able to refute your objections. By first argument, therefore, stands irrefuted.
This really is basic debating, you know...
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Floortjahh I already did, by saying that "the Bible never condoned any of these things you mentioned." Stop being so dishonest. You refuted absolutely nothing other than your own civility, and I doubt you know the least about debating.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 yet they are in the bible. I'll tick this one off as WIN for me..
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh So quickly to forget that you just dismissed the first two as being from the Bible? How dishonest can the likes of you get? Major FAIL.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 I did not, as I've allready explained.
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh So you're just being dishonest again when you said "I say they are determined by culture and religion. I did not specify which religion in the first 2. The last 2, however, are in the bible." You explained WHAT? Be honest, stupid.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 Twisting my words isn't fooling anybody Dante... You are perfectly capable of looking up which cultures I was talking about yourself. I consider this agument won by me also. You got your chance, and you failed to adress the point I made, by childish word games. Enough.
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh It's not surprising that you made your points by childish word games. So, yes, I am perfectly capable of looking up which cultures these accusations apply to, but they're obviously not the Biblical culture as you claim them to be. I consider you a moral FAILURE for being so dishonest.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
@Dante666 (pt14)
The specifics are determined were by culture and religion (is it OK to mutilate a child’s genitals I because god wants it? Is it OK to stone a raped women to death because the “cheated”? Is it OK to discriminate against women because the bible says so? Is it OK to sell your daughter?).
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh All four of these objections are found nowhere in the Bible. Please, continue.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 Read Dante, read. I say they are determined by culture and religion. I did not specify which religion in the first 2. The last 2, however, are in the bible.
9 Nor was man created for woman's sake, but woman was created for man's sake. 10 On account of the angels, then, a woman should have a covering over her head to show that she is under her husband's authority.
1 Corinthians 11:9-10
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh That's not even discrimination. Why stop at 10?
11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
Quote mining the Bible. Typical dishonest tactic.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 Again, it is open for interpretation. Which is more important? 9 and 10, or 11? As I demonstrated before, if you cannot take the bible literally, it is open for interpretation. It can support any view, therfore it can support none.
You've also demonstrated another contradiction I was unaware of. Remember, either all of it is true, or none of it is
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh No, it's not open for interpretation. What's important is the whole text, stupid, not which is more important. Taking the Bible literally is one thing, taking it in context is another. And you just contradicted yourself in the same sentence. What contradiction is there in this passage? Is everything that is outside your comprehension a "contradiction"?
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 I'll tick this one off as a WIN for me too :)
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh You're not answering the question: What contradiction is there in this passage? Is everything that is outside your comprehension a "contradiction"? You FAIL.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.
Exodus 21:7-11
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh Hey, guess what the early English colonists did in order to get to America? They went into indentured servitude. What's indentured servitude? THIS. What's the context of the man selling his daughter? So that she may have food, clothing and marital rights, stupid.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 Selling a daughter NEVER good *holy cow, are you for real?!*. Unless of course, you keep in mind that the bible was written by primitive minds, in who's time this was acceptable. If the bible and god are an objective basis for morality, then selling a daughter (this happens in Thailand on a massive scale, and it is BAD) would still be acceptable.
My argument stands irrefuted
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh No, stupid, this is not selling a daughter for slavery or prostitution. This is for another family to provide for her food, clothing and marital rights. It's right there in the text which you cited. And still, have you ever heard of indentured servitude? Of course not, you dishonest ignoramus.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
@Dante666 (pt13)
Saying that atheists have no basis for morality is an assumption. Fact of the matter is that atheist communities all over the world, throughout society know right from wrong. The large issues are perfectly explainable by evolution. For example, as highly social creature we wouldn’t survive if we went around killing and plundering. We do not need a moral “basis”, it is engrained in every human being’s instincts.
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh On the same basis rape is justified to be an animalistic instinct for the perpetuation of the human species. There is zero scientific basis for what is right and what is wrong. Why is there a need to survive in the first place? Why keep animals from becoming extinct? Genghis Khan went around killing and plundering by the millions, did his people not survive?
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 Argument from ignorance. Morality evolved way before Genhis Khan was even born (dohhh). Back when only small, isolated communities existed. If you ran into any other humans, chances were, they were related to you. You should therefore not go around killing and pludering, the species wouldn't have survived.
This information is at your disposal. Look it up
My argument stands irrefuted
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh Why would there be a need for survival of the species to begin with? Argument from ignorance is your specialty. So you're saying that morality did not apply during the time of Genghis Khan? Please, do consider the stupid implications of your own arguments.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 You misprepresent my argument AGAIN.
Basic morality developed as evolution describes (may I remind you, 3.600.000 papers for, 0 against). However, people can ignore morality (psychopaths for example). Or are you saying Ghenhis Khan acted morally?!
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh Yeah, keep reminding me with nonexistent figures. And don't turn away from the argument. Since your argument for morality is that it is based on human welfare, and Genghis Khan did bring to his people greater welfare, is his actions moral on that account? Don't bring in an argument that I have never made.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 He weighed the welware of his own people against that of others... So what's your point?
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh Answer the question: are his actions moral on that account?
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 That is a philosophical question
Much like, is it justified to kill one person in order to save 3?
Or (quoting Jimmy Carr) "would you fuck your dad to save your mum"?
There are questions I honestly can't answer. Can you?
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh Don't dodge the question. Answer it.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 I told you, I can't. Even great philisophers struggle with questions like these.
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh Since your argument for morality is that it is based on human welfare, and Genghis Khan did bring to his people greater welfare, is his actions moral on that account? I'm not asking you to answer some philosophical question here.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
@Dante666 (pt12)
(If he exists) god never offered me salvation. He never told me. He’s almighty, he could have, but he instead he keeps me ignorant of his existence and when I die he’s going to blame me for it? That makes him immoral. Jesus was pretty clear in the bible, those who believe with blind faith are “blessed”. So god, or rather the writers of the bible, do not want us to question their authority. You see how this keeps us running in circles?
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh He's not the one keeping you ignorant; you are solely responsible for your own ignorance. Like parents who keep telling their kids not to do stupid shit and their kids end up getting themselves into trouble, are their parents at fault for their kids' ignorance? No. And no, Jesus never said anything about blind faith. You don't even know what the Bible actually says, do you?
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 John 20:29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
My argument stands irrefuted
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh This is not talking about blind faith, stupid. In fact, faith is not the same as belief. Your argument is invalid to begin with.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 Believing without proof / without seeing = blind faith
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh Who's talking about believing without proof? Without seeing is not the same as without proof. There is definitely proof: the empty tomb, the eyewitnesses, and more.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 And as I've stated before why eyewitnesses are not very reliable. In court, scientific evidence outweighs eyewitness accounts. I'll tick this off as a WIN for me too.
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh Court records show otherwise. Eyewitness testimony in most cases hold more weight than scientific evidence. Furthermore, this is regarding history, not science. Comprehension FAIL, much?
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 records before DNA testing was possible obiously don't count :) It's still a WIN for me Dante... I will not be responding to this thread anymore.
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh I'm not using records before the availability of DNA testing. Good riddance with your moral FAILURE, you dishonest ignoramus.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
@Dante666 (pt11)
Christianity is immoral because you are not accountable for your actions whatsoever! It doesn’t matter if you spend your lifetime killing and raping children. As long as you repent before you die, all of your sins will be forgiven. Explain to me how this is moral. I refuse to believe that the loving god I grew up with (if he exists) is that monster.
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh And from misrepresenting my points, you go back to misrepresenting Christianity. This is rubbish. If you believe there is a God, then all the more you need to be accountable, as genuine repentance is required at the moment of belief.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 Great! So that's the only thing that matters? Not whether the life you've lived was a good one? I rest my case!
My argument stands irrefuted
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh Because nobody can ever live a sufficiently good life.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 Then why the 10 commandments? Then why do good in first place? Then why should a christian live a moral life? You can never be good enough anyway.
Chrstians therefore have no basis for morality. My argument stands irrefuted.
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh The 10 commandments is to show that nobody can live up to perfect standards. We do good because it's the right thing to do. We can never be good enough, but we need to strive to be good, not in order to be saved, but because we are saved. The basis for morality, thus, is the love of God for us. Your argument stands ridiculed by your own ignorance.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 :) Ok Dante. You were unable to show why we should be moral as christians. I will therefore tick this one off as a WIN for me as well.
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh Ah, yes, failing to understand the Christian doctrine, misrepresenting the Bible, dishonest denials, what more aren't the likes of you capable of...
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 (pt10)
God is immoral for not letting good and innocent people into heaven, while murderers get in. Your answer: I am not to question the morality the almighty. Sounds exactly like the propaganda in North Korea, doesn’t make it right! And here’s what I don’t get, you said either your mum or your dad is an atheist. So, if you get into heaven, it couldn’t be heave knowing that your loved ones are to burn for all eternity. Heaven sounds great!
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh Again, who are you to judge who is good and who is innocent? In fact, I specifically mentioned that in God's eyes, no one is good. Since when did I make that answer? Stop lying. Apart from the fact that you apparently get your idea of hell from cartoons about the devil with a pitchfork, that is God granting them what they want: separation from God.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
@Dante666 They say the same thing in North Korea... They are not to judge who is right or wrong, only the dear leader is. That does not mean he is right.
As for hell:
Hell is conscious torment.
Matthew 13:50 “furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth”
Mark 9:48 “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched”
Revelation 14:10 “he will be tormented with fire and brimstone”
You did not answer my question. If your loved ones experience this, heaven is an impossibility for you.
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh Yeah, conscious torment, i.e. shame. Not literal fire. And no, heaven won't be an impossibility to me for knowing that my loved ones received what they wanted. For all their sins they would want to escape from the glory of God which burns them with their own shame of what they did. It is God's mercy that they are not made to stand in His presence.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 If you do not want to take this passage literally, it means it is up for interpretation. This means it can support any view, and thus it can support none, as I stated before.
Argument stands irrefuted
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh That is stupid. You don't take metaphors literally, do you? Oh, who's to say that you're not that dumb to think that retorting with a good comeback will literally burn someone. Your argument stands ridiculed.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 As I've shown before, you cannot be certain your interpretation is the correct one. Another WIN for me...
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh You've never shown such a thing. Please, do continue in your state of denial. It makes my life much easier having to deal with morons.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Dante666 (pt9)
I used Hitler as an example to demonstrate how religion be used to justify one’s immoral action. Even, if you are right (and I don’t think so) and Hitler lied about being Christian, that doesn’t change the fact that the majority of the nazis were, and it doesn’t change the argument I made. Blind faith can lead a good man to do horrific things. There are even examples within the bible itself, Moses for instance!
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh Oh, please, enlighten me as to what "horrific things" that Moses did.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
@Dante666 15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh This is not Moses. And why is this horrific?
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 Sorry, it is mozes.
If this doesn't horrify you, you are a psychopath
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh Right, argument from ignorance, argument from outrage, what's new?
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 Ok if this doesn't show christians are immoral I don't know what does. Yet another WIN for me
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh Argument from outrage it is, then. Pity that the likes of you will never rise above your ignorance and emotional outrage to understand the anthropological reasons for such an act.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
@Dante666 11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
Deuteronomy 25:11-12
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh What's your problem here?
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 You discriminate too?! Why am I not sruprised...
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh What discrimination? Speak up. I can't hear you from behind all that dishonesty.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
@Dante666 Now listen to what the LORD Almighty says...3 Go and attack the Amalekites and completely destroy everything they have. Don't leave a thing; kill all the men, women, children, and babies; the cattle, sheep, camels, and donkeys.
1 Samuel 15:3
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh Not Moses. And more argument from outrage? Why do you think the Amalekites were attacked in the first place? At the time, it would be cruelty to leave the women and children alive without any means of supporting them.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 Sorry, yes it is. Another example of how you're, with devine permission, suddenly allowed to break the 10 commandments. If this doesn't horrify you, you are a psychopath
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh Which part of this is breaking the 10 commandments? If this is considered breaking the 10 commandments, you're an illiterate moron. See how your arguments are not really arguments at all?
Dante666 3 weeks ago
@Dante666 this should be enough to make my case. There are more, however.
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh You've still not answered my question: why is it scientifically wrong to cause harm to anyone?
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 Argument from ignorance + misrepresentation of my argument. I am not all for scientific explainations, although it has altered our morality in some cases (animal cruelty is just one of the many).
I explained the evolution of morality somewhere down below.
My argument stands irrefuted.
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh Science has altered our morality, but morality could not come by naturalistic means, i.e. it has to come from a moral being that has preexisted. Science only says that animals do feel pain, but does not state why it is wrong for us to cause pain to animals.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
@Dante666 (pt8)
I made a point that prehistoric people lived moral lives. Anthropology shows these people worshipped the elements and animals, they cared for their sick and worked together. From a biological point of view, the evolvement of morality makes perfect sense. As highly social creatures living is small, isolated communities they wouldn’t have survived if they went around killing people. You disregarded this and said they were worshipping god. Newsflash: no they weren’t.
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh And this point is somehow supposed to refute any of my points? Flashback: I said that I do accept that people do live moral lives regardless if they believed in God, because God gave everybody a conscience. Stop misrepresenting my points for once and learn to read and remember.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666
Great, that means my arguments stand irrefuted. It also means that these innocent prehistoric people (eg, Homo Erectus, Neanderthalis, Habilis), who had never even heard of god went to hell?
This means that
a. god is cruel
b. the bible doesn't mention these people, which is weird.
However, if you accept that the bible was written by primitive people, this sort of thing makes perfect sense. People came before god.
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh These are prehistoric hominids, not prehistoric people. Get your facts right.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 I define homonids as people too, as "people" is not a scientific term. But fine, I'll give you that. It doesn't refute my argument
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh "Hominid" is a scientific term which covers the great apes, including chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans. Obviously the three I've just mentioned are not people.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 I allready specified which homonids I meant. Are you going to respond at all to the argument? I'm just going to assume that you can't, or you would have done it before.
Another WIN for me...
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh I know you specified which HOMINIDS you meant, but that's irrelevant since they're classed under the same category as gorillas and orangutans as well. If you want me to spell it out for you, fine: they're not people, stupid.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 It doesn't matter what I call them. They were highly social creatures with a definity understandig of morality (seriously, look it up, it's interesting stuff).
You've dodged the question and you've had your chance. It's a WIN for me, I will not be responding anymore
Floortjahh 3 weeks ago
@Floortjahh I've looked it up, and it amounts to your stupidity. We have many social creatures in existence, yet the only one with any understanding of morality is us. This is the second time you've posted that you won't be responding anymore, so of course, this would mean that you lied within 3 minutes of posting that. How very moral of you.
Dante666 3 weeks ago